Wieder v. Hoss
| Decision Date | 09 May 1933 |
| Citation | 143 Or. 122,21 P.2d 780 |
| Parties | WIEDER et al. v. HOSS, Secretary of State (GILL et al., Interveners). |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
En Banc.
Petition by Charles H. Wieder and E. B. Hall, opposed by Hal E. Hoss as Secretary of State, to review a decision of the Attorney General in preparing a ballot title, in which Ray W. Gill and another intervened.
Petition dismissed, and ballot title certified to the Secretary of State.
See also, 21 P.2d 227.
W. S U'Ren, of Portland (Leslie E. Crouch, of Portland, on the brief), for petitioners.
I. H Van Winkle, Atty. Gen., for defendant.
Roy R. Hewitt, of Salem, for interveners.
This is an appeal by two individuals who describe themselves as voters and taxpayers of the state of Oregon from the general ballot title and the voting machine ballot title prepared by the Attorney General for submission to the voters of this state under the referendum of 1933 Session Laws, chapter 357. The general ballot title prepared by the Attorney General is:
Appellants do not appeal from the short ballot title. They criticize the general ballot title in the following particulars: (1) "Said general ballot title does not mention the fact nor convey to the readers and voters the information that said bill exempts from all taxes all property controlled and/or operated by the commission created by said bill;" (2) that the general ballot title does not mention the fact that the bill prohibits courts "from issuing any restraining order or injunction against certain acts of the aforesaid commission in conducting said hydroelectric power and light business as enacted by section 19 of said bill;" and (3) that the general ballot title does not mention the fact that the commission created by the bill "is authorized to sell and dispose of revenue certificates payable only from the income of the business as provided by section 31 of said bill."
Appellants' petition does not particularize their objection to the machine ballot title.
Appellants submit the following as an appropriate general ballot title for the measure:
And also submit the following as an appropriate voting machine ballot title:
Section 36-2006, Oregon Code 1930, enjoins upon the Attorney General the duty of preparing ballot titles for measures...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fletcher v. Bryant
...v. Jordan, 12 Cal.2d 61, 82 P.2d 445, 448. From this principle it further follows, as the Oregon court remarked in Wieder v. Hoss, 143 Or. 122, 21 P.2d 780, 781, 'The mere fact that after an appeal has been taken and we have had the benefit of the additional labor bestowed upon the ballot t......
-
Dagwell v. Thornton
...is insufficient, unfair, misleading or confusing. See Allen v. Van Winkle, Attorney General, 136 Or. 173, 298 P. 241; Wieder v. Hoss, 143 Or. 122, 21 P.2d 780; Richardson v. Neuner, 183 Or. 558, 194 P.2d 989; Blitz v. Neuner, 194 Or. 1, 240 P.2d In preparing the general ballot title the Att......
-
Proposed Election Reform Amendment, Matter of
..."districts" to which expanded petition powers apply. In Say v. Baker, 137 Colo. 155, 160, 322 P.2d 317, 319 (1958) (quoting Wieder v. Hoss, 21 P.2d 780 (Or.1933)), we noted that our job is not to write the best possible ballot title but simply to eliminate a title which is insufficient or u......
-
Young v. Neuner et al.
...a means for identifying the measure referred or initiated and is sufficient if it does that." See also in this connection, Wieder v. Hoss, 143 Or. 122, 21 P. (2d) 780; McDonald v. Van Winkle, 136 Or. 706, 299 P. 1015; State ex rel. v. Hoss, 133 Or. 91, 288 P. 2. We are of the opinion that t......