Title: Sizemore v. Myers
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S45083
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: April 30, 1998

FILED: April 30, 1998

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

BILL SIZEMORE,

Petitioner,

	v.

HARDY MYERS, Attorney General,
State of Oregon,

Respondent,

	and

STEVE BERMAN and ANDREW HEYWOOD,

Intervenors.

(SC S45083)

	On petition to review a ballot title.

	Argued and submitted April 14, 1998.

	Michael W. Mumbach, Portland, argued the cause on
behalf of petitioner. On the petition was Gregory W. Byrne, of
Byrne &amp; Associates, P.C., Portland.

	Robert B. Rocklin, Assistant Attorney General, Salem,
argued the cause on behalf of respondent. With him on the
answering memorandum were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and
Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.

	James S. Coon, of Swanson, Thomas &amp; Coon, Portland,
argued the cause and filed a memorandum on behalf of intervenors.

	Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Van
Hoomissen, Durham, Kulongoski, and Leeson, Justices.

	DURHAM, J.

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

	DURHAM, J.

	Petitioner is an elector who seeks review of a ballot
title that the Attorney General certified to the Secretary of
State.  ORS 250.085(2); ORS 250.067(2).  Petitioner timely
submitted written comments to the Secretary of State regarding
the Attorney General's proposed ballot title.  ORS 250.067(1). 
Therefore, petitioner is entitled to seek modification of the
ballot title in this proceeding.

	The measure, styled the "Defense of Democracy Act" by
the chief petitioners, who are intervenors in this proceeding,
generally would require that, if a proposed measure would impose
a greater-than-majority vote requirement for voter approval of a
change in law or government action, the measure itself must be
approved by the same greater-than-majority vote.(1)

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

"AMENDS CONSTITUTION:  MEASURES PROPOSING SUPERMAJORITY VOTING
 REQUIREMENTS REQUIRE SAME SUPERMAJORITY FOR PASSAGE

	"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE:  'Yes' vote allows passage of
greater-than-majority voting requirements only by
equally large majority.

	"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE:  'No' vote allows simple majority
to pass measures that impose greater-than-majority
voting requirements.

	"SUMMARY:  Amends constitution.  Measures including a
requirement for more than a majority of votes cast by
the electorate to approve any change in law or
government action would become effective only if
approved by at least the same percentage of voters
specified in that proposed voting requirement.  For
example, a measure imposing a 2/3 majority voting
requirement to change law would require a 2/3 majority
to pass.  Applies to initiated, referred measures
presented to voters on or after November 3, 1998,
including measures on same ballot."

	On review, this court determines whether the Attorney
General's ballot title substantially complies with applicable
legal requirements.  See ORS 250.085(5) (stating standard of
review).  Petitioner argues that the Attorney General's caption
and result statements do not comply substantially with legal
requirements, because they fail to disclose what petitioner
describes as the measure's "retroactive" effect.  Petitioner
points out that the measure, if supported by sufficient
signatures, will appear on the November 3, 1998 ballot and, if
approved, will apply to other measures that appear on the same
ballot.  Petitioner acknowledges that the summary mentions that
effect, but asserts that the reference appears "only at the end,
where it is likely to be overlooked."  He does not challenge the
Attorney General's summary.

	The caption must reasonably identify the subject of the
measure in not more than 10 words.  ORS 250.035(2)(a).  The "yes"
result statement must identify "the result if the state measure
is approved."  ORS 250.035(2)(b).  The "no" result statement must
identify "the result if the state measure is rejected."  ORS
250.035(2)(c).  For the reasons that follow, we are satisfied
that the Attorney General's caption and result statements satisfy
those statutory requirements.

	First, we reject petitioner's claim that the measure
applies retroactively.  On the contrary, it applies to measures
that accompany it on the ballot and to any others that may be
approved in the future.  The measure's potential effect on other
measures that may appear with it on the same ballot is a
contemporaneous, not retroactive, application.  For that reason,
petitioner's objection is not well taken.

	Second, the Attorney General's caption and result
statements adequately describe the measure's subject matter and
the results of approval or rejection of the measure,
respectively.  We are satisfied that those elements of the ballot
title need not refer to the measure's contemporaneous application
to other measures that may appear with it on the same ballot in
order to comply substantially with ORS 250.035(2)(a), (b) and
(c).

	After considering petitioner's challenges, we conclude
that the Attorney General's certified ballot title substantially
complies with the requirements of ORS 250.035(2).  Accordingly,
we certify the Attorney General's ballot title to the Secretary
of State without modification.

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

1. 	The measure provides:

"DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY ACT

"The following section is added to and made a part of the
Constitution of the State of Oregon:

	"(1)	Any 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.

	"(2)	For the purposes of this section, 'measure'
includes all initiatives and all measures
referred to the voters by the Legislative
Assembly.

	"(3)	The requirements of this section apply to all
measures presented to the voters at the
November 3, 1998 election and thereafter.

	"(4)	The purpose of this section is to prevent
greater-than-majority voting requirements
from being imposed by only a majority of the
voters."  (Boldface in original).