omitting the word “clearcutting” from ballot title when proposed initiative used term in “a very different and uncommon” way from that in which it ordinarily would be understood
How later courts described this case
- omitting the word “clearcutting” from ballot title when proposed initiative used term in “a very different and uncommon” way from that in which it ordinarily would be understood
- illustrating this court’s application of the foregoing principle in modifying an under-inclusive and, therefore, inadequate ballot title caption
- court omitted the word “clearcutting” from ballot title when proposed initiative used it in “a very different and uncommon” way from that in which it ordinarily would be understood
- court modified caption using the term "clearcutting," when the proposed measure gave that term "a very different and uncommon meaning," but the caption did not so notify voters
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DURHAM, J.,
dissenting.
I believe that the ballot title certified to the Secretary of State by the Attorney General substantially complied with the requirements of ORS 250.035 and ORS 250.039.1 therefore also would have certified that ballot title, ORS 250.085(5), and respectfully dissent from the majority’s contrary conclusion.
Unis, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.