‘We have repeatedly held that the courts are without power to determine the validity of a proposed law or ordinance before its enactment.”
How later courts described this case
- ‘We have repeatedly held that the courts are without power to determine the validity of a proposed law or ordinance before its enactment.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DENECKE, J.,
dissenting.
This court has had difficulty in resolving its role in reviewing ballot titles. In our last decision in this area, however, I was of the opinion that a majority of the court decided that the scope of review should be limited. Bristow v. Thornton, 249 Or 294 , 437 P2d 825 (1968).
The only legislative standard now imposed upon the officer charged with writing ballot titles is that the title “be a concise and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure.” ORS 254.070. In Bristow v. Thornton, supra ( 249 Or 294 ), we held the Attorney General had complied with that standard. The ballot title prepared by the Attorney General was
“RECREATIONAL — COMMERCIAL FISHERIES BILL”
The dissenters stated: “The chief purpose of the measure is to restrict commercial fishing, and the caption should so state.” 249 Or at 295 . They proposed a caption,
“BILL TO RESTRICT COMMERCIAL FISHING”,
but the majority of the court refused to rewrite the caption.
*317 I am of the opinion that the present title prepared by the District Attorney of Multnomah County is in compliance with OES 254.070.
O’Connell, C.J., joins in this dissent.