Case Title: Hunnicutt v. Myers

Citation: 

Docket Number: S44819

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1998-01-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
Filed:  January 23, 1998

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

DAVID J. HUNNICUTT,		

	Petitioner, 

	v.		

HARDY MYERS, Attorney General,	

State of Oregon,	

	Respondent.

(SC S44819)

	On petition to review ballot title.

	Argued and submitted January 8, 1998.

	David J. Hunnicutt, Portland, argued the cause and filed the
petition pro se.

	Janet Metcalf, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the
cause and filed the response for respondent.  With her on the
response were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D.
Reynolds, Solicitor General.

	Before Carson, Chief Justice, Gillette, Van Hoomissen,
Graber, Durham, and Kulongoski, Justices.*

	GILLETTE, J.	

	Ballot title certified as modified.  This decision shall
become effective in accordance with ORAP 11.30(10).

	*Fadeley, J., did not participate in the consideration or
decision of this case.

		GILLETTE, J.

		In this ballot title review proceeding, petitioner(1)
challenges the legal sufficiency of the caption and result
statements in a ballot title certified by the Attorney General
for Measure 57 (the proposed measure).  For the reasons that
follow, we modify the Attorney General's ballot title in certain
respects and, as modified, certify it.

		The proposed measure would amend the Oregon
Constitution by adding a new section 34 to Article IV.  The new
section is extensive, but may be summarized as creating a process
by which the legislature would be required to review, and approve
or reject, certain administrative rules.  That process would be
triggered when a specified number of interested persons filed a
petition with the Secretary of State, seeking review of an
administrative rule identified in the petition.  The proposed
measure also describes how the legislature shall conduct its
review and provides for approval or disapproval of the rule,
either in whole or in part.

		The Attorney General certified the following ballot
title for the proposed measure:

"AMENDS CONSTITUTION: ADMINISTRATIVE RULES INVALID

ABSENT LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL AFTER QUALIFYING 

VOTERS' PETITION

		"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE: 'Yes' vote makes
administrative rules invalid without legislature's
approval upon filing of qualifying voters' petition.

		"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE: 'No' vote keeps system not
requiring legislative approval for administrative rules
to remain in effect.

		"SUMMARY: Amends constitution.  Current law does
not require legislative review of administrative rules. 
Measure allows voters to require legislative review of
administrative rules at next regular session when
petition, signed by specified number of voters, is
filed listing affected rules.  Rule remains effective
until reviewed by legislature, but rule ceases to be in
effect unless approved.  If governor vetoes bill, rule
is disapproved unless legislature overrides veto.  If
rule is not approved, state agency may adopt new rule
on same issue, but legislative review is required."

		This court reviews the Attorney General's ballot title
to determine whether, in the face of petitioner's challenges, the
ballot title is in "substantial compliance" with the requirements
of ORS 250.035.  ORS 250.085(5).  Petitioner here asserts that
both the caption and the "yes" and "no" result statements in the
Attorney General's certified ballot title fail that legal test.

		At oral argument, counsel for the Attorney General
acknowledged (with commendable candor) that the Attorney
General's caption fails the statutory test, in that it emphasizes
certain effects of the measure, rather than stating the measure's
"subject."  See Phillips v. Myers, 325 Or 221, 226, 936 P2d 964
(1997) (error to describe in the caption one effect, among many,
of a measure, when office of caption is to state "subject" of
measure).  We agree with that concession.  An appropriate and
neutral caption should state that the proposed measure creates a
process whose object is to permit citizens to require review by
the legislature of certain administrative rules.  Accordingly, we
modify the Attorney General's caption as follows:

"AMENDS CONSTITUTION: CREATES PROCESS FOR

REQUIRING LEGISLATURE TO REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE RULES"

		Our modification of the Attorney General's caption
requires a conforming modification to the Attorney General's
"yes" result statement:

		"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE: 'Yes' vote creates process
for petitioning legislature to require its review of
administrative rules."

		No similar modification of the "no" result statement is
required; it was and remains sufficient under the statutory
criteria.  As noted, petitioner does not challenge the Attorney
General's summary.

		We certify the following ballot title for the proposed
measure to the Secretary of State pursuant to ORS 250.085(5):

AMENDS CONSTITUTION: CREATES PROCESS FOR
REQUIRING LEGISLATURE TO REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

		RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "Yes" vote creates process
for petitioning legislature to require its review of
administrative rules.

		RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "No" vote keeps system not
requiring legislative approval for administrative rules
to remain in effect.

		SUMMARY: Amends constitution.  Current law does
not require legislative review of administrative rules. 
Measure allows voters to require legislative review of
administrative rules at next regular session when
petition, signed by specified number of voters, is
filed listing affected rules.  Rule remains effective
until reviewed by legislature, but rule ceases to be in
effect unless approved.  If governor vetoes bill, rule
is disapproved unless legislature overrides veto.  If
rule is not approved, state agency may adopt new rule
on same issue, but legislative review is required.

		Ballot title certified as modified.  This decision
shall become effective in accordance with ORAP 11.30(10).

1. 	Petitioner is a person who, pursuant to the provisions
of ORS 250.067(1), timely submitted written comments respecting
the Attorney General's proposed ballot title for the proposed
measure.  Petitioner therefore is entitled to maintain the
present proceeding.  ORS 250.085(2).