Title: June v. Roberts
Citation: 301 Or. 586, 724 P.2d 267
Docket Number: N/A
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: August 27, 1986

724 P.2d 267 (1986)
301 Or. 586
William JUNE, Petitioner,
v.
Barbara ROBERTS, Secretary of State, Gregory Kafoury, Lloyd K. Marbet, Gail Achterman, John Frewing, Ruth McFarland, Committee Members, Respondents.
SC S33122.

Supreme Court of Oregon. In Banc.
Argued and Submitted August 20, 1986.
Decided August 27, 1986.
John R. Faust, Jr. of Schwabe, Williamson, Wyatt, Moore &amp; Roberts, Portland, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioner.
John A. Reuling, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause pursuant to ORS 180.060(1)(a). With him on the answer to the petition were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen. and Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., Salem.
PER CURIAM.
This is an original proceeding to review a ballot measure explanatory statement. Pursuant to ORS 251.215, respondents Kafoury,[1] Marbet, Achterman, Frewing and McFarland filed with the respondent Secretary of State a purported explanation of a state initiative measure designated as Ballot Measure No. 14. The full text of the explanatory statement as filed with the Secretary of State is as follows:
Petitioner contends that the above explanation is insufficient and unclear.
The standard for the voters' pamphlet is that the explanatory statement must be an "impartial, simple and understandable statement explaining the measure and its effect." ORS 251.215(1).
We find the proposed explanation that "this measure halts the operation of an existing nuclear fueled power plant" inadequate and potentially misleading. The only "existing nuclear fueled thermal power plant in Oregon" is the Trojan plant and the explanation should name it. The phrase, "halts the operation" of the plant, may be deceptive because the only significant operation halted is the production of electricity. The measure has no effect on operations relating to the storage of nuclear waste and, presumably, such storage will continue. The explanation should state that only the production of electricity will be halted.
Pursuant to ORS 251.235, we approve the following explanation submitted by the petitioner as an "impartial, simple and understandable statement explaining the measure and its effect":
Ballot measure explanatory statement certified as modified.
[1]  On August 25, 1986, John Arum, a board member of Citizens for Responsible Radioactive Waste Disposal, filed a motion to intervene and, with respondent Gregory Kafoury, filed a response to the petition to review the explanatory statement. We denied the motion to intervene, but we accepted and considered the response on behalf of respondent Kafoury.