Court Opinion

ID: 9535054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:45:02.565763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:09.811354
License: Public Domain

LENT, J.,
concurring in the result.
I agree with the majority that the alternative writ should be dismissed, but I disagree with the reason. Because of time constraints, I do not develop the reasons for my conclusions of law.
I would hold that there was no “proposed law” within the meaning of Article IV, section l(2)(d), of the Oregon Constitution until the time that the Secretary of State verified that sufficient signatures had been collected to put the matter to the electors of this state.
I would further hold that under Article IV, section l(4)(b), of the Oregon Constitution a proposed law that embraces more than one subject and matters properly connected therewith cannot be submitted to the electors.
I believe that the proposed law involved herein does “embrace one subject only and matters properly connected therewith.” (Emphasis added.)