Wasson v. State of Oregon
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 170 April 17, 2019 189 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Greg WASSON, an elector of the City of Salem, Petitioner, v. STATE OF OREGON, by and through Bev Clarno, Secretary of State, Respondent. Secretary of State A167811 Submitted March 1, 2019. Greg Wasson filed the briefs pro se. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Christopher A. Perdue, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and James, Judge. PER CURIAM OAR 165-014-0005(1) held valid. 190 Wasson v. State of Oregon PER CURIAM Pursuant to ORS 183.400, petitioner challenges the validity of OAR 165-014-0005(1), a rule promulgated by the Secretary of State that designates the State Initiative and Referendum Manual and associated forms as the procedures and forms to be used for the state initiative and referendum process. In petitioner’s view, the rule, by adopting the process described in that manual—including the deadlines for submitting and verifying signatures and the dates for elections included in the manual—precludes initiatives from appearing on the ballot at a special election, in violation of Article III, section 1, Article I, section 20, and Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution. The state responds that the rule does not have that effect, because the manual merely recites dates that are established elsewhere by constitutional provisions and state statute.1 We agree with the state on the merits; moreover, petitioner’s challenge to the rule relies on an understanding of the initiative process, and the secretary’s role in that process, that has been rejected in Unger v. Rosenblum, 362 Or 210, 225, 407 P3d 817 (2017), and Geddry v. Richardson, 296 Or App 134, 141, ___ P3d ___ (2019). OAR 165-014-0005(1) held valid. The state also argues that we lack jurisdiction because “petitioner is not challenging a rule, but an announcement of constitutional and statutory deadlines” in the manual. We reject that jurisdictional argument. The secretary adopted the manual by administrative rule, and petitioner has expressly challenged that rule and its adoption of the manual. 1
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
