Kane v. Kulongoski

2 Citing cases

  1. Scott-Schwalbach v. Rosenblum

    370 Or. 681 (Or. 2022)

    III. CONCLUSIONCf.Kane v. Kulongoski , 319 Or. 88, 91, 872 P.2d 981 (1994) (explaining that, although the fiscal effect of a measure may qualify as a major effect that must be included in the summary, such effects must be clear, not merely speculative; declining to require summary to include a "prediction" about the potential fiscal impact of a proposed repeal of constitutional property tax limits). In sum, we conclude that the caption, the "yes" result statement, and the summary of the certified ballot title for IP 5 all require modification.

  2. Novick v. Myers

    36 P.3d 486 (Or. 2001)   Cited 1 times
    Referring ballot title for modification

    The Attorney General responds that petitioner's arguments are speculative and that the Attorney General does not have the authority to speculate as to the meaning of a proposed measure in writing a ballot title. See Kane v. Kulongoski, 319 Or. 88, 91, 872 P.2d 981 (1994) (so holding). We disagree with the Attorney General that petitioner's arguments are speculative.