Case Title: Caruthers v. Myers (S54529)

Citation: 

Docket Number: S54529

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 2007-08-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
FILED: August 2, 2007
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
JERRY CARUTHERS &
LARRY WOLF,
v.
HARDY MYERS, 
Attorney General, 
State of Oregon,

Respondent.
________________________________
JERRY CARUTHERS &
LARRY WOLF,
Petitioners,

v.
HARDY MYERS, 
Attorney General, 
State of Oregon,
Respondent.
(SC S54529; S54530)
(Consolidated for Opinion)

En Banc

On petitions to review ballot titles.

Submitted on the record March 30, 2007.

Margaret S. Olney, of Smith, Diamond & Olney, Portland, filed the petitions for
petitioners.

Denise G. Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the answering
memorandum for respondent.  With her on the memorandum were Hardy Myers, Attorney
General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.

Gregory W. Byrne, Portland, filed a brief for amicus curiae Bill Sizemore.

PER CURIAM

Ballot titles referred to Attorney General for modification.
PER CURIAM
These ballot title review proceedings, brought under ORS 250.085(2) and
consolidated here for purposes of opinion, concern the Attorney General's certified ballot
titles for two initiative petitions, denominated by the Secretary of State as Initiative
Petition 62 (2008) and Initiative Petition 63 (2008).  Initiative Petition 62 is identical in
all substantive respects to Initiative Petition 61 (2008), whose ballot title we have
reviewed today, 
Caruthers v. Myers, 343 Or 162, ___ P3d ___ (August 2, 2007), except
that the amounts of the various ad valorem property tax exemptions that Initiative Petition
62 provides for are less than the exemptions specified in Initiative Petition 61.  Likewise,
the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 62 (2008) mirrors his
ballot title for Initiative Petition 61, and the parties' various arguments are substantively
identical.  It should come as no surprise, therefore, that we reach the same conclusion that
we reached in the other case.  For the reasons stated in Caruthers, we hold that the
summary in the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 62 (2008)
fails to comply substantially with the legal  requirements of ORS 250.035(2)(d).  That
ballot title is referred to the Attorney General for modification.
Initiative Petition 63 (2008) is almost identical to Initiative Petition 62
(2008), except that it contains an additional provision that directs the legislative assembly
to provide 
"for senior citizens, who are renters and/or live in manufactured homes or
mobile homes, tax relief equal to the relief they would have received under
this section, if they had owned the property they live in."
Petitioners make two arguments respecting Initiative Petition 63 that they do not make
respecting the other measures.  Neither is well taken, and neither requires discussion. 
However, petitioners also make the same argument with respect to the summary in the
Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 63 (2008) that was
successful respecting the ballot title summaries for Initiative Petitions 61 and 62 (2008),
and we find it to be equally well taken here.  The ballot titles must be referred to the
Attorney General for modification.  ORS 250.085(8).
Ballot titles referred to Attorney General for modification.