Title: Kain v. Myers

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

Filed: March 6, 2003
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

KRIS KAIN,
TRICIA BOSAK, and TIM NESBITT,
	Petitioners,
	v.
HARDY MYERS,
Attorney General,
State of Oregon,
	Respondent.
(SC S50085)

	On petition to review ballot title.
	Submitted on the record February 24, 2003.
	Margaret S. Olney, of Smith, Gamson, Diamond & Olney,
Portland, filed the petition for petitioners.
	David F. Coursen, 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 Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Durham, Riggs,
De Muniz, and Balmer, Justices.
	GILLETTE, J.
	Ballot title referred to Attorney General for modification.
	GILLETTE, J.
	This ballot title review proceeding brought under ORS
250.085(2) concerns the Attorney General's certified ballot title
for a proposed initiative measure that the Secretary of State has
denominated as Initiative Petition 23 (2004).  The proposed
measure, if adopted, would amend the Oregon Constitution by
adding a section forbidding use of a public payroll system "to
collect or to help collect political funds" and imposing
consequences on any entity that uses money collected for it
through the public payroll system "for a political purpose."
	Petitioners are electors who timely submitted written
comments to the Secretary of State concerning the content of the
Attorney General's draft ballot title and who therefore are
entitled to seek review of the resulting certified ballot title
in this court.  See ORS 250.085(2) (stating 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).  ORS 250.085(5).  For the reasons that follow,
we conclude that it does not.
	The Attorney General certified the following ballot
title for Initiative Petition 23:
"AMENDS CONSTITUTION: PROHIBITS COLLECTING
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS FOR
ORGANIZATIONS USING DEDUCTED FUNDS FOR
'POLITICAL PURPOSES' (DEFINED)

		"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE: 'Yes' vote prohibits
organizations using money collected through automatic
public employee payroll deductions for 'political
purposes' (as defined) from receiving any deducted
money in future.
		"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE: 'No' vote retains current
law, rejects proposed prohibition against receiving
public employee payroll-deducted money, for
organizations using such money for 'political purposes'
(as defined).
		"SUMMARY: Amends Constitution.  Current law allows
public employees to pay union dues, insurance premiums,
other obligations by payroll deductions; unions cannot
require political contributions.  Measure prohibits
union or other organization receiving money collected
through voluntary public employee payroll deductions
from using collected money for 'political purposes.' 
Permanently prohibits organization that uses or
commingles any portion of money collected from public
employees through payroll deductions for 'political
purpose' from receiving future payroll deductions for
any use.  'Political purpose' includes: direct, in-kind, indirect contributions to candidate, committee,
party; expenditures to support or oppose public office
candidate or ballot measure, collect, solicit, or
discourage ballot measure petition signatures; does not
include lobbying, but does include communication
identifying any public-office candidate within 60 days
of election.  Other provisions."
	 Petitioners challenge the caption, the "yes" vote
result statement, and the "no" vote result statement in the
Attorney General's certified ballot title.  (They have no quarrel
with the summary.)  However, it is fair to say that those
challenges proceed in the main from a common premise, which
petitioners state as follows: 
	"Under the [proposed measure], a public employee who
wishes to use payroll deductions to make payments to
any organization that engages in political activity
cannot do so.  This limitation is separate and distinct
from the limitation placed on organizations that
receive payments or contributions from public employees
through payroll deduction.  In fact, thousands of
Oregon public employees use payroll deduction to make
payments that are expressly designated for political
activity.  They would lose that right [under the
proposed measure]."
With the foregoing premise in mind, we consider petitioners'
challenges to the various parts of the Attorney General's
certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 23 (2004).
CAPTION

	The caption of a certified ballot title shall contain a statement of not more than 15 words "that reasonably identifies
the subject matter of the state measure."  ORS 250.035(2)(a). (1) 
As noted, the caption of the Attorney General's certified ballot
title for Initiative Petition 23 (2004) states:
"AMENDS CONSTITUTION: PROHIBITS COLLECTING
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS FOR
ORGANIZATIONS USING DEDUCTED FUNDS FOR
'POLITICAL PURPOSES' (DEFINED)"

	Petitioners assert that the Attorney General's caption
fails to comply with the statutory standard in three respects. 
First, they assert that the Attorney General has written the
caption in the passive voice and that, so written, it is
"confusing."  We do not agree with petitioners' "passive voice"
premise; we therefore do not address that argument further.
	Second, petitioners assert that use of the phrase
"prohibits collecting public employee payroll deductions" focuses
on, and makes it appear as if the proposed measure focuses on,
activities of public employers when, in fact, the entire measure
is aimed at the activities of those who receive the money so
collected.  We agree with that criticism.  The true focus of the
proposed measure -- its true "subject" -- is what organizations
who receive money from payroll deductions may do with those
deductions.  The proposed measure's answer to that question is
categorical:  The deductions may not be used for "political
purposes," as the proposed measure uses that term, or commingled
with other funds that will be used for "political purposes."  It
follows that, as written, the caption does not comply
substantially with the requirement of ORS 250.035(2)(a) that it
state "the subject matter" of the proposed measure.  The ballot
title must be modified.  We therefore refer it to the Attorney
General for modification.  See ORS 250.085(8) (permitting that
disposition).
	Although it does not affect our disposition of the
issue respecting the caption, we also take note of petitioners'
third argument.  Petitioners argue that the proposed measure will
put an end to the right that public employees presently have to
make contributions to their unions through payroll deduction with
the specific authorization to those unions to use some of the
money so collected for political purposes.  See ORS 292.055
(authorizing payroll deduction to be paid to labor organization).
We agree with petitioners that the proposed measure categorically
puts an end to that practice.  We do not agree, however, that the
Attorney General's caption violates the statute because it does
not include that information.  It might be more completely
accurate to do so and the Attorney General may consider doing so
on referral.  However, given the statutory 15-word limitation in
which the caption must identify the proposed measure's subject,
the failure to mention an aspect of the measure that has a
particular effect on the union members' rights does not
necessarily make the caption invalid.  
"YES" VOTE RESULT STATEMENT

	The "yes" vote result statement is to 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).
As noted, the "yes" vote result statement of the Attorney
General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 23
states:
		"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE: 'Yes' vote prohibits
organizations using money collected through automatic
public employee payroll deductions for 'political
purposes' (as defined) from receiving any deducted
money in future."
	Petitioners have two objections to the Attorney
General's "yes" vote result statement.  First, they assert that,
whether or not the matter must be mentioned in the caption, the
fact that adopting the proposed measure will put an end to the
ability of state employees to make payroll deduction
contributions to their unions (and, necessarily, to any
organization that receives money through a payroll deduction and
then devotes any of its resources to a "political purpose") must
be included in the "yes" vote result statement because it would
be a direct result of adopting the proposed measure.
	We agree.  The only way that the result that
petitioners describe could not occur would be for unions to give
up political activity -- a contingency well outside the realm of
reason.  The Attorney General's "yes" vote result statement
should have referred to that result.  Because it did not, it
fails to comply substantially with the requirement of ORS
250.035(2)(b) and also must be modified.
	Petitioners also assert that the use of the word
"automatic" in the Attorney General's "yes" vote result statement
is misleading, because the point is not whether a deduction of
the kind that the proposed measure would forbid occurs
automatically from time to time, or occurs only once or
sporadically.  Rather, the point is that certain kinds of
deductions would be forbidden.  Again, we agree.  The word
"automatic" should not be used in the modified "yes" vote result
statement.
"NO" VOTE RESULT STATEMENT

		The "no" vote result statement is to 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). 
As noted, the "no" vote result statement of the Attorney
General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 23
states: 
		"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE: 'No' vote retains current
law, rejects proposed prohibition against receiving
public employee payroll-deducted money, for
organizations using such money for 'political purposes'
(as defined)."
	Petitioners assert two objections to the Attorney
General's "no" vote result statement.  First, they object that
the statement mentions "current law," but fails to explain what
current law is.  It follows, they assert, that that reference is
devoid of content and either should be explained further or
eliminated.  We agree with petitioners that, however justified a
reference to "current law" might be in other ballot titles, the
phrase in question has no substance in the context of the present
proceeding.  Including the reference does not "describe[] the
result if the state measure is rejected."
	Petitioners further argue that the Attorney General's
"no" vote result statement is not "simple and understandable," as
the statute commands, but is, instead, "extremely difficult to
understand."  We agree with petitioners that the statement is not
understandable, because it provides no new information to the
reader.  Instead, it simply attaches the word "rejects" to the
same summary of the proposed measure that appeared in the "yes"
vote result statement.  That is, the substantive message of the
Attorney General's "no" vote result statement is that "'no'
rejects 'yes'."  That is not a sufficient explanation to meet the
requirement of ORS 250.035(2)(c).  We hold that the Attorney
General's "no" vote result statement fails substantially to
comply with the requirement of ORS 250.035(2)(c).  On referral,
the Attorney General shall modify it.
	In summary, we hold that the Attorney General's
certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 23 (2004) fails
substantially to comply with the requirements of ORS
250.035(2)(a), (b), and (c).  The ballot title is referred to the
Attorney General for modification.  See ORS 250.085(8)
(authorizing that procedure).
	Ballot title referred to Attorney General for
modification.


1. 	The caption for an initiated measure that would amend
the Oregon Constitution is to begin with the phrase, "Amends
Constitution," which two words do not count toward the 15-word
limitation.  ORS 250.035(2)(a).