Case Title: Nesbitt v. Myers

Citation: 

Docket Number: S46043

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1999-04-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
Filed:  April 15, 1999

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

TIM NESBITT,

	Petitioner,

	v.

HARDY MYERS,

Attorney General,

State of Oregon,

	Respondent.

(SC S46043)

	En Banc

	On petition to review ballot title.

	Argued and submitted March 16, 1999.

	Steve Novick, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner.  

B. Carlton Grew, Salem, filed the petition.

	Douglas Zier, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the
cause and filed the answering memorandum for respondent.  With
him on the answering memorandum were Hardy Myers, Attorney
General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.

	GILLETTE, J.

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

		GILLETTE, J.

		This is a ballot title review proceeding.  Petitioner
is an elector who submitted timely written comments on the draft
ballot title, as provided in ORS 250.067(1).  He therefore is
entitled to seek this court's review.  ORS 250.085(2). 
Petitioner asserts that three parts of the Attorney General's
ballot title, viz., the caption, "yes"-vote result statement, and
summary, do not substantially comply with the requirements of law
and must be modified.  We agree with petitioner's assertion that
the caption and "yes"-vote result statement are legally
insufficient.  We therefore modify the Attorney General's ballot
title.

		This case is best understood when placed in its
historical context.  In the 1998 general election, voters
approved Ballot Measure 63.  That measure amended the Oregon
Constitution to require that, in all future elections for
initiated or referred measures,

	"[a]ny measure that includes any proposed requirement
for more than a majority of votes cast by the
electorate to approve any change in law or government
action shall become effective only if approved by at
least the same percentage of voters specified in the
proposed voting requirement."

The following explanation of the measure's purpose and function
appeared in the measure itself:  "The purpose of this section is
to prevent greater-than-majority voting requirements from being
imposed by only a majority of the voters."  Put differently, if a
measure proposes to create a so-called "supermajority"
requirement for certain kinds of governmental actions, that
measure itself must be approved by the same "supermajority" of
voters.

	The measure at issue in this case is designed to modify
the effect of Ballot Measure 63.  It would add the following
provision to the Oregon Constitution: 

"Notwithstanding any provision of this
Constitution which states that a measure which requires
more than a majority of voters to approve a change of
law or government action must be approved by at least
that same percentage of voters, an amendment to this
Constitution, which requires two-thirds voter approval
for most new or increased taxes and/or fees, shall be
effective if approved by a majority of the voters
voting in an election held on or after Nov. 7, 2000."

In other words, the proposed measure would permit a proposal to
require a two-thirds majority to approve increases in taxes or
fees to be added to the Oregon Constitution by a simple majority
of voters.

		The Attorney General certified the following ballot
title:

"AMENDS CONSTITUTION:  MAJORITY MAY PASS 

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT REQUIRING 2/3 VOTE ON TAXES

		"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE:  'Yes' vote eliminates 2/3
vote requirement to pass constitutional amendment
requiring 2/3 vote on taxes.

		"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE:  'No' vote retains
constitutional requirement that equal supermajority
approve measures mandating supermajority approval for
passage.

		"SUMMARY:  Amends constitution.  In 1998, voters
approved constitutional amendment requiring measures
establishing greater-than-majority voter approval
requirements to be passed by the same percentage
specified in the proposed measure.  For example,
measures imposing a 2/3 voter approval requirement to
adopt law require a 2/3 vote to pass.  This measure
would amend the constitution to allow simple majority
of voters to adopt a constitutional amendment requiring
2/3 voter approval for most new or increased taxes and
fees.  Applies to elections on or after November 7,
2000."

		As noted, petitioner challenges the ballot title's
certified caption, "yes" result statement, and summary.  Our task
is to determine whether those parts of the Attorney General's
certified ballot title substantially comply with statutory
requirements.  See ORS 250.035(2) (prescribing content of ballot
title for statewide measure); ORS 250.085(5) (providing this
court's standard of review). 

		Petitioner first argues that the Attorney General's
caption does not "reasonably identif[y] the subject matter of the
* * * measure," as ORS 250.035(2)(a) requires.  The caption is
inadequate in two separate ways, petitioner asserts:  (1) it
fails to use words such as "repeal," "override," or "eliminate,"
to highlight the fact that the proposed measure will repeal
partially the constitutional rule adopted in Ballot Measure 63;
and (2) it fails to mention "fees," although the proposed measure
speaks of requiring a two-thirds voter majority "for most new or
increased taxes and/or fees."  (Emphasis added.)

		We disagree with petitioner's first argument.  The
proposed measure affirmatively authorizes a simple majority of
voters to approve particular kinds of constitutional amendments. 
It is accurate to say that the proposed measure is an amendment
to, rather than a "repeal," "override," or "elimination" of, a
part of the Oregon Constitution.  Thus, the Attorney General's
caption cannot be invalidated on that basis.

		Petitioner's alternative argument, however, is well
taken.  The proposed measure addresses both "taxes" and "fees." 
The Attorney General's caption mentions only "taxes," thereby
creating the impression that the measure is about taxes only. 
That is inaccurate and, therefore, the Attorney General's caption
fails substantially to comply with the requirement of ORS
250.035(2)(a), if it is possible either to mention both taxes and
fees within the 10-word limitation imposed on captions or,
alternatively, to mention neither but instead use some other text
that conveys more accurately the scope of the proposed measure.

		We believe that the following caption cures the
inadequacy of the Attorney General's caption:  "AMENDS
CONSTITUTION:  SIMPLE MAJORITY MAY REQUIRE 2/3 VOTER APPROVAL
REGARDING TAXES, FEES."  That caption accurately and
affirmatively describes what the proposed measure will do.

		Petitioner next challenges the "yes" vote result
statement on the ground, inter alia, that it does not mention
"fees."  For the reasons already expressed, we agree with
petitioner that the statement does not substantially comply with
the requirements of law -- in this case, ORS 250.035(2)(b) --
because it fails to mention fees.  The following statement
complies with the pertinent requirements:  "'Yes' vote eliminates
2/3 vote requirement for constitutional amendment requiring 2/3
vote on taxes, fees."

		Finally, petitioner argues that the Attorney General's
summary would "better" convey the effect of the measure, if
adopted, if one sentence in the summary were modified slightly. 
An argument that the summary would be "better" is not an argument
that the Attorney General's summary is legally insufficient.  We
decline to consider that argument further.

		For the foregoing reasons, we modify the Attorney
General's ballot title and certify the following ballot title to
the Secretary of State:

		AMENDS CONSTITUTION:  SIMPLE MAJORITY MAY REQUIRE
2/3 VOTER APPROVAL REGARDING TAXES, FEES
		RESULT OF "YES" VOTE:  "Yes" vote eliminates 2/3
vote requirement for constitutional amendment requiring
2/3 vote on taxes, fees.

		RESULT OF "NO" VOTE:  "No" vote retains
constitutional requirement that equal supermajority
approve measures mandating supermajority approval for
passage.

		SUMMARY:  Amends constitution.  In 1998, voters
approved constitutional amendment requiring measures
establishing greater-than-majority voter approval
requirements to be passed by the same percentage specified
in the proposed measure.  For example, measures imposing a
2/3 voter approval requirement to adopt law require a 2/3
vote to pass.  This measure would amend the constitution to
allow simple majority of voters to adopt a constitutional
amendment requiring 2/3 voter approval for most new or
increased taxes and fees.  Applies to elections on or after
November 7, 2000.

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