Case Title: Dixon v. Rosenblum

Citation: 

Docket Number: S062043

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 2014-05-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
Filed:  May 8, 2014 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 
 
FRANK DIXON, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
 
ELLEN ROSENBLUM, 
Attorney General, State of Oregon, 
Respondent. 
 
S062043 (Control) 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
MARK FROHNMAYER 
and DAVID FROHNMAYER, 
Petitioners, 
v. 
 
ELLEN ROSENBLUM, 
Attorney General, State of Oregon, 
Respondent. 
 
S062046 
 
 
En Banc 
 
 
On petitions to review ballot title filed February 14, 2014; considered and under 
advisement on April 8, 2014. 
 
 
Roy Pulvers, Holland & Knight, LLP, Portland, filed the petition and response for 
petitioner Dixon. 
 
 
Gregory A. Chaimov, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, Portland, filed the petition 
and response for petitioners Frohnmayer. 
 
 
Matthew J. Lysne, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the answering 
memorandum.  With him on the memorandum were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney 
General, and Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General. 
 
 
LANDAU, J. 
 
 
 
Ballot title referred to Attorney General for modification. 
1 
 
 
LANDAU, J.  
1 
 
 
Petitioners seek review of the ballot title for Initiative Petition 38 (2014) (IP 
2 
38), arguing that the ballot title does not satisfy the requirements of ORS 250.035(2).  We 
3 
review a certified ballot title to determine whether it substantially complies with those 
4 
statutory requirements.  ORS 250.085(5).  For the reasons that follow, we refer the ballot 
5 
title to the Attorney General for modification. 
6 
 
 
IP 38, if adopted, would alter the Oregon primary election process for 
7 
certain partisan offices, denominated "voter choice offices."  Those offices are United 
8 
States Senator, Congressional Representative, Governor, Secretary of State, State 
9 
Treasurer, Attorney General, state Senator, state Representative, and any state, county, 
10 
city, or district partisan office for which the law currently authorizes political party 
11 
nominations to the general election.  Under current law, major parties nominate 
12 
candidates to the general election through party primaries.  Minor parties and 
13 
independents nominate their candidates directly to the general election ballot.  Under IP 
14 
38, all candidates for affected partisan offices -- whether from a major party, a minor 
15 
party, or an independent -- would appear on a primary ballot.  Every voter then would be 
16 
authorized to vote for one or more of the candidates for each office.  Specifically, the 
17 
proposed measure provides that "[a] voter may vote for as many of the listed candidates 
18 
as the voter chooses, and in so doing may cast votes for more than one candidate for a 
19 
single * * * office, provided that the voter may not cast more than one vote for any 
20 
individual candidate."  The two candidates who receive the greatest number of votes for 
21 
each office would then "be the sole candidates who advance to the general election."   
22 
2 
 
 
IP 38 also would alter the way ballots are to be printed in primary elections.  
1 
If passed, the measure would require election clerks to print on primary and general 
2 
election ballots the name of each candidate, followed by his or her political affiliation, if 
3 
any, and the name of any major or minor party that has officially endorsed the candidate. 
4 
 
 
In addition, IP 38 would modify the process for filling vacancies in partisan 
5 
offices.  In particular, it would eliminate the current requirement a that person filling a 
6 
vacancy be affiliated with the same political party as that of the person leaving office. 
7 
 
 
IP 38 would modify the election process in other less significant ways, as 
8 
well, by changing the process by which minor political parties qualify, and setting the 
9 
dates for primary and general elections. 
10 
 
 
The Attorney General certified the following ballot title for IP 38: 
11 
"Changes general election nominating process: provides one common primary 
12 
ballot; unlimited votes; top two advance 
13 
 
14 
"Result of 'Yes' Vote: 'Yes' vote replaces current general election 
15 
nomination process for most partisan offices; all candidates listed on 
16 
common primary ballot; vote one or more; two advance. 
17 
"Result of 'No' Vote: 'No' vote retains current general election nomination 
18 
processes: party primaries for major parties; no common primary ballot; 
19 
vote limitations; multiple candidates on general election ballot. 
20 
"Summary: Currently, voters are limited to voting for one candidate for 
21 
each office in primary elections; multiple candidates may appear for each 
22 
office on general election ballot.  Major parties nominate candidates 
23 
through party primaries with separate ballots for each.  Measure replaces 
24 
that system for most partisan offices, including many federal (not 
25 
presidential), all state, county, city, district partisan offices, Primary ballot 
26 
will list all candidates for each office.  Voters may vote for as many 
27 
candidates as they like for each office, regardless of party affiliation of 
28 
voter/candidate.  Only top two candidates will appear on general election 
29 
ballot; may be from same party.  Primary, general election ballots must 
30 
3 
contain candidates' party registration/endorsements.  Eligible person, 
1 
regardless of party, may be selected to fill vacancy.  Other provisions. 
 
2 
 
 
Two sets of petitioners challenge the certified ballot title.  In case number 
3 
S062043, petitioner is Frank Dixon, an elector of the state who timely submitted written 
4 
comments to the Attorney General's draft ballot title and is therefore entitled to seek 
5 
review of the certified ballot title.  See ORS 250.085(2) (stating that requirement).  In 
6 
case number S062046, petitioners Mark Frohnmayer and David Frohnmayer are likewise 
7 
electors of the state who timely submitted written comments to the Attorney General's 
8 
draft ballot title and are entitled to seek review, as well.  Id.  Those petitioners 
9 
collectively advance a number of challenges to the certified ballot title for IP 38.  We 
10 
write to address five of those challenges. 
11 
 
 
First, petitioner Dixon contends generally that, because IP 38 is similar to 
12 
Ballot Measure 65 (2008), a previous ballot measure concerning so-called "open 
13 
primaries," and because this court certified a ballot title for Measure 65 in Keisling/Lutz 
14 
v. Myers, 343 Or 379, 171 P3d 345 (2007), the ballot title for that previous measure 
15 
should be "presumed to be proper."  Accordingly, Dixon argues, the ballot title for IP 38 
16 
"should track the ballot title for Measure 65 (2008) to the extent practicable." 
17 
 
 
We reject that contention.  ORS 250.035(2) sets out various requirements 
18 
for a ballot title's caption, "yes" and "no" vote result statements, and summary.  Under 
19 
ORS 250.085(5), we review an Attorney General's certified ballot title for "substantial 
20 
compliance" with those requirements.  Any number of different ballot titles for the same 
21 
measure could satisfy that statutory standard.  And a ballot title that is not necessarily the 
22 
4 
"best," in terms of meeting the requirements of ORS 250.035(2), still may substantially 
1 
comply with those requirements.  As this court explained in Caruthers v. Myers, 343 Or 
2 
162, 166 P3d 514 (2007), the fact that the Attorney General could have produced a better 
3 
ballot title is beside the point.  Id. at 168.  "[T]here has to be some play in the joints of the 
4 
ballot title writing process," the court explained, "if this court is to maintain its status as a 
5 
law-enforcing court, rather than an editorial board."  Id.  As a result, merely because this 
6 
court may have concluded that a given certified ballot title met the substantial compliance 
7 
standard does not mean that a subsequent ballot title for a similar measure is required to 
8 
"track" the one previously approved. 
9 
 
 
Second, both sets of petitioners contend that the caption does not comply 
10 
with the requirements of ORS 250.035(2)(a) because it refers to "unlimited votes."  
11 
According to petitioners, that phrase is confusing and misleading, if not outright 
12 
incorrect.  It implies that, under the current nomination system, votes are in some 
13 
unexplained sense "limited."  Moreover, it states that, under IP 38, votes in primary 
14 
elections will be in some unexplained sense "unlimited," when, in fact, the number of 
15 
votes that an elector may cast is limited by the number of candidates. 
16 
 
 
The Attorney General responds that the use of the phrase "unlimited votes" 
17 
is neither inaccurate nor misleading.  According to the Attorney General, "[v]oters are 
18 
unlikely to conclude from reading the caption that they may vote an unlimited number of 
19 
times for any one candidate, or that there will be multiple elections[.]" 
20 
 
 
ORS 250.035(2)(a) requires the caption of a certified ballot title to 
21 
"identify[y] the subject matter of the * * * measure."  To comply with that standard, case 
22 
5 
law requires that the caption "state or describe the proposed measure's subject matter 
1 
'accurately, and in terms that will not confuse or mislead potential petition signers and 
2 
voters.'"  Kain/Waller v. Myers, 337 Or 36, 40, 93 P3d 62 (2004) (citation omitted).  A 
3 
caption that misstates or inaccurately describes the subject of a measure does not 
4 
substantially comply with that standard.  Lavey v. Kroger, 350 Or 559, 564, 258 P3d 
5 
1194 (2011). 
6 
 
 
In this case, the caption states that the subject matter of IP 38 is changes to 
7 
the "general election nominating process" and that those changes include "unlimited 
8 
votes."  The problem with that part of the caption is that nothing in IP 38 refers to 
9 
"unlimited votes."  To the contrary, IP 38 would afford each elector a limited number of 
10 
votes for each office, depending on the number of candidates running for that office.  As 
11 
we have noted, the proposed measure expressly states that "the voter may not cast more 
12 
than one vote for any individual candidate."  The caption is inaccurate.  As a result, the 
13 
ballot title must be referred to the Attorney General for modification. 
14 
 
 
Third, petitioner Dixon contends that the caption does not comply with 
15 
ORS 250.035(2)(a) for the additional reason that it refers only to changes to the general 
16 
election nominating process.  According to Dixon, by referring only to changes to the 
17 
nominating process, the caption is fatally underinclusive, as IP 38 would require 
18 
significant changes to the general election process, as well.  In support of that argument, 
19 
petitioner Dixon relies on this court's decision in Keisling/Lutz, in which he contends the 
20 
court found a similar flaw in the ballot title for Measure 65.  The Attorney General 
21 
contests petitioner Dixon's reading of Keisling/Lutz, arguing that the decision found the 
22 
6 
ballot title at issue flawed for an entirely different reason. 
1 
 
 
As we have noted, ORS 250.053(2)(a) requires a ballot title caption to 
2 
identify the "subject matter" of a measure, and case law explains that the identification of 
3 
that subject matter must be accurate.  Lavey, 350 Or at 564.  One way that a caption may 
4 
be "inaccurate" for the purposes of ORS 250.035(2)(a) is by being "underinclusive."  A 
5 
caption is underinclusive when it identifies the subject matter of a measure by mentioning 
6 
only some of its aspects, while leaving other, "major aspects" of the measure 
7 
unmentioned.  Kain v. Myers, 336 Or 116, 121, 79 P3d 864 (2003).  As this court 
8 
explained in Towers v. Myers, 341 Or 357, 361, 142 P3d 1062 (2006), "[w]hen the 
9 
Attorney General chooses to describe the subject matter of a proposed measure by listing 
10 
some of its effects, he [or she] runs the risk that the caption will be underinclusive and 
11 
thus inaccurate." 
12 
 
 
In Keisling/Lutz, this court addressed that problem in the context of a 
13 
challenge to a ballot title for Measure 65.  Because the parties' arguments in this case turn 
14 
on the interpretation and application of that decision, we describe it in some detail.  The 
15 
court summarized the effect of the measure at issue in Keisling/Lutz as follows: 
16 
"If adopted, the proposed measure would change the Oregon primary 
17 
election process, replacing the system now in use with one in which all 
18 
candidates for a particular office appear on a single primary ballot.  All 
19 
voters then would choose whomever they favor for the office (rather than 
20 
whomever they favor as a candidate of their party for the office) from that 
21 
single primary ballot.  Thereafter, the two persons who receive the highest 
22 
number of votes in the primary voting would move on to the general 
23 
election ballot, without regard to the party affiliation (or lack of affiliation) 
24 
of either." 
25 
343 Or at 382 (emphasis in original).  The Attorney General certified a ballot title that 
26 
7 
included the caption: "Changes partisan primaries: Primary ballots contain all candidates; 
1 
top two candidates proceed to general election."  Id. at 383. 
2 
 
 
The petitioners challenged the ballot title caption.  According to the 
3 
petitioners, the measure applied not only to partisan primaries, but also to nominations of 
4 
minor parties and independent candidates.  By describing the measure solely in terms of 
5 
changes to "partisan primaries," they argued, the caption was underinclusive and, thus, 
6 
inaccurate.  Id. at 384-85. 
7 
 
 
This court agreed.  The court explained that, under the existing election 
8 
scheme, candidates for minor parties and independent candidates do not participate in 
9 
partisan primary elections.  The ballot measure, however, would change that.  Yet, the 
10 
court observed, the ballot title caption stated only that the measure "changes partisan 
11 
primaries."  The court noted that, "[t]here is neither any direct reference to minor parties 
12 
and independent candidates in that phrase, nor -- in our reading of it -- any suggestion 
13 
that the proposed measure extends to those topics."  Id. at 385.  Because of that omission, 
14 
the court concluded, the ballot title had to be referred to the Attorney General for 
15 
modification.  Id. at 385-86. 
16 
 
 
The court went on to identify "one other shortcoming" of the certified ballot 
17 
title.  The court explained that, while the ballot title caption mentioned only changes to 
18 
"partisan primaries," 
19 
"[t]he change that would be wrought by the proposed measure would 
20 
significantly alter the appearance of the general election ballot -- and, 
21 
necessarily, any election held under it.  The current system permits many 
22 
candidates for a position to appear on the general election ballot, in addition 
23 
to the two candidates of the major political parties.  The traditional Oregon 
24 
8 
election lists the candidacy of minority party and independent candidates 
1 
who have achieved a place on the ballot through an alternative nomination 
2 
process.  If the proposed measure is adopted, the general election will offer 
3 
two candidates only." 
4 
Id. at 386 (citations omitted). 
5 
 
 
In this case, petitioner Dixon contends that the certified ballot title caption 
6 
for IP 38 suffers a similar defect, given that it mentions only changes to the "general 
7 
election nomination process," in the singular, when it actually would affect multiple 
8 
processes, viz., "the existing process for political parties, and the existing nominating 
9 
process for minor parties and nonaffiliated voters, and the general election itself."  
10 
(Emphasis in original.)  According to petitioner Dixon, the caption would meet the 
11 
statutory standard if it stated that IP 38 "[c]hanges both general election and nomination 
12 
processes." 
13 
 
 
That argument presents a closer question.  Certainly, the caption that 
14 
petitioner Dixon proposes is accurate and perhaps in some sense "better" than the one that 
15 
the Attorney General certified.  But that is not the standard that we apply.  As we have 
16 
explained, under ORS 250.085(5), our task is to review the certified ballot title for 
17 
"substantial compliance" with statutory requirements. 
18 
 
 
In this case, on the one hand, it is true that IP 38 would affect multiple 
19 
processes, as petitioner Dixon describes them.  But, on the other hand, it also is entirely 
20 
accurate to refer to all of those multiple processes collectively as the "general election 
21 
nominating process."  In that sense, there is nothing inaccurate or underinclusive about 
22 
the certified ballot title caption in using that phrase. 
23 
9 
 
 
In that regard, Keisling/Lutz is distinguishable.  In that case, the ballot title 
1 
caption referred only to changes to "partisan primaries," which failed completely to 
2 
describe a number of the measure's significant effects.  In this case, the ballot title caption 
3 
refers to changes to the "general election nominating process," which captures all of the 
4 
proposed measure's most significant effects as to the partisan offices to which it applies.  
5 
Given our standard of review -- and the applicable word limit, ORS 250.035(2(a) (15-
6 
word limit for ballot title caption) -- we cannot say that the phrasing of the ballot title 
7 
caption does not substantially comply with the statutory requirement to identify 
8 
accurately the subject matter of the proposed measure. 
9 
 
 
Fourth, in a related vein, petitioners Mark and David Frohnmayer argue 
10 
that the caption fails to meet the requirements of ORS 250.035(2)(a) because it overstates 
11 
the effects of IP 38 by failing to state that it applies only to partisan elections.  The 
12 
Attorney General replies that the caption substantially complies with the statute because 
13 
other parts of the ballot title inform voters that the proposed measure applies only to 
14 
"most partisan offices." 
15 
 
 
Just as a ballot title caption can fail for understating the major effect of a 
16 
measure, so also can it fail for overstating the measure's major effects.  Kain/Waller, 337 
17 
Or at 40 (caption should identify the proposed measure's subject matter in a way that 
18 
"do[es] not understate or overstate the scope of the legal changes that the proposed 
19 
measure would enact").  A ballot title caption that phrases the subject matter of a measure 
20 
in too-sweeping terms "fails to disclose the subject matter of the proposed measure in 
21 
terms that give notice to the voters of the principal substantive choice or choices that the 
22 
10 
measure presents."  Rogers v. Myers, 344 Or 219, 224, 179 P3d 627 (2008). 
1 
 
 
In this case, the Attorney General's certified ballot title caption broadly 
2 
states that IP 38, if adopted, would change the "general election nominating process."  
3 
The proposed measure, however, would not change the general election nominating 
4 
process for nonpartisan offices.  Indeed, the proposed measure would not change the 
5 
general election nominating process for all partisan offices, either.  By its terms, the 
6 
measure would apply only to "voter choice offices," which the measure defines as 
7 
meaning a specified list of partisan political offices.  The ballot title caption thus 
8 
overstates the effect of the measure and requires referral for that reason, as well. 
9 
 
 
Fifth, and finally, petitioner Dixon argues that the "no" vote result 
10 
statement is defective because, among other things, it states that a "no" vote would retain 
11 
"vote limitation."  The Attorney General does not respond to that argument beyond the 
12 
general assertion that the "no" vote result statement complies with the law. 
13 
 
 
ORS 250.035(2)(c) requires ballot titles to contain "yes" and "no" vote 
14 
result statements that consist of "simple and understandable statement[s]" that "describe[] 
15 
the result if the measure is rejected."  The description of the result must not be inaccurate 
16 
or misleading.  McCormick v. Kroger/Devlin, 347 Or 293, 300, 220 P3d 412 (2009). 
17 
 
 
In this case, the "no" vote result statement's reference to "vote limitation" 
18 
presumably is intended to contrast with the statement in the caption that, under IP 38, 
19 
voters are permitted "unlimited votes."  As we have concluded, however, the reference to 
20 
"unlimited votes" in the caption is inaccurate and misleading.  If the reference in the 
21 
caption to unlimiting voting is eliminated, then the later reference to a "vote limitation" 
22 
11 
that would be retained if the measure is rejected has no point of reference and becomes, 
1 
at best, confusing, if not misleading.  We conclude that this aspect of the "no" vote result 
2 
statement must be remedied on referral. 
3 
 
 
In that regard, we note that petitioners advance other arguments about the 
4 
"yes" and "no" vote result statements and the summary that, in essence, complain that the 
5 
foregoing errors in the caption have been repeated in the other portions of the ballot title.  
6 
We assume that the Attorney General "is quite capable of identifying the ways in which 
7 
the other sections of the certified ballot title are affected" by our decision and will modify 
8 
the ballot title accordingly on referral.  Keisling/Lutz, 343 Or at 385-86 n 2. 
9 
 
 
Ballot title referred to Attorney General for modification. 
10