Case Title: Caruthers v. Kroger

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 2010-02-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
FILED: February 11, 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
JERRY
CARUTHERS,
Petitioner,
v.
JOHN R.
KROGER,
Attorney General,
State of Oregon,
Respondent.
(SC S057678)
En
Banc
On
petition to review ballot title filed August 10, 2009; considered and under
advisement on November 17, 2009.
Thomas
K. Doyle, Bennett, Hartman, Morris & Kaplan, LLP, Portland, filed the
petition and reply memorandum for petitioner.
Douglas
F. Zier, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the answering memorandum for
respondent.  With him on the memorandum were John R. Kroger, Attorney General,
and Jerome Lidz, Solicitor General.
GILLETTE,
J.
The
ballot title is referred to the Attorney General for modification.
GILLETTE,
J.
Petitioner
seeks review of the certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 43 (2010).  See
ORS 250.085(2) (describing ballot title review process).  Initiative Petition 43
(2010), if approved, would add to the Oregon Constitution's provisions concerning
the collection of voter signatures and the qualification of proposed initiative
and referendum measures for submission to the voters.  We review the certified
ballot title for substantial compliance with statutory requirements.  ORS
250.085(5).
The
complete text of Initiative Petition 43 (2010) is as follows:
"In
order to respect voter participation in the initiative and referendum process,
and in order to ensure the integrity of public officials in reviewing
signatures on petitions, the People add the following provision to Section 1,
Article IV of their Constitution:
"Every
registered voter who has signed an initiative or referendum petition that has
been filed as provided in section (1)(2)(e) or section (1)(3)(b) of this
Article is guaranteed the right to have his or her signature counted for
purposes of determining whether the initiative or referendum petition has
obtained enough signatures to qualify for submission to the voters.  No statute
or rule may restrict this right."
The
Attorney General certified the following ballot title for that proposed
constitutional amendment:
"Amends Constitution: 
Guarantees registered voter right to have signature counted in determining
initiative/referendum qualification for ballot
"Result
of 'Yes' Vote:  'Yes' vote requires every registered voter's signature on
initiative/referendum petitions to be counted in determining if sufficient
number were collected to qualify measure for ballot.
"Result
of 'No' Vote:  'No' vote retains laws regarding acceptance, verification of
signatures on initiative/referendum petitions, including use of statistical
sampling in determining if sufficient number were collected.
"Summary: 
Amends constitution.  Initiative/referendum petitions qualify for submission to
voters only when they are signed by sufficient number of qualified voters;
exact number depends on type of measure.  Currently, laws and administrative
rules establish requirements for signature collection and verification to
prevent fraud, forgery, or improper signature gathering.  Instead of counting
each signature submitted, elections officials use statistical sampling of
signatures from valid petition forms to determine if sufficient number of
qualified voter signatures were collected.  Measure guarantees registered
voters right to have their signatures counted in determining if sufficient
number of signatures were submitted to qualify measure for ballot; prohibits
any statute or administrative rule from restricting this right; may invalidate
existing constitutional provisions, statutes, administrative rules regarding
initiative/referendum petition requirements.  Other provisions."
Petitioner
is an elector who timely submitted comments regarding the draft ballot title, and
who therefore is entitled to challenge the certified ballot title in this
court.  Petitioner contends that the ballot title's caption, its
"yes" and "no" vote result statements, and its summary all are
insufficient.  Before addressing petitioner's specific challenges, however, we describe
briefly the existing legal context in which Initiative Petition 43 (2010), if
it were approved, would apply.
Article
IV, section 1(2)(a), of the Oregon Constitution provides that 
"[t]he people reserve to themselves the initiative
power, which is to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution and enact or
reject them * * *."
Section
(3)(a) of that same Article similarly provides that 
"[t]he people reserve to themselves the referendum
power, which is to approve or reject at an election any Act, or part thereof,
of the Legislative Assembly that does not become effective earlier than 90 days
after the end of the session at which the Act is passed."  
An initiative proposing a statutory
enactment may be brought by filing a petition signed by a number of qualified
voters equal to at least six percent of the total number of votes cast for all
candidates for governor at the last preceding election at which a governor was
elected to a four-year term.  Or Const, Art IV, § 1(2)(b).  An initiative proposing
a constitutional amendment may be initiated by filing a petition signed by a
number of qualified voters equal to at least eight percent of such votes.  Or
Cont, Art IV, § 1(2)(c).  A referendum commenced by petition must be supported
by a petition signed by a number of qualified voters equal to at least four
percent of such votes.(1) 
Or Cont, Art IV, § 1(3)(b).
The
Oregon Constitution also identifies the way in which rules respecting the
initiative and referendum process are to be created.  Article IV, section
1(4)(b), provides:
"Initiative
and referendum measures shall be submitted to the people as provided in this
section and by law not inconsistent therewith."
In
addition, and after referring to "[t]he initiative and referendum powers
reserved to the people by subsections (2) and (3) of this section,"
Article IV, section 1(5), provides, in part:
"The
manner of exercising those powers shall be provided by general laws." 
That is to say, the constitution empowers
the legislature with the authority and responsibility of fleshing out the
process.
Acting
pursuant to the authority granted in the foregoing provisions, the legislature
has enacted a number of statutes that govern, among other things, the
collection and counting of voter signatures on initiative and referendum
petitions.  Several of those statutes are designed to assist in the enforcement
of Article IV, section 1b, of the Oregon Constitution, which the people added
to the Oregon Constitution by initiative in 2002, and which provides:
"It
shall be unlawful to pay or receive money or other thing of value based on the
number of signatures obtained on an initiative or referendum petition.  Nothing
herein prohibits payment for signature gathering which is not based, either
directly or indirectly, on the number of signatures obtained."
In addition, the Secretary of State (who
is charged with the responsibility of overseeing the initiative and referendum
process) has promulgated an extensive set of rules relating to signature
gathering, signature counting, and other parts of the process.  OAR ch 165, div
14.
Under the
pertinent statutes and rules, the Secretary of State currently cannot count any
signature on an initiative or referendum petition sheet (including the
signature of a person who is, in fact, a "qualified voter," as that
term is used in Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution) if the
petition sheet on which the signature appears suffers from any of the following
defects:
(1)  The sheet
is not verified by the person who circulated it (ORS 250.042, OAR 165-014-0030(3)(c),
OAR 165-014-0270);
(2)  The sheet
was circulated for collection of signatures by a paid circulator who was not
registered as such with the Secretary of State (ORS 250.048); 
(3)  The sheet
was circulated during a period of time in which the right to circulate it was
suspended for failure of a chief petitioner to provide certain statutorily
required "accounts" (ORS 260.262(6)(b));
(4)  The petition
being circulated is not the same as the version approved by the Secretary of
State for circulation (OAR 165-014-0030(3)(a));
(5)  The sheets
do not comply with the requirements of ORS 260.567 (prohibiting circulators
from filling in information for petition signers) (OAR 165-014-0030(3)(c), OAR
165-014-0275(2)); or
(6)  The sheet
was circulated by a paid circulator who is unable to produce an identification
and registration badge issued by the Secretary of State (OAR 165-014-0280(5)(c)).(2)
The foregoing statutes
and rules are not the only ones relating to qualifying a proposed initiative or
referendum for the ballot.  Once a number of signatures has been gathered, the
proposed initiative or referendum may be placed on the ballot if a sufficiently
high percentage of them is valid.  Before that placement, however, it is the
duty of the Secretary of State to eliminate signatures and reject signatures
sheets that fail to meet statutory or rule requirements.  When that process is
completed, the Secretary then determines whether there remain sufficient
signatures to place the measure on the ballot.  That action by the Secretary of
State presently does not involve counting each signature individually; instead,
the Secretary uses a scientific sampling method.  See ORS 250.105(2);
OAR 165-014-0030(5) - (16) (stating rules for statistical sampling).
Although some of
the effects of Initiative Petition 43 (2010), should it be enacted by the
people, are not clear, it is clear that the proposed measure is intended to alter
the signature gathering and sampling processes that we have described.  That
conclusion is suggested by the phrase, "in order to ensure the integrity
of public officials in reviewing signatures on petitions," in the first
paragraph of the proposed measure.  And it follows ineluctably from the
statement in the proposed measure that provides:
"Every
registered voter who has signed an initiative or referendum petition * * * is
guaranteed the right to have his or her signature counted for purposes of
determining whether the initiative or referendum petition has obtained enough
signatures to qualify for submission to the voters.  No statute or rule may
restrict this right."
To offer but one example, under present
law, no signature on a particular signature sheet may be considered if the
person who circulated the sheet does not verify it in the manner provided by
law.  ORS 250.042; OAR 165-014-0030(3)(b); OAR 165-014-0270.  The proposed
measure would overturn that restriction by granting every registered voter who
has signed such a sheet a constitutional right to have his or her signature "counted"
for the purpose stated in the proposed measure.  With that understanding
respecting the necessary scope of the proposed measure in mind, we turn again
to the Attorney General's certified ballot title and to petitioner's challenges
to that title.
Every
ballot title must contain a "caption of not more than 15 words that
reasonably identifies the subject matter" of the measure.  ORS 250.035(2)(a). 
Thus, the Attorney General's caption for Initiative Petition 43 (2010) must "substantially
comply" with that standard.  See ORS 250.085(5) (establishing that
standard of judicial review of ballot titles).  For the convenience of the
reader, we repeat the Attorney General's caption here:
"Amends
Constitution:  Guarantees registered voter right to have signature
counted in determining initiative/referendum qualification for ballot"
This court
identifies the true "subject matter" of a proposed measure for
purposes of ORS 250.035(2)(a) by examining the wording of the measure in light
of the existing statutory and constitutional context in which the measure, if
adopted, would be placed.  See, e.g., Novick/Bosak v. Myers,
333 Or 18, 24, 36 P3d 464 (2001) (to that effect).  Petitioner asserts that, in
this case, the Attorney General, instead of independently attempting to
identify the subject matter of the proposed measure, has chosen simply to
repeat the words of the proposed measure in the caption.  That choice,
petitioner insists, obscures the measure's actual subject.  That subject,
petitioner states, is "preventing enforcement of anti-circulator fraud
laws."
Although
we decline to approve petitioner's particular description of the subject of the
proposed measure, we agree with his assertion that the present caption does not
capture the true subject matter of Initiative Petition 43 (2010).  As we have
explained, the subject of the proposed measure is perhaps best identified by noting
the connection between two separate parts of the proposed measure:  The second
clause of the measure's introductory sentence states that the proposed measure
is to be added to Article IV, section 4, of the Oregon Constitution, "in
order to ensure the integrity of public officials in reviewing signatures on
petitions."  The way in which that integrity is to be
"ensured" is then found in the proposed measure's statement that "no
statute or rule" may restrict the "right" of a qualified voter
to have the voter's signature "counted."  From those two provisions,
it becomes clear that the subject of the measure is the removal of impediments
to that counting, whether those impediments be statutory or rule-based.  And
that necessarily means that some of the processes by which signatures presently
are vetted -- processes that can prevent the counting of certain individual
signatures -- are to be set aside and that the legislature is forbidden to
enact substitutes for them.  The Attorney General's caption fails to identify
this subject, which is at the heart of the proposed measure.  The Attorney
General's certified caption, therefore, does not substantially comply with the
requirements of ORS 250.035(2)(a).  The ballot title therefore must be referred
to the Attorney General for modification.  ORS 250.085(8).(3)
We
note at the same time that it also is true, as petitioner argues, that the
Attorney General's caption suffers from another defect.  Petitioner argues that
the Attorney General's use in the caption of a phrase like "right to have
signature counted" unnecessarily introduces a "loaded term" into
the caption, one that is designed to create the impression that certain classes
of signatures arbitrarily are given no weight in the initiative and referendum
process.  The phrase is found in the measure itself.  As petitioner points out,
however, this court previously has been critical of using wording drawn from a
proposed measure in a caption if that wording "is not neutral and might
mislead voters into supporting the proposal without understanding its true
effects."  Mabon v. Myers, 332 Or 633, 638 n 2, 33 P3d 988 (2001),
quoting Earls v. Myers, 330 Or 171, 176, 999 P2d 1134 (2000).  We agree
with petitioner that that same concern is pertinent here.  On referral, the
Attorney General should select other words to identify the proposed measure's
subject. 
ORS 250.035(2)(b)
requires that a ballot title contain "a simple and understandable
statement of not more than 25 words that describes the result" if the measure is approved.  We again set out the
Attorney General's "yes" vote result statement for the proposed
measure:
"Result
of 'Yes' Vote:  'Yes' vote requires every registered voter's signature on
initiative/referendum petitions to be counted in determining if sufficient
number were collected to qualify measure for ballot."
Petitioner argues that the Attorney General's
"yes" vote result statement suffers from the same defects as did the
caption.  We agree.  The "yes" vote result statement must be modified.
ORS
250.035(2)(c) requires that a ballot title contain a "simple and
understandable statement of not more than 25 words that describes the result"
if the measure is rejected.  The Attorney General's "no" vote result
statement provides:
"Result
of 'No' Vote:  'No' vote retains laws regarding acceptance, verification of
signatures on initiative/referendum petitions, including use of statistical
sampling in determining if sufficient number were collected."
Petitioner objects to this part of the
Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Measure 43 (2010) on
different grounds than those asserted concerning other parts of the ballot
title.  He argues that the Attorney General's focus on the "statistical
sampling" practice used by the Secretary of State in counting petition
signatures is too narrow and selective in at least two ways.  First, it ignores
a host of other ways in which the Secretary of State presently tests the
validity of signatures on initiative petitions, including determining whether
the petition circulator was authorized to circulate petitions, whether the
circulator followed the correct procedures, and the like.  Second, it assumes
that the proposed measure, if adopted, necessarily would deny the Secretary of
State the right to use statistical sampling methods to validate (and count)
signatures.  Again, we agree.  On referral, the Attorney General should,
consistent with the word number limitation applicable to this part of the
ballot title, avoid singling out and concentrating on any particular way by
which the Secretary of State limits the eligibility of signatures to be counted,
and avoid making debatable assumptions respecting the effect of passage of the
proposed measure.
The Attorney
General certified the following summary:
"Summary: 
Amends constitution.  Initiative/referendum petitions qualify for submission to
voters only when they are signed by sufficient number of qualified voters;
exact number depends on type of measure.  Currently, laws and administrative
rules establish requirements for signature collection and verification to
prevent fraud, forgery, or improper signature gathering.  Instead of counting
each signature submitted, elections officials use statistical sampling of
signatures from valid petition forms to determine if sufficient number of
qualified voter signatures were collected.  Measure guarantees registered
voters right to have their signatures counted in determining if sufficient
number of signatures were submitted to qualify measure for ballot; prohibits
any statute or administrative rule from restricting this right; may invalidate
existing constitutional provisions, statutes, administrative rules regarding
initiative/referendum petition requirements.  Other provisions."
Under ORS
250.035(2)(d), a ballot title must contain a "concise and impartial
statement of not more than 125 words summarizing the state measure and its
major effect."  The function of that summary is to provide voters with
enough information to understand what will happen if the measure is approved, i.e.,
to advise voters of the "breadth" of a measure's impact.  See Fred
Meyer, Inc. v. Roberts, 308 Or 169, 175, 777 P2d 406 (1989) (stating that
principle).  Petitioner attacks the summary on several grounds.  Petitioner
argues that the summary suffers from some of the same defects from which the
caption and "yes" vote result statement suffer.  We agree that those
same defects are present in the summary.  We hold that the Attorney General's
summary does not comply substantially with the statutory standards established
for such summaries.(4)
Based on the
foregoing analysis of the issues presented by the present ballot title
challenge, we hold that the caption, the "yes" vote result statement,
the "no" vote result statement, and the summary certified by the
Attorney General in his ballot title for Initiative Petition 43 (2010) do not
substantially comply with statutory requirements.  The matter is referred to
the Attorney General for modification of the certified ballot title.
The ballot title
is referred to the Attorney General for modification.
1. A referendum also may be ordered
by the Legislature Assembly, in which case no requirement for signatures of
qualified voters applies.  Or Const, Art IV, § 1(3)(c). 
2. The foregoing list is not
exhaustive, and we make no attempt to itemize the additional provisions
relating to the Secretary of State's authority over circulation of initiative
petition signature sheets found in HB 2005 (2009), which the legislature
enacted at its last session.  Or Laws 2009, ch 533.
3. The
Attorney General argues that petitioner is confusing an alleged effect
of the proposed measure with the measure's subject matter, while
the focus of the caption is supposed to be on the latter.  See, e.g.,
Kain v. Myers, 335 Or 228, 233, 64 P3d 1129 (2003) (focusing on that
distinction).  We think, however, that the two concepts are the same for the
purposes of this narrowly focused measure.
4. We
reject, without discussion, an alternative argument that petitioner offers in
connection with the summary.