# Starrett/Nichols v. Myers

> Oregon Supreme Court · April 6, 2000 · 330 Or. 147

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9503474

## Case

- **Full name:** Kevin K. STARRETT, Petitioner, v. Hardy MYERS, Attorney General for the State of Oregon, Respondent, and John NICHOLS and Veral Tarno, Intervenors; John T. NICHOLS, Petitioner, v. Hardy MYERS, Attorney General for the State of Oregon, Respondent
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 6, 2000
- **Citations:** 330 Or. 147; 999 P.2d 458; 2000 Ore. LEXIS 210
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Van Hoomissen
- **Judges:** Gillette, Van Hoomissen
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9503474

## Opinion text

VAN HOOMISSEN, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In my view, the Attorney General’s certified ballot title substantially complies with the requirements of ORS 250.035 (1997). ORS 250.085(5).
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 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). The court should revisit that premise.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9503474. Public record. Not legal advice.