Court Opinion

ID: 9557524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 16:51:42.18087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:55.226943
License: Public Domain

dissenting.
I do not agree that this proposed ballot title should be certified for informational use by the voters.
The ballot title makes erroneous assumptions about what the law of Oregon presently is, in my opinion. That erroneous assumption misinforms voters as to what changes in the Oregon law, if any, this measure would enact. Furthermore, there is no recognition in the title of the substantial difference in wording and purpose of the Oregon Constitution’s provision on freedom of speech, expression, and thought compared with those of the federal first amendment.
*497The proposed ballot title should be modified. Rooney v. Kulongoski, 322 Or 15, 902 P2d 1143 (1995); see Whitty v. Roberts, 309 Or 448, 788 P2d 452 (1990) (Oregon recycling act petitioner sought to include the word “ban” in ballot title, but the court stated the act did not in fact “ban”); Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Roberts, 308 Or 169, 173-74, 777 P2d 406 (1989) (“protects” held misleading, replaced with “allows,” because initiative process was already protected).