Legal Opinion

Markley v. Rosenblum

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 8, 2018No. SC S065551 (Control); SC S065552PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKistler, J.

**533Two sets of petitioners have challenged the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28). We review the ballot title for substantial compliance with ORS 250.035(2). See ORS 250.085(5) (stating standard of review). For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the ballot title does not substantially comply with ORS 250.035(2) and refer the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification.

Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution prohibits laws "restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
  2. McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm'nSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
  3. State v. RobertsonOregon Supreme Court · 1982
  4. State v. CloutierOregon Supreme Court · 2011
  5. Vannatta v. KeislingOregon Supreme Court · 1997

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Multnomah County v. MehrweinOregon Supreme Court · 2020
  2. Fletchall v. RosenblumOregon Supreme Court · 2019
  3. Parrish v. RosenblumOregon Supreme Court · 2019
  4. Hopkins/Starrett v. RosenblumOregon Supreme Court · 2020
  5. Markley v. RosenblumOregon Supreme Court · 2018

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

Powered by the Exa API