Title: Honeyman v. Myers
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S54078
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: December 21, 2006

FILED: December 21, 2006
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
CRAIG HONEYMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
HARDY MYERS,
Attorney General,
State of Oregon,
Respondent.
(SC S54078)
En Banc
On petition to review ballot title.
Submitted on the record November 1, 2006.
James M. Brown, Portland, filed the petition for petitioner.
Rolf C. Moan, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the
answering memorandum for respondent.  With him on the answering
memorandum were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H.
Williams, Solicitor General.
GILLETTE, J.
Ballot title referred to the Attorney General for
modification.
GILLETTE, J.
This ballot title review proceeding brought under ORS
250.085(2) concerns the Attorney General's certified ballot title
for an initiative petition that the Secretary of State has
denominated as Initiative Petition 42 (2008).  Initiative
Petition 42, if adopted, would redirect one percent of revenues
presently derived from motor vehicle use and fuel taxes from the
uses presently prescribed in Article IX, section 3a, of the
Oregon Constitution and instead provide those funds to the Patrol
Division of the Oregon State Police and to county sheriffs.  It
is the uses to which those funds then might be put that lies at
the heart of the present dispute.
Petitioner is an elector who timely submitted written
comments to the Secretary of State concerning the content of the
Attorney General's draft ballot title and who therefore are
entitled to seek review in this court of the resulting certified
ballot title.  See ORS 250.085(2) (stating that requirement).  We
review the Attorney General's certified ballot title to determine
whether it substantially complies with the requirements of ORS
250.035(2)(a) to (d).  ORS 250.085(5).
At present, Article IX, section 3a, of the Oregon
Constitution provides that revenues derived from taxes on motor
vehicle ownership, operation, or use, and from taxes on fuel, be
"used exclusively for the construction, reconstruction,
improvement, repair, maintenance, operation and use of public
highways, roads, streets, and rest areas."  Or Const, Art IX, § 3a(1).  Section (1) of the proposed measure would divert one
percent of such funds derived from motor vehicle use and fuel tax
revenues (1) in the following manner:
 "In addition to the purposes authorized for use of
revenues on motor vehicle use and fuel as delineated in
Section 3a, Article IX of this Constitution, 1% (one
percent) of such revenues shall be dedicated to
providing public safety services on Oregon's roads and
highways, to be appropriated by the Legislative
Assembly under the following formula: 80% allocated to
the Patrol Division of the Oregon State Police, and 20%
allocated to county sheriffs for highway patrol
activities."
(Emphasis added.) (2)
The Attorney General has certified the following ballot
title for Initiative Petition 42 (2008):
"AMENDS CONSTITUTION:  DEDICATES 1% OF MOTOR VEHICLE
USE AND FUEL TAX REVENUES TO ROAD, HIGHWAY SAFETY
"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE: 'Yes' vote dedicates 1% of
existing motor vehicle use and fuel tax revenues to
providing public safety services on roads and highways.
"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE: 'No' vote retains
requirement dedicating motor vehicle and fuel tax
revenues to constructing, improving, repairing,
maintaining, operating, and using highways, roads,
streets, rest areas.
"SUMMARY: Amends Constitution.  Constitution
currently requires revenue from taxes on motor vehicle
ownership, operation, use, and fuel to be used for
construction, reconstruction, improvement, repair,
maintenance, operation and use of public highways,
roads, streets, rest areas; permits revenue from taxes
on certain motor vehicles to be used for parks or
recreation areas; permits revenues from taxes on
commercial vehicles to be used to enforce commercial
vehicle regulations.  Measure dedicates 1% of existing
revenues from motor vehicle use and fuel taxes to
providing public safety services on state roads and
highways.  Of that amount, dedicates 80% to state
police patrol division, remainder to county sheriff
highway patrol activities.  Shall not have the effect
of raising motor vehicle fuel and use taxes or fees. 
Other provisions."
Petitioner objects to the caption, the "yes" result
statement, and the summary.  His objection has a common theme: 
He asserts that the proposed measure is intended to make funds
available specifically for highway patrol work to be performed by
the Oregon State Police and the county sheriffs, but that the
Attorney General's certified ballot title obscures that fact by
creating the impression that the funds could be applied to a
wider range of tasks.  For simplicity (and because it is
representative), we focus on petitioner's challenge to the
caption.
ORS 250.035(2)(a) requires that the Attorney General's
certified ballot title contain a caption of not more than 15
words "that reasonably identifies the subject matter of the state
measure."  This court reviews a challenge to a ballot title
caption to determine whether the caption "substantially
compl[ies]" with that requirement.  ORS 250.085(5).  See also,
e.g., Towers v. Myers, 341 Or 357, 360-62, 142 P3d 1040 (2006)
(illustrating process).
As noted, the Attorney General certified a ballot title
that included this caption:
"AMENDS CONSTITUTION:  DEDICATES 1% OF MOTOR VEHICLE
USE AND FUEL TAX REVENUES TO ROAD, HIGHWAY SAFETY"
Petitioner asserts that the caption is inaccurate in that it
indicates that the funds derived under it will be used for "road,
highway safety" when, in fact, the proposed measure confines the
use of the designated funds to the highway patrol activities of
the various recipients.  It is true, petitioner acknowledges,
that patrolling the highways assists in promoting "road, highway
safety."  He argues, however, that that fact does not justify
limiting the caption's description of the proposed measure's
subject matter to those broader, more amorphous terms.  Instead,
petitioner asserts, the caption must complete its description of
the subject matter of the proposed measure by indicating that the
funds derived pursuant to it will be applied to highway patrol
activities.  Without that addition, petitioner argues, the
Attorney General's caption would appear to dedicate the specified
revenues to, among other things, guard rails, warning signs, and
other "road, highway safety" expenditures unrelated to highway
patrol activities.  We agree that the wording chosen by the
Attorney General has that sweep and would encompass such
nonpatrol activities as traffic safety courses, school lectures,
and the like.  Thus, as an initial matter, we are inclined to
accept petitioner's argument.
The Attorney General offers two responses.  He argues,
first, that the use of the terms, "road, highway safety" is
justified, because section (1) of the proposed measure itself
says that its purpose is to "provid[e] public safety services on
Oregon's roads and highways."  We find that argument to be too
limiting.  It is true, of course, that section (1) of the measure
states the purpose that the Attorney General describes.  But that
same section also states the way in which that purpose will be
carried out, i.e., by allocating the funds set aside to the
Oregon State Police Patrol Division and the county sheriffs. 
Thus, and even assuming that the phrase, "road, highway safety,"
fairly encapsulates the concept stated in the phrase "dedicated
to providing public safety services on Oregon's roads and
highways" (a proposition that is subject to debate) the Attorney
General here was not entitled to ignore the fact that "patrol
activities" -- the object of the fund -- also are a part of the
proposed measure's subject matter.
The Attorney General argues, in the alternative, that
the measure does not necessarily limit the expenditure of the
fund that it creates to highway patrol activities, at least with
respect to that part of the fund dedicated to the Patrol
Division.  While recognizing that there can be no doubt that the
proposed measure confines the part of the fund dedicated to local
sheriffs to highway patrol activities, the Attorney General
asserts that
"the text [of subsection (1) of the proposed measure]
plausibly can be read as permitting the state police
Patrol Division to use the specified revenues for any
activities that can be described as 'providing public
safety services' on state roads and highways."
(Emphasis in original.)
That reading of the proposed measure thus envisions the
part of the fund designated for the State Patrol Division as
being available not only for highway patrol activities, but also
for other highway safety activities such as those suggested by
petitioner.  However, and although the text is not the apotheosis
of clarity, we do not read the proposed measure in the way that
the Attorney General reads it.  A certain level of uncertainty is
created by the comma in the part of section (1) that describes
the way in which the funds reserved under the proposed measure
will be allocated:  "80% allocated to the Patrol Division of the
Oregon State Police, and 20% allocated to county sheriffs for
highway patrol activities."  The comma separates the clause
respecting the Patrol Division from the clause respecting the
county sheriffs, thereby making the final phrase, "for highway
patrol activities," one that refers only to the activity of
county sheriffs.  
The Attorney General is relying on that separation in
defending his caption.  We think, however, that the Attorney
General is missing another important aspect of the text.  The
phrase, "for highway patrol activities," is a necessary modifier
respecting county sheriffs, because, for county sheriffs, highway
patrol is simply one among their many, varied duties.  The State
Police Patrol Division, on the other hand, is the subdivision of
the State Police that does what its name indicates -- it patrols. 
Thus, for the State Police Patrol Division, no modifying phrase
is required to convey that the funds will be used for highway
patrol activities.  Regardless of the placement of the comma, it
is clear that the entire fund created by the proposed measure is
to be used for road and highway patrol.
Even if, in construing section (1), there were some
doubt respecting the foregoing point, the scales are tipped
completely when one considers as context the introductory clause
of section (3) of the proposed measure.  That clause states that
"[n]o fines or penalties collected pursuant to traffic citations
issued by Oregon State Police or county sheriffs under operations
funded by this Section may be used to directly fund police or
sheriff operations." (Emphasis added.)  The clear implication of
that wording is that "the operations funded by this Section" are
highway patrol activities, which generate traffic citations and,
ultimately, revenue in the form of "fines or penalties."  
The foregoing contextual material from section (3) of
the proposed measure thus satisfies us that the proposed measure
is intended to fund the same highway patrol activities of the
Patrol Division and the county sheriffs.  And, because that
intended limitation is a part of the subject matter of the
proposed measure, the caption should reflect it.  The Attorney
General's failure to mention that aspect of the proposed measure
in the caption means that the caption fails to meet the
requirements set out in ORS 250.035(2)(a) respecting ballot title
captions.  The matter must be referred to the Attorney General
for correction.
As noted, petitioner also has challenged the "yes"
result statement and the summary in the Attorney General's
certified ballot title.  Both challenges are based on the theory
just discussed with respect to the caption, and both are well
taken.  On referral, the Attorney General must address those
points, as well.
Ballot title referred to the Attorney General for
modification.
APPENDIX
PROPOSED MEASURE
The People of Oregon hereby amend Article IX of the
Oregon Constitution by adding the following Section to be
inserted after existing Section 3b:
(1) In addition to the purposes authorized for use of
revenues on motor vehicle use and fuel as delineated in Section
3a, Article IX of this Constitution, 1% (one percent) of such
revenues shall be dedicated to providing public safety services
on Oregon's road and highways, to be appropriated by the
Legislative Assembly under the following formula:  80% allocated
to the Patrol Division of the Oregon State Police, and 20%
allocated to county sheriffs for highway patrol activities.
(2) The 20% allocated to county sheriffs shall be
allocated under the following formula:  30% to be divided equally
among all counties on a per-county basis (each of the existing 36
counties to receive 1/36 share of the 30%); 70% to be divided
among counties on a population basis (each county to receive a
grant based on its share of the state population).
(3) No fines or penalties collected pursuant to
traffic citations issued by Oregon State Police or county
sheriffs under operations funded by this Section may be used to
directly fund police or sheriff operations; all such fines or
penalties shall be placed in state or county general funds, as
provided by the Legislative Assembly.
(4) This Amendment does not and shall not have the
effect of raising any taxes or fees on motor vehicle use and
fuel; it is only intended to dedicate 1% of existing revenues to
the provision of public safety services on Oregon's highways.
(5) As it will take time to ramp up the Patrol
Division operations of the Oregon State Police, the Legislative
Assembly may reserve up to 15% of the funds allocated to the
Patrol Division for the 2009-2011 biennium, to be carried over in
sequestered funds, to be expended in the 2011-2013 biennium. 
This special carry-over shall not go beyond June 30, 2013.
(6) This Amendment is self-executing, shall be
effective upon passage, and shall be implemented as to revenues
received from July 1, 2009, onwards.
1. The proposed measure would not create any new taxes.
2. The measure has five other sections.  Section (2)
prescribes the manner in which the percentage of dedicated funds
is to be apportioned to each county.  Section (3) prohibits fines
or penalties derived from the funds from being used to directly
fund police or sheriff operations.  Section (4) provides that the
proposed measure shall not create any new tax.  Section (5)
provides a mechanism for preserving certain of the dedicated
funds allowed to the Oregon State Police for the 2009-11 biennium
to the next biennium.  Section (6) provides that the proposed
measure shall be self-executing.  The full text of the proposed
measure is set out as an Appendix to this opinion.