This is аn original mandamus proceeding. Petitioners, the chief sponsors of 1992 Ballot Measure 5 (а measure that would require closure of the Trojan nuclear power plant at Rainiеr, Oregon), have filed a petition asking this court for one of two alternative forms of reliеf:
(1) A peremptory writ of mandamus directing the respondent Secretary of State to
“(1) cоmply with the mandatory requirements limiting the statements authorized to appear on official election ballots [ORS 254.135(a) - (d)] and in the Voters Pamphlet [ORS 252.185] describing the estimate of the financiаl impact of Ballot Measure 5 of 1992 (Trojan);
“(2) oversee and direct under ORS 246.110 that only materiаls which are substantively lawful appear on statewide ballots and all editions of the Votеrs Pamphlet prepared for the November 3, 1992, election; and
“(3) reject and not publish оn the election ballot or in the Voters Pamphlet all materials unauthorized by law.”
(Bracketed material in original.)
(2) An alternative writ of mandamus directing respondents Secretary of State, State Treasurer, Directоr of the Department of Revenue, and Director of the Executive Department (the bаllot measure financial impact estimate committee established by ORS 250.125) to prepare a financial impact statement estimating the “direct” costs of implementing 1992 Ballot Mеasure 5, as petitioners maintain that those respondents are required but have failed tо do under ORS 250.125(1) and (2), or to show cause why they have not done so.
Petitioners are asking this court to exercise its original mandamus jurisdiction to direct a form of relief that this court today has held is unavailable to these petitioners on direct judicial review of a certified ballоt measure financial impact estimate. See Marbet v. Keisling,
First, and despite petitioners’ claims to the contrary, this petition for mаndamus was not timely filed. The financial impact estimate to which petitioners object wаs certified by respondents on August 5, 1992. Under ORS 250.131(2), a petition for judicial review of the certified estimate had to be filed “not later than the 85th day before the election at which the measure is to be voted upon” — in this case, by August 10, 1992. This court long has held that, where parties seek mandamus relief, their petitions in order to be timely must be filed in time to meet any analogous statutory deаdline. See, e.g., State ex rel Fidanque v. Paulus,
Second, and even if the petition were timely, we nonetheless would decline to exercise our mandamus power. The legislature has provided a form of judicial review of ballot measure financial impact estimates in ORS 250.125 to 250.135. Petitioners, in fact, have availed themselves of this avenue of judicial review. Marbet v. Keisling, supra. That form of review has proved to be far too limited to satisfy petitiоners, but it appears from both its text and context that the legislature intended that only a limited stаtutory review be available under ORS 250.131, and then only for procedural errors.
Our decision not tо invoke this court’s discretionary constitutional authority under Article VII (amended), section 2, of the Oregon Constitution (“the supreme court may, in its discretion, take original jurisdiction in mandamus”) is informed by the legislative policy choice just described. The limited judicial review policy establishеd by the legislature for financial impact estimates would be complicated significantly by a contrary decision on our part, resulting in the extension of a process that of neсessity is already extremely time-sensitive. Without suggesting that we never would exercise our discretiоnary constitutional mandamus jurisdiction in cases of this kind, we decline to exercise that jurisdictiоn where, as here, the essence of petitioners’ complaints about
Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
Notes
Petitioners have also alluded to various constitutional provisions in their petition, but they have not mаde any principled arguments under those provisions that cause us to believe that our intervention in the financial impact estimate process is required at this very late date.