Homuth v. Keisling
Decision Date | 11 September 1992 |
Citation | 837 P.2d 532,314 Or. 214 |
Parties | Don HOMUTH, Petitioner, v. Phil KEISLING, Secretary of State, Joan Smith, Julie Dawson, Paul McCoy, Jim Patterson and John Sallak, Respondents. Roger GRAYBEAL and Automobile Club of Oregon, Petitioners, v. Phil KEISLING, Secretary of State, Julie Dawson, Paul McCoy, Jim Patterson, John Sallak and Joan Smith, Respondents, and Don Homuth, Intervenor. SC S39531 (Control); SC S39532. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Charles F. Hinkle of Stoel Rives Boley Jones & Grey, Portland, filed the petition and argued the cause for petitioner/intervenor Homuth.
Jon P. Stride of Tonkon, Torp, Galen, Marmaduke & Booth, Portland, filed the petition and argued the cause for petitioners Graybeal and Auto. Club of Oregon. Also on the petition was Kurt W. Ruttum, Portland.
Michael D. Reynolds, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, waived appearance for respondents.
Before CARSON, C.J., and PETERSON, VAN HOOMISSEN, FADELEY and UNIS, JJ.
INTRODUCTION
Petitioners Roger Graybeal and Automobile Club of Oregon (AAA) (petitioners) and petitioner/intervenor Don Homuth (intervenor) bring an original proceeding in this court pursuant to ORS 251.235, seeking review of the explanatory statement for 1992 Ballot Measure 4, to be included in the Voters' Pamphlet for the next general election. If passed, Ballot Measure 4 would prohibit the operation of so-called "triples" in Oregon. The Oregon Department of Transportation defines a "triple" as a truck pulling two trailers or a truck tractor pulling three semitrailers. Pursuant to ORS 251.205, a draft of the explanatory statement for that ballot measure was prepared by a citizens committee on July 23, 1991. Pursuant to ORS 251.215(2), the Secretary of State held a hearing on July 29, 1992, to receive comments on the draft statement. The committee filed a revised statement on August 5, 1992.
Petitioners Graybeal and AAA seek three modifications of the explanatory statement. Intervenor Homuth seeks one alternative modification. He also challenges the standing of petitioners Graybeal and AAA to seek review of the explanatory statement. The Secretary of State, named as respondent, is represented by the Attorney General and takes no position on the proposed modifications.
ORS 251.205(1) provides:
ORS 251.215 provides, in part:
ORS 251.235 provides, in part:
We deal first with the issue of petitioners' standing to seek review of the explanatory statement. Petitioner Graybeal is president of AAA and a registered voter in the State of Oregon. He did not personally submit suggestions at the hearing on the explanatory statement, although another representative of AAA did. ORS 251.235 allows petitions to this court for review of only those explanatory statements "for which suggestions were offered at the Secretary of State's hearing." This court has held that persons seeking review of an explanatory statement need not themselves be the persons who offered suggestions at the Secretary of State's hearing. MacAfee v. Paulus, 289 Or. 651, 654-55, 616 P.2d 493 (1980). 1 Petitioner Graybeal has standing to seek review of the explanatory statement for Ballot Measure 4, and the petition is, therefore, properly before the court. 2
We turn now to the merits of petitioners' and intervenor's challenges. The text of the explanatory statement at issue here is as follows:
In Teledyne Wah Chang Albany v. Powell, 301 Or. 590, 592-93, 724 P.2d 319 (1986), this court stated its role in the review of an explanatory statement:
Thus, a statement is "insufficient" if it is not impartial. It also is insufficient if it is "potentially misleading." Sollis v. Hand, 310 Or. 251, 256, 796 P.2d 1188 (1990); June v. Roberts, 301 Or. 586, 589, 724 P.2d 267 (1986).
Petitioners object to the explanatory statement in three respects. First, they contend that the use in the second sentence of the term "special permits" to describe the permits currently issued to triples is incorrect and thus misleading. They contend that the correct term is "variance permits." The Department of Transportation calls these permits "Special Transportation Permits." We conclude that the use of the term "special permits" is not misleading.
Secondly, petitioners also object to the use, in that same sentence, of the adjective "restrictive" to modify the word "conditions." They argue that the term "restrictive conditions" is redundant and implies the existence of more severe restraints on the operation of triples than may in fact exist, thus misleading voters. Before modifying or invalidating some part of an explanatory statement, this court should find that its insufficiency is "beyond reasonable argument." Teledyne Wah Chang Albany v. Powell, supra, 301 Or. at 593, 724 P.2d 319. We do not find the challenged term "restrictive conditions" insufficient.
Finally, petitioners contend that the entire last paragraph of the explanatory statement is speculative, misleading, and not impartial. They argue that none of the listed possible effects--"increased truck traffic on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dudley v. Jenks
...at that hearing; they are entitled to seek a different explanatory statement in this court. ORS 251.235; see also Homuth v. Keisling, 314 Or. 214, 218-19, 837 P.2d 532 (1992) (ORS 251.235 authorizes Supreme Court review of explanatory statement when any suggestions were offered at Secretary......
-
Lewis v. Keisling
...or unclear." A statement is "insufficient" if it is not impartial or if it is "potentially misleading." Homuth v. Keisling, 314 Or. 214, 220, 837 P.2d 532 (1992). Petitioner "The explanatory statement filed by the committee fails to meet this standard of review because it does not explain t......
-
Novick v. Bradbury, (SC S47796)
...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 S......
-
Sizemore v. Myers
...petitioner is entitled to seek a different explanatory statement in this court. ORS 251.235; see also Homuth v. Keisling (S39531), 314 Or. 214, 218, 837 P.2d 532 (1992) (ORS 251.235 allows Supreme Court review of only those explanatory statements for which suggestions were offered by any pe......