June v. Roberts

• Decision Date: 27 August 1986
• Citation: 724 P.2d 267,301 Or. 586
• Parties: William JUNE, Petitioner, v. Barbara ROBERTS, Secretary of State, Gregory Kafoury, Lloyd K. Marbet, Gail Achterman, John Frewing, Ruth McFarland, Committee Members, Respondents. SC S33122.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Page 267

724 P.2d 267

301 Or. 586

William JUNE, Petitioner, v. Barbara ROBERTS, Secretary of State, Gregory Kafoury, Lloyd

K. Marbet, Gail Achterman, John Frewing, Ruth

McFarland, Committee Members, Respondents.

SC S33122.

Supreme Court of Oregon,

In Banc.

Argued and Submitted Aug. 20, 1986.

Decided Aug. 27, 1986.

John R. Faust, Jr. of Schwabe, Williamson, Wyatt, Moore & Roberts, Portland, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioner.

John A. Reuling, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause pursuant to ORS 180.060(1)(a). With him on the answer to the petition were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen. and Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., Salem.

PER CURIAM.

This is an original proceeding to review a ballot measure explanatory statement. Pursuant to ORS 251.215, respondents Kafoury, ¹ Marbet, Achterman, Frewing and McFarland filed with the respondent Secretary of State a purported explanation of a state initiative measure designated as Ballot Measure No. 14. The full text of the explanatory statement as filed with the Secretary of State is as follows:

"This measure halts the operation of an existing nuclear fueled thermal power plant in Oregon until the Energy Facility Siting Council finds that the Federal Government has licensed a repository for the disposal of the high level radioactive waste produced by the plant. Before allowing a nuclear fueled thermal power plant to resume operating, the Energy Facility Siting Council must find that the repository will accept the high level waste immediately for final disposal. Current law requires the council to make such a finding before allowing the construction or expansion of a thermal nuclear power plant.

"The measure allows the temporary operation of a nuclear fueled thermal power plant before the Federal Government licenses a respository [sic ] if:

1. The Oregon legislature refers to the voters a law declaring an emergency need for power that cannot be obtained from any other energy source, including conservation; and

2. The voters approve the referendum.

"If a court declares part of the new law invalid, the rest of the law would remain unaffected."

Petitioner contends that the above explanation is insufficient and unclear.

The standard for the voters' pamphlet is that the explanatory statement must be an "impartial, simple and understandable statement explaining the measure and its effect." ORS 251.215(1).

We find the proposed explanation that "this measure halts the operation of an existing nuclear fueled power plant" inadequate and potentially misleading. The only "existing nuclear fueled thermal power plant in Oregon" is the Trojan plant and the explanation should name it. The phrase, "halts the operation" of the plant, may be...