10 P.3d 254 (Or. 2000), SC S47796, Novick v. Bradbury

Docket Nº:(SC S47796)
Citation:10 P.3d 254, 331 Or. 14
Opinion Judge:GILLETTE, J.
Party Name:Steven NOVICK, Petitioner, v. Bill BRADBURY, Secretary of State of Oregon; Joe W. Foxall, Don McIntire, James Scherzinger, Lynn-Marie Crider, and Dave Moss, Explanatory Statement Committee Members, Respondents.
Attorney:Steven Novick, Portland, pro se, argued the cause and filed the petition. Lynn-Marie Crider, Portland, pro se, waived appearance for respondents.
Case Date:September 08, 2000
Court:Supreme Court of Oregon
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 254

10 P.3d 254 (Or. 2000)

331 Or. 14

Steven NOVICK, Petitioner,

v.

Bill BRADBURY, Secretary of State of Oregon; Joe W. Foxall, Don McIntire, James Scherzinger, Lynn-Marie Crider, and Dave Moss, Explanatory Statement Committee Members, Respondents.

(SC S47796)

Supreme Court of Oregon, En Banc.

September 8, 2000

Argued and Submitted Aug. 24, 2000.

Page 255

[331 Or. 15] Steven Novick, Portland, pro se, argued the cause and filed the petition.

Lynn-Marie Crider, Portland, pro se, waived appearance for respondents.

[331 Or. 16] GILLETTE, J.

In this original proceeding, petitioner challenges the explanatory statement for Ballot Measure 8 (2000). See ORS 251.205 (providing for creation and manner of selection of committee of five citizens to prepare explanatory statement for initiated and referred measures); ORS 251.215 (providing for preparation and filing of explanatory statement by committee). The initiative measure would amend Article IX of the Oregon Constitution by adding a requirement that, unless a specified exemption applies, appropriations for state government expenditures shall not exceed 15 percent of the state's personal income. 1

After the explanatory statement committee prepared and filed the explanatory statement at issue, the Secretary of State held a hearing to receive comments on the statement. Petitioner offered suggestions for changes to the explanatory statement at that hearing. Petitioner therefore is entitled to seek a different explanatory statement in this court. ORS 251.235; see also Homuth v. Keisling, 314 Or. 214, 218, 837 P.2d 532 (1992) (ORS 251.235 authorizes Supreme Court review of explanatory statement when any suggestions were offered at Secretary of State's hearing).

The committee is directed by statute to prepare an explanatory statement that is an "impartial, simple and understandable

Page 256

statement explaining the measure." ORS 251.215(1). This court's task is to determine whether the explanatory statement contains a sufficient and clear statement explaining the measure. See Sizemore v. Myers, 327 Or. 456, 459, 964 P.2d 255 (1998) (so stating); ORS 251.235 (authorizing court to consider challenges to explanatory statement on grounds that statement is "insufficient or unclear"). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that the explanatory statement is insufficient or unclear. June v. Roberts, 310 Or. 244, 248, 797 P.2d 357 (1990).

[331 Or. 17] Petitioner's argument arises out of the following paragraph of the measure:

"Appropriations for state...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP