Title: McMurdo v. Roberts
Citation: 309 Or. 318, 786 P.2d 1268
Docket Number: N/A
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: February 22, 1990

786 P.2d 1268 (1990)
309 Or. 318
C. Gregory McMurdo, Petitioner,
v.
Barbara ROBERTS, in Her Capacity As Secretary of State of the State of Oregon, Respondent.
SC S36674.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.
Argued and Submitted February 7, 1990.
Decided February 22, 1990.
John DiLorenzo, Jr., of O'Connell &amp; Goyak, Portland, argued the cause and filed the petition on behalf of petitioner.
John A. Reuling, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause on behalf of the respondent. With him on the answering memorandum and motion to dismiss were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., Salem.
PER CURIAM.
This is a ballot title review case. Petitioner timely filed a petition with this court under ORS 250.085(3) for review of a ballot title for a proposed constitutional amendment certified to the defendant Secretary of State by the Attorney General. Defendant has moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the arguments petitioner now presents were not made by petitioner to defendant during the preliminary stages of the ballot title process. Defendant relies on ORS 250.085(5):
Finding defendant's motion well taken, we dismiss the petition.
After the Attorney General had forwarded to the defendant a proposed ballot title, petitioner sent a letter to the defendant. The letter stated in part:
There then followed petitioner's proposed ballot title. The foregoing were petitioner's only comments to the defendant. They were not enough to permit petitioner now to make the arguments he makes to this court.
In Kafoury v. Roberts, 303 Or. 306, 736 P.2d 178 (1987), this court was faced with a ballot title challenge from a petitioner whose only challenge to a proposed ballot title was worded as follows:
Faced with a case in which the foregoing was the only challenge petitioner had made before the Secretary of State, we said:
Id., at 310-11, 736 P.2d 178.
What we said in Kafoury is equally true here. Petitioner's comments to the Secretary were abstract. No effort was made to tie them to the substantive legal standards a ballot title is supposed to meet. Without such an effort, petitioner has no right to raise the arguments he raises here. The petition for review of the ballot title must be dismissed.
Petition for review of ballot title dismissed.