Title: Terhune v. Myers

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

FILED:  May 26, 2005
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
CHIP TERHUNE,
KRIS KAIN, 
and ART TOWERS,
Petitioners,
v.
HARDY MYERS,
Attorney General,
State of Oregon,
Respondent.
(S52205)
En Banc
On petition to review ballot title.
Submitted on the record February 28, 2005.
Margaret S. Olney, of Smith, Diamond & Olney, Portland,
filed the petition for petitioners.
Brendan C. Dunn, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed
the response for respondent.  With him on the response were Hardy
Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.
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 an initiative petition, denominated by the Secretary of State
as Initiative Petition 20 (2006).  Initiative Petition 20, if
adopted, would add to Oregon statutes a section whose substantive
purpose is set out in its first paragraph:
"Except for money spent on the preparation,
printing and distribution of an official voters
pamphlet or money spent conducting an election, no
public resource shall be used to collect or help
collect money that will be used for a political
purpose.  If a person, company, group, or
organization uses for a political purpose any money
collected for it by a government entity, including by
an agent acting on behalf of a government entity, or
commingles political funds with funds collected
wholly or in part by a government entity, no
government entity or agent thereof, thereafter, shall
collect money for any purpose for that person,
company, group, or organization."
Initiative Petition 20 has four additional provisions, which are
set out as subsections of the foregoing section.  Subsection (a)
states that "money shall be deemed to have been used for a
political purpose" if any portion of the money, including in-kind
and pass-through contributions and independent expenditures, is
contributed to a candidate, a political committee, or a political
party, "or is spent supporting or opposing * * * a ballot
measure, including any effort to collect signatures to place a
measure on the ballot" (including direct mail and media campaigns
having such purposes).  Subsection (b) excepts from the
initiative petition's coverage "money spent lobbying an elected
official," with a further exception to that exception for certain
money spent on "communications" made within 90 days of an
election.  Subsection (c) provides that the initiative petition
shall supercede any preexisting statute or rule with which it
conflicts.  Subsection (d) is a severability clause.
Petitioners are electors who timely submitted written
comments to the Secretary of State concerning the content of the
Attorney General's draft ballot title for the initiative petition
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)(a) to (d).  ORS
250.085(5).  For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the
ballot title challenged here does not so comply.
The Attorney General certified the following ballot
title for Initiative Petition 20:
"RESTRICTS HOW INDIVIDUALS, ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING
MONEY COLLECTED WITH PUBLIC RESOURCES MAY USE,
MANAGE THAT MONEY
"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE: 'Yes' vote prohibits
individuals, organizations from using money collected
with public resources for 'political purposes'
(defined) and from commingling government-collected
money with political funds.
"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE: 'No' vote retains current
law, which prohibits neither using money collected
with public resources for political purposes nor
commingling government-collected money with political
funds.
"SUMMARY: Current law prohibits neither using
money collected with public resources for political
purposes nor commingling government-collected money
with political funds.  Unless spent
preparing/distributing voters' pamphlet, measure
prohibits individuals and organizations from using
money collected with any public resources for
'political purposes.'  Money is used for 'political
purposes' when any portion is: contributed to
candidate, political committee, party; or spent
supporting/opposing ballot measure or public-office
candidate.  Money is not used for 'political
purposes' when spent lobbying, unless spent on
communications identifying public-office candidate
within 90 days of election.  If an individual,
organization uses money collected by a government
entity for 'political purposes' or commingles that
money with political funds, measure bars individual,
organization from collecting money through government
entities.  Other provisions."
Petitioners challenge the "yes" vote result statement,
the "no" vote result statement, and the summary in the Attorney
General's certified ballot title.  We have considered each of
petitioners' challenges respecting the two result statements and
conclude that they are not well taken.  A more complete
discussion of petitioners' arguments in that regard, or our
reasons for rejecting them, would not benefit the parties, the
public, bench, or bar.  We turn to the petitioners' challenge to
the Attorney General's summary.
ORS 250.035(2)(d) requires that the ballot title
contain a "concise and impartial statement of not more than 125
words summarizing the state measure and its major effect." 
Petitioners assert that the Attorney General's summary fails to
meet the foregoing standard in several different respects.  We
find merit in one of those arguments. (1)
Petitioners contend that the summary inadequately
explains the scope of "political purposes" under Initiative
Petition 20.  Specifically, petitioners point out that, under the
petition, money will be deemed to have been used for a political
purpose if it is spent on efforts to obtain or discourage the
gathering of signatures for initiative petitions.  Petitioners
point out that the summary states only that money will be deemed
to have been used for a political purpose if it is "spent
supporting/opposing ballot measure."  However, petitioner
asserts, a "ballot measure" is a proposed initiative that
actually has been placed on the ballot; signature-gathering in
support of such a measure already has occurred. (2)
Petitioners' argument is well taken.  As noted earlier,
subsection (a) of the Initiative Petition 20 states that "money
shall be deemed to have been used for a political purpose" if any
portion of the money, including in-kind and pass-through
contributions and independent expenditures, "is spent supporting
or opposing * * * a ballot measure, including any effort to
collect signatures to place a measure on the ballot."  (Emphasis
added.)  As the emphasized part of that provision demonstrates,
the initiative petition sweeps beyond the normal understanding of
"ballot measure" to encompass activity preliminary to placing a
proposed measure on the ballot.  However, as petitioners
correctly point out, the Attorney General's summary states only
that "Money is used for 'political purposes' when any portion is:
* * * spent supporting/opposing ballot measure * * *."  That
statement is underinclusive and inaccurate.  It must be changed,
in order for the Attorney General's summary to comply with the
requirements of ORS 250.035(2)(d).  We hold that, for the reason
stated, the Attorney General's summary in his certified ballot
title for Initiative Petition 20 fails to meet the requirements
of ORS 250.035(2)(d). 
Ballot title referred to Attorney General for
modification.
1. Petitioners' other arguments respecting the Attorney
General's summary are not well taken, and we do not discuss them.
2. For some reason, the Attorney General did not respond
in his brief in this case to this argument by petitioners.  In
Towers v. Myers, ___ Or ___, ___, ___ P3d ___ (May 26, 2005)
(slip op at 8-9) (decided this date), we declined to address this
same issue in connection with the Attorney General's certified
ballot title for Initiative Petition 15 (2006), because the
petitioner in that case had not timely raised the issue.  Here,
petitioners did timely raise the issue to the Secretary of State
and therefore are entitled to have it considered here.  See ORS
250.085(6) (with exception not pertinent here, court shall not
consider arguments not submitted to Secretary of State).