CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 7/11/2023 1

Challenge to a Ballot-Initiative 

Financial Impact Estimate 

Oregonians for Accountability v. Bradbury 

(Garr M. King, D. Or. 3:04-cv-1170) 

The district judge dismissed a complaint alleging that a financial 

impact estimate accompanying a ballot initiative was misleading, 

because the measure text, summary, and explanatory text would 

make clear to the voters what the measure would do. 

Subject: Ballot measures. Topics: Ballot language; ballot 

measure; laches. 

Supporters of a ballot initiative filed a federal complaint in the District of Oregon on August 23, 2004, challenging as misleading the financial impact estimate to accompany the ballot question in the November 2 election.1

 With 

their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.2

On August 24, Judge Garr M. King scheduled a telephone conference for 

August 25.3

 On the day after the September 1 oral argument,4 Judge King 

dismissed the complaint.5

He acknowledged a strong argument for laches.6 The federal complaint 

followed a state-court action filed on August 9 and voluntarily dismissed on 

August 23.7

The only practical relief available to the court at this point would be to 

strike the Estimate from the ballot and voters’ pamphlet and, accordingly, 

deprive voters of any financial impact estimate and create a void that would 

render already-submitted voters’ pamphlet arguments (that refer to the Estimate) nonsensical.8

Judge King dismissed the complaint on the merits.9 “The summary of the 

measure and the explanatory statement (not to mention the full text of the 

1. Complaint, Oregonians for Accountability v. Bradbury, No. 3:04-cv-1170 (D. Or. Aug. 

23, 2004), D.E. 1. 

2. Docket Sheet, id. (Aug. 23, 2004) [hereinafter D. Or. Docket Sheet] (D.E. 3). 

3. Id. (D.E. 4, 5). 

Judge King died on February 5, 2019. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of 

Article III Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

4. D. Or. Docket Sheet, supra note 2 (D.E. 21). 

5. Opinion, Oregonians for Accountability, No. 3:04-cv-1170 (D. Or. Sept. 2, 2004), D.E. 

25, 2004 WL 1969405 (noting that the opinion was issued on the due date for delivery of the 

financial impact statement to county clerks); see Dan Hortsch, Ruling Leaves Financial Impacts in SAIF Ballot Title, Oregonian, Sept. 3, 2004, at D9; Michael Rose, SAIF Foes Suffer a 

Setback, Salem Statesman J., Sept. 3, 2004, at 1B. 

6. Opinion, supra note 5, at 6–7. 

7. Id. at 6 (noting that the case should have been brought in Oregon’s supreme court instead of a county circuit court and that Oregon’s supreme court did not have jurisdiction to 

review the amount of the estimate). 

8. Id. at 7. 

9. Id. at 7–10. 
Challenge to a Ballot-Initiative Financial Impact Estimate 

2 Federal Judicial Center 7/11/2023 

measure), which accompany the Estimate, make abundantly clear what [the 

measure] will do.”10

The court of appeals denied the plaintiffs an injunction pending appeal 

and denied them expedited briefing.11 On October 27, the parties stipulated 

dismissal of the appeal.12

10. Id. at 9. 

11. Docket Sheet, Oregonians for Accountability v. Bradbury, No. 04-35780 (9th Cir. 

Sept. 9, 2004) (D.E. 5). 

12. Order, id. (Oct. 27, 2004), D.E. 6, filed as Order, Oregonians for Accountability v. 

Bradbury, No. 3:04-cv-1170 (D. Or. Oct. 27, 2004), D.E. 28.