Initiative Petition 2028-025 faces legal challenge over ballot title phrasing

Bend, Ore. (KTVZ) --- Chief Kari Goodheart Petitioner of the Oregon Freedom Amendment, filed formal objections Sunday with the Oregon Secretary of State and Attorney General over the draft ballot title for Initiative Petition 2028-025.

The challenge contends that the Attorney General's draft ballot title fails to accurately describe the proposed constitutional amendment and does not comply with state legal standards.

The formal objections challenge the draft title's compliance with ORS 250.035, which requires the caption, summary and result statements to clearly explain a measure and use parallel language. Initiative Petition 2028-025 aims to establish an individual constitutional right to engage in hunting, fishing, farming, ranching and other agricultural practices across Oregon.

According to the formal objections, the draft title fails to accurately reflect the scope of Initiative Petition 2028-025. The measure explicitly establishes a fundamental constitutional right to hunt, fish, trap, farm, ranch, raise livestock, cultivate crops, harvest natural resources and engage in generally accepted agricultural and wildlife management practices. However, the draft “yes” statement leaves out trapping, raising livestock and cultivating crops, even though those activities are included in the “no” statement and the summary. The draft caption also omits trapping and other agricultural activities.

The filing also challenges the draft summary for emphasizing restrictions while concluding that the measure's effect on current law is unclear. Goodheart requested the removal of that assertion, stating that the amendment clearly establishes a constitutional standard and that individual legal applications would occur later.

As Chief Petitioner of Oregon Freedom Amendment Initiative Petition 2028-025, Goodheart emphasized the requirement for accurate information on the ballot. “The people of Oregon deserve a ballot title that tells them clearly what they are voting on,” Goodheart said.

Goodheart argued that the draft creates confusion for voters evaluating the initiative. “The Attorney General's draft uses different lists in the yes and no statements, leaves protected activities out of the yes statement, understates the constitutional rights created by the amendment and then tells voters that its effect is unclear,” Goodheart said. “That does not provide voters with the clear and consistent information Oregon law requires.”

By submitting formal objections during the statutory comment period, Goodheart preserved the right to seek review from the Oregon Supreme Court under state law. If the Attorney General certifies a ballot title without addressing the objections, an elector who submitted written comments during the public window may petition the state Supreme Court to determine whether the title substantially complies with state requirements.

The proposed constitutional amendment is designated for the Nov. 7, 2028, general election ballot. If the ballot title is certified without addressing the filed objections, the chief petitioner may petition the Oregon Supreme Court for review.