Case Title: Blitz v. Neuner

Citation: 194 Or. 1, 240 P.2d 1193

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1952-02-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
Demurrer overruled; new ballot title certified February 11, 1952.
*2 John A. Laing, of Portland, argued the cause for appellants. On the brief were Laing, Gray & Smith, Gerald J. Norville, and Pipes & McKenna, all of Portland.
George Neuner, Attorney General, and Cecil H. Quesseth, Assistant Attorney General, of Salem, argued the cause and filed a brief for defendant.
DEMURRER OVERRULED; NEW BALLOT TITLE CERTIFIED.
PER CURIAM.
The petitioners are persons who are dissatisfied with the short ballot title which has been prepared by the Attorney General for a proposed initiative measure which was filed with the Secretary of State on 14 January 1952. The short ballot title so prepared reads as follows: "CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RELATING TO ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR". The nature *3 of the proposed constitutional amendment is indicated in the "general title" which reads as follows:
Pursuant to the provisions of OCLA, § 81-2106, the petitioners have appealed to this Court from the decision of the Attorney General in preparing the short ballot title and assert that it is insufficient and unfair for the following reasons:
1. The "ballot title" comprehends both the short title and the general title. Dodd v. Neuner, Attorney General et al, 188 Or 510, 216 P2d 670. The statute provides that:
This provision applies to the short as well as to the general title. The same section provides that:
2. In Richardson v. Neuner, 183 Or 558, 194 P2d 989, this Court enumerated the general tests to be applied in reviewing the quasi-judicial activity of the Attorney General in preparing ballot titles. We are to determine whether he:
3. In our most recent decision on this subject we held that by using the word "distinctive" the legislature intended:
4. The sufficiency of the short title "CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RELATING TO ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR" must be determined by the application of the statutory language as construed in the cases cited supra. The short title states the subject-matter of the constitutional amendment but does not state its purpose. It does not contain any words by which the measure is, or will be, commonly referred to or spoken of. We doubt if there are a dozen normal adults in the state who do not understand what is *6 meant by a prohibition law, or who would not readily identify the proposed measure as a prohibition law, and we doubt if anyone outside of a court room would say that a prohibition measure is commonly referred to or spoken of as an act "relating to alcoholic liquor." There is a real distinction between regulatory and prohibitory acts and in the instant case it is entirely possible to make that distinction clear in the short title. The principle involved here is identical to that with which we dealt in Allen v. Van Winkle et al, 136 Or 173, 298 P 241. In that case the short title prepared by the Attorney General was as follows: "Rogue River Commercial Fishing Bill." That title was broad enough to cover any type of regulation. The real purpose of the act was to prohibit commercial fishing. Upon appeal to this Court we held that the proposed title might reasonably result in misleading the voters and would tend towards confusion. We therefore certified to the Secretary of State a new short title as follows: "A Bill Prohibiting Commercial Fishing on the Rogue River." The decision in that case is controlling here. The following short title is therefore certified by us to the Secretary of State: PROHIBITION AMENDMENT TO OREGON CONSTITUTION. There being no appeal from the "general title," it is hereby certified as prepared by the Attorney General.
The demurrer to the petition is overruled.