Title: Novick/Sager v. Myers

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

FILED: July 9, 1999 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STEVEN NOVICK,

Petitioner,

     v.

HARDY MYERS, Attorney General,

State of Oregon,

Respondent.

(SC S46366)

JAMES SAGER and JOHN CHASE,

Petitioners,

     v.

HARDY MYERS, Attorney General,

State of Oregon,

Respondent.

(SC S46373)

(Consolidated for Argument and Opinion)

	En Banc

	Argued and submitted May 18, 1999.

	Steven Novick, Portland, argued the cause and filed the
petition in propria persona.

	Margaret S. Olney, of Smith, Gamson, Diamond and Olney,
Portland, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioners
Sager and Chase.

	Douglas F. Zier, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued
the cause for respondent.  Also on the memoranda were Hardy
Myers, Attorney General, Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General,
and Richard D. Wasserman, Assistant Attorney General, Salem.

	CARSON, C. J.

	Ballot title certified as modified.  This decision shall
become effective in accordance with ORAP 11.30(10).

	CARSON, C. J.

	In this consolidated proceeding, petitioners challenge
the Attorney General's certified ballot title for a proposed
initiative measure.  Petitioners are electors who submitted
timely written comments on the draft ballot title as provided by
ORS 250.067(1) and, therefore, are entitled to seek this court's
review of the certified ballot title.  ORS 250.085(2).

	Our task is to determine whether the Attorney General's
certified ballot title complies substantially with the statutory
requirements.  See ORS 250.035(2) (prescribing content of ballot
title for statewide measure); ORS 250.085(5) (prescribing
standard of review).  For the reasons that follow, we modify the
Attorney General's ballot title and certify the modified title to
the Secretary of State. 

	The proposed initiative measure would add a new section
to Article I of the Oregon Constitution.  The new section would
require voter approval of most new or increased state and local
government taxes, fees, and charges after November 7, 2000.  It
also would require the repeal and a refund of certain new or
increased state and local government taxes, fees, and charges
that had been enacted in the two years prior to the effective
date of the measure, unless those taxes, fees, and charges are
approved by the voters in a new vote. 

	The measure also would set a percentage requirement for voter approval of the taxes, fees, and charges to which it
applies.  That requirement is best understood when considered in
its historical context.  In 1998, the voters approved Ballot
Measure 63.  Or Const, Art II, § 23 (adopted by the people
November 3, 1998).  That measure requires that, in all future
elections for initiated or referred measures, 

	"[a]ny measure that includes any proposed requirement
for more than a majority of votes cast by the
electorate to approve any change in law or government
action shall become effective only if approved by at
least the same percentage of voters specified in the
proposed voting requirement."

In other words, if a measure proposes to require a supermajority,
the measure itself must be approved by the same supermajority of
voters.  See generally Nesbitt v. Myers, 328 Or 400, 402, __ P2d
__ (1999) (describing content of Ballot Measure 63).  

		In contrast to Ballot Measure 63, this proposed
initiative measure ties the percentage needed to pass the subject
new or increased taxes, fees, and charges to the percentage of
voters that ultimately would pass this proposed measure.  The
pertinent wording from the proposed initiative measure provides
as follows: 

"No new tax, fee, or charge shall be imposed,
assessed or levied, and no existing tax, fee or charge
shall be increased by the state or any local government
or taxing district, unless * * * the new tax, fee, or
charge, or increase thereof, is approved by not less
than the percentage of participating voters who voted
'Yes' on this 2000 Amendment."  

As a result of that provision, this proposed initiative measure
leaves undetermined the percentage of voters required to pass
such new and increased taxes, fees, and charges, but may result
in requiring a supermajority -- depending upon the actual passage
rate of the measure and assuming that the measure indeed does
pass.  In short, the actual percentage required to pass the
subject taxes, fees, and charges will not be known until the
election on this proposed initiative measure.  

		The Attorney General certified the following ballot
title for the proposed initiative measure:	

"AMENDS CONSTITUTION: REQUIRES VOTER APPROVAL

 OF MOST NEW AND INCREASED TAXES, FEES

		"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE: 'Yes' vote requires voter
approval of most new, increased taxes, fees; may repeal
recent increases.

		"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE: 'No' vote rejects requiring voter
approval of most new, increased taxes, fees; maintains
recent increases.

		"SUMMARY: Amends Constitution.  Currently voters
approve taxes by majority vote; not all new, increased
taxes, fees require voter approval.  Measure requires voter
approval after November 7, 2000 of most new, increased
taxes, fees by same percentage of voters passing this
measure.  Repeals or requires new vote on certain recent tax
increases.  Exempts some charges, bonded indebtedness,
public safety levies from new approval requirement.  Allows
certain tax, fee increases without public vote in limited
circumstances.  Establishes standards for taxpayer
challenge, judicial review of tax measures.  Other changes." 

		Petitioner Novick challenges the caption and the result
statements.  Petitioners Chase and Sager challenge the caption,
the result statements, and the summary.  We address their
challenges below.

CAPTION

	The caption reasonably must identify the subject matter
of the proposed initiative measure in not more than 10 words. 
ORS 250.035(2)(a).  Petitioners argue that the proposed
initiative measure has two separate subject matters:  (1)
requiring voter approval of new or increased taxes and fees; and
(2) establishing a percentage by which new taxes and fees must be
approved.  Petitioners contend that the caption is inadequate
because it leaves out the latter subject.  In petitioners' view,
the fact that the voter-approval rate likely would change from a
simple majority to a "supermajority" is part of the "subject
matter" of the proposed initiative measure, and, therefore, it
must be included in the caption.  

	We agree with petitioners.  The "subject matter" of a
proposed measure may not be reducible to a single phrase; two or
more phrases may be required.  See, e.g.,  Baker v. Keisling, 312
Or 385, 391, 822 P2d 1162 (1991); Doell v. Myers, 328 Or 635,
639, __ P2d __ (1999) (both illustrating concept).  The likely
change in the voter-approval margin requirements set out in this
proposed initiative measure is an important part of the subject
matter of the measure.  Because the Attorney General's caption
mentions only voter approval of new and increased taxes and fees,
it fails to comply substantially with the requirements of

ORS 250.035(2)(a).  We modify the Attorney General's caption as
follows: 

		AMENDS CONSTITUTION: VOTERS MUST APPROVE MOST

 TAXES, FEES; REQUIRES CERTAIN APPROVAL PERCENTAGE

RESULT STATEMENTS	The "yes" result statement must identify "the result if
the state measure is approved" in not more than 15 words.  

ORS 250.035(2)(b).  Petitioners contend that the Attorney
General's "yes" statement is underinclusive, because it does not
address the potential requirement of a new voter-approval margin. 
For the reasons already expressed, we agree that the "yes"
statement should address the voter-approval margin set out in the
proposed initiative measure.  Because the "yes" statement does
not address the voter-approval margin, we conclude that the "yes"
statement fails to comply substantially with ORS 250.035(2)(b). 
We therefore modify the "yes" statement as follows:  

		RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "Yes" vote means voters
approve taxes, fees by certain approval percentage; may
repeal recent increases.

		Petitioners also object to the "no" result statement. 
The "no" statement must identify "the result if the state measure
is rejected" in not more than 15 words.  ORS 250.035(2)(c).  The
result statements also must be written, if possible, in such a
way that the wording of the "yes" and "no" statements is
"parallel."  ORS 250.035(3).  Petitioners contend that the "no"
statement is misleading and does not convey to voters meaningful
information on the existing status of the law.  Petitioners Sager
and Chase also contend that the "no" result statement should
focus voter attention upon the primary purpose of the proposed
initiative measure, which is to change the rules -- including the
voter-approval margin -- of approving new and increased taxes and
fees. 

	The certified "no" statement omits the potential change
regarding the required voter-approval margin.  Therefore, we
conclude that the "no" result statement fails to comply
substantially with ORS 250.035(2)(c).  We certify instead the
following "no" result statement:

		RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "No" vote retains current
rules for approving, increasing taxes, fees; maintains
previously approved taxes, fees.

	SUMMARY

		The summary must summarize the proposed initiative
measure and its major effect.  ORS 250.035(2)(d).  Petitioners
Sager and Chase assert that the summary is inadequate in two
ways: (1) it fails to use a word such as "prohibit" to highlight
that the proposed initiative measure would prohibit new or
increased taxes without approval by a percentage of voters
equaling the percentage passing the proposed initiative measure;
and (2) it fails to mention that recent new and increased taxes
and fees must be repealed and refunded to the voters, unless such
taxes and fees are approved by the voters in a new vote by the
same majority passing the proposed initiative measure.  We
disagree with petitioners' first argument.  It is accurate to
state that the proposed initiative measure requires voter
approval of taxes and fees, and the Attorney General's certified
summary is adequate in that regard.  

		Petitioners' second argument, however, is well taken. 
The proposed initiative measure may require both repeal and
refund of recent new or increased taxes and fees.  The Attorney
General's summary does not mention "refunds."  The potential for
refunds is a significant effect of the proposed initiative
measure.  Therefore, the Attorney General's summary fails to
comply substantially with the requirement of ORS 250.035(2)(d),
but only if it is possible to mention refunds within the 85-word
limitation imposed upon summaries.  The following summary cures
the inadequacy of the Attorney General's summary:

		SUMMARY: Amends Constitution.  Currently voters
approve taxes by majority vote; not all new, increased
taxes, fees require voter approval.  Measure requires
voter approval after November 7, 2000 of most new,
increased taxes, fees by same percentage of voters
passing this measure.  Requires repeal and refund of
certain recent tax, fee increases unless voters approve
increase.  Exempts some charges, bonded indebtedness,
public safety levies from new approval requirement.
Public vote not required in limited circumstances.
Establishes standards for taxpayer challenge, judicial
review of tax measures.  Other changes.  

		We certify the following ballot title for the proposed

measure to the Secretary of State pursuant to ORS 250.085(5):

		AMENDS CONSTITUTION: VOTERS MUST APPROVE MOST

 TAXES, FEES; REQUIRES CERTAIN APPROVAL PERCENTAGE

		RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "Yes" vote means voters
approve taxes, fees by certain approval percentage; may
repeal recent increases.

		RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "No" vote retains current
rules for approving, increasing taxes, fees; maintains
previously approved taxes, fees.

		SUMMARY: Amends Constitution.  Currently voters
approve taxes by majority vote; not all new, increased
taxes, fees require voter approval.  Measure requires
voter approval after November 7, 2000 of most new,
increased taxes, fees by same percentage of voters
passing this measure.  Requires repeal and refund of
certain recent tax, fee increases unless voters approve
increase.  Exempts some charges, bonded indebtedness,
public safety levies from new approval requirement.
Public vote not required in limited circumstances.
Establishes standards for taxpayer challenge, judicial
review of tax measures.  Other changes.

	Ballot certified as modified.  This decision shall
become effective in accordance with ORAP 11.30(10).