Title: Kain v. Myers

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

FILED: November 6, 2003
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

KRIS KAIN
and TRICIA BOSAK,
Petitioners,
	v.
HARDY MYERS,
Attorney General,
State of Oregon,
	Respondent,
     and
LLOYD K. MARBET,
Intervenor.
(SC S50621)

	En Banc
	On petition to review ballot title.
	Submitted on the record September 5, 2003.
	Margaret S. Olney, of Smith, Diamond & Olney, Portland,
filed the petition for petitioners.
	Steven R. Powers, 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.
	Daniel W. Meek, Portland, filed the answering memorandum for 
intervenor.
	KISTLER, J.
	Ballot title referred to Attorney General for modification.
	KISTLER, J.
	Petitioners challenge the ballot title for a proposed
initiative measure that the Secretary of State has denominated as
Initiative Petition 55 (2004).  We review the ballot title for
substantial compliance with ORS 250.035(2) and refer the ballot
title to the Attorney General for modification.
	Initiative Petition 55, if enacted, would revise
Oregon's campaign finance laws.  The proposed measure has five
main parts.  First, the proposed measure limits the amount that
individuals can contribute to candidates, political committees,
and political parties.  Initiative Petition 55 § (3)(a).  It also
limits the amount that political committees (other than small
donor committees) and political parties can contribute to
candidates and each other.  Id.  Second, in candidate campaigns,
the proposed measure limits both the amount of independent
expenditures that individuals can make and the source of funds
from which political committees and parties can make independent
expenditures.  Id. §§ (6)(a), (7)(a).  Third, the proposed
measure prohibits corporations and unions from making
contributions and independent expenditures in both candidate and
ballot measure campaigns. (1)  Id. §§ (3)(a)(1), (7)(c), (8)(a)(1),
(10)(a).  Fourth, the proposed measure limits the amount that
candidates can contribute to their own campaigns.  Id. § (4).
Finally, the proposed measure provides for voluntary contribution
limits, small donor committees, and expanded reporting
requirements.  Id. §§ (3)(a)(5), (3)(b), (11).
	The Attorney General certified the following ballot
title:
		"LIMITS INDIVIDUAL, CORPORATE, UNION,
ORGANIZATIONAL SPENDING TO CANDIDATES, POLITICAL
ENTITIES, MEASURE CAMPAIGNS; EXPANDS REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
		"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE:  'Yes' vote limits: 
individual, corporate, union, organizational spending
to candidates, political entities, ballot measure
campaigns; spending on own candidacy.  Establishes new
disclosure and reporting requirements.
		"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE:  'No' vote retains current
law that does not limit contributors, contributions, or
expenditures for public office candidates and ballot
measure campaigns; retains existing reporting
requirements.
		"SUMMARY:  Current law requires reporting of
certain contributions and expenditures, but does not
limit contributors, contributions, or expenditures for
public office candidates and ballot measure campaigns. 
Measure limits individual contributions to candidates,
political committees, 'small donor committees,'
political parties, with annual cap for all
contributions; limits political committee contributions
to candidates, political parties; limits political
party contributions to candidates, political
committees.  Allows unlimited contributions by 'small
donor committees' (accepting only contributions not
exceeding $50 per individual annually).  Prohibits
corporate, union, organizational contributions,
expenditures except through political committees funded
solely by individuals.  Limits:  candidate's spending
to own candidacy; contributions, expenditures to ballot
measure campaigns by individuals, corporations, unions;
'independent expenditures' (defined) by individuals,
political entities, organizations.  Establishes: 
voluntary contribution limits; new disclosure,
reporting requirements.  Other provisions."
Petitioners challenge the caption, the "yes" vote result
statement, and the summary.  We review the ballot title for
substantial compliance with ORS 250.035(2).  ORS 250.085(5).
	A ballot title caption must contain "not more than 15
words that reasonably identif[y] the subject matter of the state
measure."  ORS 250.035(2)(a).  Petitioners argue that the caption
does not comply with that requirement in two respects.  First,
they argue that the phrase "LIMITS * * * SPENDING TO CANDIDATES,
POLITICAL ENTITIES, MEASURE CAMPAIGNS" is inaccurate and
difficult to read.  They contend that people "do not spend money
to candidates."  (Emphasis in original.)  Rather, they spend
money to support or oppose candidates.  The Attorney General
acknowledges that the wording "may be grammatically unfamiliar"
but argues that the caption still accurately and concisely
conveys the proposed measure's subject matter.
	As "the cornerstone for the other portions of the
ballot title, the caption must identify the subject matter of the
proposed measure 'in terms that will not confuse or mislead
potential petition signers and voters.'"  Kain v. Myers, 333 Or
497, 502, 41 P3d 1076 (2002) (quoting Mabon v. Myers, 332 Or 633,
637, 33 P3d 988 (2001)).  Here, the phrase "LIMITS * * * SPENDING
TO CANDIDATES" is, as the Attorney General acknowledges,
grammatically unfamiliar and, we conclude, confusing.  See Greene
v. Kulongoski, 322 Or 169, 177, 903 P2d 366 (1995) (holding that
a caption with three negative terms close together was confusing
and did not comply substantially with statutory requirements). 
The phrase obscures rather than clarifies the measure's subject. 
For that reason alone, the caption does not substantially comply
with ORS 250.035(2)(a).
	Petitioners' second challenge to the caption consists
of two related arguments.  They argue that, because the caption
mentions the limits on individuals, corporations, and unions in
the same phrase, it "misleadingly suggests to voters that the
limits are the same." Making the same point in a different way,
petitioners argue that the initiative does not merely limit
corporate and union spending but instead prohibits it entirely. 
They contend that the caption should state that difference and
argue that other words in the caption -- "EXPANDS REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS" -- are "'second tier' details" that could be
omitted to stay within the 15-word limit.
	The proposed measure at issue in Carson v. Myers, 326
Or 248, 951 P2d 700 (1998), posed a similar problem.  In that
case, the Attorney General had attempted to identify the subject
matter of a "complex and multi-faceted" ballot measure by
including some of its effects in the title.  Id. at 254.  The
court explained that, given the complexity of the subject matter,
that approach was inherently problematic.  Id.  The court
reasoned that, "beyond stating that the measure revises the
initiative and referendum processes, any further elaboration in
the [c]aption simply reflects a choice to emphasize certain
effects of the measure at the expense of other effects."  Id. 
The court solved the problem by describing the proposed measure's
subject matter generically.  See id. (certifying a caption that
identified the subject matter of that initiative as "REVISES
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM PROCESSES").
	Here, petitioners do not argue that the Attorney
General impermissibly has used the proposed measure's effects to
identify its subject matter, and we do not consider that issue. 
We note Carson, however, because it illustrates the drafting
problem that the Attorney General faces when attempting to
identify the subject of a multifaceted, complex measure.  Seeking
to identify the subject of such a measure by listing some of its
aspects, as the Attorney General has done here, leaves the
caption open to the challenge that the list omits other major
aspects of the measure.  That is petitioners' argument here. 
They contend that, in the context of this proposed measure, the
prohibition on union and corporate contributions and expenditures
is part of the subject matter of the proposed measure that the
caption should include.  Cf. Nesbitt v. Myers, 335 Or 567, 572,
73 P3d 925 (2003) (holding that the caption failed to include
both the measure's subjects).
	We agree with petitioners that the caption fails to
include a major aspect of the proposed measure.  Id.  As
petitioners note, the proposed measure does not simply limit
corporate and union contributions and expenditures in the same
way that it limits other contributions and expenditures.  Rather,
it prohibits them completely.  That is a major part of what the
proposed measure seeks to accomplish.  If the Attorney General
chooses to identify the proposed measure's subject matter by
listing its various parts, the omission of the prohibition on
corporate and union contributions and expenditures means that the
caption does not substantially comply with ORS 250.035(2)(a).
	Petitioners also challenge the Attorney General's "yes"
vote result statement.  ORS 250.035(2)(b) requires "[a] simple
and understandable statement of not more than 25 words that
describes the result if the state measure is approved."  In this
case, the text of the Attorney General's "yes" vote result
statement is almost identical to the caption:
		"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE:  'Yes' vote limits: 
individual, corporate, union, organizational spending
to candidates, political entities, ballot measure
campaigns; spending on own candidacy.  Establishes new
disclosure and reporting requirements."
	Petitioners contend that the statement suffers from the
same problems as the caption.  We agree.  First, the phrase
"limits * * * spending to" is confusing.  Second, despite the
greater word limit, the statement does not mention that the
proposed measure would prohibit corporate and union contributions
and expenditures.  Because that result would be a major part of
the law if the measure passes, its omission means that the
Attorney General's statement does not substantially comply with
the obligation to describe the result of a "yes" vote. (2)
	Petitioners' final challenge is directed at the
Attorney General's summary of the measure.  The statute requires
"[a] concise and impartial statement of not more than 125 words
summarizing the state measure and its major effect."  ORS
250.035(2)(d).  The Attorney General's summary states:
		"SUMMARY:  Current law requires reporting of
certain contributions and expenditures, but does not
limit contributors, contributions, or expenditures for
public office candidates and ballot measure campaigns. 
Measure limits individual contributions to candidates,
political committees, 'small donor committees,'
political parties, with annual cap for all
contributions; limits political committee contributions
to candidates, political parties; limits political
party contributions to candidates, political
committees.  Allows unlimited contributions by 'small
donor committees' (accepting only contributions not
exceeding $50 per individual annually).  Prohibits
corporate, union, organizational contributions,
expenditures except through political committees funded
solely by individuals.  Limits:  candidate's spending
to own candidacy; contributions, expenditures to ballot
measure campaigns by individuals, corporations, unions;
'independent expenditures' (defined) by individuals,
political entities, organizations.  Establishes: 
voluntary contribution limits; new disclosure,
reporting requirements.  Other provisions."
	Petitioners argue that the summary is deficient for
three reasons.  They argue initially that the summary "does not
tell voters that the proposal places an aggregate cap on the
amount individuals can expend on 'express advocacy campaigns' or
'electioneering campaigns' (section 6 [of the proposed
measure])."  (Emphasis omitted.)  Their argument, as we
understand it, is that the summary is deficient because the
proposed measure does not limit the amount of independent
expenditures that an individual can make in a particular
candidate campaign.  Rather, it places a cap on the aggregate
amount of independent expenditures that an individual can make in
a calendar year.
	Petitioners' reading of the proposed measure is
correct.  Their challenge to the summary, however, reduces to the
claim that the statement, "Limits * * * 'independent
expenditures' (defined) by individuals," does not sufficiently
explain that the limit is a cap on the aggregate expenditures
that an individual can make in a calendar year.  Perhaps the
Attorney General's summary could have been more specific.  The
Attorney General's summary is, however, accurate, and we cannot
say that it does not substantially comply with his obligation to
summarize this aspect of the proposed measure. (3)
	Petitioners challenge a second portion of the summary. 
They contend that the sentence, "[p]rohibits corporate, union,
organizational contributions, expenditures except through
political committees funded solely by individuals," is
inaccurate.  They argue that this sentence does not "reference
the prohibition on contributions" and "does not identify what
expenditures are prohibited."  (Emphasis omitted.)  They also
argue that the next sentence, which refers to limiting corporate
and union contributions and expenditures, is confusing.
	We do not accept petitioners' challenges to the
sentence that reads:  "Prohibits corporate, union, organizational
contributions, expenditures except through political committees
funded solely by individuals."  Contrary to petitioners'
argument, that sentence does disclose the prohibition on
contributions as well as expenditures.  It also states that the
proposed measure prohibits contributions and expenditures by
corporations and unions, and the proposed measure does that.
	If the challenged sentence stood alone, it would
substantially comply with the Attorney General's obligation to
summarize the proposed measure.  The difficulty arises, however,
because of the next sentence in the summary.  That sentence
states:  "Limits * * * contributions, expenditures to ballot
measure campaigns by * * * corporations, unions * * *." (4)  As
petitioners note, that portion of the sentence directly
contradicts the prior sentence, which states that corporation and
union contributions and expenditures are prohibited, not limited. 
Those two inconsistent statements are, at a minimum, confusing
and require modification.
	For the reasons stated, we conclude that the Attorney
General must modify the caption, the "yes" vote result statement,
and the summary.  We refer the ballot title to the Attorney
General for modification.  ORS 250.085(8); Flanagan v. Myers, 332
Or 318, 323-25, 30 P3d 408 (2001) (explaining why referral is
appropriate).
	Ballot title referred to Attorney General for
modification.


1. The proposed measure allows corporations and unions to
establish a separate, segregated fund to collect voluntary
contributions from employees or members.  Initiative Petition 55
§ (12).  Corporations and unions may contribute up to $500 a year
to create or administer such a fund.  Id. § (12)(c).

2. Petitioners do not challenge the "no" vote result
statement.

3. As the court explained in Mabon v. Myers, 332 Or at
640, "[o]ur holding that the summary complies substantially with
the statutory requirement should not be understood as preventing
the Attorney General from modifying the summary [on referral for
other issues], should he find it appropriate to do so."

4. The Attorney General appears to contend that
petitioners did not preserve their argument concerning the effect
of this sentence.  The sentence, however, was added after the
comment period expired.  See ORS 250.085(6) (providing that the
court may not consider an unpreserved argument unless it
"concerns language added to or removed from the draft title after
expiration of the comment period provided in ORS 250.067").