Legal Opinion · Dissent

Lewis v. Keisling

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided September 6, 1994No. SC S41550Published

1DissentUnis, J.

The result in this case, in my view, is so contrary to reason and to the universally understood plain meaning of Ballot Measure 13 that I feel compelled to dissent.

The Explanatory Statement for an initiated measure must be “impartial, simple and understandable” and not *19“insufficient or unclear.” ORS 251.215(1); ORS 251.235; Conkling v. Keisling, 316 Or 390, 394-95 n 2, 852 P2d 183 (1993). A statement is “insufficient” if it is not impartial or if it is “potentially misleading.” Homuth v. Keisling, 314 Or 214, 220, 837 P2d 532 (1992). See also June v. Roberts, 310 Or 244, 797 P2d 357 (1990)…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Mabon v. KeislingOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. June v. RobertsOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Homuth v. KeislingOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Sollis v. HandOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Conkling v. KeislingOregon Supreme Court · 1993

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API