Chapter 246

 

      246.021

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Legislative intent is that filing of properly certified statement must be timely in order for statement to be included in Voters’ Pamphlet, and lack of certification could not be cured by submission of certification after filing deadline. State ex rel Anderson v. Paulus, 283 Or 241, 583 P2d 531 (1978)

 

      246.046

 

      See annotations under ORS 260.325 in permanent edition.

 

      246.110

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Secretary of State is proper party named in petition to challenge voters’ pamphlet explanation; though her duties are primarily ministerial, she may assume adversarial role if she feels explanatory statement warrants her doing so under this section or such role is mandated by ORS 251.055. Teledyne Industries v. Paulus, 297 Or 665, 687 P2d 1077 (1984)

 

      Secretary of State had authority to direct county clerk, and clerk had authority to carry out directive, that city measure which does not comply with state law for ballot placement be kept off state primary election ballot. City of Eugene v. Roberts, 91 Or App 1, 756 P2d 643 (1988), aff’d 305 Or 641, 756 P2d 630 (1988)

 

      246.200

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Secretary of State had authority to direct county clerk, and clerk had authority to carry out directive, that city measure which does not comply with state law for ballot placement be kept off state primary election ballot. City of Eugene v. Roberts, 91 Or App 1, 756 P2d 643 (1988), aff’d 305 Or 641, 756 P2d 630 (1988)

 

      246.520

 

      See annotations under ORS 258.025 in permanent edition.

 

      246.530

 

      See annotations under ORS 258.045 in permanent edition.

 

      246.550

 

      See annotations under ORS 258.155 in permanent edition.

 

      246.560

 

      See annotations under ORS 258.165 in permanent edition.

 

      246.910

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Circuit court had jurisdiction under this section because plaintiffs’ challenge to placing measure on ballot was challenge to “act or failure to act by the Secretary of State.” Ecumenical Ministries v. Paulus, 298 Or 62, 688 P2d 1339 (1984)

 

      Reasonable time for challenging decision of Secretary of State, including failure to decide, whether proposed initiative measure violates “one subject only” rule of Oregon Constitution, expires on 60th day following final approval of ballot title. Ellis v. Roberts, 302 Or 6, 725 P2d 886 (1986)

 

      Reasonable time period for requiring filing of challenges to determination by Secretary of State that state measure requires fiscal effects estimate is within five days of expiration of last day for filing revised explanatory statement. State ex rel Bunn v. Roberts, 302 Or 72, 726 P2d 925 (1986)

 

      Action to appeal Secretary of State’s verification of signatures and certification of initiative petition was timely where action was filed within period required for judicial review of agency action other than contested case. Crumpton v. Roberts, 310 Or 381, 798 P2d 1100 (1990)

 

      Reasonable time for filing preelection challenge may be less than 60 days in some circumstances. State ex rel Keisling v. Norblad, 317 Or 615, 860 P2d 241 (1993)

 

      Reasonable time period for filing challenge based on single subject rule begins with certification of ballot title in case of initiative petition, or effective date of legislation ordering placement on ballot in case of referred measures. State ex rel Keisling v. Norblad, 317 Or 615, 860 P2d 241 (1993)

 

      Legislature may specify reasonable period for filing constitutional challenges to time-sensitive legislation. State ex rel Keisling v. Norblad, 317 Or 615, 860 P2d 241 (1993)

 

      Only requirement for standing to challenge placement of measure on ballot is allegation that plaintiff is registered voter. Lowe v. Keisling, 130 Or App 1, 882 P2d 91 (1994)

 

      Judicially created deadline for challenging preelection ballot measure decision by Secretary of State applies for challenges filed after election. League of Oregon Cities v. State of Oregon, 334 Or 645, 56 P3d 892 (2002)