## Facts

- Oregon law required a financial impact estimate for each statewide ballot measure, prepared by a statutory committee of designated state officials and certified on an expedited election timeline.
- The process included preparing the estimate at least 100 days before the election, holding a public hearing for comments, and certifying a final estimate.
- Lloyd Marbet and other chief sponsors of 1992 Ballot Measure 5 (to close the Trojan nuclear power plant in Rainier, Oregon) challenged the committee’s certified estimate.
- The estimate stated that closing Trojan would reduce local property-tax revenues in Columbia County and that the state would be obligated to replace lost school property-tax revenues.
- Petitioners argued the estimate was based on an erroneous premise about the state’s legal duty to replace school revenue and sought an order requiring an “accurate” estimate and preventing publication of the challenged estimate.
- Petitioners filed an original proceeding in the Oregon Supreme Court under ORS 250.131, which authorizes review limited to whether the estimate was “prepared, filed and certified in the manner required by law.”

## Issues

1. Whether ORS 250.131 authorizes the Oregon Supreme Court to review and correct the substantive accuracy and assumptions of a ballot measure’s financial impact estimate.
2. Whether petitioners alleged a cognizable procedural defect in the preparation, filing, or certification of the estimate warranting relief under ORS 250.131.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
- The court held ORS 250.131 confines review to procedural compliance: whether the estimate was prepared, filed, and certified as required by law.
- The court held it lacked authority in this statutory proceeding to revise or evaluate the substantive correctness of the estimate’s fiscal assumptions or projections.
- The court concluded petitioners’ objections were substantive disagreements with the estimate’s content and did not establish procedural noncompliance.
- The court declined to use any broader discretionary original jurisdiction to reach the merits, citing the legislature’s choice to keep this election-related process fast and limited.

## Legal Principles

- Under ORS 250.131, judicial review of a ballot measure financial impact estimate is limited to whether the estimate was prepared, filed, and certified in the manner required by law.
- Courts may not use ORS 250.131 proceedings to assess or correct the substantive accuracy of an estimate, including its economic assumptions or predictions about fiscal effects.
- Where a challenger’s claims target the content of the estimate rather than a failure to follow required steps (e.g., deadlines, hearing, certification), the court must dismiss for lack of statutory grounds for relief.
- Legislative design of time-sensitive election procedures supports narrow, procedural judicial review and counsels against expanding review through discretionary original jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

The court held that ORS 250.131 permits only procedural review of the preparation, filing, and certification of ballot measure financial impact estimates and does not authorize substantive challenges to their accuracy; because petitioners alleged only substantive errors, the petition was dismissed.


State ex rel. Marbet v. Keisling, 314 Or. 235, 838 P.2d 580 (Or. 1992)