Summary
explaining in summary that measure did not define "reliable evidence"
Summary of this case from Morgan v. MyersOpinion
SC S30159
Argued and submitted January 10, 1984
Ballot title certified as modified January 24, 1984
In Banc
On petition to review ballot title certified by David B. Frohnmayer, Attorney General.
Thomas Crabtree, Bend, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioners. With him on the petition was Robert J. Larson, Eugene.
John A. Reuling, Jr., Special Counsel to the Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause and filed the memorandum for respondent. With him on the memorandum were David Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, Salem.
PER CURIAM
Ballot title certified as modified.
This petition concerns the same ballot title examined in Remington v. Paulus, 296 Or. 317, 675 P.2d 485 (1984). Petitioners argue that the original title was insufficient or unfair because it created the impression that evidence seized in violation of the federal constitution would be admissible in criminal prosecutions. We believe that the modified ballot title answers this objection. They also argue that this title failed to advise the citizenry of the state that they are giving up a powerful tool and forfeiting several constitutional protections. Statements about the effect of proposed measures have no place in ballot titles. Teledyne Wah Chang v. Paulus, 295 Or. 762, 767, 670 P.2d 1021 (1983). They also contend that the use of the word "reliable" in the ballot title is unfair because the public could think that "reliable" indicates the evidence is necessarily truthful. We find that the use of this word is not unfair, if set off in quotation marks to show that the proposed amendment, rather than the respondent or this court uses this word.
Ballot title certified as modified in Remington v. Paulus, supra.