The initiative would fundamentally reshape Oregon's election system by replacing closed party primaries with a single primary ballot open to all voters, affecting most partisan offices including state, federal (excluding presidential), and designated local positions. Former Governor Ted Kulongoski and 12 other petitioners, along with separate petitioner Kelsey Paden, challenged Attorney General Dan Rayfield's certified ballot title under the state's ballot title review process.
In a brief per curiam decision, the court held that the Attorney General's ballot title 'substantially complies with the statutory requirements' under ORS 250.035, but exercised its discretion to fix grammatical errors in the summary. The court noted that 'chief petitioners assert that the third sentence in the summary contains a typographical error that results in an incomprehensible clause,' and the Attorney General agreed the issues 'can be addressed within the word limits with a minor revision.'
The court made targeted corrections to clarify confusing language about how minor parties and unaffiliated candidates currently qualify for general elections. As the court explained, the problematic sentence originally read that 'minor parties and unaffiliated candidates directly for general election,' missing the critical verb 'nominate.' The court added that word and removed an extraneous 'in' from another sentence to fix the flow.
The case reached the Oregon Supreme Court through the standard ballot title review process under ORS 250.085(2) after petitioners filed challenges on January 30, 2026. The court considered the matter en banc on March 17, 2026, with both sets of petitioners represented by different counsel—Daniel W. Meek for the Kulongoski group and Lydia Anderson-Dana of Stoll Stoll Berne for Paden.
While petitioners challenged all sections of the Attorney General's certified ballot title, the court found their substantive objections unpersuasive. The court focused primarily on the typographical issues, which all parties agreed needed correction. The Attorney General had suggested the specific word changes that the court ultimately adopted.
Rather than send the ballot title back to the Attorney General for revision, the court exercised its statutory authority under ORS 250.085(8) to modify and certify the title directly. The court cited its 2006 decision in Straube/McEvilly v. Myers as precedent for 'exercising discretion to correct a typographical error and certify a corrected ballot title to the Secretary of State.'
The certified ballot title now clearly states that the measure would create a system where 'voters may vote for candidates regardless of voter's party affiliation or non-affiliation' and 'top two candidates from each office appear on general election ballot.' The initiative would allow parties to opt out of the new system and nominate candidates at their own expense, and candidates could accept up to three party endorsements.
If the initiative qualifies for the ballot and passes, Oregon would join states like California and Washington in using a top-two primary system, potentially reducing the influence of party primaries while giving independent and minor-party candidates better access to general election ballots.