Unger v. Rosenblum

The Oregon Supreme Court has limited authority to review ballot titles only when the “statutory requirements to review have been satisfied.” Sizemore v. Meyers, 327 Or 71, 74, 957 P2d 577 (1998). Challenges to the certification of measures are moot “once the election cycle for that measure has passed.” Kerr v. Bradbury, 340 Or 241, 131 P3d 737 (2006)

Chief Petitioners sought judicial review of the ballot title for IP 29 (2018). In 2016, Chief Petitioners sought review of the Secretary of State’s refusal to certify IP 55 (2016). The trial court entered a judgment after the 2016 election cycle that determined all statutory requirements have been met for the certification requirements and ordered the Secretary of State to assign a new petition number, IP 29 (2018). Chief Petitioners argued all statutory requirements for IP 29 (2018) were met through IP 55 (2016). The Secretary of State responded the statutory requirements were not met because the renumbered initiative died once the 2016 election deadlines passed. The Oregon Supreme Court has limited authority to review ballot titles only when the “statutory requirements to review have been satisfied.” Sizemore v. Meyers, 327 Or 71, 74, 957 P2d 577 (1998). Challenges to the certification of measures are moot “once the election cycle for that measure has passed.” Kerr v. Bradbury, 340 Or 241, 131 P3d 737 (2006). The Oregon Supreme Court determined that the statutory procedures completed for IP 55 (2106) did not transfer over with renumbering because IP 55 (2016) expired when the 2016 election cycle ended. The Court held that it lacked the authority to review the ballot title of IP 29 (2018) because it failed to satisfy the statutory and constitutional procedures required for the 2018 election cycle. The petitions to review the ballot title are dismissed.