Court Opinion

ID: 9576641
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:26:43.140626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:04.095018
License: Public Domain

VAN HOOMISSEN, J.,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I concur in that part of the majority opinion that explains the role of an intervenor in a ballot title review proceeding. ORAP 11.30(8).
I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion that finds it necessary to modify the Attorney General’s certified ballot title for the referred measure. I would hold that the certified ballot title substantially complies with the statutory requirements for ballot titles set out in ORS 250.035 (1997). ORS 250.085(5).
I wish to note, however, that the unspoken premise on which this court’s modification decision is based is that it does not violate the principle of separation of powers for this court to rewrite an explanatory statement or a certified ballot title. See Rooney v. Kulongoski (Elections Division #13), 322 Or 15, 55, 902 P2d 1143 (1995) (Unis, J., dissenting) (arguing that judicial modification of ballot titles offends Article III, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution); Sizemore v. Kulongoski, 322 Or 229, 237, 905 P2d 1146 (1995) (Durham, J., concurring) (same). That premise needs to be revisited and, I trust, will be in an appropriate case.