Opinion ID: 1288346
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: challenge of petitioners armstrong, horowitz, and stickney

Text: The remaining petitioners challenge all three portions of the ballot title. According to petitioners, their [m]ost significant objection is that the ballot title omits any mention of the following provision of the measure: For the purpose of this Act every Oregon resident and non-profit entity doing business in this state has standing. Petitioners assert that the provision for standing is a subject, a chief purpose, and a major effect of the measure. They argue that the voters have a right to know that the initiative will authorize and encourage litigation. The Attorney General responds that the provision for standing is unclear. He argues that standing may or may not mean standing to sue in court to enforce or to challenge the terms of the proposed initiative measure. We disagree with the Attorney General's position for two reasons. First, the grant of standingwhatever that may meanis a chief purpose and a major effect of the measure that should be included in the ballot title. A possible lack of clarity does not mean that a chief purpose or major effect of a measure may be ignored in the ballot title. Second, in context, standing has only one plausible meaning: `standing' means the right to obtain an adjudication. Eckles v. State of Oregon, 306 Or. 380, 383, 760 P.2d 846 (1988), appeal dismissed, 490 U.S. 1032, 109 S.Ct. 1928, 104 L.Ed.2d 400 (1989). For the purpose of the proposed new section of the constitution, then, every Oregon resident and non-profit entity doing business in Oregon would have the right to obtain an adjudication, that is, a right to bring an action in court. Accordingly, we modify the Question and Summary to include the provision for standing. The Caption, however, reasonably identifies the subject of the measure, ORS 250.035(1)(a), in its present form. Therefore, we certify the Attorney General's Caption without modification. These petitioners make additional arguments that require no discussion. Their challenges either are not well taken or are no longer relevant after the revisions that we have made to enable us to include the standing provision within the applicable word limits.