Title: Sizemore/Novick v. Myers

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

Filed:  August 9, 2001
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

BILL SIZEMORE, 
	Petitioner,
	v.  
HARDY MYERS,
Attorney General, State of Oregon, 
	Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
STEVEN NOVICK,
Petitioner,
	v.
HARDY MYERS,
Attorney General, State of Oregon,
	Respondent.
(SC S48280; S48283)
(Consolidated for Argument and Opinion)

	On petitions to review ballot title.
	Argued and submitted May 8, 2001.
	Ernest J. Simmons, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner
Sizemore.  Gregory W. Byrne, Portland, filed the petition.
	Steven Novick, Portland, argued the cause and filed the
petition for himself as petitioner.
	David Coursen, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the
cause for respondent.  With him on the answering memoranda were
Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor
General.
	Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Durham, Leeson,
Riggs and De Muniz, Justices.*
	RIGGS, J.
	Ballot title referred to Attorney General for modification.
	*Kulongoski, J., resigned June 14, 2001, and did not
participate in the decision of this case.
		RIGGS, J.
These two ballot title review proceedings have been
consolidated for the purposes of oral argument and opinion. 
These proceedings are brought under ORS 250.085(2) (1) and concern
the Attorney General's certified ballot title for a proposed
initiative measure, denominated by the Secretary of State as
Initiative Petition 19 (2002).  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 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).  See ORS 250.085(5) (stating that requirement). (2)
		The proposed initiative measure would add the following
text to Article XV of the Oregon Constitution:
		"Section 10(1)  No public funds shall be spent to
collect or assist in the collection of money used for a
political purpose.
		"(2)  For purposes of this section, money shall be
deemed used for a political purpose if any portion of
the money, including in-kind contributions, pass-through contributions through another person or
organization, and independent expenditures, is
contributed to a candidate or political committee or
party, or is spent supporting or opposing a candidate
for public office or a ballot measure, including any
effort to collect signatures to place a measure on the
ballot, and any efforts, including but not limited to
direct mail and electronic or other media campaigns, to
solicit signatures for initiative petitions or to
discourage electors from signing initiative petitions.
		"(3)  For purposes of this section, public funds
shall include public employee time on the job, public
buildings, and public equipment and supplies.
		"(4)  For purposes of this section, money paid to,
received by or spent by the State or a county elections
division to place any information, including paid or
unpaid statements, in an official Voters Pamphlet shall
not be considered used for a political purpose. 
Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting
or restricting in any way the use of public funds to
assemble, publish, or distribute an official Voters
Pamphlet or restricting in any way the information that
an official Voters Pamphlet may contain.
		"(5) For purposes of this section, money spent
lobbying an elected official shall not be deemed used
for a political purpose.  So as to prevent political
campaigning under the guise of 'lobbying,' money spent
on or contributed to any direct mail, print, or
electronic media or other campaign, which names or
otherwise identifies a person who is a candidate for
public office in an election held less than 90 days
after the date of the communication, shall be deemed
used for a political purpose. 
		"(6)  Public entities are prohibited from
providing a service prohibited by this section even if
reimbursed for the cost of doing so.
		"(7)  No public entity shall collect or assist in the
collection of funds for any purpose for a person or
organization, if, after the effective date of this
Amendment, the person or organization has:  (i) used for
political purposes any of the funds collected for it by a
public entity after the effective date of this Amendment, or
(ii) commingled non-political funds collected by a public
entity after the effective date of this Amendment with
political funds.
		"(8) The penalty for any person or organization,
which expends for a political purpose money collected
using public funds, shall be double the amount of money
contributed to or spent for a political purpose in
violation of this section.
		"(9)  If any phrase, clause, or part of this
section is found to be unconstitutional by a court of
competent jurisdiction, the remaining phrases, clauses,
and parts shall remain in full force and effect.  This
section shall not be applied so as to violate the right
of any individual or group under the U.S. Constitution,
but shall be effective in all circumstances and for all
individuals and groups for which no infringement has
been found, and shall be effective when an infringement
has been found, but ceases to exist."
		The Attorney General certified the following ballot
title for Initiative Petition 19:
"AMENDS CONSTITUTION: PROHIBITS USING PAYROLL DEDUCTION PROCESS, OTHER PUBLIC RESOURCES TO COLLECT 'POLITICAL' MONEY FROM PUBLIC EMPLOYEES

"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE: 'Yes' vote prohibits using
any public resource, including payroll deduction
process, in collecting money used for 'political
purposes' (as defined), even if collection costs
reimbursed.
		"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE: 'No' vote retains current
law, rejects prohibition on using any public resource,
including payroll deduction process, in collecting
money used for 'political purposes' (as defined).
		"SUMMARY: Amends constitution.  Current law
permits voluntary payroll deductions from public
employees for political purposes, prohibits compelled
contributions; limits political activity on government
time.  Measure would prohibit using payroll deduction
process, taking any other actions using 'public funds'
-- even if funds reimbursed -- to collect money for
union or any other entity that uses any portion of
collected money for any 'political purpose.' Use for
'political purpose' includes direct, indirect
contribution to political candidate, committee, party;
expenditure supporting or opposing candidate or ballot
measure, encouraging or discouraging petition
signatures; commingling with other money used for
political purpose.  'Public funds' include public
employee work time, public buildings, equipment,
supplies.  Measure allows using collected money for
lobbying (with exceptions), producing official Voter's
Pamphlet.  Double penalty for violations.  Other
provisions."
		Petitioner Sizemore challenges the caption and result
statements of the Attorney General's certified ballot title on
the ground that they improperly focus on one effect of the
proposed initiative measure -- payroll deductions -- instead of
the actual subject of the measure -- a prohibition on the use of
public resources for political purposes.  Petitioner Sizemore
relies on two cases in which this court certified ballot titles
different from the one on review for proposed initiative measures
similar to the one on review.  Dale v. Myers, 328 Or 466, 473,
980 P2d 157 (1999); Peppers v. Myers, 325 Or 611, 616, 942 P2d
273 (1997).  The fact that this court has certified different
ballot titles for similarly worded measures, however, does not
preclude the court from determining that the present ballot title
substantially complies with ORS 250.035.  We conclude that
petitioner Sizemore's arguments regarding the caption and result
statements are not well taken.
		Petitioner Novick challenges the summary of the
Attorney General's certified ballot title.  For the reasons
explained below, we agree with petitioner Novick that the summary
misstates existing law and, consequently, fails to comply
substantially with ORS 250.035(2)(d).  We therefore refer the
ballot title to the Attorney General for modification.  See Or
Laws 2001, ch 802, § 2 (amending ORS 250.085 to give this court
discretion, on determining that ballot title does not
substantially comply with statutory requirements, to refer matter
to Attorney General for modification); Flanagan v. Myers, 332 Or
318, 325 , ___ P3d ___ (2001) (determining that challenged ballot
titles did not comply substantially with statutory requirements
and referring those ballot titles to Attorney General for
modification).  
		ORS 250.035(2)(d) provides that the ballot title of any
initiative measure shall include "[a] concise and impartial
statement of not more than 125 words summarizing the state
measure and its major effect."  The Attorney General properly has
attempted to summarize the proposed measure and its major effect
by contrasting existing law with the new prohibitions that the
proposed measure would place in the Oregon Constitution. 
Specifically, the Attorney General's summary states:
"Current law permits voluntary payroll deductions from
public employees for political purposes, prohibits
compelled contributions; limits political activity on
government time.  Measure would prohibit using payroll
deduction process, taking any other actions using
'public funds' -- even if funds reimbursed -- to
collect money for union or any other entity that uses
any portion of collected money for any 'political
purpose.'  * * * 'Public funds' include public employee
work time[.]"
(Emphasis added.)  In other words, the proposed measure would
prohibit the use of "public funds" to collect money for a
"political purpose" and defines "public funds" to include
"employee work time."  The summary contrasts what the proposed
measure would prohibit with current law, which, according to the
summary, "limits political activity on government time." 
(Emphasis added.)  Taken as a whole, the summary connotes that
current law restricts or reduces, but does not prohibit, public
employees from collecting money for a political purpose on work
time.
		That is not an accurate statement of current law.  A
statute currently in effect already prohibits public employees
from collecting or attempting to collect political contributions
during work hours.  ORS 260.432(2) provides:
"No public employee shall solicit any money,
influence, service or other thing of value or otherwise
promote or oppose any political committee or promote or
oppose the nomination or election of a candidate, the
gathering of signatures on an initiative, referendum or
recall petition, the adoption of a measure or the
recall of a public office holder while on the job
during working hours.  However, this section does not
restrict the right of a public employee to express
personal political views."
By suggesting that current law merely "limits" the relevant
political activity -- collecting political contributions on work
time -- and that the proposed measure would "prohibit" that
activity, the Attorney General's summary conveys the misleading
impression that the proposed measure would close a loophole that
permits public employees to exercise a limited right to collect
political contributions on the job.  There is no such loophole.
		The Attorney General argues that the phrase "limits
political activity on government time" is not an inaccurate
characterization of ORS 260.432(2).  We understand his argument
to be that a prohibition is indeed a limit (albeit the strongest
sort of limit) and, thus, his summary, although not as precise as
it could be, is not inaccurate.  We agree, in the abstract, that
the term "limit" might not be an inaccurate synonym for
"prohibit."   Initiative Petition 19, however, actually is
confined to one particular subject:  collecting political
contributions with public resources.  In the context of that
subject, discussing any other limits on public employees'
political activity during work hours is irrelevant and, in the
form chosen by the Attorney General, misleading.
		We conclude that petitioner Novick has demonstrated
that the summary fails to comply substantially with ORS
250.035(2)(d).  Accordingly, we refer the ballot title to the
Attorney General for modification.  
		Ballot title referred to Attorney General for
modification.



1. 	Although the 2001 Legislature amended ORS 250.085 in
certain respects, subsection (2) of that statute was not
affected.  Or Laws 2001, ch 802, § 2 (hereafter "House Bill
2213"); see Flanagan v. Myers, 332 Or 318, 323-24, ___ P3d ___ 
(2001) (discussing substance and effect of House Bill 2213). 
House Bill 2213 became effective on its passage, HB 2213, § 4,
and applies to ballot title proceedings pending in this court,
id., § 3.  Where relevant, we note whether House Bill 2213
affects these proceedings.  

2. 	House Bill 2213 amended ORS 250.085(5), but that
amendment does not alter the "substantial compliance" standard of
review.