Court Opinion

ID: 9503513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:47:38.496067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:31.957691
License: Public Domain

DURHAM, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the majority’s decision to certify the Attorney General’s ballot title for initiative 79, but not for the reason expressed by the majority. The majority asserts that no voter confusion will result from the certification of similar ballot titles for initiatives 28 and 79.1 1 disagree. However, for the reasons expressed in my concurring opinion in Carlson v. Myers, 327 Or 213, 227, 959 P2d 31 (1998) (Durham, J., concurring), I am satisfied that the Attorney General’s ballot title complies substantially with applicable statutory requirements. ORS 250.085(5).
Due to the limitations of the English language, the Attorney General cannot satisfy the requirements of ORS 250.035(2) to (5) and, at the same time, eliminate all resemblance between the ballot titles for initiatives 28 and 79, in literal compliance with the text of ORS 250.035(6). The Attorney General’s ballot title confines the degree of resemblance *249to the minimum. The ballot title otherwise complies with ORS 250.035(2) to (5). Accordingly, I agree that this court should certify it.
I concur.

 The majority assumes that measures 28 and 79 resemble each other, within the meaning of ORS 250.035(6), but does not so hold. I adopt the same assumption.