Case Title: Carley/Towers v. Myers

Citation: 

Docket Number: S53115

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 2006-03-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
FILED: March 22, 2006
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
MARGARET MURPHY CARLEY
and PAT McCORMICK,
Petitioners,
v.
HARDY MYERS,
Attorney General,
State of Oregon,
Respondent.
(SC S53115)
ART TOWERS,
Petitioner,
v.
HARDY MYERS,
Attorney General,
State of Oregon,
Respondent.
(SC S53116)
(Cases Consolidated)
On petitions to review ballot title.
Submitted on the record March 6, 2006. 
John A. DiLorenzo, Jr., and Gregory A. Chaimov, of Davis
Wright Tremaine LLP, Portland, filed the petition for petitioners
Margaret Murphy Carley and Pat McCormick.  
Steven C. Berman, of Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Schlachter,
P.C., Portland, filed the petition for petitioner Art Towers.
Michael C. Livingston, Assistant Attorney General, Salem,
filed the answering memorandum for respondent.  With him on the
answering memorandum were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.
Before De Muniz, Chief Justice, Carson, Gillette, Durham,
Riggs, and Balmer, Justices.*
Durham, J.
Ballot title referred to Attorney General for modification. 
*Kistler, J., did not participate in the consideration or
decision of this case.
Durham, J.
This case involves two petitions that seek review of a
ballot title under ORS 250.085(2).  The Attorney General has
certified the ballot title for a proposed initiative measure that
the Secretary of State has denominated as Initiative Petition No.
105 (2006).  The proposed measure, if approved by the voters,
would enact certain nursing staff requirements for a "nursing
home," a term that the measure specially defines.
All petitioners submitted written comments regarding
the draft ballot title.  Therefore, they are entitled to seek a
different ballot title in this court.  For the reasons set forth
below, we refer the ballot title to the Attorney General for
modification.  ORS 250.085(8).
The Attorney General certified the following ballot
title for the proposed measure:
"ESTABLISHES STAFFING REQUIREMENTS FOR NURSING HOMES;
SPECIFIES MINIMUM ALLOWABLE PER-SHIFT
STAFF-TO-RESIDENT RATIOS
"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE: 'Yes' vote requires
assignment of nursing staff for each 'nursing home'
resident; establishes residents-per-assigned-nursing-staff ratios, compliance requirements, and penalties
for violations.
"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE: 'No' vote retains statute
requiring Department of Human Services' rules
specifying maximum number of patients per nursing
assistant per shift in long-term care facilities.
"SUMMARY: Measure replaces current statute
requiring Department of Human Services to adopt rules
specifying maximum number of patients per nursing
assistant per shift in long-term care facilities. 
Measure applies to 'nursing homes' and not to adult
foster homes, residential care and assisted living
facilities, or facilities operated by and physically
connected to general hospitals.  Measure requires
assignment of a nursing assistant and nurse or 'CMA'
for each resident to provide direct and limits the
number of residents assigned to each; requires posting
and recording of staffing information and cost
auditing; requires Department of Human Services to
establish monetary penalties for staffing ratio
violations, and authorizes Department to restrict
admissions or deny or revoke nursing home licenses
based on number and severity of violations.  Other
provisions."
Petitioners begin by pointing out that the Attorney
General's certified ballot title incorporates the caption from
his draft ballot, prepared under ORS 250.065(3), (1) rather
than the ballot title caption that he intended to certify.  The
Attorney General acknowledges that that contention is correct. 
The record confirms that the Attorney General intended to certify
the following ballot title caption:
"REQUIRES ASSIGNED NURSING STAFF FOR 'NURSING HOME' RESIDENTS; LIMITS NUMBER OF RESIDENTS PER ASSIGNED STAFF"
Consequently, the Attorney General requests that the court refer
the ballot title for correction "by certifying the caption that
the Attorney General intended to certify * * *."  See ORS
250.085(8) (describing referral process).  The Attorney General
further agrees that the inadvertent omission of a term in the
summary, which we discuss below in greater detail, also requires
referral for correction.
The inadvertent omission of the correct caption from
the certified ballot title, as described above, leads the
Attorney General to use the term "modified caption" to refer to
the caption as he proposes to modify it on referral as a means of
distinguishing that caption from the caption that he erroneously
certified.  We, too, will adopt that terminology in this opinion.
Before turning to petitioners' objections, we deem it
appropriate to specify how the court will conduct its review of
this ballot title in light of the unusual procedural posture of
this case.  Specifically, the court has before it not only
petitioners' arguments about the certified ballot title, ORS
250.085(2), but also several arguments regarding the modified
ballot title caption that the Attorney General proposes to
certify on referral.  The issue is whether the court may consider
arguments about the modified ballot title caption in this
proceeding.
Oregon law makes it clear that, subject to this court's
review under ORS 250.085(2), the statutory responsibility for
drafting and certifying ballot titles for proposed initiative
state measures, falls under present practice, to the Attorney
General.  ORS 250.065(3); ORS 250.067(1) to (3).  The Attorney
General conducts the processes of drafting and certifying ballot
titles under short statutory deadlines.  See ORS 250.065(3)
(Attorney General must provide draft ballot title not later than
five business days after receipt of copy of prospective petition
for state measure to be initiated); ORS 250.067(2) (Attorney
General must consider public's comments and certify ballot title
not later than 10 days after receiving comments from Secretary of
State).
We recognize that, despite the best efforts of all
involved, mistakes occasionally may occur in the statutorily
accelerated process of certifying a ballot title.  The
incorporation of an unintended caption in the certified ballot
title, as in this case, is an example.  Typically, the Attorney
General has responded to those problems by notifying the court
and other parties of the correct wording that the Attorney
General should have certified and will certify on referral.  See
Greenberg v. Myers, 340 Or 65, 72-73, ___ P3d ___ (2006) (on
review, Attorney General proposed a revised "yes" vote result
statement to satisfy legal requirements, but the petitioner
objected that the revision was not sufficient; court nevertheless
considered and resolved the objection).
We appreciate that response and encourage the Attorney
General to address errors that he discovers during this court's
review in a similar manner.  By acknowledging an error and
stating the amendatory wording that he proposes to correct it on
referral, the Attorney General affords petitioners an opportunity
to respond to the amendatory wording, as was the case in
Greenberg, (2) and facilitates expeditious review of the ballot
title by this court.  As the legislature made clear in ORS
250.085(7), 
"The review by the Supreme Court shall be
conducted expeditiously to ensure the orderly and
timely circulation of the petition or conduct of the
election at which the measure is to be submitted to the
electors."
(Emphasis added.)
In view of the legislature's requirement that this
court must review ballot titles expeditiously, we will address
and resolve, to the extent possible, a petitioner's objections to
proposed amendatory wording that the Attorney General intends to
incorporate into a ballot title on referral without confining our
review to the certified ballot title that contains an
acknowledged error.  We have considered but now reject the
alternative course – confining the court's review solely to the
certified ballot title that contains an acknowledged error –
because that approach potentially could result in unnecessary re-referrals to the Attorney General and expand litigation in this
court, thus adding significant delay to the process of ballot
title certification.  
In addressing future objections to proposed amendatory
wording by the Attorney General, this court will be mindful of
the statutory limits that apply to the court's consideration of
arguments not presented in writing to the Secretary of State. 
ORS 250.085(6) provides:
"When reviewing a title prepared by the Attorney
General, the Supreme Court shall not consider arguments
concerning the ballot title not presented in writing to
the Secretary of State unless the court determines that
the argument concerns language added to or removed from
the draft title after expiration of the comment period
provided in ORS 250.067."
The court's willingness to follow the review procedure
outlined above regarding corrections proposed by the Attorney
General may give rise to unforeseen procedural claims by
petitioners or other electors who may claim dissatisfaction with
the Attorney General's certified ballot title or his proposed
amendments.  We will address those claims if and when they arise. 
It is sufficient to say at present that the court will review a
petitioner's objections to proposed amendatory wording in a
ballot title, as described above, to fulfill, to the greatest
extent possible, the legislature's policy requiring this court to
conduct the review of ballot titles expeditiously.
We turn now to petitioners' objections to the certified
caption and the modified caption that the Attorney General
intends to certify on referral.  The ballot title caption for a
proposed initiative must reasonably identify within 15 words the
subject matter of the proposed initiative.  ORS 250.035(2)(a). 
We review all challenged parts of the ballot title for
"substantial compliance with the requirements of ORS 250.035." 
ORS 250.085(5).
Petitioners and the Attorney General agree that the
certified caption does not comply substantially with ORS
250.035(2)(a) because, among other things, it restates current
Oregon law rather than identifying the subject matter of the
proposed measure.  We agree and conclude that we must refer the
caption to the Attorney General for modification.  ORS
250.085(8). 
Petitioners Carley and McCormick argue that the
Attorney General has erred by using the term "nursing home"
highlighted by quotation marks "without going on to define the
term elsewhere in the title."  It is true that this court has
approved the use of specially defined terms in quotation marks,
followed by the word "defined" in parentheses, to signal that the
proposed measure specially defines the term and uses it in that
specially defined sense.  See, e.g., Hunnicutt v. Myers, 340 Or 83, 86, ___ P3d ___ (2006) (illustrating principle).  However,
our cases have not gone so far as to require that the ballot
title set out the special definition that the proposed measure
would create.  The asserted objection is not well-taken. (3) 
Petitioners Carley and McCormick also complain that the
certified caption should use the term "patient" rather than the
term "resident" to describe the persons to whom the proposed
measure applies.  We agree with the Attorney General that the
term "resident" is not confusing in this context and that it is
unnecessary to require use of the term "patient" in the certified
caption to achieve substantial compliance with ORS 250.035(2)(a).
Finally, petitioners Carley and McCormick contend that
the modified caption still uses the term "staff" without the
modifier "nursing," even though the Attorney General agreed in
writing that the term "staff," standing alone, created an
ambiguity that required correction.  The Attorney General made
that comment in response to criticism of the caption of the draft
ballot title, which stated:
"Establishes Staffing Requirements for Nursing Homes;
Specifies Minimum Allowable Per-Shift Staff-to-Resident
Ratios"
The Attorney General addressed the ambiguity of the term "staff"
in that caption by introducing two new phrases into the modified
caption, "assigned nursing staff" and "assigned staff."  It is
apparent that the first of those phrases addressed the ambiguity
problem and that the 15-word limitation in ORS 250.035(2)(a)
prevented the inclusion of the term "nursing" again in the second
phrase.  Under the circumstances, we conclude that the Attorney
General's choice of terminology complies substantially with ORS
250.035(2)(a). (4)
We turn to petitioner Towers' objection to the
certified caption.  He argues, as did petitioners Carley and
McCormick, that the caption must state clearly that the staffing
requirements in the proposed measure apply only to the nursing
staff of covered facilities.  The Attorney General agrees and
explains that his modified caption resolves that objection.  We
agree with the Attorney General.
Petitioners Carley and McCormick raise objections to
the "yes" vote result statement.  That statement must describe
"the result if the state measure is approved[]" within 25 words. 
ORS 250.035(2)(b).  In Novick/Crew v. Myers, 337 Or 568, 574, 100
P3d 1064 (2004), this court stated:
"[T]he result of a proposed measure's enactment that
belongs in the 'yes' vote result statement is that
outcome that is the most significant and immediate, or
that carries the greatest consequence, for the general
public.  Stated differently, the legislature intended
the 25-word 'yes' vote result statement to notify
petition signers and voters of the result or results of
enactment that would have the greatest importance to
the people of Oregon."
Petitioners Carley and McCormick criticize the Attorney
General's "yes" vote result statement on several of the same
grounds that they raised in objecting to the caption.  They also
contend that the "yes" vote result statement is defective because
it fails to disclose how seriously the proposed measure will
impact state authority to set nursing staff ratios based on
patient needs and nursing practices, and uses confusing,
inaccurate, or insufficiently informative terminology.  They also
assert that the combined "yes" and "no" result statements fail to
use different terms ("resident" and "patient") "that an average
elector would understand to refer to the same thing[.]"  See ORS
250.035(2)(c) (stating that requirement).  We have considered
each of those objections and the Attorney General's responses,
and we reject each objection without further discussion.
Finally, petitioners Carley and McCormick object to the
Attorney General's summary.  ORS 250.035(2)(d) requires that a
ballot title contain "[a] concise and impartial statement of not
more that 125 words summarizing the state measure and its major
effect."  In Novick/Crew, this court explained the "major effect"
requirement as follows:
"Logically, those would include additional
important consequences or details that the result
statement does not convey and helpful contextual
information about the impact of the proposed measure on
existing law."
337 Or at 574.  This court also stated:
"[T]he Attorney General's choices in those
respects are subject to review by this court for
substantial compliance under ORS 250.085(5).  A party
does not demonstrate a failure of substantial
compliance merely by showing that some other choice by
the Attorney General would have been appropriate."
Id. at 574-75.
Petitioners Carley and McCormick assert 20 objections
to the summary.  We reject each objection without discussion
except for the two matters discussed below.
First, petitioners Carley and McCormick argue that the
Attorney General has used an unfamiliar abbreviation, "CMA," in
the summary, and has placed the abbreviation in quotation marks,
but has provided no definition for it.  Petitioners Carley and
McCormick are entitled to object to the use of "CMA" at this
stage because that abbreviation was added after the comment
period provided in ORS 250.067 had expired.  ORS 250.085(6).
The abbreviation "CMA" does not have a single familiar
referent.  The placement of that abbreviation in quotation marks
without an accompanying signal, such as "(defined)," forces the
reader to guess whether the abbreviation refers to a specially
defined term in the measure, or is a shorthand usage for an
unidentified phrase that the Attorney General has adopted in the
interest of brevity.  The likelihood of reader confusion over the
abbreviation "CMA" is a particular concern in this context.  As
petitioners Carley and McCormick point out, the abbreviation
"CMA" might refer to a defined abbreviation in the proposed
measure, but also may refer to two other categories of medical
personnel: a certified medication aide, see OAR 851-063-0100 et
seq. (describing standards and duties for the certified
medication aide) and a certified medical assistant. (5)  
The Attorney General relies on Crabtree v. Paulus, 296
Or 325, 675 P2d 488 (1984), but that case is distinguishable. 
Crabtree involved a proposed initiative that would amend the
Oregon Constitution to require admission of "reliable evidence"
in criminal trials.  The proposed initiative did not define the
phrase "reliable evidence."  See Remington v. Paulus, 296 Or 317,
321, 675 P2d 485 (1984) (quoting ballot title for proposed
initiative).  The petitioners complained that the use of the term
"reliable" in the ballot title was misleading.  The court stated
that the use of the word "reliable" "is not unfair, if set off in
quotation marks to show that the proposed amendment, rather than
respondent or this court uses this word."  Crabtree, 296 Or at
327.  However the court did more than add quotation marks to the
word "reliable" in the explanation.  The court created a new
sentence that stated: "The measure does not define 'reliable
evidence.'"  See Remington, 296 Or at 321.  That sentence made it
clear that the proposed initiative did not specially define that
phrase, and that the source of that phrase was the proposed
initiative, not the author of the ballot title.  Merely adding
quotation marks to a doubtful or disputed term does not provide
that required degree of clarity.
No other part of the ballot title provides any
definition for the abbreviation "CMA."  The placement of the term
"nurse" in the same sentence as the abbreviation "CMA" is a
contextual suggestion that the abbreviation may refer to a class
of personnel.  We conclude, however, that the limited nature of
the contextual reference, the lack of any definition in the
summary, and the absence of any signal indicating that the
abbreviation refers to a specially defined term in the proposed
measure will lead to unnecessary confusion on the part of voters
and petition signers.  On referral, the Attorney General must
revise the reference to "CMA" in the summary.
Second, petitioners Carley and McCormick point out that
no noun follows the adjective "direct" in the third sentence of
the Attorney General's summary.  The Attorney General agrees that
that objection is valid and requires referral to add the term
"care" after the term "direct."  We concur.
Ballot title referred to Attorney General for
modification.
1. ORS 250.065(3) provides:  
"Not later than the fifth business day after
receiving the copies of the prospective petition for a
state measure to be initiated, the Attorney General
shall provide a draft ballot title for the state
measure to be initiated and return one copy of the
prospective petition and the ballot title to the
Secretary of State."
2. ORAP 11.30(9) authorizes petitioners to file a reply
memorandum to the Attorney General's answering memorandum. 
Petitioners who have such objections to proposed modified wording
should state them in a reply memorandum filed pursuant to that
rule.  The reply memorandum affords petitioners the opportunity
to explain whether they continue to object to the Attorney
General's proposed modified wording in a ballot title and the
reasons for any objection. 
3. The Attorney General may decide on referral whether to
insert "(defined)," or another similar signal, following the
phrase "nursing home" in the caption.
Petitioners Carley and McCormick also argue that the term
"nursing home" is a politically loaded term designed to garner a
favorable vote.  We decline to address that argument, because
those petitioners did not present it in writing to the Secretary
of State and it does not address new wording added to the draft
ballot title.  ORS 250.085(6)
4. Petitioners Carley and McCormick submit other arguments
about the caption, but we reject them without discussion.
Those petitioners make other suggestions in their
petition that they assert will improve the clarity of the ballot
title caption.  Because those petitioners did not raise those
matters in writing to the Secretary of State, we do not address
them on review.  ORS 250.085(6).  The Attorney General may
consider those suggestions on referral.
5. OAR 851-063-0020(4) provides:
"'Certified Medication Aide (CMA)' means a
Certified Nursing Assistant who has had additional
training in administration of non-injectable medication
and holds a current Oregon CMA Certificate."
The parties cite no Oregon statute or rule that specially
defines a "certified medical assistant."  However the American
Association of Medical Assistants offers certification for a type
of health professional known as a Certified Medical Assistant. 
See www.aama-ntl.org