Case Name: Jerry CARUTHERS, Petitioner, v. John R. KROGER, Attorney General, State of Oregon, Respondent
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2010-04-29
Citations: 348 Or. 269
Docket Number: SC S057678
Parties: Jerry CARUTHERS, Petitioner, v. John R. KROGER, Attorney General, State of Oregon, Respondent.
Judges: Before De Muniz, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Durham, Balmer, Kistler, and Linder, Justices.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 348
Pages: 269–279

Head Matter:
On petitioner’s objections to modified ballot title filed March 29, considered and under advisement March 31,
second modified ballot title certified to Secretary of State April 29,
reconsideration denied June 11, 2010
Jerry CARUTHERS, Petitioner, v. John R. KROGER, Attorney General, State of Oregon, Respondent.
(SC S057678)
230 P3d 923
See also, 347 Or 660, 227 P3d 723; 348 Or 63, 228 P3d 549.
Thomas K. Doyle, Bennett, Hartman, Morris & Kaplan, LLP, Portland, filed the objections and the reply for petitioner.
Douglas F. Zier, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed a response to petitioner’s objections for respondent.
Before De Muniz, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Durham, Balmer, Kistler, and Linder, Justices.
PER CURIAM
Durham, J., dissented and filed an opinion, in which Gillette, J., joined.
Walters, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
This ballot title review proceeding involving Initiative Petition 43 (2010) is before the court for a third time. See Caruthers v. Kroger, 347 Or 660, 227 P3d 723 (2010) (certified ballot title referred to Attorney General for modification); Caruthers v. Kroger, 348 Or 63, 228 P3d 549 (2010) (Attorney General's modified ballot title referred to Attorney General for further modification). In response, on March 23, 2010, the Attorney General certified a second modified ballot title, which we set out in full:
"Amends Constitution: Prohibits current and future elections laws from disqualifying
registered voters' signatures on initiative/ referendum petitions
"Result of Yes' Vote: Yes' vote sets aside many existing controls over initiative/referendum signature collection and verification process and prohibits the legislature from enacting statutes for those controls.
"Result of 'No' Vote: 'No' vote retains existing laws and regulations that control the initiative and referendum signature collection and verification process for determining if measure qualifies for ballot.
"Summary: Amends constitution. Initiative and referendum petitions qualify for ballot only when they are signed by a sufficient number of qualified registered voters. Currently, constitutional provisions, statutes, and administrative rules establish requirements for signature collection, verification, and counting to prevent fraud, forgery, or improper signature gathering; for example, disqualifying entire petition signature sheet if circulator's signature is undated or date is crossed out. Measure prohibits the disqualification of any individual registered voter's signature on an initiative/referendum petition, even when signature on the petition was obtained in violation of current elections laws. Prohibits any future statute or administrative rule from disqualifying registered voters' signatures 'for purposes of determining whether the initiative or referendum petition has obtained enough signatures to qualify for submission to voters.' Other provisions."
Petitioner has filed objections to the caption and the summary in the second modified ballot title. Petitioner argues that, contrary to this court's prior directions, the caption still focuses incorrectly on election laws that disqualify voters' signatures on initiative and referendum petitions. He also contends that the summary is insufficient. He complains that, by using only a minor technical deficiency as an example of an election law that the proposed measure would invalidate, the summary misleads voters into believing that the subject matter of the measure is the protection of voters' signatures against invalidation due to similar minor technicalities.
The court has reviewed the second modified ballot title and petitioner's objections, and has concluded that petitioner's objections do not demonstrate that the second modified ballot title lacks substantial compliance with the requirements of ORS 250.035. ORS 250.085(8) and (9). Therefore, the court will certify the second modified ballot title, quoted above, to the Secretary of State.
The second modified ballot title is certified to the Secretary of State.