Crumpton v. Kulongoski
Oregon Supreme Court
1DissentDurham, J.
I dissent. The Attorney General’s ballot title, which the majority certifies to the Secretary of State, does not *272comply substantially with ORS 250.035(1),1 because it fails to state accurately the measure’s subject, chief purpose, and major effect. Accordingly, I would certify a different ballot title.
The proposed measure would amend the Oregon Constitution to provide:
“Any system or plan which provides pension or retirement benefits for employees of the State of Oregon or of any political subdivision thereof shall comply with the following limitations:
“(1) The normal retirement age for any…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Reed v. RobertsOregon Supreme Court · 1988
- Glerum v. RobertsOregon Supreme Court · 1989
- Aughenbaugh v. RobertsOregon Supreme Court · 1990
- Sampson v. RobertsOregon Supreme Court · 1990
- Pacific Power & Light Co. v. PaulusOregon Supreme Court · 1982
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.