October 21, 2003
Appeals Court Could Rule Today On PUD Ballot Title Language
Remaining with The Oregonian for one more item, the paper this morning fleshes out some of what I covered yesterday about the appeals filed against Friday's court ruling regarding ballot title language, reporting that the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals is might rule as early as today.
One of the running questions I and others have been trying to sort out is just when the injunctive relief ordered on Friday is supposed to kick in, and how that interacts with the timing of the appeals process:
Haggerty also ordered the county to issue a news release and put a message on the county elections office's Web site by today. The notices must say that the ballot measure could not cause property taxes to increase more than 3 percent and that the notices are being printed to correct "misleading" language on the ballot.
Haggerty ordered the newspaper ads to begin Sunday, saying "the start date of the notices as well as their placement shall conform to the publisher's restrictions."
The ads will begin Thursday, the earliest that space was available in The Oregonian, if the appeals court does not grant a stay of Haggerty's order, said John S. Thomas, an assistant county attorney.
This appears to indicate that, while the County (and other involved parties( indeed has appealed the order and filed motions for a stay, they nonetheless are working to comply with that order should the appeals fail. Although, as Jack points out, there is still no notice on the County's Elections Division Home Page. Presumably, they are waiting to see if there is a ruling at some point today.
In addition, according to The Oregonian, the other intervenor in the case -- the State of Oregon -- was expected to file its own appeal today.
Thus far, I've seen no reports on any appellate action taken today. But that doesn't necessarily mean none has occurred, it just means all of the usual outlets need to be checked throughout the day.
Meanwhile, in a commentary against the PUD, local lawyer Steve Novick wishes the fake anti-PUD "citizens" group (or, well, anyone really) would stop using the slimy tactics of Bill Sizemore, eveni f they think the ends justify the means.
Comments (1)
jack bog on 21 Oct 2003
You could watch for a Ninth Circuit opinion here.