GMO Measure Complaint

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH
7
8
9
10
11
GEORGE DEWIN HARRIS, CHRISTINE

SEALS, CAMERON T. ALDERMAN,
CLAIRE DAVIS PARCHMENT,
MAGNOLIA JAHNES-RODGERS, ROBIN
SCHAPIRO, CAM BUI and PAIGE
RICHARDSON, Individuals, and VOTE YES
ON MEASURE 92: WE HAVE THE
RIGHT TO KNOW WHATS IN OUR
FOOD, an Oregon political committee,
Plaintiffs,
12
13
14
15
Case No.
COMPLAINT
(ORS 246.910 Act or Failure to Act of
Secretary of State and County Elections
Officials; ORS 28.010, et seq. Declaratory
Judgment Act; ORS 183.400, et seq.
Judicial Review of Agency Order)
Filing Fee Authority: ORS 21.135(2)(a)
v.
NOT SUBJECT TO MANDATORY

ARBITRATION
KATE BROWN, Secretary of State of the

State of Oregon, and TIM SCOTT, Director
of Elections, Multnomah County Elections
Division
16
Defendants.
17
18
Plaintiffs allege as follows:
19
OVERVIEW OF CASE
20
1.
21
This case arises out of the disenfranchisement of approximately 4,600 registered Oregon
22
voters who participated in the November 4, 2014 general election. Those voters completed their
23
ballots, signed their return identification envelopes pursuant to the instructions provided by the
24
Secretary of State and local elections officials, and timely returned their ballots. However, local
25
elections officials, acting under the direction and supervision of the Secretary of State, have not
26
Page 1 -
COMPLAINT
STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
209 S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 500
PORTLAND, OREGON 97204
TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840
counted those ballots, because the voters signatures on their return identification envelopes do
not match the signatures on file for those voters.

2.
3
4
The approximately 4,600 disenfranchised voters have not been accused of forgery, fraud
or other illegal activity relating to their exercise of their right to vote. The local elections
officials who have refused to count those voters ballots lack probable cause that (most, if not all
of) those disenfranchised voters committed forgery or fraud. The Secretary of State, who has
refused to include those ballots as part of her official canvass of votes, similarly lacks probable
cause that (most, if not all, of) those disenfranchised voters committed forgery of fraud. Voters
10
have been disenfranchised despite any evidence of wrongdoing.

3.
11
12
Local elections officials lack the legal authority to refuse to count those approximately
13
4,600 ballots and disenfranchise voters (except those ballots, if any, where local elections
14
officials can establish probable cause of forgery or fraud). The Oregon Secretary of State cannot
15
certify election results until those approximately 4,600 ballots are included as part of the official
16
canvass of votes (except those ballots, if any, where the Secretary of State can establish probable
17
cause of forgery or fraud).

4.
18
19
Plaintiffs seek an order enjoining the Secretary of State from certifying the results of the
20
November 4, 2014 statewide general election on Ballot Measure 92 until those approximately
21
4,600 ballots are counted (excluding those ballots, if any, where the Secretary of State or local
22
elections officials can establish probable cause of forgery or fraud). Plaintiffs also seek an order
23
compelling the Secretary of State to direct all county elections officials in the state to count those
24
approximately 4,600 ballots (excluding those ballots, if any, where the Secretary of State or local
25
elections officials can establish probable cause of forgery or fraud).
26
Page 2 -
COMPLAINT
TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840
5.
1
2
Approximately 1,100 of the approximately 4,600 ballots that have not been counted were
cast in Multnomah County. Plaintiffs also seek an order compelling defendant Tim Scott to
count all of those 1,100 ballots (excluding those ballots, if any, where Defendant Scott can
establish probable cause of forgery or fraud).

6.
6
7
This case is limited to the pending recount on Ballot Measure 92. The time period for
challenges and contests for all other statewide races and measures from the November 4, 2014
election has passed.

7.
10
11
In this case, Plaintiffs do not challenge the legitimacy of Oregons vote-by-mail system.
12
Rather, Plaintiffs seek to correct a flaw in this years statewide election that easily can be
13
remedied in future elections. Specifically, Plaintiffs challenge the failure by local elections
14
officials and the Secretary of State to inform voters, before voters exercise their voting rights, of
15
additional post-voting requirements imposed for their votes to count, and the improper decision
16
to disenfranchise approximately 4,600 voters who fully complied with all instructions provided
17
to them prior to casting their ballots.
18
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
19
8.
20
21
Defendant Kate Brown is the Secretary of State for the State of Oregon. Defendant Tim
Scott is the Director of Elections for the Multnomah County Elections Division.
9.
22
23
Ballot Measure 92 (Measure 92) is a statewide initiative measure that appeared on the
24
ballot for the November 4, 2014 general election. Measure 92, if passed, would mandate
25
labeling of genetically modified foods.
26
Page 3 -
COMPLAINT
TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840
10.
1
2
Following the November 4, 2014 general election, the original official canvass of votes
on Measure 92 was 752,666 in favor and 753,478 opposed. According to that original canvass,
out of 1,506,144 votes cast, the no side had 812 more votes than the yes side. The margin of
defeat for the measure was less than 0.054% (fifty-four thousandths of a percent).
11.
6
7
Oregon law, ORS 258.290(1), requires a mandatory statewide full recount [i]f the
official canvass of votes of an election reveals that the difference in the number of votes cast for
or against any measure is not more than one-fifth of one percent [0.2%] of the total votes cast for
10
and against the measure * * *. Because the original canvass of votes for Measure 92
11
established that the difference in the number of votes cast in favor and against the measure was
12
substantially less than one-fifth of one percent, the Secretary of State called for a recount on
13
Measure 92.
12.
14
15
Under Oregon law, ORS 246.110, the Secretary of State is the chief elections officer of
16
this state. It is the Secretary of States responsibility to ensure the correct application of
17
Oregons election laws. Under ORS 246.120, the Secretary of State shall prepare and distribute
18
to each county clerk detailed and comprehensive written directives, shall assist, advise and
19
instruct each county elections official on elections procedures; and, county elections officials
20
shall comply with the directives * * *. Under ORS 258.150, the Secretary of State shall be
21
responsible for insuring that the procedures to be used in conducting election recounts assure an
22
accurate recount * * *.
23
13.
24
On November 26, 2014, pursuant to her statutory authority and responsibility, the
25
Secretary of State issued a directive (the Directive) stating that the recount on Measure 92
26
Page 4 -
COMPLAINT
TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840
must be completed, and results certified, by December 12, 2014. The Directive includes
[i]nstructions for completing the automatic full recount for Measure 92.
14.
3
4
The right to vote is sacrosanct under Oregon law. Article II, section 1 of the Oregon
constitution provides: All elections shall be free and equal. Article II, section 2 of the Oregon
constitution provides that every Oregon resident is entitled to vote in all elections, if that
resident meets certain residency and age requirements. The Oregon legislature has stated, in
ORS 247.005, that it is the clear policy of this state that all election laws and procedures shall
be established and construed to assist the elector in the exercise of the right of franchise.
15.
10
11
Oregon law also sets forth precisely what is required for an Oregon voter to exercise his
12
or her right of franchise. Specifically, ORS 254.470(6)(a) provides that upon receipt of a ballot,
13
the elector shall mark the ballot, sign the return identification envelope supplied with the ballot
14
and comply with the instructions provided with the ballot. The only other requirements Oregon
15
law places on the voter is that he or she must timely return the ballot, either to the county
16
elections office or a designated drop box, in the return identification envelope. ORS
17
254.470(6)(b)(c).
16.
18
19
20
The only certification required of voters in the November 4, 2014 election when the voter
signed his or her return identification envelope was some variation of:
21
I am the person to whom this ballot was issued;
22
I am legally qualified to vote in the county that issued this ballot;
23
This is the only ballot I have voted this election; and
24
I still live at the address printed below.
25
26
Page 5 -
COMPLAINT
TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840
17.
1
2
The instructions provided to Oregon voters on the ballot for the November 4, 2014
general election did not tell voters that the signature the voter put on the return identification
envelope must match the voters signature on his or her registration card.
18.
5
6
Oregon law provides that a county elections official may count a ballot only if the voters
signature on the return identification envelope is verified pursuant to ORS 254.470(9). The
signature shall be verified with the signature on the voters registration card. Verified is not
defined in Oregon law. Oregon voters are not notified of this post-voting requirement when they
10
cast their vote.

19.
11
12
The Oregon Secretary of State has adopted rules codified in the Secretary of States
13
Vote by Mail Procedures Manual that interpret verify to mean match. The Secretary of
14
State has instructed county elections officials to challenge ballots and not count those ballots if
15
the voters signature on the return identification envelope does not match the signature on file.
16
The Oregon Secretary of State has set loose, subjective standards for county elections officials to
17
use to determine if a signature matches the signature on file. The Oregon Secretary of State
18
has not established any means to determine whether county elections officials have applied these
19
subjective standards consistently, either within the same county or between counties.
20
20.
21
Pursuant to the Secretary of States instructions, when a county elections official
22
determines that a voters signature on the voters return identification envelope does not match
23
the voters signature on file, that ballot is set aside and not counted. The county elections official
24
is supposed to send the voter a letter, as soon as practicable, informing the voter that the ballot
25
has not been counted, and notifying the voter that he or she may take additional steps within a
26
Page 6 -
COMPLAINT
TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840
limited time period to correct his or her signature. If the voter does not receive the letter and
cannot correct his or her signature, or otherwise fails to or is unable to do so, his or her ballot
is not counted. Signatures must be corrected, and those corrections approved by the county
elections officials within two weeks of election day, for the voters ballot to be counted.
21.
5
6
As a result of this policy and practice, approximately 4,600 voters who completed, and
timely returned their ballots have not had their ballots counted. The Oregon Secretary of State,
in her Directive, has not instructed county elections officials to count these ballots. As a result,
county elections officials, including Defendant Tim Scott, have not counted these ballots, and
10
approximately 4,600 voters have been disenfranchised.

22.
11
12
In the light of the current 812 vote margin on Measure 92, these signed and uncounted
13
ballots could determine the outcome of the election. The failure to count approximately 4,600
14
ballots may be determinative as to whether the measure passes or fails.

23.
15
16
Plaintiff George Harris is an Oregon voter and taxpayer. He is a resident of Multnomah
17
County. Plaintiff Harris suffered a stroke on April 8, 2014, which dramatically altered his
18
signature. Plaintiff Harris voted by mail in the November 4, 2014 general election and
19
personally signed the return identification envelope that he was provided, which contained his
20
completed ballot. He timely returned his ballot in the signed return identification envelope. As
21
with the return identification envelope provided to all Oregon voters in the November 4, 2014
22
general election, his return identification envelope did not indicate that his ballot would only be
23
opened if the signature on the envelope matched the signature on his voter registration card.
24
Plaintiff Harris received a letter from local elections officials, inviting him to re-register.
25
However, he is undergoing therapy and rehabilitation for his stroke, and was unable to complete
26
Page 7 -
COMPLAINT
TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840
and return the additional voter registration form. In addition, he hopes the use of his arm and
regular signature will be restored, and he did not want to have to re-register repeatedly, simply to
exercise his right to franchise. Plaintiff Harris ballot has been rejected, and his vote has not
been counted in this election. Plaintiff Harris has an interest in having his vote counted, and an
interest in the outcome of Measure 92. Plaintiff Harris has been adversely affected as a result of
actions or failures to act taken by Defendant Tim Scott in Multnomah County, and by actions or
failures to act taken by Defendant Kate Brown, at least in part, in Multnomah County.
24.
8
9
Plaintiff Christine Seals is an Oregon voter and taxpayer. She is a resident of Multnomah
10
County. She is a quadriplegic and cannot sign her own name by hand. For many years, she
11
signed her name by using a pen in her mouth, but that was extremely difficult for her to do.
12
Recently, she changed to using a stamp as her legal signature. Plaintiff Harris voted by mail in
13
the November 4, 2014 general election and personally signed (by stamp) the return identification
14
envelope that she was provided, which contained her completed ballot. She timely returned her
15
ballot in the signed return identification envelope. As with the return identification envelope
16
provided to all Oregon voters in the November 4, 2014 general election, her return identification
17
envelope did not indicate that her ballot would only be opened if the signature on the envelope
18
matched the signature on her voter registration card. Plaintiff Seals received a letter from local
19
elections officials, inviting her to re-register. She reasonably assumed that the letter was sent by
20
mistake by a new worker because of her long-standing disability, which she understood was
21
well-documented by Multnomah County elections officials. She has used her signature stamp on
22
the return identification envelopes she has submitted in prior elections and, to her knowledge, her
23
ballot has always been accepted and counted. Plaintiff Seals ballot has been rejected, and her
24
vote has not been counted in this election. Plaintiff Seals has an interest in having her vote
25
counted, and an interest in the outcome of Measure 92. Plaintiff Seals has been adversely
26
Page 8 -
COMPLAINT
TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840
affected as a result of actions or failures to act taken by Defendant Tim Scott in Multnomah
County, and by actions or failures to act taken by Defendant Kate Brown, at least in part, in
Multnomah County.
25.
4
5
Plaintiff Cameron T. Alderman is an Oregon voter and taxpayer. He is a resident of
Multnomah County. He voted by mail in the November 4, 2014 general election. He personally
signed the return identification envelope that he was provided, which contained his completed
ballot. He timely returned his ballot in the signed return identification envelope. As with the
return identification envelope provided to all Oregon voters in the November 4, 2014 general
10
election, his return identification envelope did not indicate that his ballot would only be opened
11
if the signature on the envelope matched the signature on his voter registration card. He did not
12
receive notice from county elections officials that his ballot would be rejected. His ballot has
13
been rejected, and has not been counted in this election. Plaintiff Alderman has an interest in
14
having his vote counted, and an interest in the outcome of Measure 92. Plaintiff Alderman has
15
been adversely affected as a result of actions or failures to act taken by Defendant Tim Scott in
16
Multnomah County, and by actions or failures to act taken by Defendant Kate Brown, at least in
17
part, in Multnomah County.

26.
18
19
Plaintiff Claire Davis Parchment is an Oregon voter and taxpayer. She is a resident of
20
Multnomah County. She voted by mail in the November 4, 2014 general election. She
21
personally signed the return identification envelope that she was provided, which contained her
22
completed ballot. She timely returned her ballot in the signed return identification envelope. As
23
with the return identification envelope provided to all Oregon voters in the November 4, 2014
24
general election, her return identification envelope did not indicate that her ballot would only be
25
opened if the signature on the envelope matched the signature on her voter registration card. Her
26
Page 9 -
COMPLAINT
TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840
ballot has been rejected, and has not been counted in this election. Plaintiff Parchment has an
interest in having her vote counted, and an interest in the outcome of Measure 92. Plaintiff
Parchment has been adversely affected as a result of actions or failures to act taken by Defendant
Tim Scott in Multnomah County, and by actions or failures to act taken by Defendant Kate
Brown, at least in part, in Multnomah County.

27.
6
7
Plaintiff Magnolia Jahnes-Rodgers in an Oregon voter and taxpayer. She is a resident of
Columbia County. She voted by mail in the November 4, 2014 general election. She personally
signed the return identification envelope that she was provided, which contained her completed
10
ballot. She timely returned her ballot in the signed return identification envelope. As with the
11
return identification envelope provided to all Oregon voters in the November 4, 2014 general
12
election, her return identification envelope did not indicate that her ballot would only be opened
13
if the signature on the envelope matched the signature on her voter registration card. Her ballot
14
has been rejected, and has not been counted in this election. Plaintiff Jahnes-Rodgers has an
15
interest in having her vote counted, and an interest in the outcome of Measure 92. Plaintiff
16
Jahnes-Rodgers has been adversely affected as a result of actions or failures to act by Defendant
17
Kate Brown.
28.
18
19
Plaintiff Robin Schapiro is an Oregon voter and taxpayer. He is a resident of Washington
20
County. He voted by mail in the November 4, 2014 general election. He personally signed the
21
return identification envelope that he was provided, which contained his completed ballot. He
22
timely returned his ballot in the signed return identification envelope. As with the return
23
identification envelope provided to all Oregon voters in the November 4, 2014 general election,
24
his return identification envelope did not indicate that his ballot would only be opened if the
25
signature on the envelope matched the signature on his voter registration card. The November 4,
26
Page 10 -
COMPLAINT
TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840
2014 election was the first election in which he had ever voted. After receiving a cure notice
from Washington County elections officials, he twice attempted to cure his signature. The first
time was by mail and the second time was in person at the Washington County elections office.
His ballot has been rejected, and has not been counted in this election. Plaintiff Schapiro has an
interest in having his vote counted, and an interest in the outcome of Measure 92. Plaintiff
Schapiro has been adversely affected as a result of actions or failures to act by Defendant Kate
Brown.
29.
8
9
Plaintiff Cam Bui is an Oregon voter and taxpayer. She is a resident of Washington
10
County. She voted by mail in the November 4, 2014 general election. She personally signed the
11
return identification envelope that she was provided, which contained her completed ballot. She
12
timely returned her ballot in the signed return identification envelope. As with the return
13
identification envelope provided to all Oregon voters in the November 4, 2014 general election,
14
her return identification envelope did not indicate that her ballot would only be opened if the
15
signature on the envelope matched the signature on her voter registration card. Her ballot has
16
been rejected, and has not been counted in this election. Plaintiff Bui has an interest in having
17
her vote counted, and an interest in the outcome of Measure 92. Plaintiff Bui has been adversely
18
affected as a result of actions or failures to act by Defendant Kate Brown.

30.
19
20
21
These plaintiffs are representative of the approximately 4,600 Oregon voters who have
been disenfranchised in the November 4, 2014 general election.
31.
22
23
Plaintiff Vote Yes on Measure 92: We Have a Right to Know Whats in Our Food (Yes
24
on Measure 92) is a political committee duly organized and registered under Oregon law. The
25
26
Page 11 -
COMPLAINT
TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840
committee and its donors and volunteers have an interest in the outcome of Measure 92. The
committees principal place of business is in Multnomah County.

32.
Plaintiff Paige Richardson is an Oregon elector and taxpayer who resides in Clackamas
4
5
County. She is the campaign manager for Yes on Measure 92 and has both a personal and
professional interest in the outcome of Measure 92. To the best of her knowledge and belief, her
vote on Measure 92 was counted.
8
9
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
10
(ORS 246.910 Act or Failure to Act by Secretary of State and County Elections Officials)
11
(Against Both Defendants)

33.
12
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 - 32 as if fully set forth
13
14
herein.
34.
15
16
ORS 246.910(1) provides:
17
20
A person adversely affected by any act or failure to act by the Secretary

of State, a county clerk, a city elections officer or any other county, city or district
official under any election law, or by any order, rule, directive or instruction made
by the Secretary of State, a county clerk, a city elections officer or any other
county, city or district official under any election law, may appeal therefrom to
the circuit court for the county in which the act or failure to act occurred or in
which the order, rule, directive or instruction was made.
21
35.
18
19
22
Plaintiffs Harris, Seals, Alderman, Parchment, Jahnes-Rogers, Schapiro and Bui have
23
been adversely affected by the Secretary of States rules and guidance requiring that signatures
24
on the voters return identification envelope must match the signature on file, because their
25
votes have not been counted.
26
Page 12 -
COMPLAINT
TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840
36.
1
2
Each Plaintiff has been adversely affected by the Secretary of States failure, in her
directive, to instruct county elections officials to accept and count these approximately 4,600
ballots, because each Plaintiff has an interest in the outcome of the recount of Measure 92.
37.
5
6
Plaintiffs Harris, Seals, Alderman and Parchment, who are all residents of Multnomah
County, have been adversely affected by Defendant Tim Scotts failure to count his or her ballot,
which failure occurred in Multnomah County.
38.
10
All Plaintiffs have an interest in the outcome of the recount on Measure 92 and,
11
accordingly, have been adversely affected by Defendant Tim Scotts failure to accept and count
12
the approximately 1,100 uncounted ballots in Multnomah County, because the difference in
13
votes for and against Measure 92 is less than the number of uncounted votes in Multnomah
14
County.
39.
15
16
Pursuant to ORS 246.910, Plaintiffs are entitled to a determination that:
17
(a)
18
19
The Secretary of State and Defendant Tim Scotts actions and failures to act
violate Oregon election law and must be remedied; and,

(b)
Each of the uncounted ballots (except those ballots contained in ballot return
20
envelopes that the Secretary of State and/or local elections officials can establish probable cause
21
were fraudulently signed or forged) must be accepted and counted before the Secretary of State
22
can certify the results of the recount on Measure 92.
23
24
25
26
Page 13 -
COMPLAINT
TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(ORS 28.010, et seq. Declaratory Judgment Act)
(Against Both Defendants)

40.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 - 32 and 34 - 39 as if fully set forth
5
6
herein.
41.
7
8
Pursuant to ORS 28.010 and ORS 28.020, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that:
(a)
10
11
The Secretary of States match requirement violates Oregon law and improperly
disenfranchises Oregon voters.

(b)
County elections officials, including defendant Tim Scott, must include and count
12
all of the outstanding approximately 4,600 ballots, except those ballots contained in ballot return
13
14
were fraudulently signed or forged.
15
16
(c)
The Secretary of State cannot certify the results of the recount of Measure 92 until
the outstanding ballots are counted.

42.
17
18
Pursuant to ORS 28.050 and ORS 28.080, Plaintiffs further request that the Court provide
19
such supplemental and remedial relief as may be necessary to ensure that the ballots are counted
20
and made a part of the final official canvas of votes before the Secretary of State certifies the
21
results of the recount on Measure 92.
22
23
24
25
26
Page 14 -
COMPLAINT
TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(ORS 183.400, et seq. Judicial Review of Agency Order)
(Against Defendant Secretary of State)

43.
4
5
The match requirement contained in the Secretary of States Vote By Mail Procedures
Manual is an administrative rule, adopted pursuant to OAR 165-007-0030. Accordingly, the
match requirement is subject to judicial review under ORS 183.400(2).

44.
8
9
County elections officials, including defendant Tim Scott, applied the match
10
requirement (albeit inconsistently) as set forth in the Secretary of States Vote By Mail
11
Procedures Manual. As a result, Plaintiffs Harris, Seals, Alderman, Parchment, Jahnes-Rogers,
12
Schapiro and Bui, and the approximately other approximately 4,600 disenfranchised Oregon
13
voters, were denied their right to vote as of November 4, 2014.

45.
14
15
The Secretary of States adoption of the match requirement and the county elections
16
officials application of the match requirement adversely affect Plaintiffs Harris, Seals,
17
Parchment, Alderman, Jahnes-Rogers, Schapiro and Bui, and the other approximately 4,600
18
disenfranchised Oregon voters because those Plaintiffs and the other 4,600 disenfranchised
19
Oregon voters have been denied the right to vote. The Secretary of States adoption of the
20
match requirement and the county elections officials application of the match requirement
21
adversely affect all Plaintiffs, because all Plaintiffs have an interest in the outcome of the vote on
22
Measure 92.
46.
23
24
25
Plaintiffs Harris, Seals, Alderman and Parchment were adversely affected in Multnomah
County, where they reside.
26
Page 15 -
COMPLAINT
TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840
47.
Because the Secretary of States adoption of the match requirement exceeds her
statutory authority, the Court should declare the rule invalid, pursuant to ORS 183.400 and ORS
183.480.
48.
5
6
The Secretary of States initial canvass of votes, which incorporated the county election
officials application of the match requirement, is an order in other than a contested case, as
that term is used in the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act.

49.
9
10
The application of the match requirement improperly denies Plaintiffs Harris, Seals,
11
Alderman, Parchment, Jahnes-Rogers, Schapiro and Bui the right to vote and improperly denies
12
all Plaintiffs their right to have the outcome of a statewide ballot measure properly determined.
13
For that reason, pursuant to ORS 183.484(5)(a)(A) the Court should set aside or modify any
14
recount results that do not include the approximately 4,600 ballots that have not been counted
15
(except those ballots contained in ballot return envelopes that the Secretary of State and/or local
16
elections officials can establish probable cause were fraudulently signed or forged). In the
17
alternative, pursuant to ORS 183.484(5)(a)(B), (b) and/or (c), the Court should remand to the
18
Secretary of State any recount that does not include counting of the approximately 4,600 ballots
19
(except those ballots contained in ballot return envelopes that the Secretary of State and/or local
20
elections officials can establish probable cause were fraudulently signed or forged) for further
21
action under a correct interpretation of the law.

50.
22
23
24
The Secretary of States November 26, 2014 Directive is an order in a proceeding in

other than a contested case, subject to review under ORS 183.484.
25
26
Page 16 -
COMPLAINT
TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840
51.
1
2
3
The Secretary of States Directive fails to instruct county elections officials to count the
approximately 4,600 ballots.
52.
4
5
Because the Secretary of States directive fails to take corrective action regarding the
match requirement, and does not require county elections officials to count the approximately
4,600 ballots, the directive exceeds her statutory authority; the Court should declare the directive
invalid, pursuant to ORS 183.400 and ORS 183.480, to the extent the directive does not instruct
county elections officials to count the approximately 4,600 ballots (except those ballots
10
contained in ballot return envelopes that the Secretary of State and/or local elections officials can
11
establish probable cause were fraudulently signed or forged).
12
53.
13
Application of the directive improperly denies Plaintiffs Harris, Seals, Alderman,
14
Parchment, Jahnes-Rogers, Schapiro and Bui their right to vote and improperly denies all
15
Plaintiffs their right to have the outcome of a statewide ballot measure properly determined. For
16
that reason, pursuant to ORS 183.484(5)(a)(A) the Court should set aside or modify any recount
17
results that do not include the approximately 4,600 ballots that have not been counted (except
18
those ballots contained in ballot return envelopes that the Secretary of State and/or local elections
19
officials can establish probable cause were fraudulently signed or forged). In the alternative,
20
pursuant to ORS 183.484(5)(a)(B), (b) and/or (c), the Court should remand to the Secretary of
21
State any recount that does not include counting of the 4,600 ballots (except those ballots
22
23
establish probable cause were fraudulently signed or forged) for further action under a correct
24
interpretation of the law.
25
26
Page 17 -
COMPLAINT
TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840
54.
1
2
Pursuant to ORS 183.486 and ORS 183.490, Plaintiffs further request that the Court
require the Secretary of State to take such supplemental and remedial action as may be necessary
to ensure that the ballots are counted and made a part of the final official canvas of votes before
the Secretary of State certifies the results of the recount on Measure 92.
6
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
7
8
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:
1.
Pursuant to ORS 246.910, a determination that:
10
(a)
The Secretary of State and Defendant Tim Scotts actions and failures to act
11
12
violate Oregon election law and must be remedied; and,

(b)
Each of the uncounted ballots (except those ballots contained in ballot return
13
14
were fraudulently signed or forged) must be counted before the Secretary of State can certify the
15
results of the recount on Measure 92.
16
2.
Pursuant to ORS 28.010 and ORS 28.020, a declaration that:
17
(a)
The Secretary of States match requirement violates Oregon law and improperly
18
19
disenfranchises Oregon voters;

(b)
County elections officials, including defendant Tim Scott, must count all of the
20
outstanding ballots, except those ballots contained in ballot return envelopes that the Secretary of
21
State and/or local elections officials can establish probable cause were fraudulently signed or
22
forged; and,
23
24
(c)
The Secretary of State cannot certify the results of the recount of Measure 92 until
the outstanding ballots are counted.
25
26
Page 18 -
COMPLAINT
TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840
3.
Pursuant to ORS 28.050 and ORS 28.080, such supplemental and remedial relief
as may be necessary to ensure that all of the non-matching ballots are counted and made a part of
the final official canvas of votes before the Secretary of State certifies the results of the recount
on Measure 92.
4.
Pursuant to ORS 183.400, ORS 183.480 and ORS 183.484, a determination:
(a)
That the match rule contained in the Vote By Mail Procedures Manual exceeds
7
8
9
10
11
the Secretary of States statutory authority and cannot be enforced;

(b)
The approximately 4,600 outstanding ballots must be counted (except those
ballots contained in ballot return envelopes that the Secretary of State and/or local elections
officials can establish probable cause were fraudulently signed or forged); and,
(c)
Setting aside or modifying any recount results that do not include the
12
approximately 4,600 ballots that have not been counted (except those ballots contained in ballot
13
return envelopes that the Secretary of State and/or local elections officials can establish probable
14
cause were fraudulently signed or forged); or, in the alternative, remanding to the Secretary of
15
State any recount that does not include counting of the 4,600 ballots (except those ballots
16
17
establish probable cause were fraudulently signed or forged) for further action under a correct
18
interpretation of the law.
19
5.
Pursuant to ORS 183.486 and ORS 183.490, that the Court require the Secretary
20
of State to take such supplemental and remedial action as may be necessary to ensure that all
21
ballots are counted and made a part of the final official canvas of votes before the Secretary of
22
State certifies the results of the recount on Measure 92.
23
24
25
26
Page 19 -
COMPLAINT
TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840
6.
Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
2
3
DATED this 8th day of December, 2014.
5
By: /s/ Steven C. Berman
Steven C. Berman, OSB No. 951769
Keith S. Dubanevich, OSB No. 975200
6
7
10
209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500

Portland, OR 97204
Telephone:
(503) 227-1600
Facsimile:
(503) 227-6840
Email:
sberman@stollberne.com
kdubanevich@stollberne.com
11
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12
Trial Attorney:
8
9
Steven C. Berman
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Page 20 -
COMPLAINT
TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840

GMO Measure Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GMO Measure Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

GEORGE DEWIN HARRIS, CHRISTINE

NOT SUBJECT TO MANDATORY

KATE BROWN, Secretary of State of the

Plaintiffs allege as follows:

not match the signatures on file for those voters.

have been disenfranchised despite any evidence of wrongdoing.

cause of forgery or fraud).

elections officials can establish probable cause of forgery or fraud).

establish probable cause of forgery or fraud).

election has passed.

to them prior to casting their ballots.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS

labeling of genetically modified foods.

I am the person to whom this ballot was issued;

I am legally qualified to vote in the county that issued this ballot;

This is the only ballot I have voted this election; and

I still live at the address printed below.

cast their vote.

Pursuant to the Secretary of States instructions, when a county elections official

approximately 4,600 voters have been disenfranchised.

ballots may be determinative as to whether the measure passes or fails.

Plaintiff George Harris is an Oregon voter and taxpayer. He is a resident of Multnomah

Plaintiff Cameron T. Alderman is an Oregon voter and taxpayer. He is a resident of

part, in Multnomah County.

Brown, at least in part, in Multnomah County.

Plaintiff Magnolia Jahnes-Rodgers in an Oregon voter and taxpayer. She is a resident of

Plaintiff Robin Schapiro is an Oregon voter and taxpayer. He is a resident of Washington

affected as a result of actions or failures to act by Defendant Kate Brown.

committees principal place of business is in Multnomah County.

vote on Measure 92 was counted.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Against Both Defendants)

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 - 32 as if fully set forth

ORS 246.910(1) provides:

A person adversely affected by any act or failure to act by the Secretary

votes have not been counted.

which failure occurred in Multnomah County.

Pursuant to ORS 246.910, Plaintiffs are entitled to a determination that:

violate Oregon election law and must be remedied; and,

can certify the results of the recount on Measure 92.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(ORS 28.010, et seq. Declaratory Judgment Act)

(Against Both Defendants)

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 - 32 and 34 - 39 as if fully set forth

disenfranchises Oregon voters.

were fraudulently signed or forged.

the outstanding ballots are counted.

results of the recount on Measure 92.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(ORS 183.400, et seq. Judicial Review of Agency Order)

(Against Defendant Secretary of State)

Manual is an administrative rule, adopted pursuant to OAR 165-007-0030. Accordingly, the

match requirement is subject to judicial review under ORS 183.400(2).

Procedures Manual. As a result, Plaintiffs Harris, Seals, Alderman, Parchment, Jahnes-Rogers,

voters, were denied their right to vote as of November 4, 2014.

that term is used in the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act.

action under a correct interpretation of the law.

The Secretary of States November 26, 2014 Directive is an order in a proceeding in

establish probable cause were fraudulently signed or forged).

Application of the directive improperly denies Plaintiffs Harris, Seals, Alderman,

interpretation of the law.