Legal Opinion · Dissent

Adams v. Kulongoski

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 12, 1996No. SC S42988Published

1DissentFadeley, J.

I dissent from certification of the Attorney General’s ballot title in this matter. It does not comply substantially with the requirements of law because, as presently worded, it will mislead many voters about the result of voting “yes” or “no” on the measure. A ballot title must compare the results of voting “yes” with the result of voting “no.” ORS 250.035(2)(b) and (c).1

If the comparison is misleading or so incomplete that it does not inform the voters of the differences in results that their choice of a “yes” vote or a “no” vote will produce, the result statements fail to comply with the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Sizemore v. KulongoskiOregon Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Hand v. RobertsOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Sizemore v. KulongoskiOregon Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Dale v. KulongoskiOregon Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Kane v. KulongoskiOregon Supreme Court · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API