committee not an “elector” and, therefore, not entitled to have ballot title reviewed; individual who signed objections to proposed ballot title only in capacity as chairman of committee also not entitled to have ballot title reviewed
How later courts described this case
- committee not an “elector” and, therefore, not entitled to have ballot title reviewed; individual who signed objections to proposed ballot title only in capacity as chairman of committee also not entitled to have ballot title reviewed
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*461
PER CURIAM
This original proceeding, brought under ORS 250.085, involves a challenge by a political committee to a ballot title certified by the Attorney General to the Secretary of State for use with a proposed initiative measure. The measure would enact a constitutional amendment that forbids the state from “recognizing] any categorical provision such as ‘sexual orientation,’ ‘sexual preference,’ and similar phrases that includes homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism,” forbids governments from “promoting], encouraging], or facilitating] homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism,” and requires governments to “set[] a standard for Oregon’s youth that recognizes homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism and masochism as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse and that these behaviors are to be discouraged and avoided.”
Petitioner No Special Rights Committee is not an “elector” as that term is defined in ORS 250.005
1
and, therefore, is not entitled to bring this proceeding. ORS
250.085(2).
2
Brown v. Roberts,
309 Or 667, 669 , 791 P2d 488 (1990). We, therefore, dismiss the petition as to the committee.
We also dismiss the petition as to Mabon. Although Mabon signed and filed with the Secretary of State timely written comments and arguments concerning the Attorney General’s draft ballot title, he did so expressly in his capacity as chairman of the No Special Rights Committee and not in his individual capacity. Mabon, in his individual capacity as an elector, therefore, did not satisfy the requirements of ORS 250.085(2). A person who does not satisfy the preconditions required by the statute authorizing petitions to this court challenging ballot titles may not bring to this court a petition to review aballot title.
Brown v. Roberts, supra,
309 Or at 669 .
*462
Petition to review ballot title dismissed.
This decision shall become effective pursuant to ORAP 11.30(10).
1
ORS 250.005(2) provides:
“ ‘Elector’ means an individual qualified to vote under section 2, Article II, Oregon Constitution.”
2
ORS 250.085(2) provides in part:
“Any elector dissatisfied with a ballot title for an initiated or referred measure certified by the Attorney General and who timely submitted written comments on the draft ballot title may petition the Supreme Court seeking a different title. * * *”