Title: Baker v. Keisling

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

815 P.2d 698 (1991)
312 Or. 8
John E. BAKER, Petitioner,
v.
Phil KEISLING, Secretary of State of the State of Oregon, Respondent.
David Gernant and Stevie Remington, Petitioners,
v.
PHIL KEISLING, Secretary of State of the State of Oregon, Respondent.
Lon T. Mabon, Petitioner,
v.
Phil KEISLING, Secretary of State of the State of Oregon, Respondent.
David K. Allen, Petitioner,
v.
Phil Keisling, Secretary of State of the State of Oregon, Respondent.
SC38245, SC38269, SC38275, SC38248.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.
Argued and Submitted July 10, 1991.
Submitted on the Record and Briefs July 10, 1991.
Decided August 8, 1991.
*699 John S. Ransom, of Ransom, Blackman & Weil, Portland, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioner John E. Baker.
Charles F. Hinkle, Portland, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioners David Gernant and Stevie Remington.
Henry Kane, Beaverton, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioner Lon T. Mabon.
David K. Allen, Salem, filed the petition pro se.
Michael D. Reynolds, Asst. Sol. Gen., Salem, waived appearance on behalf of respondent.
Baker/Gernant and Remington/Mabon v. Keisling: Argued and Submitted July 10, 1991.
Allen v. Keisling: Submitted on the Record and Briefs July 10, 1991.
PER CURIAM.
In this original proceeding, petitioners challenge the ballot title for a proposed initiative measure.[1] Petitioners timely submitted written comments on the Attorney General's draft ballot title and, therefore, they are entitled to petition this court seeking a different title. ORS 250.085(2). We modify the ballot title and certify it as modified.
The Attorney General certified this ballot title to the Secretary of State:
For the reasons that follow, we modify the Attorney General's Caption and approve his Question and Summary.
ORS 250.035(1)(a) requires that the ballot title of a proposed initiative measure shall consist of "[a] caption of not more than 10 words which reasonably identifies the subject of the measure." We review for substantial compliance with that requirement. ORS 250.085(4); Reed v. Roberts, 304 Or. 649, 652, 748 P.2d 542 (1988).
Both the proponents and the opponents of the measure argue in this court that the Attorney General's Caption fails reasonably to identify the subject of the measure.[2] We agree. The Attorney General's *700 Caption is so general as to be meaningless. The Attorney General's words, "certain conduct," could refer to driving while intoxicated, smoking cigarettes, or owning "pit bull" terriers, for all the Attorney General's Caption communicates. Thus, the Attorney General's Caption does not substantially comply with ORS 250.035(1)(a), because it fails reasonably to identify the subject of the measure. Accordingly, we modify the Caption to identify the subject of the measure, i.e., homosexuality and other listed behaviors. We substitute this Caption:
We have considered petitioners' arguments concerning the Attorney General's Question and Summary. We conclude that both substantially comply with the statutory requirements. ORS 250.035(1)(b), (c); ORS 250.085(4).
Pursuant to ORS 250.085(4), we certify to the Secretary of State the following ballot title:
APPENDIX
The text of the proposed measure reads:
"(2) As used in this section:
[1]  The Appendix contains the text of the proposed measure.
[2]  Petitioners have proposed the following alternative Captions:

Petitioner Baker:
"AMENDS CONSTITUTION: HOMOSEXUALITY DECLARED ABNORMAL; DENIES GOVERNMENT BENEFITS"
Petitioners Gernant and Remington:
"AMENDS CONSTITUTION: REQUIRES DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS, OTHER `ABNORMAL' PERSONS"
Petitioner Mabon:
"AMENDS CONSTITUTION: RECOGNIZES CERTAIN CONDUCT AS ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR; SETS STANDARDS"
Petitioner Allen:
"AMENDS CONSTITUTION; DECLARES CERTAIN CONDUCT ABNORMAL; REQUIRES GOVERNMENT CONDEMNATION"