Case Name: NO SPECIAL RIGHTS COMMITTEE, and Lon T. Mabon, Petitioners, v. Phil KEISLING, Respondent
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1991-12-12
Citations: 312 Or. 459
Docket Number: SC S38513
Parties: NO SPECIAL RIGHTS COMMITTEE, and Lon T. Mabon, Petitioners, v. Phil KEISLING, Respondent.
Judges: PER CURIAM
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 312
Pages: 459–462

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted October 8,
petition to review ballot title dismissed December 12, 1991
NO SPECIAL RIGHTS COMMITTEE, and Lon T. Mabon, Petitioners, v. Phil KEISLING, Respondent.
(SC S38513)
821 P2d 1091
Henry Kane, Beaverton, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioners.
No appearance contra.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
This original proceeding, brought under ORS 250.085, involves a challenge by a political committee to a ballot title certified by the Attorney General to the Secretary of State for use with a proposed initiative measure. The measure would enact a constitutional amendment that forbids the state from "recognizing] any categorical provision such as 'sexual orientation,' 'sexual preference,' and similar phrases that includes homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism," forbids governments from "promoting], encouraging], or facilitating] homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism," and requires governments to "set[] a standard for Oregon's youth that recognizes homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism and masochism as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse and that these behaviors are to be discouraged and avoided."
Petitioner No Special Rights Committee is not an "elector" as that term is defined in ORS 250.005 and, therefore, is not entitled to bring this proceeding. ORS 250.085(2). Brown v. Roberts, 309 Or 667, 669, 791 P2d 488 (1990). We, therefore, dismiss the petition as to the committee.
We also dismiss the petition as to Mabon. Although Mabon signed and filed with the Secretary of State timely written comments and arguments concerning the Attorney General's draft ballot title, he did so expressly in his capacity as chairman of the No Special Rights Committee and not in his individual capacity. Mabon, in his individual capacity as an elector, therefore, did not satisfy the requirements of ORS 250.085(2). A person who does not satisfy the preconditions required by the statute authorizing petitions to this court challenging ballot titles may not bring to this court a petition to review aballot title. Brown v. Roberts, supra, 309 Or at 669.
Petition to review ballot title dismissed.
This decision shall become effective pursuant to ORAP 11.30(10).
ORS 250.005(2) provides:
" 'Elector' means an individual qualified to vote under section 2, Article II, Oregon Constitution."
ORS 250.085(2) provides in part:
"Any elector dissatisfied with a ballot title for an initiated or referred measure certified by the Attorney General and who timely submitted written comments on the draft ballot title may petition the Supreme Court seeking a different title. "