Title: Pacific Power & Light Co. v. Paulus
Citation: 282 Or. 41, 576 P.2d 1252
Docket Number: N/A
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: April 7, 1978

576 P.2d 1252 (1978)
282 Or. 41
PACIFIC POWER &amp; LIGHT COMPANY, a Corporation, and Jack L. McIsaac, Petitioners,
v.
The Honorable Norma PAULUS, Secretary of State of the State of Oregon, Respondent, and Public Power Coalition, Oregon State Grange, Oregon-Washington Farmers' Union, Consumer Power League, People's Utility District Directors' Association and United Transportation Union, Intervenors.

Supreme Court of Oregon.
Argued and Submitted April 5, 1978.
Decided April 7, 1978.
*1253 Robert F. Harrington, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Rives, Bonyhadi &amp; Smith, Portland.
Paul R. Romain, Deputy Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were James A. Redden, Atty. Gen. and Al J. Laue, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Don S. Willner, Portland, argued the cause for intervenors. With him on the brief was Willner, Bennett, Riggs &amp; Bobbitt, Portland.
Before DENECKE, C.J., and TONGUE, HOWELL, BRYSON, LENT and LINDE, JJ.
LENT, Justice.
Intervenors filed a petition for an initiative measure with respondent Paulus, the Secretary of State. Petitioners request changes in the ballot title prepared by the Attorney General. ORS 254.060 and 254.070. The measure concerns the formation of people's utility districts for the purpose of supplying public utility service.
The caption and title prepared by the Attorney General is as follows:
Petitioners alleged that the ballot title prepared by the Attorney General is insufficient and unfair and proposed as a more concise and impartial statement the following caption and ballot title:
The intervenors, who are the proponents of the initiative measure, support the caption and ballot title prepared by the Attorney General.
In Manny v. Paulus, 281 Or. 215, 573 P.2d 1248 (1978), and Blumenauer v. Paulus, 281 Or. 481, 575 P.2d 648 (1978), we affirmed our role as being limited to determining whether the Attorney General's title is "a concise and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure." We are not concerned with whether petitioners' proposed title and caption may be better or whether we could devise better ones ourselves.
Upon oral argument the Attorney General, appearing for respondent Paulus, conceded that certain changes were warranted for the attainment of the goal of impartiality. Pursuant to that concession, we believe that the word "Shortens" should be substituted for the word "Simplifies" where that word appears in the caption and in the title.
The Attorney General also conceded that the provision concerning employe benefits should be modified in the interest of impartiality. The sentence proposed was:
It was conceded that not all existing benefits were preserved. The Attorney General suggested inserting the word "most" after "Preserves." Upon examination of the proposed measure,[1] we are convinced that it is arguable whether "most" existing benefits is an impartial connotation and, further, whether they are "preserved." We find that to attain impartiality the sentence must be revised to read:
The petitioners argue, among other things, that the measure does more than simply to authorize people's utility districts to generate electrical energy. In this respect the Attorney General's proposal is as follows:
"Authorizes all forms of PUD electrical energy generation."
Our attention was directed to Section 1 of the measure, which authorizes a people's utility district
and Section 19(10), authorizing a people's utility district to collect
We find that in this respect, although the attorney general's proposal is concise, it is so limited as to vitiate its complete impartiality. Because of the 75-word limit upon ballot titles imposed by ORS 254.070(2), it is impossible fully to set forth the language quoted from Section 19(10). We believe it is encompassed in the more general language quoted from Section 1.
Bound by the 75-word limit, we believe we can do no more to make this statement impartial than to revise it to read as follows:
"Authorizes PUDs to supply public utility service."
We do not discuss other contentions of the intervenors and petitioners, not because of any complete lack of merit, but only because of the framework within which we review the proposed caption and title, we have not found it necessary to make further revisions.
We, therefore, certify to the Secretary of State this ballot title:
[1]  The proposed measure consists of 30 sections filling over 30 typewritten pages.