Oregon Advisory Opinions July 30, 1954: OAG 54-53 (July 30, 1954)
Collection: Oregon Attorney General Opinions
Docket: OAG 54-53
Date: July 30, 1954
Advisory Opinion Text
OAG 54-53.
Secretary of State
This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of July 23, 1954, enclosing a letter from Senator Warren A. McMinimee of Tillamook County calling attention to certain alleged inadequacies in the statement of contributions and expenditures filed by the sponsors of the initiative petition seeking the repeal of the milk control law and calling your attention to ORS 254.600 (2).
You have presented this office with the above referred to statement of contributions and expenditures, and ask to be advised as to whether or not you should place the initiated measure on the official ballot at the coming general election.
ORS 254.600 provides as follows:
"(1) The sponsors of any initiative or referendum petition, at the time of filing their completed petition, shall file with it a statement showing the contributions and expenditures for the petition. This shall be verified by the sponsor or sponsors filing the petition, giving the name and postoffice address of every contributor to the expense of the petition and the amount paid by each. The statement shall also contain the name and postoffice address of every person to whom, and for what service, any money was paid or promised on account of the petition or which is owed and to be paid.
"(2) If such verified statement is not filed, as required by this section, the Secretary of State shall not place the measure petitioned for on the official ballot."
No challenge is made of the sufficiency of the petition itself or of that portion of the statement required by said section consisting of the name and address of all contributors and the amount thereof. To this extent the facts of this incident are identical with those of State ex rel. v. Snell, (1942) 168 Or. 153, 161.
The portion of the statement relating to expenditures is challenged and is set forth as follows:
In the Snell case, supra, at the time of filing the required statement the Secretary of State was presented with vouchers explaining the items of expenditure listed in the statement. The court resorted to these vouchers to explain the general statement of expenditures contained therein. Relying upon the same the court held that "substantial compliance" with the statutory requirements had been made and the Secretary of State should place the measure involved therein on the ballot.
In the instant case there is not attached to the statement, nor has the Secretary of State been presented with, any supporting vouchers which might in any way be relied upon to explain the general statements of expenditures set forth above.
In this respect the facts of this case are identical with those in Miles et al. v. Veatch, (1950) 189 Or. 506, 518, where the question of the sufficiency of the statement of contributions and expenditures arose after the election on a measure.
With respect to the item $2,600 for "validation of names, Multnomah County", the court might take judicial notice of the name and official address of the county clerk of the Multnomah court, if this is the purport of the reference made, since such county clerk is the public official who has the duty of verifying the signatures of such petitions: ORS 254.040.
As for the remainder of the items of expenditure, it is my opinion that the statement of the same is not sufficiently detailed to meet the requirement of "substantial compliance" with ORS 254.600: State v. Snell, supra, at page 162; Miles et al. v. Veatch, supra, page 529.
The statement of contributions and expenditures required of petitioners in the exercise of the initiative and referendum is analogous to the statement of contributions and expenditures required of candidates, political committees and other persons under the Corrupt Practices Act: ORS 260.060, 260.070. Its purpose is to secure the purity of the ballot and to safeguard against deception and fraud in the exercise of the initiative and referendum. The requirement in ORS 254.600 should not be construed to hamper, curtail or render ineffective the initiative power reserved to the people. State ex rel. Snell, supra, 160, at 161.
The petitioners filed their original statement of expenditures within the time prescribed by law. As we have already pointed out the petitioners complied with the spirit of the law but did not comply with the letter of the statute, since they did not furnish "the name and postoffice address of every person to whom, and for what service, any money was paid or promised on account of the petition or which is owed to be paid."
It is therefore my opinion that they may be permitted to file without delay an amended statement in order to supply the necessary itemization and to show the legality of the disbursements set forth in the original statement. See In re Bechtel's Election Expenses, (1908) 39 Pa. S. Ct. 292; In re Wilhelm et al., (Pa., 1933) 169 A. 456.
In construing analogous provisions in the Corrupt Practices Act courts have held the requirement, that the statement be filed, is mandatory but that the time within which the statement is to be filed is directory only: 29 C.J.S., Elections, § 26, p. 314; 18 Am. Jur., Elections, § 239; 103 A.L.R. 1428, 1429.
Substantial compliance with the law must however be made in sufficient time prior to the preparation of the official ballot so as not to interfere with your duties pertaining thereto: ORS 255.410.