Case Title: Caruthers v. Kroger

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 2009-06-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
FILED: June 18, 2009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
JERRY CARUTHERS
and LARRY WOLF,
Petitioners,
v.
JOHN R. KROGER,
Attorney General,
State of Oregon,
Respondent.
(SC
S057318)
En Banc
On petition to review
ballot title.
Submitted on the
record May 14, 2009.
Thomas K. Doyle, Bennett,
Hartman, Morris & Kaplan LLP, Portland, filed the petition for petitioners.
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 Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.
WALTERS, J.
The ballot title is referred
to the Attorney General for modification. 
WALTERS, J.
Petitioners challenge the ballot
title for Initiative Petition 37 (2010).  See ORS 250.085(5) (describing
procedure for challenging Attorney General's certified ballot title). We agree
with one of petitioners' challenges and, therefore, refer the ballot title to
the Attorney General for modification.
Initiative Petition 37 (2010), if
adopted, would amend the Oregon Constitution to require that "no measure
which would increase or require an increase in ad valorem property taxes in
excess of $1 million may appear on the ballot, except in a General Election."  
The proposed constitutional amendment provides that "a measure shall be
deemed to increase property taxes in excess of $1 million, if the total amount
of taxes to be levied against all subject properties for the life of the
obligation, including the principle [sic] and interest thereon, exceeds
$1 million."  
The Attorney General certified the
following ballot title for the proposed amendment:
"AMENDS
CONSTITUTION:  MEASURES INCREASING AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES
OVER ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ALLOWED ONLY AT GENERAL ELECTION
"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE:  'Yes' vote requires
all measures increasing ad valorem property taxes beyond one million dollars
over life of obligation to appear only on general election ballot.
"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE:  'No' vote retains
current law allowing approval of measures increasing ad valorem property taxes
at election with fifty-percent voter participation or at general election.
"SUMMARY:  Amends constitution.  Current 'double-majority'
law allows measures increasing ad valorem property taxes to be approved only at
election where at least fifty percent of registered voters cast ballots or at
general election in November of even-numbered year.  Property tax measures
raise money for local government services, including schools, law enforcement,
libraries, parks, other uses.  Measure requires proposals increasing ad valorem
property taxes, where total amount of taxes expected to be levied against all
subject properties for life of obligation exceeds one million dollars, to
appear only on general election ballot; applies to renewal of existing property
taxes.  Proposals for property tax increases of lower amounts still could
appear in other elections and would remain subject to existing 'double-majority'
approval requirement.  Other provisions."
Petitioners are electors who timely
submitted written comments to the Secretary of State concerning the content of
the Attorney General's draft ballot title and who therefore are entitled to
seek review of the resulting certified ballot title in this court. See
ORS 250.085(2) (stating that requirement).  Petitioners challenge the caption
of the Attorney General's ballot title and assert that it does not correctly
identify the subject matter of the amendment, as ORS 250.035(2)(a) requires,
and instead is misleading.  Petitioners relatedly challenge the "yes"
and "no" vote result statements.
The proposed constitutional amendment
applies to measures that increase property taxes, when the taxes to be levied
against all subject properties are expected to exceed $1 million over the
life of obligation.  Petitioners assert that the caption does not make
the emphasized point, viz., that the $1 million threshold refers to the
aggregate taxes that a measure is expected to generate over the entire period
of their payments.  By referring to the $1 million threshold without that specification,
petitioners assert, voters could conclude, incorrectly, that the proposed constitutional
amendment would apply to only measures that levy taxes of more than $1 million
in a single year.  Further, petitioners argue, the $1 million threshold is
meaningless -- most tax proposals are expected to generate an aggregate of more
than $1 million; therefore, under the measure, only the rare tax proposal could
be considered other than at a general election.  
This court reviews a challenge to a ballot
title caption to determine whether the caption "substantially compl[ies]"
with statutory requirements.  ORS 250.085(5).  "The caption must state or
describe the proposed measure's subject matter accurately, and in terms that
will not confuse or mislead potential petition signers and voters."  Kain/Waller
v. Myers, 337 Or 36, 40, 93 P3d 62 (2004) (internal quotation marks
omitted).  The caption "must identify the proposed measure's subject
matter in terms that will, inter alia, inform potential petition signers
and voters of the sweep of the measure."  Terhune v. Myers, 342 Or
475, 479, 154 P3d 1284 (2007).  As this court noted in Rogers v. Myers,
344 Or 219, 223 n 1, 179 P3d 627 (2008), the informational function of the
caption takes on particular importance in light of ORS 254.175(2), which, since
1995, has authorized county clerks to print ballots without displaying the
summary of the certified ballot title.  Or Laws 1995, ch 534, § 1a.  
To be accurate, a caption must not "understate or overstate the scope of the
legal changes that the proposed measure would enact."  Kain/Waller,
337 Or at 40.  We recognize that that is a difficult proposition when the
caption must be limited to 15 words (excluding the words "Amends
Constitution").  ORS 250.035(2)(a).  However, we agree with petitioners
that, in this instance, the caption contains either too much or too little
information and therefore is misleading.  Without further explanation, the
caption's reference to "one million dollars" is likely to produce
voter confusion.  The Attorney General should either eliminate the reference to
the $1 million threshold or clarify that the proposed constitutional amendment
would require that measures increasing property taxes more than $1 million over
the life of the obligation be considered at only general elections.  We
therefore refer the caption to the Attorney General for modification.  
Petitioners also challenge the
caption as failing to indicate that it is the voters who are restricted by the
measure and who therefore are the "true subject" of the measure. 
Certainly, it is the voters who will vote on measures that are subject to the proposed
constitutional amendment, but we do not agree that the caption for this
initiative must directly state that operative fact to satisfy the requirements
of ORS 250.035(2)(a).  
Petitioners' challenges to the "yes"
and "no" vote result statements in the certified ballot title are not
well-taken.  Petitioners contend that those statements contain flaws that are
similar to those in the caption.  However, the "yes" and "no"
statements adequately inform petition signers and voters that the changes that the
measure would impose apply only to measures that seek to increase property
taxes beyond $1 million "over life of obligation."  We also reject petitioners'
argument that the phrase "appear only on a general election ballot"
used in the "yes" statement is inaccurate because the proposed
amendment does not require that any measure appear on the ballot.   Petitioners'
correct statement that the initiative does not require that any measure appear
on the ballot does not render the "yes" statement inaccurate.  Sensibly
read, the "yes" statement correctly informs petition signers and
voters that, when a tax measure does appear on a ballot, it must be on a general
election ballot.  That reading is correct.  We therefore refer the
certified ballot title to the Attorney General for modification of the caption
alone.
The ballot title is referred to the Attorney
General for modification.