Title: Carson v. Myers
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S44509
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: January 8, 1998

Filed:  January 8, 1998

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

JANN CARSON,		

	Petitioner,				

	v.							

HARDY MYERS, Attorney General,	
State of Oregon,				
______________________________	Respondent.				
ROGER GRAY, JAMES SAGER	
and ALICE DALE,					

	Petitioners,						 

	v.													

HARDY MYERS, Attorney General,		
State of Oregon,					

	Respondent,					

	and						
					

BILL SIZEMORE,					
_______________________________	Intervenor.
BILL SIZEMORE,		

	Petitioner,					

	v.													

HARDY MYERS, Attorney General,		
State of Oregon,					

	Respondent.					

(SC S44509 (control), S44510, S44511

(cases consolidated for argument and opinion))

	In Banc

	On petitions to review ballot title.

	Argued and submitted November 25, 1997.

	Andrea R. Meyer, Portland, argued the cause and filed the
petition for petitioner Jann Carson.

	Monica A. Smith, Portland, argued the cause for petitioners
Roger Gray, James Sager, and Alice Dale.  The petition was filed
by Paul B. Gamson, Portland, and Lynn-Marie Crider, Salem.

	Gregory W. Byrne, Portland, argued the cause and filed the
petition for petitioner Bill Sizemore.

	John T. Bagg, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the
cause for respondent.  With him on the responses were Hardy
Myers, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor
General.

	GILLETTE, J.

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

		GILLETTE, J.

		These three ballot title review proceedings are
consolidated for purposes of argument and opinion.  The
petitioners in each proceeding have challenged the legal
sufficiency of one or more parts of a ballot title certified by
the Attorney General for Ballot Measure 40 (the proposed
measure).(1)  For the reasons that follow, we modify the Attorney
General's ballot title in certain respects and, as modified,
certify it.

		Measure 40, self-styled as the "Initiative Reform Act,"
is a wide-ranging revision of the initiative and referendum
process as it presently is practiced in Oregon.  Its scope cannot
be captured easily in a brief summary.  We therefore limit our
discussion of its contents to those portions that must be
mentioned in order to respond to the particular arguments that we
are addressing.   

		The Attorney General certified the following ballot
title for Measure 40:

         "AMENDS CONSTITUTION:  REVISES INITIATIVE 
		 AND REFERENDUM PROCESS, PROVIDES FOR 
			YEARLY INITIATIVE ELECTIONS

		"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE: Vote 'Yes' for yearly
initiative elections, revised signature requirements,
limit restrictions on paid signature gatherers.

		"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE: Vote 'No' to retain present
constitutional and statutory controls on initiative and
referendum.

		"SUMMARY: Amends Constitution, changes number of
required signatures; permits two year minimum to gather
signatures.  Restricts legislature's referral or
enactment of changes in initiative process, restricts
enactment of laws controlling petition circulation, who
may circulate, payment of circulators.  Chief
petitioner selects 40% of committee to draft statewide
ballot titles; if challenged, Supreme Court must choose
between petitioner's, committee's or challenger's
ballot title.  Elections held each year in November. 
For some elections, removes voter turnout requirement
on local measures.  Prohibits publicly funded
challenges to initiative approved laws."

This court's review of the Attorney General's ballot title is
limited to a determination whether, in the face of the challenges
raised by the parties, the ballot title is in "substantial
compliance" with the requirements of ORS 250.035.  ORS
250.085(5).  Because they have taken markedly different
approaches to the ballot title, we address the arguments advanced
by each petitioner separately.

		Petitioner Carson challenges only the legal adequacy of
the Summary in the Attorney General's ballot title.  The Summary
must set out a concise and impartial statement of the proposed
measure and its major effects.  ORS 250.035(2)(d).  Petitioner
Carson asserts that the Attorney General's Summary fails to meet
that standard, because 

	"it excludes any mention that Article IV, Section
1(2)(d) [of the Oregon Constitution] would be amended
to dilute the requirement that a proposed initiative
law or constitutional amendment be limited to a single-subject in certain amendments to the Constitution or
proposed laws."

Petitioner's argument refers to a paragraph of Measure 40 that
would add to Article IV, section 1(2)(d), of the Oregon
Constitution, wording that declares that, for the purposes of
"single subject" analysis, a measure that 

	"embrace[s] one subject only and matters properly
connected therewith * * * shall not be deemed to
violate this paragraph, and shall not
	be deemed to be a revision of the Constitution[(2)] 
	because it amends or affects more than one section or
article of the Constitution.  For purposes of this
section, a proposed initiative or amendment which
primarily revises all or part of the system whereby
government taxes or assesses fees or charges shall be
deemed to embrace only one subject."

		It is not clear to us whether or not the addition of
the foregoing wording would, in fact, "dilute" the "single
subject" provision.  Because it is not clear, it is not
appropriate for us to speculate among arguable meanings of a
measure.  See, e.g., Mannix v. Kulongoski, 323 Or 485, 495-96,
918 P2d 839 (1996) (Attorney General did not err in declining to
speculate about scope of existing law).

		Petitioner Carson is correct, however, in suggesting
that something must be said in the Summary to alert the reader
that wording is being added to the Constitution, even if the
ultimate effect of that addition cannot be foretold precisely. 
The Attorney General's Summary is legally deficient in not doing
so.  As we explain elsewhere in this opinion, other changes to
the Summary at least make it possible to add the words "other
provisions" to that portion of the ballot title.  We direct that
that be done.

		We turn next to the challenges made by petitioners
Gray, Sager, and Dale.  They challenge all three parts of the
Attorney General's ballot title.  With respect to the Caption,
they state:

		"This is a complex and multi-faceted proposal.  *
* * [I]t is impossible to draft a Caption which
identifies all of the major subjects touched on by the
proposal.  However, the goal should be a Caption which
is as comprehensive as possible.

		"The [Attorney General's] certified Caption
identifies two points: revisions to the initiative and
referendum processes, and the establishment of annual
initiative elections.  The petitioners suggest an
alternative which keeps these two points and adds a
third: the change in signature requirements."

		ORS 250.035(2)(a) requires that the Attorney General's
ballot title contain 

	"[a] caption of not more than 10 words that reasonably
identifies the subject matter of the state measure. 
The caption of an initiative or referendum amendment to
the constitution shall begin with the phrase, 'Amends
Constitution,' which shall not be counted for purposes
of the 10-word caption limit[.]"

(Emphasis added.)  We agree with petitioners that the Caption in
its present form is inadequate, when examined in the light of the
requirements of ORS 250.035(2)(a), because it catalogues an
effect of the proposed measure, rather than stating its
"subject."  Petitioners' assertion that the proposed measure is
"complex and multi-faceted" is well taken.  However, petitioners'
solution is to describe more effects in the Caption.  That is the
wrong approach.  The Caption is not meant to serve as a
comprehensive statement of the measure's effects.

		The fact is that, beyond stating that the measure
revises the initiative and referendum processes, any further
elaboration in the Caption simply reflects a choice to emphasize
certain effects of the measure at the expense of other effects. 
We conclude that the most accurate thing that may be said about
the subject matter of Measure 40 is conveyed by the use of less
than all the 10-word allotment for the Caption.  We hold that the
Caption should be revised to read:  "AMENDS CONSTITUTION: 
REVISES INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM PROCESSES."

		Petitioners next challenge the Attorney General's
Result Statements.  We deal first with the "Yes" Result
Statement.  ORS 250.035(2)(b) requires that each ballot title for
a state measure contain

	"[a] simple and understandable statement of not more
than 15 words that describes the result if the state
measure is approved.  The statement required by this
paragraph shall include either the phrase, 'I vote' or
'vote yes,' or a substantially similar phrase, which
may be placed at any point within the statement[.]" 

The "yes" statement "shall be written so that an affirmative
response to the statement corresponds to an affirmative vote on
the state measure."  ORS 250.035(4).

		As noted, the Attorney General's "Yes" Result Statement
states:  "RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE:  Vote 'Yes' for yearly initiative
elections, revised signature requirements, limit restrictions on
paid signature gatherers."  Petitioners assert that the foregoing
Statement is not "understandable," under the requirements of ORS
250.035(2)(b), and because it uses confusing syntax, gives an
erroneous impression that annual initiative and referendum
elections would be required, rather than permitted.

		The Attorney General concedes that his "Yes" Result
Statement is inadequate.  He proposes an alteration in the
Statement that corrects the problem by rephrasing the result "for
yearly initiative elections" to "provides annual initiative
elections."  No party challenges the Attorney General's suggested
change.  We find that change acceptable under the statutory
standard and will incorporate it into the Result Statement that
we certify after considering petitioner Sizemore's objections. 

		Petitioners Gray, Sager, and Dale also challenge the
Attorney General's "No" Result Statement, but do so only on the
ground that its wording should be "parallel," at least "to the
extent practical," with the wording of the "Yes" Result
Statement.  ORS 250.035(3).  They suggest a minor revision of the
wording to accomplish that end.  The Attorney General essentially
agrees with their proposal.  We, too, agree that the minor
suggested change to which the Attorney General agrees is
"practical," without sacrificing the substance of the information
required by ORS 250.035(2)(b) and (c).  Accordingly, we certify
the following "No" Result Statement:  "'No' vote retains the
present constitutional and statutory controls on initiative and
referendum."

		Finally, petitioners Gray, Sager, and Dale challenge
the Attorney General's certified Summary in four respects, two of
which we find to be well taken.  Petitioners first point out that
the Attorney General's Summary contains 86 words, when the limit
is 85.  The Attorney General concedes the error.

		Petitioners' argument points up one other defect.  The
Attorney General's Summary fails to alert the reader that, in
addition to the effects that it discusses, there are several
others.  The numerical word limitation prevents a discussion in
the Summary of all of the measure's effects, but the voter should
at least be advised that the measure has other important but
unstated effects, so that the voter can do further reading,
should he or she choose to do so.  The omission may be corrected
by deleting the words "in November" from the Summary and adding,
at the end, the words "other provisions."  We make that
modification.

		The Summary is modified to read as follows:

		SUMMARY:  Amends Constitution.  Changes number of
required signatures on petition, permits two year
minimum to gather signatures.  Restricts legislature's
referral or enactment of changes in initiative process,
restricts laws controlling petition circulation, who
may circulate, payment of circulators.  Committee, 40
percent chosen by chief petitioner, drafts statewide
ballot titles; if challenged, Supreme Court must choose
between petitioner's, committee's, or challenger's
ballot title.  Elections held each year.  For some
elections, removes voter turnout requirement on local
measures.  Prohibits publicly funded challenges to
initiative approved laws.  Other provisions.

		We turn now to the challenges made by petitioner
Sizemore, who is the chief petitioner for the measure.  He
challenges both the Attorney General's Result Statements and the
Summary.  

		Petitioner Sizemore contends that the Attorney
General's "Yes" Result Statement violates ORS 250.035(2)(b)
because it suggests that the measure would limit or restrict only
"paid" signature gatherers when, in fact, that misstates the
result.  At oral argument, the Attorney General conceded
petitioner Sizemore's point and proposed to correct the error by
deleting the word "paid" from the Result Statement.  We find that
change acceptable under the statutory standard, as we did the
change proposed by the Attorney General in response to the
concerns raised by petitioners Gray, Sager, and Dale. 
Accordingly, we incorporate both changes into the "Yes" Result
Statement that we now certify:  "'Yes' vote provides annual
initiative elections, changes signature requirements, limits
regulation of signature gatherers."

		Petitioner Sizemore raised other objections to the
Attorney General's Results Statement, but none of those
objections demonstrates a violation of the standard that the
Attorney General is to observe when drafting a ballot title.  We
do discuss one point, however, because we believe that it will be
repeated in cases of this kind until dealt with.  Petitioner
Sizemore criticizes the Attorney General's "No" Result Statement
on the ground that it fails to "parallel" the wording of the
Attorney General's "Yes" Result Statement.(3)  Petitioner asserts
that such a parallel construction is "required" by the wording in
ORS 250.035(3) that provides that the "Yes" and "No" Result
Statements "shall be written so that, to the extent practical,
the language of the two statements is parallel."  

		Petitioner's premise is wrong.  The provision must be
read as a whole, including the qualifying phrase, "to the extent
practical."  The provision thus is not an absolute.  In the light
of its context -- ORS 250.035(2)(b) and (c) -- we hold that the
statutory preference for parallelism is secondary to the
statutory direction that the Result Statements actually describe
for the voters what the "result" of their vote will be.  To the
extent that petitioner wishes to have this court in the future
treat the parallel language clause in ORS 250.035(3) as a
categorical imperative, we reject his approach.

		With respect to the Summary, petitioner's objections
are similar to his objections to the Result Statements.  We do
not find them to be well taken.

		Having considered the arguments advanced by each of the
petitioners in these three consolidated ballot title review
proceedings, we certify the following ballot title for Ballot
Measure 40 to the Secretary of State pursuant to ORS 250.085(5):

		AMENDS CONSTITUTION:  REVISES INITIATIVE 
			    AND REFERENDUM PROCESSES

		RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "Yes" vote provides annual
initiative elections, changes signature requirements,
limits regulation of signature gatherers.

		RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "No" vote retains the present
constitutional and statutory controls on initiative and
referendum.

		SUMMARY:  Amends Constitution.  Changes number of
required signatures on petition, permits two year
minimum to gather signatures.  Restricts legislature's
referral or enactment of changes in initiative process,
restricts laws controlling petition circulation, who
may circulate, payment of circulators.  Committee, 40
percent chosen by chief petitioner, drafts statewide
ballot titles; if challenged, Supreme Court must choose
between petitioner's, committee's, or challenger's
ballot title.  Elections held each year.  For some
elections, removes voter turnout requirement on local
measures.  Prohibits publicly funded challenges to
initiative approved laws.  Other provisions.

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

1. 	Each of the petitioners timely submitted written
comments to the Secretary of State respecting the Attorney
General's proposed ballot title.  See ORS 250.067(1) (prescribing
procedure).  Thus, each has standing to raise the issues
presented concerning the Attorney General's certified ballot
title.  ORS 250.085(2).

2. 	Petitioner made no argument below that the proposed
measure, if adopted, would alter constitutional rules applicable
to revisions of the constitution.  Therefore, we do not address
that question.

3. 	In fact, with the modification that we have made in
response to the arguments of petitioners Gray, Sager, and Dale,
the "No" Result Statement is more parallel that it was.