holding that a caption with three negative terms close together was confusing and did not comply substantially with statutory requirements
How later courts described this case
- holding that a caption with three negative terms close together was confusing and did not comply substantially with statutory requirements
- explaining that cap- tion may not obscure measure’s effect or make it difficult for voters to understand measure’s subject
- employing negative descriptors serially and in close proximity risked voter confusion as to meaning, title deemed insufficient
- caption must permit voters to understand subject matter of proposed measure
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNIS, J.,
dissenting.
I adhere to my view that, to the extent that ORS 250.085(5) (1993) gives this court jurisdiction to draft and certify a ballot title for a proposed initiative measure that is different than the one certified by the Attorney General, that statute violates the principle of separation of powers embodied in Article III, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution. *180 Rooney v. Kulongoski (Elections Division #13), 322 Or 15, 55 , 902 P2d 1143 (1995) (Unis, J., dissenting). I would, therefore, dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.