Manny v. Paulus

• Jurisdiction: Oregon
• Parties: Vernon R. MANNY, Petitioner, v. Norma PAULUS, Secretary of State of the State of Oregon, Respondent.
• Citation: 281 Or. 215,573 P.2d 1248
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 01 February 1978

Page 1248

573 P.2d 1248

281 Or. 215

Vernon R. MANNY, Petitioner, v.Norma PAULUS, Secretary of State of the State of Oregon, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.

Argued and Submitted Jan. 9, 1978.

Decided Feb. 1, 1978.

John R. Hay, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner.With him on the brief were Cleveland C. Cory, and Davies, Biggs, Strayer, Stoel & Boley, Portland.

Paul R. Romain, Deputy Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent.With him on the brief were James A. Redden, Atty. Gen., and Al J. Laue, Sol.Gen., Salem.

HOWELL, Justice.

The petitioner herein challenges the ballot title for an initiative measure relating to the practice of denture technology by a denturist.¹

The ballot title and caption prepared by the Attorney General state:

"AUTHORIZES, REGULATES PRACTICE OF DENTURE TECHNOLOGY

"Measure authorizes taking oral impressions by licensed denturists, and constructing, repairing, fitting, etc. of dentures by licensed denturists or their assistants.Treatment requires dentist's or physician's certificate that oral cavity is free from disease and suitable for denture.Establishes licensing requirements, creates Advisory Council on Denture Technology within Health Division.Any dental insurance policy covering any service which may be performed by denturists must cover denturists' services.Major provisions of Act effective July 1, 1980."

The petitioner suggests the following ballot title:

"PERMITS LIMITED DENTISTRY PRACTICE BY DENTURISTS

"Amends ORS 679.025 to permit denturists, without direction or supervision of licensed dentists, to take oral cavity impressions and construct, fit, repair, alter and duplicate removable full upper or lower prosthetic dental appliances.Provides for dentist's or physician's certificate that oral cavity is substantially free from disease and suitable for denture.Establishes Advisory Council on Denture Technology.Provides for certification as denturists of persons who have specified qualifications and pass examination thereon."

Petitioner argues that the ballot title proposed by the Attorney General is unfair because it does not disclose that the measure allows denturists to engage in a practice now excluded under present statutes; that it allows denturists to perform services without the direction and supervision of licensed dentists; that denturists would be "certified," not "licensed"; and because "dentures" is insufficiently described.²

The ballot title and caption furnished by the Attorney General must meet the legislative standard required by ORS 254.070(4) and be "a concise and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure."As we stated in Drummonds v. Myers, 273 Or. 216, 219, 540 P.2d 368, 370(1975):

" * * * So long as the Attorney General's ballot title and caption meet that standard and are neither 'insufficient' nor 'unfair'(ORS 254.077), we need not determine whether petitioners' own title and caption are 'better,' or whether we could devise better ones ourselves.SeeRogers v. Myers, 252 Or. 656, 661, 452 P.2d 302(1969);Dodd v. Neuner, Attorney General et al., 188 Or. 510, 517, 216 P.2d 670(1950);Weider v. Hoss, 143 Or. 122, 125, 21 P.2d 780(1933)."

We do not find the ballot title furnished by the Attorney General to be insufficient nor an...