rejecting challenge under Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution to former ORS 254.590 (1971), renumbered as ORS 260.565 (1981
How later courts described this case
- rejecting challenge under Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution to former ORS 254.590 (1971), renumbered as ORS 260.565 (1981
- purpose of 1968 amendment was to change basis for signature requirements and to provide more time for signature certification
- court analyzed Article IV, section 1, under 1902 version of that section, assuming that 1968 amendment made no substantive change with respect to legislature’s authority in connection with initiative and referendum
- "The explanation of the 1968 amendment in the official Voters' Pamphlet indicates that there was no intention in the drafting of the amendment to change the role of the legislature in connection with the exercise by the people of the initiative and referendum."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DENECKE, J.,
dissenting in part.
I dissent' from' that part of the majority 'decision affirming the convictions of defendants Campf and ■Collins. I concur with -Mr. Chief Justice O’Connell’s .specially concurring opinion that the terms of -the contract do not provide beyond a,reasonable doubt that Campf and. Collins - knew or intended that Campbell .would pay persons who circulated petitions. •
I alscr concur with that part of the Chief Justice’s *101 opinion that the statute would not he in violation of Art IY, § 1, if it were construed to prohibit all payment of compensation to persons who undertake to organize or administer an initiative or referendum campaign. However, I do not believe that is the most reasonable interpretation of the statute; therefore, I cannot adopt the Chief Justice’s reasoning in affirming the convictions of Campf and Collins.