Mabon/Pulvers v. Myers (on objections)

41 P.3d 1083, 333 Or. 515, 2002 Ore. LEXIS 169
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 14, 2002
DocketSC S48950 (Control); SC S48951
StatusPublished

This text of 41 P.3d 1083 (Mabon/Pulvers v. Myers (on objections)) 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
Mabon/Pulvers v. Myers (on objections), 41 P.3d 1083, 333 Or. 515, 2002 Ore. LEXIS 169 (Or. 2002).

Opinion

*518 PER CURIAM

The court in this ballot title review proceeding determined that the Attorney General’s certified ballot title for a proposed initiative measure, which the Secretary of State denominated as Initiative Petition 107 (2002), failed to comply substantially with statutory standards. Mabon/Pulvers v. Myers, 333 Or 252, 39 P3d 171 (2002). Under ORS 250.085(8), the court referred the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification. The Attorney General has filed a modified ballot title for the proposed initiative measure, and petitioner Pulvers has objected timely to the modified ballot title. See ORS 250.085(9) (setting out period within which party may object to modified ballot title).

We have reviewed the objections and conclude that they are not well taken. See id. (court reviews modified ballot title to determine whether title substantially complies with requirements of ORS 250.035). Accordingly, we certify to the Secretary of State the Attorney General’s modified ballot title for Initiative Petition 107 (2002). That ballot title states:

“AMENDS CONSTITUTION: CREATES NEW JUDICIAL OATH COMMITTING JUDGES TO FRAMERS’ INTENT REGARDING CONSTITUTIONS, LEGISLATURE’S INTENT REGARDING STATUTES
“RESULT OF YES’ VOTE: Yes’ vote creates new judicial oath replacing existing oaths; commits judges to framers’ intent in interpreting state, federal constitutions, to legislature’s intent in interpreting statutes.
“RESULT OF ‘NO’ VOTE: ‘No’ vote retains existing judicial oaths; does not commit judges to framers’ intent in interpreting state, federal constitutions, or legislature’s intent in interpreting statutes.
“SUMMARY: Amends constitution. Current law requires judges to take oath of office to support the Oregon and federal constitutions, faithfully and impartially discharge duties according to best of their ability, and not accept any office except judicial office during elective term. Measure adds requirements that judges take oath to support and defend 1789 federal constitution and 1859 Oregon constitution; give allegiance only to Oregon and federal *519 jurisdictions; “honor and maintain separation of powers doctrine;’ set aside personal views or those of any social faction; not ‘create law from the bench;’ uphold ‘will of the people;’ adhere strictly to intent of framers of constitution and statutes; defer to legislature to provide intent where framers’ intent is unclear. Measure does not define quoted terms. Other provisions.”

Modified ballot title certified.

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

Related

Mabon/Pulvers v. Myers
39 P.3d 171 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 P.3d 1083, 333 Or. 515, 2002 Ore. LEXIS 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mabonpulvers-v-myers-on-objections-or-2002.