Case Title: Novick v. Myers

Citation: 

Docket Number: S47417

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 2000-06-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
Filed:  June 8, 2000
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STEVEN NOVICK,
			Petitioner,
	v.
HARDY MYERS,Attorney General for the State of Oregon,
	Respondent.
(SC S47417)

	En Banc
	On petition to review ballot title.
	Submitted on the petition, answering memorandum, and record April 25, 2000.
	Steven Novick, Portland, filed the petition.
	Kaye E. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, filed the answering memorandum for
respondent.  With her on the memorandum were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael
D. Reynolds, Solicitor General, Salem.
	CARSON, C.J.
	Ballot title certified as modified.  This decision shall become effective in accordance with
ORAP 11.30(10).
	Van Hoomissen, J., dissented and filed an opinion.
		CARSON, C.J.
		This is a ballot title review proceeding concerning the Attorney General's certified
ballot title for a proposed initiative measure, denominated as Initiative Petition 157 (2000). 
Petitioner is an elector who timely submitted written comments concerning the content of the
Attorney General's draft ballot title and who therefore is entitled to seek review in this court.  See
ORS 250.085(2) (setting out that requirement).  We review the Attorney General's certified ballot
title to determine whether it substantially complies with the requirements of     ORS 250.035(2)
(1997). (1)  See ORS 250.085(5) (setting out standard of review).  For
the reasons that follow, we modify the caption and the result
statements of the Attorney General's certified ballot title and
certify the modified ballot title to the Secretary of State.
		The proposed initiative measure at issue would amend
the Oregon Constitution by adding a number of provisions
pertaining to "[c]ampaign [f]inance [l]imits."  Section (1)(a) of
the proposed measure would limit contributions and expenditures
by both for-profit corporations and unions to $1,000 per election
in support of or in opposition to a candidate or a qualified
ballot measure.  Section (1)(b) would limit contributions by
individuals to $1,000, for every six-month period (beginning
January 1st), to support or oppose a candidate; however, section
(1)(c) provides for unlimited contributions by individuals to
support or oppose a ballot measure.  Section (1)(d) sets out an
exception of sorts to section (1)(a), by providing that a
business or industry, but not a union, that would be
substantially impacted by passage of a ballot measure could spend
unlimited funds "to educate voters regarding the measure and its
impact or potential impact on the business or industry, or on the
public," with some limitations on the content of the resulting
"educational" material.  Section (1)(f) (2) would prohibit deduction
from an employee's paycheck of funds to be used for political
purposes, without an annually renewed, written authorization from
the employee stating the specific purpose for which the funds may
be used.  Sections (1)(g) and (h) set out disclosure requirements
concerning the identity of certain contributors, as well as
restrictions preventing the enactment of additional or different
disclosure requirements.  Section (1)(i) provides that, if not
fewer than 80 percent of the contributors to a political
committee contributed $250 or less in the year before the
election, and if none of the contributed funds were received or
collected in violation of section (1)(f), then that committee
could contribute or expend up to $10,000 to support or oppose a
candidate or a ballot measure.  Finally, section (1)(j) is a
severability provision.
		The Attorney General certified the following ballot
title for Initiative Petition 157:
"AMENDS CONSTITUTION:  LIMITS CERTAINCAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, REQUIRED DISCLOSURES;REGULATES PAYROLL DEDUCTION CONTRIBUTIONS

	"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE:  'Yes' vote limits certain
campaign contributions, expenditures; changes,
restricts disclosure requirements; regulates payroll
deduction contributions.
	"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE:  'No' vote rejects: 
limiting certain campaign contributions; changing,
restricting disclosure requirements; regulating payroll
deduction contributions.
	"SUMMARY:  Amends constitution.  Constitution now
guarantees right to make unlimited campaign
contributions, expenditures; requires certain campaign
disclosures; guarantees contribution methods.  Measure
limits corporate, union, political committee campaign
contributions, expenditures in any election; limits
individual contributions, expenditures in candidate
elections.  Under certain conditions, businesses, but
not unions, may expend unlimited amounts to educate
voters about ballot measure's impact.  Prohibits
payroll deductions for political purpose without
employee's annual, written authorization specifying
purpose.  Changes, limits campaign finance disclosure
requirements for elections communications, recipients
of certain individual contributions.  Other
provisions."
Petitioner challenges all parts of the Attorney General's
certified ballot title.
		We begin with petitioner's challenge to the caption,
which must contain not more than 10 words that "reasonably
identif[y] the subject matter" of the proposed measure.       
ORS 250.035(2)(a) (1997).  In petitioner's view, the fundamental
subject matter of the proposed measure is the application of
differing contribution limits to four different groups:  (1)
individuals (who may contribute unlimited funds to ballot measure
campaigns and $1,000 every six months to candidate campaigns);
(2) for-profit corporations ($1,000 to ballot measure campaigns
and to candidate campaigns, but unlimited amounts, in certain
circumstances, to "educate" the public about the potential impact
of a proposed ballot measure); (3) unions ($1,000 to each type of
campaign, with no exceptions); and (4) non-profit corporations,
partnerships, etc. (no limits whatsoever).  It follows,
petitioner contends, that the Attorney General's caption does not
identify that subject matter sufficiently because it does not
highlight the fact that different requirements apply to different
entities. 
		The Attorney General responds that the proposed measure
would affect three areas of campaign financing, only one of which
involves imposing various limits upon campaign contributions and
expenditures.  The Attorney General points out that the proposed
measure also would limit disclosure requirements that may be
imposed upon campaign contributions and recipients of individual
contributions, and also would prohibit certain payroll deductions
without the employee's annual, written consent.  In the Attorney
General's view, the certified caption completely and impartially
identifies those three aspects of the subject matter of the
proposed measure, within the 10-word limit prescribed by      
ORS 250.035(2)(a) (1997).  The Attorney General also argues that
his use of the word "certain" before the words "campaign
contributions" in the certified caption adequately conveys that
the proposed measure sets out particular contribution and
expenditure requirements for different groups, rather than
providing a blanket requirement that applies to all participants
in the electoral process. 
		We agree in part with both petitioner and the Attorney
General.  The Attorney General is correct that the proposed
measure essentially encompasses three types of change relating to
campaign financing -- contribution and expenditure requirements,
disclosure requirements, and contribution by way of employee
payroll deduction.  As such, all three important aspects of the
proposed measure should be included in the caption, if that can
be done within the 10-word limit set out in ORS 250.035(2)(a)
(1997).  See Doell v. Myers, 328 Or 635, 639, 984 P2d 266 (1999)
(caption must not give undue attention to one aspect of proposed
measure at expense of full description of general subject matter
of measure).  
		We agree with petitioner, however, that the certified
caption does not convey sufficiently that the proposed measure
would create a new system of campaign finance requirements in
which the applicability of differing limits and prohibitions
governing campaign contributions and expenditures would turn on
the status of the contributor.  The word "certain" in the
Attorney General's caption fails to identify that significant
characteristic of the subject matter of the proposed measure.
		As noted, the new campaign finance system set out in
the proposed measure also would impose new contributor disclosure
requirements and prevent or restrict the enactment of any
additional or different disclosure requirements.  Additionally,
the new system would restrict the deduction of funds from an
employee's paycheck, by imposing an authorization requirement. 
We can identify all those aspects of the proposed measure
accurately within the 10-word statutory limit, by modifying the
caption for Initiative Petition 157 as follows:
AMENDS CONSTITUTION:  CHANGES CAMPAIGNFINANCE
REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING VARIOUS CONTRIBUTORS,
DISCLOSURES, PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS
		Petitioner next challenges the Attorney General's "yes"
and "no" vote result statements.  The "yes" result statement must
contain a "simple and understandable statement of not more than
15 words that describes the result if the * * * measure is
approved," ORS 250.035(2)(b) (1997), and the "no" result
statement must contain a "simple and understandable statement of
not more than 15 words that describes the result if the * * *
measure is rejected," ORS 250.035(2)(c) (1997).  To the extent
practicable, the result statements must be written so that they
are parallel.  ORS 250.035(3).
		Petitioner's challenge to the result statements is
similar to his challenge to the caption, that is, that the result
statements do not convey that the proposed measure would
establish different campaign contribution requirements for
different entities.  As with the caption, the Attorney General
responds that his result statements encompass all three major
aspects of the proposed measure, to the extent possible, within
the 15-word statutory limits set out in ORS 250.035(2)(b) and (c)
(1997). 
		For the reasons set out above in relation to the
certified caption, we modify the result statements for Initiative
Petition 157 as follows:
	RESULT OF "YES" VOTE:  "Yes" vote changes campaign
finance requirements, varying by contributor; limits
contributor disclosures; restricts payroll deductions.
	RESULT OF "NO" VOTE:  "No" vote rejects:  campaign
finance requirements, varying by contributor; limiting
contributor disclosures; restricting payroll
deductions.	
		The Attorney General responds that the certified
summary accurately informs the voters that the Oregon
Constitution currently provides an unlimited right to make
campaign contributions, that the proposed measure would affect
that right, and how it would do so.  He continues that the
certified summary also sufficiently describes the proposed,
different limitations upon contributions and expenditures by
different entities, while also describing the proposed changes
concerning contributor disclosure and payroll deduction
contributions.  In the Attorney General's view, including the
specific monetary limits in the 85-word summary would sacrifice
necessary words that describe other important parts of the
proposed measure.
		We conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that
the certified summary fails to substantially comply with      
ORS 250.035(2)(d) (1997).  The certified summary sufficiently
explains that the proposed measure would impose different
contribution and expenditure limitations upon different entities,
while also conveying, at least by implication, that the proposed
measure would not limit individual contributions to ballot
measure campaigns.  The certified summary further clarifies that,
in respect of spending to "educate" the public, unions would be
treated differently than businesses.  Finally, the certified
summary also adequately summarizes other important provisions of
the proposed measure relating to contributor disclosure and
employee payroll deductions.
		We certify the following ballot title to the Secretary
of State for Initiative Petition 157:
AMENDS CONSTITUTION:  CHANGES CAMPAIGNFINANCE
REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING VARIOUS CONTRIBUTORS,
DISCLOSURES, PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS
	RESULT OF "YES" VOTE:  "Yes" vote changes campaign
finance requirements, varying by contributor; limits
contributor disclosures; restricts payroll deductions.
	RESULT OF "NO" VOTE:  "No" vote rejects:  campaign
finance requirements, varying by contributor; limiting
contributor disclosures; restricting payroll
deductions.
	SUMMARY:  Amends constitution.  Constitution now
guarantees right to make unlimited campaign
contributions, expenditures; requires certain campaign
disclosures; guarantees contribution methods.  Measure
limits corporate, union, political committee campaign
contributions, expenditures in any election; limits
individual contributions, expenditures in candidate
elections.  Under certain conditions, businesses, but
not unions, may expend unlimited amounts to educate
voters about ballot measure's impact.  Prohibits
payroll deductions for political purpose without
employee's annual, written authorization specifying
purpose.  Changes, limits campaign finance disclosure
requirements for elections communications, recipients
of certain individual contributions.  Other provisions.
		Ballot title certified as modified.  This decision
shall become effective in accordance with ORAP 11.30(10).
		VAN HOOMISSEN, J., dissenting.
		I respectfully dissent.  In my view, the Attorney
General's certified ballot title substantially complies with the
requirements of ORS 250.035 (1997).  ORS 250.085(5).

1. 	The 1999 Legislature amended ORS 250.035(2) in several
respects.  Or Laws 1999, ch 793, § 1.  However, section 3 of that
1999 enactment provides, in part:
	"(1) The amendments to ORS 250.035 by section 1 of
this 1999 Act do not apply to any ballot title prepared
for:
	"(a) Any initiative petition that, if filed with
the Secretary of State with the required number of
signatures of qualified electors, will be submitted to
the people at the general election held on the first
Tuesday after the first Monday in November 2000[.]"
The proposed measure at issue here is one of those to which the
1999 enactment does not apply.  We therefore apply the pertinent
provisions of ORS 250.035(2) (1997).

2. 	The proposed measure does not contain a section (1)(e).