Title: Hurst/Van Dusen v. Rosenblum

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

260	
April 9, 2020	
No. 11
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF OREGON
Tera HURST,
Petitioner,
v.
Ellen F. ROSENBLUM, 
Attorney General, State of Oregon,
Respondent.
(SC S067329) (Control)
Willis VAN DUSEN 
and Janet Steele,
Petitioners,
v.
Ellen F. ROSENBLUM, 
Attorney General, State of Oregon,
Respondent.
(S067333)
En Banc
On petitions to review ballot title filed January 7, 2020; 
considered and under advisement on February 25, 2020.
Steven C. Berman, Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter 
P.C., Portland, filed the petition for review and reply memo­
randum for petitioner Tera Hurst.
Steve Elzinga, Sherman, Sherman, Johnnie & Hoyt LLP, 
Salem, filed the petition for review and reply memorandum 
for petitioners Willis Van Dusen and Janet Steele.
Greg Rios, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed 
the answering memorandum for respondent. Also on the 
answering memorandum were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney 
General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
NAKAMOTO, J.
The ballot title is referred to the Attorney General for 
modification.
Cite as 366 Or 260 (2020)	
261
Case Summary: The Attorney General certified a ballot title for Initiative 
Petition 50 (2020) (IP 50). Petitioners challenge the certified ballot title on the 
grounds that its caption, “yes” and “no” vote result statements, and summary 
did not substantially comply with the requirements of ORS 250.035. Held: The 
Attorney General’s certified ballot title for IP 50 does not substantially comply 
with the requirements of ORS 250.035.
The ballot title is referred to the Attorney General for modification.
262	
Hurst/Van Dusen v. Rosenblum
	
NAKAMOTO, J.
	
In these consolidated ballot title review cases, 
petitioner Hurst and petitioners Van Dusen and Steele 
challenge the Attorney General’s certified ballot title for 
Initiative Petition 50 (2020) (IP  50). We review the ballot 
title for substantial compliance with ORS 250.035(2). See 
ORS 250.085(5) (stating standard of review). We conclude 
that certain of petitioner Hurst’s arguments that the bal­
lot title does not substantially comply with ORS 250.035(2) 
are well taken, and we refer the ballot title to the Attorney 
General for modification.
	
If adopted, IP  50 would amend ORS 468A.205, 
which currently sets aspirational greenhouse gas emissions 
reduction goals, including the goal of achieving greenhouse 
gas levels that are at least 75% below 1990 levels by the year 
2050. ORS 468A.205(1)(c). The current statute also expressly 
provides that it does not create any additional regulatory 
authority for any agency of the executive department. ORS 
468A.205(3). IP  50 amends ORS 468A.205 to mandate 
staged reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from fossil 
fuel and industrial sources (including achieving greenhouse 
gas emissions levels that are “at least 100 percent below 
1990 levels” by 2050); to require the Environmental Quality 
Commission (EQC) to adopt rules to ensure compliance with 
the new greenhouse gas emissions limits; and to require the 
Department of Environmental Quality to enforce the rules 
that the EQC adopts.
	
For IP 50, the Attorney General certified the follow­
ing ballot title:
“Greenhouse gas emissions from industry, 
fossil fuels must be eliminated by 2050; 
requires rules, enforcement
	
“Result of ‘Yes’ Vote:  ‘Yes’ vote requires Oregon 
greenhouse gas emissions from industry, fossil fuels to be 
eliminated by 2050; Environmental Quality Commission 
to adopt rules, enforce compliance.
	
“Result of ‘No’ Vote:  ‘No’ vote retains current non-
binding greenhouse gas emission reduction goals (levels 
at least 75% below 1990 levels by 2050); new rules not 
required.
Cite as 366 Or 260 (2020)	
263
	
“Summary:  Currently, state law establishes non-
binding greenhouse gas emission reduction goals, tar­
geting levels at least 75% below 1990 levels by 2050. 
Compliance with reduction goals is not required by law. 
Measure requires elimination of Oregon greenhouse gas 
emissions from fossil fuel and industrial sources by 2050. 
Additionally, Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) 
must adopt rules to ensure compliance by February 1, 2021. 
The EQC will have rulemaking authority to enact pro­
grams and policies to reduce emissions; regulate sources of 
greenhouse gas emissions from imported electricity, trans­
portation fuels, and natural gas; and to charge fees, levy 
fines. EQC shall seek to ensure protection of communities 
disproportionately impacted by air pollution and climate 
change.”
	
Petitioner Hurst and petitioners Van Dusen and 
Steele are Oregon electors who timely submitted written 
comments to the Secretary of State on the draft ballot title 
and who are therefore entitled to seek review of the certified 
ballot title in this court. ORS 250.085(2). Petitioner Hurst 
and petitioners Van Dusen and Steele challenge all parts of 
the certified ballot title. For the reasons explained below, we 
agree with some of petitioner Hurst’s arguments regarding 
the ballot title caption, the “yes” result statement, and the 
summary. We find the arguments of petitioners Van Dusen 
and Steele unpersuasive and reject them without discussion.
	
A state measure’s ballot title has three statutory 
components: (1) a caption of not more than 15 words that 
reasonably identifies the measure’s subject matter; (2) sim­
ple and understandable statements of 25 words or less that 
describe the result of a “yes” vote and a “no” vote; and (3) a 
concise and impartial statement of no more than 125 words 
that summarizes the measure. ORS 250.035(2).
CAPTION
	
Turning first to the caption, Oregon law requires a 
caption “that reasonably identifies the subject matter of the 
state measure.” ORS 250.035(2)(a). The caption should “state 
or describe the proposed measure’s subject matter ‘accu­
rately and in terms that will not confuse or mislead poten­
tial petition signers and voters.’ 
” Kain/Waller v. Myers, 337 
Or 36, 40, 93 P3d 62 (2004) (quoting Greene v. Kulongoski, 
264	
Hurst/Van Dusen v. Rosenblum
322 Or 169, 174-75, 903 P2d 366 (1995)). A measure’s “sub­
ject matter” is its “actual major effect” or, if the measure has 
more than one major effect, all such effects (to the extent 
possible given the word limit). Fletchall v. Rosenblum, 365 
Or 98, 103, 442 P3d 193 (2019). To identify the “actual major 
effect” of a measure, the court considers the changes that 
a proposed measure would enact in the context of existing 
law. Id. Petitioner Hurst (hereafter referred to as petitioner) 
raises several challenges to the caption, and we agree that 
the caption must be modified, as we explain below.
	
For convenience, we repeat the certified ballot title 
caption: “Greenhouse gas emissions from industry, fossil 
fuels must be eliminated by 2050; requires rules, enforce­
ment[.]” Petitioner argues that that caption does not sub­
stantially comply with ORS 250.035(2)(a) for three reasons.
	
First, petitioner contends that the first clause 
of the caption does not substantially comply with the 
requirements of ORS 250.035(2)(a) because it is likely to 
be misinterpreted. She explains that the ballot measure 
provides that greenhouse gas emissions from two sources—
industry and fossil fuels—shall be reduced, but, she argues, 
the placement of the comma between the words “industry” 
and “fossil fuels” could reasonably lead a voter to the mis­
impression that IP  50 requires that “fossil fuels must be 
eliminated by 2050.” That is, she asserts, the comma after 
“industry” appears to segregate the first clause of the cap­
tion into two separate limitations: “greenhouse gas emis­
sions from industry” and “fossil fuels.” If a voter understood 
the phrase “greenhouse gas emissions” to relate only to 
the phrase “from industry,” the caption would erroneously 
imply that IP 50 broadly requires the elimination of fossil 
fuels rather than the elimination of emissions from fossil 

fuels.
	
The Attorney General responds that most readers 
would infer that the comma between “industry” and “fossil 
fuels” means “and.” For that reason, the Attorney General 
contends that the most plausible reading of the clause is that 
both “industry” and “fossil fuels” are the objects of the prep­
osition “from,” which immediately precedes the word “indus­
try” and, therefore, that voters would understand that IP 50 
Cite as 366 Or 260 (2020)	
265
requires the reduction of emissions from industry and from 
fossil fuels.
	
We agree with petitioner that the Attorney General’s 
certified caption is likely to be misread by some voters as 
requiring the elimination of fossil fuels by 2050, and, thus, 
the caption is likely to mislead them. The placement of the 
comma between “industry” and “fossil fuels” could, as the 
Attorney General urges, be read as “and,” but we cannot say 
that petitioner’s fear of misinterpretation is unfounded. The 
comma between “industry” and “fossil fuels” makes the first 
clause of the caption ambiguous, and that ambiguity could 
confuse some voters. We acknowledge that the summary 
explains the requirement in full in the third sentence; it 
clarifies that IP 50 addresses “Oregon greenhouse gas emis­
sions from fossil fuel and industrial sources.” We also agree 
that all parts of the ballot title should be read consistently, 
as a whole. However, the possibility for confusion arising out 
of the placement of the comma is significant, and so we con­
clude that the caption for IP 50 does not substantially com­
ply with the requirements of ORS 250.035(2)(a) and must be 
modified.
	
Second, petitioner asserts that the caption’s use of 
the word “eliminated” is inaccurate to describe the require­
ments for greenhouse gas emissions set out in IP  50. We 
discuss only one of her arguments on that point, namely, 
that the word “eliminated” is inaccurate because it implies 
suddenness or immediacy, but the proposed ballot measure 
calls for a two-step phase-out of greenhouse gas emissions 
from industrial and fossil fuel sources, with the first reduc­
tion occurring by 2035 and the second by 2050. The Attorney 
General responds that the caption accurately captures the 
major effects of IP 50 and that the ballot title’s summary 
sufficiently clarifies that the reductions will occur incre­
mentally over time.
	
We disagree that the use of the word “eliminates” 
in the caption conveys some notion of suddenness that is in 
conflict with the staged reductions in greenhouse gas emis­
sions required by IP 50. As petitioner points out, the dic­
tionary defines the word “eliminate” to mean “to cast out 

: REMOVE, EXPEL, EXCLUDE, DROP, OUST * 
* 
* to cause the 
266	
Hurst/Van Dusen v. Rosenblum
disappearance of * 
* 
* get rid of.” Webster’s New Third Int’l 
Dictionary 736 (unabridged ed 2002). Though the words “to 
cast out” may imply suddenness, the remainder of the defi­
nition of “eliminate” is compatible with a gradual process 
leading to reduction to zero.
	
At the same time, however, we perceive that the con­
cern underlying petitioner’s objection to the use of the word 
“eliminates” is that the caption does not reflect that IP 50 
requires a two-step phase-out of emissions from industrial 
and fossil fuel sources. We agree that the graduated phase-
out of emissions from those sources is a major effect of the 
measure that should be reflected in the caption, if available 
words permit, Fletchall, 365 Or at 103, and, at least, in the 
summary, which we will address in turn.
	
Petitioner’s third challenge to the caption involves 
its second clause: “requires rules, enforcement.” Petitioner 
argues that “requires rules” is not a major effect of the mea­
sure and should not be addressed in the caption. Petitioner 
contends that making the greenhouse gas emissions limits 
mandatory as opposed to aspirational and requiring their 
enforcement are the other significant changes resulting 
from the measure, and that removing the word “rules” from 
the second clause would free up an additional word to allow 
the caption to accurately describe the greenhouse gas emis­
sions phase-out.
	
We disagree that “requires rules” is not a major 
effect of IP 50. As already noted, ORS 468A.205(3) currently 
expressly provides that it does not create any additional 
regulatory authority for any agency of the executive depart­
ment. By contrast, IP  50 provides, “The Environmental 
Quality Commission shall adopt rules to ensure compliance 
with greenhouse gas emissions limits set forth in subsection 
(1) of this section.” Requiring the EQC to adopt rules is thus 
an “actual major effect” of the measure, and it is appropriate 
in this case to explain that in the caption.
	
To summarize, the Attorney General’s certified 
caption for IP  50 does not substantially comply with the 
requirements of ORS 250.035(2)(a) insofar as the comma 
between the words “industry” and “fossil fuels” is likely to 
Cite as 366 Or 260 (2020)	
267
lead to voter confusion, and the caption must be modified to 
avoid that possibility. We also agree with petitioner that, if 
available words permit, the caption should refer to the two-
step phase-out of greenhouse gas emissions that the mea­
sure requires. We reject petitioner’s other challenges to the 
caption.
“YES” AND “NO” RESULT STATEMENTS
	
Petitioner also challenges the Attorney General’s 
certified “yes” and “no” result statements. Again, the vote 
result statements for IP 50 are:
	
“Result of ‘Yes’ Vote:  ‘Yes’ vote requires Oregon 
greenhouse gas emissions from industry, fossil fuels to be 
eliminated by 2050; Environmental Quality Commission 
to adopt rules, enforce compliance.
	
“Result of ‘No’ Vote:  ‘No’ vote retains current non-
binding greenhouse gas emission reduction goals (levels 
at least 75% below 1990 levels by 2050); new rules not 
required.”
	
A “yes” result statement must be a “simple and 
understandable statement of not more than 25 words that 
describes the result if the state measure is approved.” ORS 
250.035(2)(b). The “yes” result statement should describe 
“the most significant and immediate effects of the ballot 
initiative for the general public.” Parrish v. Rosenblum, 365 
Or 597, 603, 450 P3d 973 (2019) (internal quotation marks 
omitted).
	
Petitioner contends that the “yes” result state­
ment does not substantially comply with ORS 250.035
(2)(b), because it suffers from the same flaws as the caption. 
That is, (1) by separating “industry” and “fossil fuels” with a 
comma, the “yes” result statement erroneously implies that 
IP 50 requires the elimination of fossil fuels by 2050; (2) the 
use of the word “eliminated” in the “yes” result statement is 
at odds with the two-step phase-out of emissions; and (3) in 
stating “Environmental Quality Commission to adopt rules,” 
the second clause of the “yes” result statement misplaces 
the focus on the requirement to adopt rules rather than on 
the more important requirement that the EQC enforce the 
greenhouse gas emissions benchmarks.
268	
Hurst/Van Dusen v. Rosenblum
	
For the reasons explained above with respect to the 
caption, we agree with petitioner that the comma separat­
ing the words “industry” and “fossil fuels” makes the first 
clause of the Attorney General’s certified “yes” result state­
ment ambiguous and therefore open to misinterpretation by 
a reasonable voter. We conclude that the “yes” result state­
ment must be modified to prevent that possibility for con­
fusion. We reject petitioner’s other challenges to the “yes” 
result statement.
	
Petitioner also challenges the “no” result statement. 
The Attorney General’s certified “no” result statement for 
IP 50 states: “ 
‘No’ vote retains current non-binding green­
house gas emission reduction goals * 
* 
*; new rules not 
required.”
	
A “no” result statement should be a “simple and 
understandable statement of not more than 25 words that 
describes the result if the state measure is rejected.” ORS 
250.035(2)(c). A “no” result statement should address the 
substance of current law on the subject matter of the pro­
posed measure and “summarize the current law accurately.” 
Parrish, 365 Or at 604. In other words, the “no” result state­
ment should describe the “status quo” and “perform its func­
tion in advising potential voters as to the choice they are 
being asked to make.” Id.; accord Whitsett v. Kroger, 348 Or 
243, 251, 230 P3d 545 (2010). Because of those substantive 
requirements, a “no” result statement generally will not 
substantially comply with ORS 250.035(2)(c) if it amounts to 
little more than a declaration that “no” rejects “yes.” Id.
	
Petitioner argues that the “no” result statement 
does not substantially comply with those requirements. In 
her view, the phrase “new rules not required” is “particu­
larly problematic and unhelpful,” because that phrase would 
describe the result for almost every initiative not approved by 
the voters. Quoting Novick/Crew v. Myers, 337 Or 568, 574, 
100 P3d 1064 (2004), petitioner argues that the “no” result 
statement instead should “notify petition signers and vot­
ers of the result or results of enactment that would have the 
greatest importance to the people of Oregon.” In particular, 
petitioner contends that, rather than including “new rules not 
required,” the “no” result statement should address IP 50’s 
Cite as 366 Or 260 (2020)	
269
requirement that the new greenhouse gas emissions levels be 
enforced by adding the phrase “no authority to enforce.”
	
Petitioner’s arguments respecting the “no” result 
statement are not well taken. For one thing, petitioner erro­
neously relies on Novick/Crew for a requirement—a focus on 
results of enactment—that is applicable to “yes” statements 
in ballot titles, not to “no” result statements. Additionally, 
she identifies a problem—the failure to focus on the mea­
sure’s new mandatory enforcement of emission reductions—
that is belied by the text. The “no” statement correctly refers 
to the current status of the emission reduction “goals” in 
the statute as “non-binding.” The word “non-binding” fully 
conveys that the EQC currently has no authority to enforce 
greenhouse gas emissions goals set out in ORS 468A.205. 
Thus, eliminating “new rules not required” in favor of “no 
authority to enforce” would serve no useful purpose.
	
Applying the standards for “no” statements, we 
conclude that the certified “no” result statement accurately 
identifies and describes current law. In light of the express 
requirement in IP  50 that the EQC adopt rules ensuring 
compliance with greenhouse gas emissions limits, it is appro­
priate and accurate in this case for the “no” result statement 
to additionally explain that the status quo does not require 
the EQC to promulgate rules relating to the achievement of 
the greenhouse gas emissions goals set out in the current 
statute. See ORS 468A.205 (expressly stating aspirational 
greenhouse gas emissions levels are not accompanied by 
any additional regulatory authority for any agency of the 
executive department). The Attorney General’s certified “no” 
result statement substantially complies with the require­
ments of ORS 250.035(2)(c).
SUMMARY
	
Under ORS 250.035(2)(d), the summary must be a 
“concise and impartial statement of not more than 125 words 
summarizing the state measure and its major effect.” The 
purpose of a ballot title’s summary is to give voters enough 
information to understand what will happen if the initiative 
is adopted. McCann/Harmon v. Rosenblum, 354 Or 701, 708, 
320 P3d 548 (2014).
270	
Hurst/Van Dusen v. Rosenblum
	
To repeat, the Attorney General’s certified sum­
mary for IP 50 is as follows:
	
“Summary:  Currently, state law establishes non-
binding greenhouse gas emission reduction goals, tar­
geting levels at least 75% below 1990 levels by 2050. 
Compliance with reduction goals is not required by law. 
Measure requires elimination of Oregon greenhouse gas 
emissions from fossil fuel and industrial sources by 2050. 
Additionally, Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) 
must adopt rules to ensure compliance by February 1, 2021. 
The EQC will have rulemaking authority to enact pro­
grams and policies to reduce emissions; regulate sources of 
greenhouse gas emissions from imported electricity, trans­
portation fuels, and natural gas; and to charge fees, levy 
fines. EQC shall seek to ensure protection of communities 
disproportionately impacted by air pollution and climate 
change.”
(Emphasis added.)
	
Petitioner complains that the summary does not 
substantially comply with the requirements of ORS 250.035
(2)(d), because it suffers from some of the same flaws as the 
caption and the “yes” result statement. Petitioner claims 
that the summary does not adequately notify voters that the 
greenhouse gas emissions limits of IP 50 would be enforce­
able. She also objects to the use of the word “elimination,” 
contending that that word does not accurately describe the 
two-step phase-out of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil 
fuels and industrial sources that the measure requires.
	
We reject petitioner’s contention that the summary 
does not adequately convey that the greenhouse gas emis­
sions levels set out in IP 50 are enforceable. The summary 
provides that IP  50 “requires elimination” of greenhouse 
gas emissions from fossil fuel and industrial sources and 
that the EQC “must adopt rules to ensure compliance.” The 
words “requires” and “must adopt” are mandatory and can 
only refer to the EQC’s authority to enforce the greenhouse 
gas emissions limitations set out in the measure. For that 
reason, we reject petitioner’s argument that the summary 
fails to emphasize that IP 50 requires the EQC to ensure 
compliance with the measure’s emission limits and that it 
Cite as 366 Or 260 (2020)	
271
does not, therefore, “substantially comply” with the require­
ments of ORS 250.035(2)(d).
	
However, as with respect to the caption, we agree 
with the concern that we perceive to underly petitioner’s 
arguments about the use of the word “elimination,” namely, 
that the summary fails to address the fact that the green­
house gas emissions reductions mandated by IP 50 are to 
occur in two steps, with the requirement that the first major 
reduction in emission levels be completed by 2035. Indeed, 
nothing in the Attorney General’s certified summary sug­
gests the existence of a deadline before 2050. As we have 
stated, we agree with petitioner that the inclusion of a two-
step phase-out of greenhouse gas emissions is a major effect 
of IP 50. As such, it must be included in the summary. We 
therefore conclude that the Attorney General’s certified 
summary for IP 50 does not substantially comply with the 
requirements of ORS 250.035(2)(d) in that respect and refer 
the summary to the Attorney General for modification.
	
The ballot title is referred to the Attorney General 
for modification.