Case Name: Kris KAIN and Tricia Bosak, Petitioners, v. Hardy MYERS, Attorney General, State of Oregon, Respondent
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2002-02-28
Citations: 333 Or. 452
Docket Number: SC S49090
Parties: Kris KAIN and Tricia Bosak, Petitioners, v. Hardy MYERS, Attorney General, State of Oregon, Respondent.
Judges: PER CURIAM
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 333
Pages: 452–454

Head Matter:
Submitted on the record December 28, 2001,
ballot title referred to Attorney General for modification February 28, 2002
Modified ballot title certified March 15, 2002 (333 Or 564,41 P3d 1087)
Kris KAIN and Tricia Bosak, Petitioners, v. Hardy MYERS, Attorney General, State of Oregon, Respondent.
(SC S49090)
41 P3d 1063
Margaret S. Olney, Smith, Gamson, Diamond & Olney, Portland, filed the petition for petitioners.
Erika L. Hadlock, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the answering memorandum for respondent. With her on the answering memorandum were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
In this ballot title review proceeding, petitioners challenge the caption, the "yes" vote result statement, and the summary of the Attorney General's certified ballot title for a proposed initiative measure, which the Secretary of State has denominated as Initiative Petition 133 (2002). We review the Attorney General's certified ballot title to determine whether it substantially complies with the requirements of ORS 250.035(2). See ORS 250.085(5) (setting out standard of review).
Initiative Petition 133 (2002) is a variation of Initiative Petition 132 (2002). Both proposals would require rewriting and resubmission to the voters of certain judicially invalidated ballot measures. See Kain v. Myers (S49089), 333 Or 446, 41 P3d 416 (2002) (discussing content of Initiative Petition 132 (2002); referring ballot title for initiative petition to Attorney General for modification.) The only substantive difference between the two proposed measures is that Initiative Petition 132 would place the responsibility for rewriting an invalidated measure on the chief petitioner, working in cooperation with the office of legislative counsel, while Initiative Petition 133 would place the responsibility for rewriting an invalidated measure on the legislature. The Attorney General's certified ballot titles for the two proposed measures are very similar. Petitioners' objections to the two ballot titles also are very similar. Most of those objections are well taken, as the Attorney General concedes. We refer the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification consistent with, and for the reasons stated in, Kain, above.
Ballot title referred to the Attorney General for modification.