Title: Rogers v. Myers

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

452 P.2d 302 (1969)
Joe ROGERS, Petitioner,
v.
Clay MYERS, Secretary of State for Oregon, Respondent. George A. Rhoten, Petitioner,
v.
Clay Myers, Secretary of State for Oregon, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Oregon,
Argued and Submitted March 17, 1969.
Decided March 26, 1969.
Keith D. Skelton, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner Rogers.
David G. Frost, Hillsboro, argued the cause for petitioner Rhoten. With him on the brief was Robert G. Davis, Medford.
Walter J. Apley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Robert Y. Thornton, Atty. Gen., Salem.
Before PERRY, C.J., and McALLISTER, DENECKE, HOLMAN, LANGTRY and HAMMOND, JJ.
HOLMAN, Justice.
House Joint Resolution 8 was enacted by the 55th Legislative Assembly. It submits to a vote of the people on June 3, 1969, a proposed amendment to the Oregon Constitution creating a new Section 11a to be added to Article XI. A ballot title was prepared for the proposed amendment by the legislature in conformance with ORS 254.073(1). Two separate petitions for review of the ballot title were filed in this court pursuant to ORS 254.077 by persons who are dissatisfied with it. The two proceedings were consolidated for hearing.
*303 To describe all of the amendments, provisions and effects in detail would require a more voluminous discourse than is possible or proper in any legal opinion. Generally, however, the amendment does the following:
The law requires that a ballot title have a caption of not to exceed six words and a statement of not to exceed 75 words. The caption must describe the manner in which the measure is usually referred to or spoken of. The statement must describe the chief purpose of the measure. The difficulties inherent in attempting to prepare such a title under the present circumstances is readily apparent.
The present ballot title of House Joint Resolution 8 is as follows:
The ballot title proposed by the petitioner Rogers is as follows:
The ballot title proposed by the petitioner Rhoten is as follows:
The parties to the proceedings are not in great disagreement and have agreed at oral argument that the caption proposed by the petitioner Rhoten is preferable and most fairly describes the manner in which the measure is usually referred to.
The statement in both of the petitioners' proposed titles includes a recitation that a use tax is being enacted as well as a sales tax. No such recitation is in the present title. A use tax is principally used as a mechanism to keep people from escaping the effects of a sales tax by buying outside the state. It is a method of enforcement of a sales tax and we do not believe it to be of sufficient importance to merit special consideration in the title. We therefore do not believe the ballot title as written is insufficient or unfair for that reason.
The principal complaint of petitioners is the failure of the title to include any reference to the provisions of House Bill 1126. This bill includes provisions for an income tax rebate for some low income tax families and provides that there be no increase in property taxes on homesteads of $20,000 or less owned by persons 65 years of age or over.
The purpose of a proceeding such as the present one is not to secure for the bill the best possible ballot title, but to eliminate one that is insufficient or unfair. Moser v. Thornton, 241 Or. 482, 485, 406 P.2d 788 (1965); Wieder v. Hoss, 143 Or. 122, 125, 21 P.2d 780 (1933). The subject matter of House Bill 1126 is of considerable importance and should, in fairness, be included in the ballot title provided nothing of greater importance need be excluded by its insertion. We find we can rewrite the ballot title and leave out no information now included in it and still leave sufficient words to include mention of the contents of House Bill 1126.
In addition, the ballot title makes no mention that the proposed constitutional limitations on the levying of taxes by school districts are replacements for already existing limitations. We believe that fairness requires that the voter be informed that one set of limitations is being substituted for another. Mosser v. Thornton, supra.
The following caption and ballot title is certified by this court to the Secretary of State: