Title: Nesbitt v. Myers
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S50479
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: July 31, 2003

Filed: July 31, 2003
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
TIM NESBITT,
Petitioner,
	v.
HARDY MYERS,
Attorney General,
State of Oregon,
Respondent.
(SC S50479)
	On petition to review ballot title.
	Submitted on the record July 9, 2003.
	Lynn-Marie Crider, Salem, filed the petition for petitioner.
	Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Solicitor General, Salem, filed
the answering memorandum for respondent.  With her on the
answering memorandum were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary
H. Williams, Solicitor General.
	BALMER, J.
	Ballot title referred to the Attorney General for
modification.
		BALMER, J.
		This ballot title review proceeding brought under ORS
250.085(2) concerns the Attorney General's certified ballot title
for a proposed initiative measure that the Secretary of State has
denominated as Initiative Petition 39 (2004).  The proposed
measure, if adopted, would amend the Oregon Constitution by
limiting the number of years that an individual may serve in the
state legislature.  Under the proposed measure, a legislator
could not serve more than six years in the House of
Representatives, more than eight years in the Senate, or a total
of more than 12 years in the Legislative Assembly.  As described
more fully below, the proposed measure would apply to current
members of the legislature and, on its effective date, would
divest of their offices members of the legislature whose length
of service exceeds the limits contained in the proposed measure.
		Petitioner is an elector who timely submitted written
comments to the Secretary of State concerning the Attorney
General's draft ballot title and who, therefore, is entitled to
seek review of the resulting certified ballot title in this
court.  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).  ORS 250.085(5).  For the reasons that follow, we
conclude that it does not and we, therefore, refer the ballot
title to the Attorney General for modification.
		The Attorney General certified the following ballot
title for Initiative Petition 39:
		"AMENDS CONSTITUTION:  LIMITS TOTAL YEARS OF
SERVICE BY CURRENT, FUTURE LEGISLATORS; INCLUDES PRIOR
LEGISLATIVE SERVICE
		"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE:  'Yes' vote limits current,
future legislators to six years total service as
representative, eight as senator, twelve in Legislature
overall; includes prior legislative service.
		"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE:  'No' vote retains current
state law, which does not limit length of service as
state representative, as state senator, or in the
Legislative Assembly overall.
		"SUMMARY:  Amends Constitution.  Existing law does
not limit legislators' years of service in the Oregon
House of Representatives or Senate, or in the
Legislature overall.  The measure provides that no
person shall serve more than total of six years in the
House, eight in the Senate, and no more than 12 years
in the Legislature overall.  Includes legislative
service prior to measure's effective date.  Prohibits
placement of a candidate's name on a ballot for an
elected office or appointment to such office.  Also
provides that no legislator sitting at time of
measure's effective date shall remain in office if it
will cause that person to exceed the limits. 
Severability provision.  Other provisions give standing
to private citizens and non-profit businesses to
enforce term limits."
		Petitioner challenges the caption, the "yes" vote
result statement, and the summary of the certified ballot title. 
He argues first that the ballot title fails adequately to explain
that the adoption of the proposed measure would remove some
current legislators from office in the middle of their terms and
would prevent some legislators who might be elected at the time
that the proposed measure may be adopted from taking office. 
Second, he argues that the ballot title should explain the method
by which the resulting vacancies would be filled.  Finally, he
argues that the certified ballot title is so similar to the
certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 20 (2004), another
proposed measure that would limit the length of service of
legislators, that it violates the requirement of ORS 250.035(6)
that "a ballot title shall not resemble any title previously
filed for a measure to be submitted at that election." 
CAPTION 
		The caption of a certified ballot title shall contain a
statement of not more than 15 words "that reasonably identifies
the subject matter of the state measure."  ORS 250.035(2)(a).  As
noted, the caption of the Attorney General's ballot title for
Initiative Petition 39 states:
	"AMENDS CONSTITUTION: LIMITS TOTAL YEARS OF SERVICE BY
CURRENT, FUTURE LEGISLATORS; INCLUDES PRIOR LEGISLATIVE
SERVICE"
		Petitioners assert that, although the Attorney
General's caption accurately identifies one subject of the
proposed measure -- its limit on the number of years legislators
may serve -- it fails to identify another subject:  the fact that
the proposed measure would remove some current legislators from
office.  Petitioner argues that, because "the certain effect of
the initiative is not only to create a prospective rule but also
to effect what amounts to the recall of sitting Senators and the
ouster of persons elected to both chambers in November 2004, this
too is a subject matter of the measure."  Petitioner notes that,
if a proposed measure contains more than one subject, all the
subjects should be reflected in the caption if possible.  See
Witt v. Kulongoski, 319 Or 7, 10 n 3, 872 P2d 14 (1994) (so
stating).  Petitioner argues that the statement in the Attorney
General's caption that the proposed measure applies to "current
legislators" and "includes prior legislative service" fails to
inform the reader that elected legislators will be prevented from
serving or completing their terms.  According to petitioner,
although other prior proposed term limit measures also would have
applied to current legislators and would have included prior
legislative service, as would the proposed term limits measure of
Initiative Petition 20 (2004), the way that this proposed measure
applies to current legislators -- by potentially removing them
from office during an elected term -- is significant (and novel)
and, therefore, should be included in the caption.  
		The Attorney General responds that the words "current,
future legislators" and "includes prior legislative service"
adequately describe the fact that the proposed measure would
prevent current legislators from violating the term limit. 
According to the Attorney General, because the ouster of some
legislators is an effect of the proposed measure, and not its
subject, an explanation of that effect does not belong in the
caption.  Further, the Attorney General argues that, because the
fact that some legislators might be removed from office in the
middle of their terms "depends on circumstances that are not
apparent from the face of the measure or on the face of any
governing law," it is inappropriate to include such a statement
in the caption.  In his petition, petitioner names five current
legislators who were elected to four-year terms in 2002 and would
be removed from office in 2004 if the proposed measure were
adopted.  The Attorney General argues that a factual
investigation would be necessary to substantiate petitioner's
list.  According to the Attorney General, such a factual
investigation is beyond the scope of this ballot title review. 
See Sizemore v. Myers, 326 Or 220, 230, 953 P2d 360 (1997)
(stating that factual investigation into financial affairs of
Portland area Metropolitan Service District is beyond scope of
ballot title review).  
		We agree with petitioner.  The proposed measure states
that it will prevent elected legislators from taking office or
from finishing terms to which they were elected if to do so would
violate its term limits:
		"[N]o candidate's name shall be placed upon a
ballot for an elected office or appointed to such
office, nor shall any legislator remain in office if
doing so will cause that person to exceed these
limits."
Petitioner is correct that this provision is significant enough
that it is a "subject" of the proposed measure and, thus, should
be identified in the caption.  Further, without engaging in
speculation or conducting an inappropriate factual investigation,
we can determine from undisputed election records that at least
one current legislator who was elected to a four-year term in
2002 has served more than the number of years that the proposed
measure would allow and thus, by the terms of the proposed
measure, would be removed from office on the effective date of
the proposed measure, were it to pass. (1)
		We also agree with petitioner that the Attorney
General's caption fails adequately to explain both subjects of
the proposed measure.  The caption fails to link the limit on
years of service with the application of that limit to current
legislators in a way that informs the reader that some
legislators may be prevented from completing or serving terms to
which they have been or will be elected.  Because the caption
does not reasonably identify the subject matter and, thus, fails
substantially to comply with the statutory requirements, the
ballot title must be modified.  We, therefore, refer the ballot
title to the Attorney General for modification.  
"YES" VOTE RESULT STATEMENT
		The "yes" vote result statement is to be a "simple and
understandable statement of not more than 25 words that describes
the result if the state measure is approved." ORS 250.035(2)(b).
As noted, the "yes" vote result statement of the Attorney
General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 39
states:
		"'Yes' vote limits current, future state
legislators to six years total service as
representative, eight as senator, twelve in Legislature
overall; includes prior legislative service."
		Petitioner's and the Attorney General's respective
arguments regarding the "yes" vote result statement mirror their
arguments regarding the caption.  Petitioner argues that the fact
that the proposed measure would remove sitting legislators is a
significant and immediate result of the proposed measure and,
therefore, should be included in the "yes" vote result statement. 
The Attorney General responds that, because the statement notes
that the proposed measure applies to "current" legislators and
"includes prior legislative service," it adequately informs the
reader that any legislator whose current term would violate the
proposed measure's limit on years of service would be removed
from office when that limit is reached, even before the
completion of the term to which the legislator had been elected.
		We agree with petitioner, for the reasons explained in
our discussion of his objection to the caption.  The removal of
elected and sitting legislators before the completion of their
terms would be a significant result of the proposed measure and,
by failing to describe that result, the "yes" vote result
statement of the certified ballot title fails substantially to
comply with ORS 250.035(2)(b).  Moreover, the Attorney General is
entitled to consider making conforming changes to the result
statements after he modifies the caption of a ballot title.  See
Phillips v. Myers, 325 Or 221, 227, 936 P2d 964 (1997) ("[I]t has
been this court's practice to make conforming changes to the
Result Statements when modifying a Caption.").   
SUMMARY 
		The summary is to be "[a] concise and impartial
statement of not more than 125 words summarizing the state
measure and its major effect."  ORS 250.035(2)(d).  As noted, the
summary in the Attorney General's certified ballot title for
Initiative Petition 39 states:
		"SUMMARY:  Amends Constitution.  Existing law does
not limit legislators' years of service in the Oregon
House of Representatives or Senate, or in the
Legislature overall.  The measure provides that no
person shall serve more than total of six years in the
House, eight in the Senate, and no more than 12 years
in the Legislature overall.  Includes legislative
service prior to measure's effective date.  Prohibits
placement of a candidate's name on a ballot for an
elected office or appointment to such office.  Also
provides that no legislator sitting at time of
measure's effective date shall remain in office if it
will cause that person to exceed the limits. 
Severability provision.  Other provisions give standing
to private citizens and non-profit businesses to
enforce term limits."
		Petitioner asserts two separate objections to the
Attorney General's summary.  First, he argues that the sentence
in the summary, "Prohibits placement of a candidate's name on a
ballot for an elected office or appointment to such office," is
not accurate.  The Attorney General agrees that, through an
editing error, 10 additional words required to make the sentence
accurate -- "if it will cause that person to exceed the limits" 
-- were omitted.  The Attorney General requests that we refer the
ballot title to him to modify that sentence.  We agree.
		Second, petitioner argues that the summary does not
summarize adequately the proposed measure and its major effect
because it does not inform voters how any vacancies would be
filled if the proposed measure is adopted.  Petitioner asserts
that, under the statutory provisions for filling legislative
vacancies, legislators who would be removed from office in the
middle of an elected term on the effective date of Initiative
Petition 39, if adopted, would be replaced by appointment.  See
ORS 171.051(4) (describing process for filling state Senate
vacancies). (2)  Indeed, petitioner claims that, because the
proposed measure would appear on the ballot in a regular general
election (November 2004), the interplay between the proposed
measure and the provisions for filling vacancies means that "all
vacancies created by the measure would be filled by appointment." 
Petitioner argues that voters should be told in the summary that
vacancies created by the proposed measure would be filled by
appointment, rather than by election.
		The Attorney General responds first that it would not
be appropriate to discuss how vacancies would be filled, because
"[i]t is speculative to say that any particular seats will be
affected by the measure."  He asserts that at least some
legislators must choose to run again in 2004 and must be re-elected for the proposed measure to affect any current
legislators.  Second, the Attorney General asserts that, even if
vacancies created immediately on the proposed initiative's
effective date would be filled by appointment under ORS 171.051,
any vacancies that the proposed measure might create in the
future could be filled either by appointment or election,
depending on the date on which a particular legislator assumes
office.  Therefore, the Attorney General argues that a statement
that any vacancies created would be filled by appointment would
not be accurate.  Finally, the Attorney General states that he
attempted to include wording in the summary that would inform
voters that vacancies could be filled by election or appointment,
depending on the circumstances, but that it was not possible to
write a complete and understandable description of the process
within the word limit.  
		We agree with petitioner that the summary must refer to
the manner in which vacancies are filled when legislators are
removed from office by operation of the proposed measure.  First,
the Attorney General is incorrect in asserting that it is
"speculative" to conclude that the proposed measure would apply
to any particular members of the legislature.  As we previously
noted, if the proposed measure were enacted, a state Senator who
had served 12 years and who was elected to a four-year term in
2002 would be removed from office in midterm on the effective
date of the proposed measure.  That Senator would be replaced by
appointment.  We do agree with the Attorney General that,
contrary to petitioner's argument, under existing statutory
provisions for filling legislative vacancies, some vacancies that
result from the proposed measure would be filled by election and
some would be filled by appointment, depending on the date a
particular legislator takes office and, thus, the date the
legislator reaches the maximum period of service that the
proposed measure would allow.  We also agree with the Attorney
General that it might not be possible, within the statutory word
limit, to describe in detail the process for filling vacant
legislative positions and the different situations in which
vacancies would be filled by appointment or by election.  
		Nevertheless, petitioner is correct in arguing that the
fact that the proposed measure would remove from office, on its
effective date and perhaps in future applications, legislators
elected by voters and replace them with individuals appointed by
county courts or boards of commissioners (3) is a major effect of
the proposed initiative and should be included in the summary. 
We recognize that the word limitation for the summary might allow
the Attorney General to state little more than that vacancies
created by the proposed measure would be filled by appointment or
election, depending on when the vacancy occurs, but we are
confident that that important consequence of the proposed measure
can be addressed in an appropriate fashion.  For the foregoing
reasons, we refer the ballot title to the Attorney General for
modification.
SIMILARITY TO INITIATIVE PETITION 20 (2004) BALLOT TITLE
		Because we refer the certified ballot title to the
Attorney General for modification, there is no need to consider
whether the certified ballot title, before modification, is
improperly similar to the ballot title for Initiative Petition 20
(2004).
		Ballot title referred to the Attorney General for
modification.



1. 	We agree with the Attorney General that it would be
speculative to predict whether any particular legislator will
choose to seek re-election in the future.  However, as noted in
the text, the proposed measure, if adopted, would affect certain
state senators who were elected in 2002.  We do not believe that
it is inappropriate speculation to assume that those individuals
will continue to serve until the expiration of their present
terms.

2. 	An example will help explain the operation of ORS
171.051(4) in this context.  The statute provides that a vacancy
in the office of state Senator will be filled by appointment if
that vacancy occurs "after the 62nd day before the first general
election and before the 61st day before the second general
election to be held during that term of office."  If Initiative
Petition 39 were adopted at the general election in November
2004, a state Senator who already had served at least 12 years in
the legislature and had been elected at the general election in
November 2002 (and whose term of office began in January 2003),
would be removed from office on the effective date of the
proposed measure.  The effective date of an initiative measure is
30 days after the measure is enacted.  Or Const, Art II, § 4(d). 
Because the vacancy would occur in December 2004, it would be
"after the 62nd day before the first general election * * * held
during that term of office" (the November 2004 general election)
and "before the 61st day before the second general election" (the
November 2006 general election).  The vacancy, therefore, would
be filled by appointment.

3. 	"The appointment [to vacant legislative positions]
shall be made by the county courts or boards of county
commissioners of the affected counties pursuant to ORS 171.060 to
171.064."  ORS 171.051(2).