Oregon supporters of a top-two system plan to circulate an initiative petition this year. Before their petition can begin to circulate, its description on the petition and on the ballot must be settled. On May 8, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the description of the measure must be altered somewhat. Here is the 13-page decision in Dixon v Rosenblum, S062046.

The wording that was before the Court for review is: “Changes general election nominating process: provides one common primary ballot; unlimited votes; top two advance.” This part is termed the “caption.”

Then, beneath that, “Result of ‘Yes’ Vote: ‘Yes’ vote replaces current general election nomination process for most partisan offices; all candidates listed on common primary ballot; vote one or more; two advance.”

Below that, “Result of ‘No’ Vote: ‘No’ vote retains current general election nomination processes: party primaries for major parties; no common primary ballot; vote limitations; multiple candidates on general election ballot.”

And, finally, “Summary: Currently, voters are limited to voting for one candidate for each office in primary elections; multiple candidates may appear for each office on general election ballot. Major parties nominate candidates through party primaries with separate ballots for each. Measure replaces that system for most partisan offices, including many federal (not presidential), all state, county, city, district partisan offices, Primary ballot will list all candidates for each office. Voters may vote for as many candidates as they like for each office, regardless of party affiliation of voter/candidate. Only top two candidates will appear on general election ballot; may be from same party. Primary, general election ballots must contain candidates’ party registration/endorsements. Eligible person, regardless of party, may be selected to fill vacancy. Other provisions.”

The Oregon Supreme Court ordered three changes to this wording: (1)The caption’s reference to “unlimited votes” must be changed; (2) the caption must make clear that the measure has no effect on non-partisan offices; (3) within “result of ‘no’ vote” section, the reference to “vote limitations” must be changed. The Attorney General will now proceed to alter the parts that the Court ruled need changing. Then, the measure may begin to circulate. It needs 87,213 valid signatures. The sponsors are believed to have enough funds to hire paid circulators to obtain the signatures.

Two statewide initiative petitions were submitted in Illinois last month. One provides for a nonpartisan redistricting commission, and one imposes term limits on state legislators. Both are the subject of attempts to have them disqualified, on the basis that neither subject is permitted. See this story, which gives details about the schedule for the challenges.

On May 8, the Oklahoma House rejected the Senate’s amendments to HB 2134, and asked for a Conference Committee so that both houses can agree on a common version of the bill. HB 2134 is the bill that lowers the number of signatures for a newly-qualifying party from 5% of the last vote cast, to 2.5%. The Senate had agreed with that idea and both houses had passed the bill. But the Senate, when it passed the bill, added some amendments, which the House does not agree with.