Baker v. Keisling

815 P.2d 698, 312 Or. 8
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 8, 1991
DocketSC38245, SC38269, SC38275, SC38248
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 815 P.2d 698 (Baker v. Keisling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Baker v. Keisling, 815 P.2d 698, 312 Or. 8 (Or. 1991).

Opinion

*11 PER CURIAM

In this original proceeding, petitioners challenge the ballot title for a proposed initiative measure. 1 Petitioners timely submitted written comments on the Attorney General’s draft ballot title and, therefore, they are entitled to petition this court seeking a different title. ORS 250.085(2). We modify the ballot title and certify it as modified.

The Attorney General certified this ballot title to the Secretary of State:

“AMENDS CONSTITUTION:
DECLARES CERTAIN CONDUCT ABNORMAL;
FORBIDS GOVERNMENT PROMOTION, ENCOURAGEMENT
“QUESTION: Shall Oregon’s constitution be amended to declare homosexuality, other behaviors, abnormal, and forbid governments from promoting or condoning these behaviors?
“SUMMARY: Amends Oregon Constitution. Declares pedophilia, sadism, masochism, homosexuality, bestiality and necrophilia as “abnormal, unnatural and perverse conduct” harmful to Oregon. Provides definitions. State may not recognize or protect this conduct under “sexual orientation” or “sexual preference” labels, or through quotas, minority status, affirmative action. State, regional and local governments may not promote or condone this conduct. All levels of government, including the state Department of Higher Education and public schools, must set a standard for Oregon’s youth which recognizes this conduct is wrong and unnatural.”

For the reasons that follow, we modify the Attorney General’s Caption and approve his Question and Summary.

CAPTION

ORS 250.035(l)(a) requires that the ballot title of a proposed initiative measure shall consist of ‘e [a] caption of not more than 10 words which reasonably identifies the subject of the measure.” We review for substantial compliance with that requirement. ORS 250.085(4); Reed v. Roberts, 304 Or 649, 652, 748 P2d 542 (1988).

*12 Both the proponents and the opponents of the measure argue in this court that the Attorney General’s Caption fails reasonably to identify the subject of the measure. 2 We agree. The Attorney General’s Caption is so general as to be meaningless. The Attorney General’s words, “certain conduct,” could refer to driving while intoxicated, smoking cigarettes, or owning “pit bull” terriers, for all the Attorney General’s Caption communicates. Thus, the Attorney General’s Caption does not substantially comply with ORS 250.035(l)(a), because it fails reasonably to identify the subject of the measure. Accordingly, we modify the Caption to identify the subject of the measure, i.e., homosexuality and other listed behaviors. We substitute this Caption:

AMENDS CONSTITUTION:
FORBIDS GOVERNMENT FROM CONDONING HOMOSEXUALITY, OTHER LISTED BEHAVIORS

QUESTION AND SUMMARY

We have considered petitioners’ arguments concerning the Attorney General’s Question and Summary. We conclude that both substantially comply with the statutory requirements. ORS 250.035(l)(b), (c); ORS 250.085(4).

CONCLUSION

Pursuant to ORS 250.085(4), we certify to the Secretary of State the following ballot title:

*13 AMENDS CONSTITUTION:
FORBIDS GOVERNMENT FROM CONDONING HOMOSEXUALITY, OTHER LISTED BEHAVIORS
QUESTION: Shall Oregon’s constitution be amended to declare homosexuality, other behaviors, abnormal, and forbid governments from promoting or condoning these behaviors?
SUMMARY: Amends Oregon Constitution. Declares pedophilia, sadism, masochism, homosexuality, bestiality and necrophilia as “abnormal, unnatural and perverse conduct” harmful to Oregon. Provides definitions. State may not recognize or protect this conduct under “sexual orientation” or “sexual preference” labels, or through quotas, minority status, affirmative action. State, regional and local governments may not promote or condone this conduct. All levels of government, including the state Department of Higher Education and public schools, must set a standard for Oregon’s youth which recognizes this conduct is wrong and unnatural.

Ballot title certified as modified.

*14 APPENDIX

The text of the proposed measure reads:

“Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:

“PARAGRAPH 1. The Constitution of the State of Oregon is amended by creating a new section to be added to and made a part of Article I and to read:
“SECTION 41. (1) Pedophilia, sadism, masochism, homosexuality, bestiality and necrophilia are recognized by this state as abnormal, unnatural and perverse conduct. These abnormal behaviors are recognized as being harmful to the moral and ethical standards of Oregon.

“(2) As used in this section:

“(a) ‘Abnormal’ means not normal, not average, not typical, irregular or varying from an established standard.
“(b) ‘Behavior’ means manner of behaving, conduct or carriage of oneself, with respect to propriety or morals.
“(c) ‘Bestiality’ means sexual activity with animals.
“(d) ‘Condone’ means to pardon or overlook or to give approval by ignoring.
‘ ‘ (e) ‘Encourage’ means to give courage to, to give confidence to, to help, to give support, to be favorable to or to foster.
“(f) ‘Facilitate’ means to make easy or less difficult, to free from impediment or to lessen the labor of.
“(g) ‘Homosexuality’ means sexual activity with a member of the same gender.
“(h) ‘Masochism’ means deriving sexual satisfaction from abuse or physical pain.
‘ ‘ (i) ‘Necrophilia’ means sexual activity involving dead persons.
“(j) ‘Pedophilia’ means sexual activity of an adult with a child.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Arenz v. Keisling
849 P.2d 521 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1993)
Eaton v. Keisling
824 P.2d 1147 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1992)
Carlson v. Keisling
824 P.2d 1146 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1992)
Glancy v. Department of Revenue
12 Or. Tax 117 (Oregon Tax Court, 1991)
Baker v. Keisling
822 P.2d 1162 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
815 P.2d 698, 312 Or. 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-keisling-or-1991.