Case Title: Towers v. Myers

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 2006-09-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
FILED: September 8, 2006
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
ART TOWERS,
Petitioner,
v.
HARDY MYERS,
Attorney General,
State of Oregon,
Respondent.
(SC S53591)
En Banc
On petition to review ballot title.
Submitted on the record August 8, 2006.
Steven C. Berman, Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Schlachter,
P.C., Portland, filed the petition and reply for petitioner.
Denise G. Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, Salem,
filed the answering memorandum for respondent.  With her on the
answering memorandum were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary
H. Williams, Solicitor General.
Kistler, J.
Ballot title referred to Attorney General for modification.
KISTLER, J.
Petitioner seeks review of the Attorney General's
certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 18 (2008).  See
ORS 250.085(2) (specifying requirements for seeking review of
certified ballot titles).  This court reviews the certified
ballot title to determine whether it substantially complies with
ORS 250.035(2).  See ORS 250.085(5) (stating standard of review).
Article XVII, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution
provides that either the legislature or the people, exercising
the initiative power, may amend the constitution.  It sets out
both the terms on which they may amend the constitution and the
procedures for doing so.  It provides, in part:
"The votes for and against such amendment, or
amendments, severally, whether proposed by the
legislative assembly or by initiative petition, shall
be canvassed by the secretary of state in the presence
of the governor, and if it shall appear to the governor
that the majority of the votes cast at said election on
said amendment, or amendments, severally, are cast in
favor thereof, it shall be his duty forthwith after
such canvass, by his proclamation, to declare the said
amendment, or amendments, severally, having received
said majority of votes to have been adopted by the
people of Oregon as part of the Constitution thereof,
and the same shall be in effect as a part of the
Constitution from the date of such proclamation.  When
two or more amendments shall be submitted in the manner
aforesaid to the voters of this state at the same
election, they shall be so submitted that each
amendment shall be voted on separately."
Or Const, Art XVII, § 1.  Initiative Petition 18, if enacted,
would exempt initiated constitutional amendments from the
substantive and procedural requirements of Article XVII,
section 1. (1)
The Attorney General certified the following ballot
title for Initiative Petition 18:
"AMENDS CONSTITUTION: AMENDS PROVISION FOR
AMENDING CONSTITUTION BY INITIATIVE, BYPASSES SEPARATE
VOTE REQUIREMENT FOR EACH SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENT
"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE: 'Yes' vote amends the
constitutional provision for amendments as to initiated
amendments only; bypasses current requirement of a
separate vote for each substantive constitutional
amendment.
"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE: 'No' vote retains current
law applicable both to initiated amendments and
amendments referred by the legislature, retains
requirement of separate vote on each substantive
amendment.
"SUMMARY: Amends constitution.  Currently, the
Oregon Constitution contains a provision for
constitutional amendments that is applicable both to
proposed amendments by initiative petition and to
proposed amendments referred to the people by the
legislature.  When two or more amendments that are not
closely related are submitted, each amendment must be
voted on separately.  The current provision also
specifies the manner by which constitutional amendment
that is approved by the electorate becomes law.  This
measure repeals current provision as to constitutional
amendments initiated by citizen petition.  If this
measure is passed, initiated constitutional amendments
would not be subject to the separate vote requirement,
and constitutional provision for canvassing votes and
declaring amendment to be part of constitution would
not apply.  Statutory procedures would still apply. 
Other provisions."
Petitioner challenges the caption, the "yes" vote result
statement, the "no" vote result statement, and the summary.
A ballot title caption must contain "not more than 15
words that reasonably identif[y] the subject matter of the state
measure."  ORS 250.035(2)(a).  Petitioner argues that the
certified caption fails to comply with that requirement in three
respects.  He contends that (1) the caption fails to identify the
full impact of the proposed measure; (2) the caption is
"confusing and uninformative"; and (3) the caption unduly
emphasizes one aspect of the proposed measure -- its effect on
the separate-vote requirement.
Petitioner's first and third arguments rest on the same
proposition.  He argues that, even though Article XVII, section
1, sets out three requirements for constitutional amendments, the
caption focuses on only one of those requirements.  As petitioner
notes, Article XVII, section 1, specifies the method by which the
Secretary of State will canvas votes for and against those amendments; it provides for the Governor's proclamation when an
amendment receives a majority of votes; and it requires a
separate vote on each amendment.  The proposed measure, if
adopted, would exempt future initiated constitutional amendments
from those requirements. 
Petitioner is correct that the caption focuses on only
one of those requirements.  As noted, the caption provides:
"AMENDS CONSTITUTION:  AMENDS PROVISION FOR AMENDING
CONSTITUTION BY INITIATIVE, BYPASSES SEPARATE VOTE
REQUIREMENT FOR EACH SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENT."
As written, the caption consists of two parallel verb phrases. 
The first phrase is general; the second, specific.  The second
phrase -- "bypasses separate vote requirement for each
substantive amendment" -- appears to describe the first phrase
("amends provision for amending constitution by initiative");
that is, the second phrase implies that the only amendment that
the proposed measure would make to Article XVII, section 1, is to
exempt initiated constitutional amendments from the separate-vote
requirement.
When the Attorney General chooses to describe the
subject matter of a proposed measure by listing some of its
effects, he runs the risk that the caption will be underinclusive
and thus inaccurate.  See Kain v. Myers, 336 Or 116, 121, 79 P3d
864 (2003) (describing problem).  In this case, the caption is
underinclusive because it describes only one of several changes
that the proposed measure would make to Article XVII, section 1.
The Attorney General responds that the caption is not
inaccurate; in his view, the omitted information is not material
because existing statutes still would define the procedures that
the Secretary of State and the Governor must follow.  However, a
statutory requirement differs from a constitutional one.  The
legislature may change the former whenever it chooses.  The
latter requirement binds the legislature.  The fact that a
statute may prescribe a particular procedure does not excuse the
Attorney General from describing parallel constitutional
protections that a proposed measure would repeal.  Because the
certified caption is both underinclusive and inaccurate, we refer
it to the Attorney General for modification.  See, e.g., Terhune
v. Myers, 338 Or 554, 558-59, 112 P3d 1188 (2005) (phrase "ballot
measure" in summary was underinclusive and thus inaccurate
because it failed to disclose that proposed measure would apply
to both initiative petitions and ballot measures).
Petitioner also challenges the "yes" and "no" vote
result statements.  ORS 250.035(2)(b) and (c) require two "simple
and understandable statement[s] of not more than 25 words" that
describe the result if a state measure is approved and if it is
rejected.  The certified ballot title provides:
"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE:  'Yes' vote amends the
constitutional provision for amendments as to initiated
amendments only; bypasses current requirement of a
separate vote for each substantive constitutional
amendment."
"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE:  'No' vote retains current
law applicable both to initiated amendments and
amendments referred by the legislature, retains
requirement of separate vote on each substantive
amendment."
Petitioner raises the same challenge to the "yes" and
"no" vote result statements that he raised to the caption; that
is, he argues that each statement is underinclusive because it
focuses on the separate-vote requirement to the exclusion of the
other changes that the proposed measure would make.  We agree,
for the reasons stated above, that both vote result statements
are underinclusive and thus inaccurate.  We refer them to the
Attorney General for modification.
Finally, petitioner challenges the summary.  ORS
250.035(2)(d) requires "[a] concise and impartial statement of
not more than 125 words summarizing the state measure and its
major effect."  Petitioner argues that the summary is deficient
in two respects.  He argues initially that the summary places
undue emphasis on the separate-vote requirement.  On that issue,
the summary specifically identifies the other protections, in
addition to the separate-vote requirement, that would not apply
to initiated amendments if the proposed measure were adopted. 
That is sufficient to constitute substantial compliance with ORS
250.035(2).
Petitioner raises an alternative argument.  He notes
that the summary states that, if the measure is adopted,
"[s]tatutory procedures would still apply."  See ORS 254.555(2)
(specifying procedures that Secretary of State and Governor must
follow after people vote on ballot measures).  Petitioner
contends that the legislature might lack the authority to enact
those statutes if the measure is adopted.  As the Attorney
General notes, however, petitioner has not identified anything in
the proposed measure that would call into question the
legislature's authority to enact those statutory procedures.  In
the absence of any identified limitation on the legislature's
authority to enact ORS 254.555, petitioner's argument fails.  See
MacPherson v. DAS, 340 Or 117, 127, 130 P3d 308 (2006) (state
legislature has plenary power to enact statutes unless limited by
the state constitution or federal law).
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the
Attorney General must modify the caption, the "yes" vote result
statement, and the "no" vote result statement.  We refer the
ballot title to the Attorney General for modification.  ORS
250.085(8); Flanagan v. Myers, 332 Or 318, 323-25, 30 P3d 408
(2001) (explaining why referral is appropriate).
Ballot title referred to Attorney General for
modification.
APPENDIX
The proposed ballot measure provides:
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OREGON:
The Constitution of the State of Oregon is amended by adding new
language to Section 1 of Article XVII.  The language of the
existing Section 1 is printed in regular type and the language to
be added is printed in bold type.  The amended Section 1 of
Article XVII shall read as follows:
Section 1.  Method of amending Constitution.  Any
amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be proposed in
either branch of the legislative assembly, and if the same [sic]
be agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each of
the two houses, such proposed amendment or amendments shall, with
the yeas and nays thereon, be entered in their journals and
referred by the secretary of state to the people for their
approval or rejection, at the next regular general election,
except when the legislative assembly shall order a special
election for that purpose.  If a majority of the electors voting
on any such amendment shall vote in favor thereof, it shall
thereby become [sic] part of this Constitution.  The votes for an
[sic] against such amendment, or amendments, severally, whether
proposed by the legislative assembly or by initiative petition,
shall be canvassed by the secretary of state in the presence of
the governor, and if it shall appear to the governor that the
majority of the votes cast at said election on said amendment, or
amendments, severally, are cast in favor thereof, it shall be his
duty forthwith after such canvas [sic], by his proclamation, to
declare the said amendment, or amendments, severally, having
received a [sic] majority of votes to have been adopted by the
people of Oregon as part of the Constitution thereof, and the
same shall be in effect as [sic] part of the Constitution from
the date of such proclamation.  When two or more amendment [sic]
shall be submitted in the manner aforesaid to the voters of this
state at the same election, they shall be so submitted that each
amendment shall be voted on separately.  No convention shall be
called to amend or propose amendments to this Constitution, or to
propose a new Constitution, unless the law providing for such
convention shall first be approved by the people on a referendum
vote at a regular general election.  This article shall not be
construed to impair the right of the people to amend this
Constitution by vote on an initiative petition therefore [sic]. 
This section shall apply only to Amendments referred to the
People by the State Legislative Assembly and shall not apply to
initiative petitions.  This section shall not be used to prevent
or delay the circulation of an initiative petition, the
canvassing of the vote on a measure, or to invalidate an
initiative measure, which voters have approved.
1. A copy of the proposed measure is attached as an
appendix to this opinion.  The proposed measure purports to set
out the existing text of Article XVII, section 1, before setting
out the text that the measure would add to that section.  The
proposed measure, however, does not set out the existing text of
Article XVII, section 1, accurately.  We have inserted the word
"sic" in the proposed measure to indicate any error in
reproducing the existing constitutional text.