Title: Novick v. Myers
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S47228
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: April 20, 2000

FILED: APRIL 20, 2000  
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
STEVEN NOVICK,
Petitioner,
	v.
HARDY MYERS,Attorney General,State of Oregon,
Respondent.
(SC S47228)
	On petition to review ballot title.
	Argued and submitted March 16, 2000.
	Steven Novick, Portland, pro se, argued the cause and filed
the petition.
	Holly A. Vance, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued
the cause and filed the answering memorandum for respondent. 
With her on the memorandum were Hardy Myers, Attorney General,
and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.
	Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Durham,
Kulongoski, and Leeson, Justices.*
	DURHAM, J.
	Ballot title certified as modified.  This decision shall
become effective in accordance with ORAP 11.30(10).
	*Van Hoomissen and Riggs, JJ., did not participate in the
consideration or decision of this case.
	DURHAM, J.
	This is a ballot title review proceeding under ORS
250.085(2).  The Attorney General certified a ballot title, which
we quote below, for Initiative Petition 113 (2000).  Petitioner
is an elector who timely submitted written comments regarding the
Attorney General's draft ballot title and who, therefore, is
entitled to seek review under ORS 250.085(2).  We review the
Attorney General's certified ballot title to determine whether it
substantially complies with the requirements of ORS 250.035
(1997). (1)  ORS 250.085(5).  For the reasons that follow, we modify
the Attorney General's ballot title.
	If approved, Initiative Petition 113 would add the following
provision to the Oregon Constitution:
"Section ____.  Lower and middle class taxpayers
shall not be denied a voter approved tax break because
the tax break also benefits other taxpayers.  A measure
which give [sic] a tax break to lower income and/or
middle class taxpayers shall not be superceded[ (2)] or
invalidated in any way by a measure that limits or
prohibits certain tax breaks for a class of taxpayers."
	For that proposed constitutional amendment, the
Attorney General certified the following ballot title:
"AMENDS CONSTITUTION: PROHIBITS DENYINGCERTAIN VOTER-APPROVED,LOWER-, MIDDLE-CLASS TAX BREAKS
"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE: 'Yes' vote prohibits
denying lower- and middle-class taxpayers certain
voter-approved tax breaks.
"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE: 'No' vote leaves
constitution without provision prohibiting denial of
certain lower-, middle-class tax breaks.
"SUMMARY: Amends constitution.  The Oregon
Constitution currently says nothing about denying to
lower- and middle-class taxpayers tax breaks that also
benefit other taxpayers.  The measure would prohibit
denying lower- and middle-class taxpayers a voter-approved tax break because that tax break also benefits
other taxpayers.  Under this measure, a measure that
gives a tax break to lower- and/or middle-class
taxpayers shall not be superceded or invalidated by a
measure that limits certain tax breaks for a class of
taxpayers."
	ORS 250.035 (1997) requires that a ballot title for an
initiative amendment to the Oregon Constitution satisfy the
following criteria, among others.  The ballot title caption must
contain not more than 10 words, not including the words "Amends
Constitution," that "reasonably identif[y] the subject matter" of
the proposed constitutional amendment.  ORS 250.035(2)(a) (1997). 
The "yes" vote result statement must contain a "simple and
understandable statement of not more than 15 words that describes
the result" if the voters approve the proposed constitutional
amendment.  ORS 250.035(2)(b) (1997).  The "no" vote result
statement must contain a "simple and understandable statement of
not more than 15 words that describes the result" if the voters
reject the proposed constitutional amendment.  ORS 250.035(2)(c)
(1997).  Finally, the summary must contain a "concise and
impartial statement of not more than 85 words summarizing the
measure and its major effect."  ORS 250.035(2)(d) (1997).	
	Petitioner asserts that each segment of the Attorney
General's ballot title suffers from a similar defect.  He
contends that the ballot title is misleading because it suggests,
incorrectly, that the measure simply protects undefined voter-approved "tax breaks" for "lower class," "lower income," and
"middle class" taxpayers. (3)  According to petitioner, the measure
in fact protects tax breaks for those groups only if either of
two other conditions also exists.  First, the tax break measure
also must purport to benefit "other" taxpayers, including but not
limited to "upper" class taxpayers.  Second, and in the
alternative, a measure that limits or prohibits a tax break for a
"class" of taxpayers, which petitioner defines to include but not
be limited to "upper class" or "higher income" taxpayers, also
must purport to supersede or invalidate a measure giving a tax
break to "lower income and/or middle class taxpayers." 
Petitioner argues that the Attorney General's failure to disclose
the fact that the measure effectively protects tax breaks for
upper class taxpayers is a fundamental error.  He contends that
the Attorney General's ballot title fails to disclose the true
subject of the measure because it incorrectly portrays the
measure merely as a plebiscite on protecting tax breaks for lower
and middle class taxpayers.
	The Attorney General acknowledges that the measure
protects voter approved tax breaks for lower and middle class
taxpayers if they also benefit "other taxpayers."  However, the
Attorney General contends that the phrase "other taxpayers" in
the measure is ambiguous in this context and does not justify
singling out "upper class" taxpayers as the benefitted class, as
petitioner suggests.  The Attorney General also argues that other
ambiguities in the measure, such as the meaning of the undefined
phrase "tax break," and applicable statutory word limits prevent
explaining in a neutral manner the beneficial effect of the
measure on wealthier taxpayers.
	This court recently observed that the drafter of a
measure may not incorporate "politically inflated terms or
phrases in the text of the measure in order to advance its
passage."  Earls v. Myers, 330 Or 171, ___ P2d ___ (2000).  We
also have stated that the court will not hesitate to look beyond
the words of a measure if the words obfuscate the subject, chief 
purpose, summary, or major effect of the measure.  Bernard v.
Keisling, 317 Or 591, 596-97, 858 P2d 1309 (1993).    
	With those principles in mind, we turn first to the
question whether the Attorney General's caption adequately
identifies the subject matter of the measure.  We determine
whether a caption states the subject matter of a proposed
initiative measure by examining the text of the measure itself. 
Dirks v. Myers, 329 Or 608, 614, 993 P2d 806 (2000).
	The measure contains two sentences.  We analyze each
sentence separately.  The first sentence addresses a particular
subject:  a "voter approved tax break."  The sentence purports to
preserve or protect that kind of tax break, for the benefit of
lower and middle class taxpayers, "because" the tax break also
benefits other taxpayers.  The dictionary provides the following
pertinent definitions of the word "because" 
"SINCE: for the reason that: on account of the
cause that -- used to introduce dependent clauses * * *
on account of being * * *." 
Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary, 194 (unabridged ed 1993). 
Those definitions indicate that, in this context, the word
"because" means "for the reason that" or "on account of the cause
that."  The first sentence of the measure protects a tax break
for lower and middle class taxpayers for the reason or on account
of the cause that the tax break also benefits other taxpayers. 
The protection of tax breaks for lower and middle class taxpayers
that that sentence describes takes effect only if, or on
condition that, "the tax break also benefits other taxpayers."
	That raises an important question:  Who are the "other
taxpayers" to whom the first sentence refers?  Petitioner
contends that that phrase refers to "upper class" taxpayers.  The
Attorney General acknowledges that that is a plausible reading,
but argues that the phrase "other taxpayers" also could include
other classes or subgroups of taxpayers that fall outside the
"lower" and "middle" classes, such as "upper middle" class
taxpayers.
	Petitioner also argues that "other taxpayers" refers to
higher income or wealthier taxpayers.  We need not address that
question here because the first sentence of the measure uses no
explicit reference to a taxpayer's income or wealth.  The second
sentence of the measure does refer to an income-related
classification, viz., "lower income and/or middle class
taxpayers."  (Emphasis added.)  For purposes of our review of the
ballot title, we focus on the references in the measure to a
taxpayer's "class," because the measure consistently classifies
taxpayers by their class in each of the sentences in the measure.
	The phrase "other taxpayers," standing alone, is
somewhat imprecise, but we can discern its meaning.  The measure
uses that phrase to identify, by descriptive contrast, those
taxpayers who are not "lower class" or "middle class" taxpayers. 
In view of the three-part classification of taxpayers that the
first sentence creates, the phrase "other taxpayers" refers to
taxpayers who, in a comparative sense, fall into a higher class
than those to whom the other more definite class labels apply. 
The foregoing analysis of the first sentence of the measure
indicates that that sentence preserves a tax break that benefits
lower and middle class taxpayers if the tax break also benefits
upper class taxpayers.
	The second sentence of the measure has a different
function.  The second sentence purports to protect the efficacy
of one kind of measure, i.e., a measure that gives a tax break to
lower income and/or middle class taxpayers, from invalidation by
a measure that purports to limit or prohibit "certain tax breaks
for a class of taxpayers."
	Several features of the second sentence are
significant.  The term "measure" appears twice in the second
sentence.  However, no term or phrase qualifies or limits the
term "measure" to include only a measure that the voters approve. 
Therefore, in contrast with the phrasing that appears in the
first sentence of the measure, i.e., "voter approved tax break,"
the references to "measure" in the second sentence might not
confine the coverage of the initiative petition to voter-approved
laws; it might include laws created by initiative or referendum
and by conventional legislative lawmaking.  Because the second
sentence of the initiative petition might apply to legislative
measures as well as to those that voters approve, the Attorney
General's caption errs in stating that the subject matter of the
initiative petition is tax breaks that are approved by voters.
	The first clause of the second sentence describes the
kind of measure that the initiative petition would protect as one
that gives "a tax break to lower income and/or middle class
taxpayers * * *."  The last clause of the second sentence
describes the kind of measure against which the initiative
petition's protection would operate:  "[A] measure that limits or
prohibits certain tax breaks for a class of taxpayers."  In
contrast with the first sentence of the measure, the second
sentence does not use the phrase "a class of taxpayers" to
establish a descriptive comparison with the other more explicit
categorizations of taxpayers by class and income that appear in
the sentence.  Instead, "a class of taxpayers" means any class of
taxpayers.  The second sentence focuses its protection against
measures that limit or prohibit certain tax breaks for any class
of taxpayers, including lower, middle, and upper class taxpayers.
	The foregoing discussion of the subject matter of the
measure exposes deficiencies in the Attorney General's caption. 
The Attorney General's caption indicates that the measure
protects "lower" and "middle class" tax breaks.  However, the
Attorney General's caption stops at that point and fails to refer
in any way to the practical protection that the measure affords
for tax breaks that benefit upper class taxpayers.  The Attorney
General's caption also errs in stating that the measure only
protects "voter-approved" tax breaks.  The second sentence of the
initiative petition might not limit its protection to voter
approved tax break measures.  Because the Attorney General's
caption does not identify the subject matter of the measure
accurately, it does not comply substantially with ORS
250.035(2)(a) (1997) and requires modification.  To remedy the
deficiencies noted above, we modify the caption as follows: 
AMENDS CONSTITUTION:  PRESERVES CERTAINTAX BREAKS IF
UPPER CLASS,OTHER TAXPAYERS BENEFIT 
	Petitioner contends that the Attorney General's "yes"
and "no" vote result statements convey the same misleading
message that we have discussed above in connection with the
caption.  We agree.  The Attorney General's result statements
fail to disclose that enacting or rejecting the measure will
affect the tax breaks of classes of taxpayers other than those in
the lower and middle classes.  Because the Attorney General's
result statements are misleading and likely will confuse voters,
we modify those statements as follows:
RESULT OF "YES" VOTE:  "Yes" vote preserves
certain tax breaks if upper class, other taxpayer
classes benefit.
RESULT OF "NO" VOTE:  "No" vote leaves
Constitution without provision preserving tax breaks if
upper class, other taxpayers benefit.
	Finally, petitioner contends that the summary suffers
from the same defect that we have discussed above.  He asserts
that a major effect of the measure "will be to protect tax breaks
benefitting upper-class taxpayers" and that the summary must
disclose that major effect.  The Attorney General responds that
he prefers to avoid the debate about what the phrase "other
taxpayers" means.  As a result, the Attorney General's summary 
quotes the indefinite classifications set forth in the measure.
	The summary of a ballot title must contain a concise
and impartial statement that summarizes the measure and its major
effect.  ORS 250.035(2)(d) (1997).  Repeating a measure's terms
in the summary may be appropriate as long as the resulting
summary satisfies ORS 250.035(2)(d) (1997).  We recognize,
however, that merely repeating the terms of a measure --
particularly ambiguous terms -- might fail to summarize either
the measure or its major effect. 
	Applying the principles of Bernard and Earls here, we
conclude that the Attorney General's summary does not comply
substantially with ORS 250.035(2)(d) (1997), because the
repetition in the first and second sentences of the summary of
the indefinite label, "other taxpayers," from the first sentence
of the measure fails to disclose the protection that that
sentence would create for tax breaks benefitting upper class 
taxpayers.  Additionally, we must modify the last sentence of the
summary to indicate that the second sentence of the measure
concerns measures that purport to limit certain tax breaks for
any class of taxpayers.  Accordingly we modify the summary as
follows:
SUMMARY:  Amends Constitution.  The Oregon
Constitution currently says nothing about preserving
tax breaks if upper class, other classes of taxpayers
would benefit.  The measure would preserve voter-approved tax breaks, for lower and middle class
taxpayers, if upper class taxpayers also would benefit. 
Additionally, a measure that gives a tax break to lower
and/or middle class taxpayers shall not be superseded
or invalidated by a measure that limits certain tax
breaks for any class of taxpayers. 
	We certify to the Secretary of State the following
ballot title for Initiative Petition 113:
AMENDS CONSTITUTION:  PRESERVES CERTAINTAX BREAKS IF UPPER CLASS, OTHER TAXPAYERS BENEFIT
RESULT OF "YES" VOTE:  "Yes" vote preserves
certain tax breaks if upper class, other taxpayer
classes benefit.
RESULT OF "NO" VOTE:  "No" vote leaves
Constitution without provision preserving tax breaks if
upper class, other taxpayers benefit.
SUMMARY:  Amends Constitution.  The Oregon
Constitution currently says nothing about preserving
tax breaks if upper class, other classes of taxpayers
would benefit.  The measure would preserve voter-approved tax breaks, for lower and middle class
taxpayers, if upper class taxpayers also would benefit. 
Additionally, a measure that gives a tax break to lower
and/or middle class taxpayers shall not be superseded
or invalidated by a measure that limits certain tax
breaks for any class of taxpayers.
	Ballot title certified as modified.  This decision
shall become effective in accordance with ORAP 11.30(10).
1. 	The 1999 Legislature amended ORS 250.035 (1997) in
several respects.  Or Laws 1999, ch 793, § 1.  However, section 3
of that 1999 enactment provides, in part:
"(1) The amendments to ORS 250.035 by section 1 of
this 1999 Act do not apply to any ballot title prepared
for:
"(a) Any initiative petition that, if filed with
the Secretary of State with the required number of
signatures of qualified electors, will be submitted to
the people at the general election held on the first
Tuesday after the first Monday in November 2000[.]"
The present proposed measure is one of those to which the 1999
act does not apply.  We therefore apply the pertinent provisions
of ORS 250.035 (1997).

2. 	The dictionary lists "supercede" as a variation on the
preferred spelling of the term "supersede."  Webster's Third New
Int'l Dictionary, 2293 (unabridged ed 1993).

3. 	The measure does not define several terms that it uses,
including "tax break," "lower class," "lower income," "middle
class," and a "class of taxpayers."  The court's use in this
opinion of classification terminology that appears in the
measure, such as the references to the class and income level of
taxpayers, is not an endorsement by the court of the lawfulness
of those classifications.