Title: Towers v. Rosenblum
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S061292
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: September 12, 2013

Filed:  September 12, 2013 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 
 
ARTHUR TOWERS, 
GAIL RASMUSSEN,  
and BETHANNE DARBY,  
Petitioners, 
 
 
v. 
 
ELLEN ROSENBLUM,  
Attorney General, 
State of Oregon, 
Respondent.  
 
(S061292) 
 
 
En Banc 
 
 
On petitions to review ballot title filed May 7, 2013; considered and under 
advisement August 6, 2013. 
 
 
 Steven C. Berman of Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlacher, P.C., Portland, filed 
the petition and response for petitioner Towers. 
 
 
Margaret S. Olney of Bennett, Hartman, Morris & Kaplan LLP, Portland, filed the 
petition and response for petitioners Rasmussen and Darby. 
 
 
Douglas F. Zier, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the answering 
memorandum for respondent.  With him on the answering memorandum were Ellen F. 
Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General. 
 
 
Jill Gibson Odell, Beaverton, filed the amicus curiae memorandum for herself. 
 
 
Paul Gamson, Portland, filed the memorandum for amici curiae Tom Chamberlain 
and Patrick Green. 
 
 
LANDAU, J. 
 
 
 
The ballot title is referred to the Attorney General for modification. 
 
 
 
 
1 
 
 
LANDAU, J. 
1 
 
 
Petitioners seek review of the Attorney General's certified ballot title for 
2 
Initiative Petition 9 (2014), arguing that the ballot title does not satisfy the requirements 
3 
of ORS 250.035(2).  We review a certified ballot title to determine whether it 
4 
substantially complies with those statutory requirements.  See ORS 250.085(5) (stating 
5 
standard of review).  For the reasons that follow, we refer the ballot title to the Attorney 
6 
General for modification. 
7 
 
 
Initiative Petition 9, if adopted by the voters, would amend several 
8 
provisions of the Oregon Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act (PECBA).  PECBA 
9 
currently allows public employers and unions to enter into "fair-share" union security 
10 
agreements.  ORS 243.666(1); ORS 243.672(1)(c).  Under those agreements, public 
11 
employees choosing not to join a union are nevertheless responsible for a proportional 
12 
share of the representation costs incurred by the union, collected as "payment-in-lieu-of-
13 
dues" sums.  ORS 243.650(10); Dale v. Kulongoski, 321 Or 108, 111-12, 894 P2d 462 
14 
(1995).   
15 
 
 
Initiative Petition 9 declares that "[a] person shall have the individual 
16 
freedom of choice in the pursuit of public employment" and that no one may be required 
17 
either to join or not join a labor organization as a condition of public employment.  It 
18 
further provides that, "[i]f an employee does not choose to join and participate in a labor 
19 
organization, such employee shall not pay an amount of money in-lieu-of-dues to a labor 
20 
organization, another organization, or third party as a condition of employment."  That 
21 
type of legislation is often referred to by its popular political slogan, "right to work." 
22 
 
2 
 
 
The Attorney General certified the following ballot title for Initiative 
1 
Petition 9: 
2 
 
"BALLOT TITLE:  Prohibits compulsory payment of union 
3 
representation costs by public employees choosing not to join union 
4 
 
"Result of 'Yes' Vote:  'Yes' vote prohibits requiring represented 
5 
public employees who choose not to join union to make compulsory 
6 
'payment in lieu of dues' for union representation costs. 
7 
 
"Result of 'No' Vote:  'No' vote allows requiring represented public 
8 
employees who choose not to join union to make compulsory 'payment in 
9 
lieu of dues' for union representation costs. 
10 
 
"Summary:  Current law allows public employees to bargain 
11 
collectively through a labor organization/union as their exclusive 
12 
representative; prohibits requiring union membership as condition of public 
13 
employment; requires union to fairly represent members and nonmembers 
14 
in bargaining unit; allows contracts requiring public employees who choose 
15 
not to join union to make compulsory 'payment in lieu of dues' for cost of 
16 
union representation.  Measure affirms public employees' right to join or 
17 
decline to join union; prohibits requiring public employees choosing not to 
18 
join union to make compulsory 'payment in lieu of dues' for union 
19 
representation costs; makes entry into such compulsory payment 
20 
agreements an unfair labor practice.  Measure applies only to new, 
21 
renewed, or extended contracts entered into after the effective date of the 
22 
measure.  Other provisions." 
23 
 
 
Petitioners challenge the caption, result statements, and summary of the 
24 
certified ballot title.  We reject, without discussion, all of those challenges save one, 
25 
which is that the caption, result statements, and summary all fail to identify properly the 
26 
subject matter and effect of the initiative.  According to petitioners, all three components 
27 
of the ballot title fail to explain that the major effect of the measure is "to allow 
28 
employees to refuse to share in the costs of representation that the union is legally 
29 
obligated to provide."  In petitioners' view, the effect of the measure is thus to permit 
30 
"free riders" to obtain the benefits of the representation that the union must provide 
31 
 
3 
without having to pay for them.  Petitioners argue that, in several prior cases, this court 
1 
has concluded that the law required that ballot titles for similar measures include 
2 
information about the free-rider effect of adopting those measures.   
3 
 
 
The Attorney General answers that the ballot title substantially complies 
4 
with statutory requirements.  She argues that the law requires that the ballot title identify 
5 
the "subject matter" of the proposed measure and the subject matter of Initiative Petition 
6 
9 "is a proposed prohibition on requiring 'payments in lieu of dues' * * * [from] public 
7 
employees who choose not to join a union."  The Attorney General does not appear to 
8 
address petitioners' argument that this case is controlled by prior decisions of this court 
9 
concerning similar measures, which decisions required the ballot titles to include an 
10 
explanation of the free-rider effect of adopting those measures. 
11 
 
 
We begin with the requirements for the caption.  ORS 250.035(2)(a) 
12 
requires that a ballot title for a proposed state measure contain a caption of not more than 
13 
15 words that reasonably identifies the "subject matter" of the proposed measure.  The 
14 
caption is the "headline" of the ballot title; it "provides the context for the reader's 
15 
consideration of the other information in the ballot title" and must describe the proposed 
16 
measure's subject matter accurately.  Greene v. Kulongoski, 322 Or 169, 175, 903 P2d 
17 
366 (1995).  For the purposes of this court's review, the "subject matter" of a ballot title is 
18 
"the 'actual major effect' of a measure or, if the measure has more than one major effect, 
19 
all such effects (to the limit of the available words)."  Whitsett v. Kroger, 348 Or 243, 
20 
247, 230 P3d 545 (2010).   
21 
 
 
 As petitioners correctly observe, this is not the first case in which this court 
22 
 
4 
has been asked to address the sufficiency of a ballot title pertaining to a right-to-work 
1 
initiative.  In Novick/Bosak v. Myers, 333 Or 18, 36 P3d 464 (2001), the court considered 
2 
the proposed ballot title for a proposed constitutional amendment that declared that all 
3 
employees have a "right to bargain directly as individuals with their employers" and that 
4 
no one may "be required to accept or pay for representation or any other service" by labor 
5 
organizations unless the employee requests the representation or service in writing.  Id. at 
6 
21.   
7 
 
 
The Attorney General's certified caption read:  "AMENDS 
8 
CONSTITUTION:  DECLARES RIGHT OF INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES TO 
9 
'BARGAIN' WITH EMPLOYERS; REQUIRES WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE OF UNION 
10 
REPRESENTATION."  Id. at 22.  The petitioners challenged the sufficiency of the 
11 
caption, arguing that, among other things, it failed to explain the free-rider effect of the 
12 
measure.  Id. at 23.  This court agreed, explaining, 
13 
"Under current law, unions and employers may negotiate union security 
14 
agreements that, in one form or another, require bargaining unit employees 
15 
who are not union members to pay for the cost of union representation.  In 
16 
practical terms, a prohibition on such agreements enables those employees 
17 
to receive union representation without cost and represents a significant 
18 
change in Oregon law.  We agree with petitioners that that prohibition is 
19 
one of the * * * 'subject matters' that the proposed measure addresses and 
20 
that the Attorney General's caption fails to identify that subject matter." 
21 
Id. at 26 (citations omitted). 
22 
 
 
The court addressed the same issue in Sizemore/Terhune v. Myers, 342 Or 
23 
578, 157 P3d 188 (2007).  In that case, the court addressed the sufficiency of a ballot title 
24 
for a proposed measure that would have created a new statute declaring that no person 
25 
 
5 
may be required to "become or remain a member of a labor organization" or "pay any 
1 
dues, fees, assessments or other similar charges, however denominated, of any kind or 
2 
amount[,] to a labor organization."  The Attorney General's ballot title caption stated:  
3 
"PROHIBITS NEGOTIATED CONTRACTS REQUIRING:  PRIVATE EMPLOYEES 
4 
TO JOIN UNION, REPRESENTED NONMEMBERS TO SHARE 
5 
REPRESENTATION COSTS."  Id. at 582.  The petitioners argued that the caption was 
6 
deficient because, among other things, it failed to explain the free-rider effect of the 
7 
measure.  Id. at 588.  This court agreed: 
8 
"In context, the subject matter of the proposed measure consists of two 
9 
identifiable legal changes.  The proposed measure will eliminate any 
10 
employment condition requiring any person to pay money to a union, and, 
11 
thereby, it will entitle employees to receive the union's legally mandated 
12 
representation services without sharing in the cost of those services.  The 
13 
certified caption refers to only one of those subjects. * * * The Attorney 
14 
General must address that deficiency on referral." 
15 
Id. at 588-89 (emphasis in original).  
16 
 
 
This case is controlled by our prior decisions in Novick/Bosak and 
17 
Sizemore/Terhune.  As in both of those cases, the measure at issue in this one would, if 
18 
adopted, declare a right not to be required to join a labor organization as a condition of 
19 
employment and a right not to pay dues, fees, or other charges to such labor 
20 
organizations.  As in both of those cases, an "actual major effect" is that employees who 
21 
choose not to be represented will be able to receive services from a labor organization 
22 
without having to pay for them.  And, as in both of those cases, the Attorney General's 
23 
certified ballot title caption is deficient for failing to identify that actual major effect.   
24 
 
 
As we have noted, petitioners argue that the certified ballot title result 
25 
 
6 
statements and summary are deficient for the same reason.  Petitioners are correct.  ORS 
1 
250.035(2)(b) and (c) set out the requirements for result statements.  They require that a 
2 
ballot title contain simple and understandable statements, not to exceed 25 words, 
3 
describing the result of approval or rejection of the proposed measure.  ORS 
4 
250.035(2)(d) requires that a ballot title for a proposed state measure contain a concise 
5 
and impartial summary of not more than 125 words that summarizes the proposed 
6 
measure and its major effects.  
7 
 
 
In Dale, this court considered the Attorney General's certified ballot title for 
8 
a proposed constitutional amendment that would have provided that "no public employee 
9 
* * * shall be required or unduly pressured to join or otherwise be connected to, or pay 
10 
dues, or contribute fair share, or pay fees or assessments to a public employee union."  
11 
321 Or at 116.  The Attorney General prepared a ballot title that included a summary 
12 
stating that the measure "[b]ans requiring employees to join union or to pay dues or 
13 
representation costs."  Id. at 110.  The petitioners argued that the summary was 
14 
inadequate because it failed to identify the free-rider effect of the measure, and this court 
15 
agreed, holding that the summary did "not disclose that employees who are not members 
16 
of the union, but who are members of the bargaining unit, will receive representation 
17 
without cost."  Id. at 114.   
18 
 
 
Again, this court's prior case law is controlling.  The Attorney General must 
19 
address the foregoing deficiencies on referral. 
20 
 
 
The ballot title is referred to the Attorney General for modification. 
21