Title: Novick v. Myers
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S48603
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: November 30, 2001

FILED:  November 30, 2001
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STEVEN NOVICK,
	Petitioner,
	v.
HARDY MYERS,
Attorney General,
State of Oregon,
	Respondent.
(SC S48603)

	En Banc
	On petition to review ballot title.
	Argued and submitted August 7, 2001.
	Steven Novick, Portland, argued the cause and filed the
petition for himself as petitioner.
	Douglas F. Zier, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued
the cause and filed the answering memorandum for respondent. 
With him on the memorandum were Hardy Myers, Attorney General,
and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.
	CARSON, C.J.
	Ballot title referred to the Attorney General for
modification.
		CARSON, C.J.
		This ballot title review proceeding under ORS
250.085(2) concerns the Attorney General's certified ballot title
for a proposed initiative measure, which the Secretary of State
has denominated as Initiative Petition 47 (2002).  Petitioner
challenges the caption, the "yes" and "no" vote result
statements, and the summary of the Attorney General's certified
ballot title.  For the reasons explained below, we hold that the
"yes" vote result statement does not comply substantially with
the requirements of ORS 250.035(2)(b).  We refer the ballot title
to the Attorney General for modification.  See ORS 250.085(8)
(authorizing such disposition); Flanagan v. Myers, 332 Or 318,
323-25, 30 P3d 408 (2001) (explaining why referral to Attorney
General ordinarily is appropriate).
		The proposed initiative measure would amend the Oregon
Constitution by adding the following text to Article IX:
	"Section 3c.  Whereas revenue derived from taxes on
motor vehicle fuel will decline as vehicles become more
efficient and alternative sources of energy are
discovered and employed, therefore, for tax years
beginning on or after July 1, 2004, 10 percent (10%) of
the state's income tax revenue shall be dedicated to
the building and maintaining of public roads.  These
funds shall be divided equally between the Oregon
Department of Transportation, which shall receive 50
percent of the aforementioned income tax revenue, and
the cities and counties of Oregon, which shall receive
the remainder.  For purposes of this section 3a, income
tax revenue means revenue derived from personal and
corporate income taxes and corporate excise taxes. 
	"(a) The Oregon Department of Transportation and each
city and county receiving these funds shall maintain a
segregated account dedicated solely to the
construction, reconstruction, improvement, repair,
maintenance, operation and use of public highways,
roads, streets and roadside rest areas, and shall place
into this fund the aforementioned state income tax
revenue, all highway funds received directly or
indirectly from the federal government and all other
revenue derived from taxes and fees on motor vehicle
fuel and use.
	"(b) The state shall distribute equitably to cities and
counties, using a formula established by law, not less
than 40 percent of all revenue derived from state taxes
and fees on motor vehicle fuel and use, including
vehicle registration fees.
	"(c) To insure that funds dedicated by this Article are
indeed used for the purposes to which they are
dedicated, the Secretary of State shall audit all such
accounts to confirm that the dedicated funds are not
commingled with other funds or used for other purposes;
and shall pursue any court action necessary to enforce
this section and to insure that a public official who
uses or authorizes the use of these dedicated funds for
a purpose not authorized by this Constitution is held
accountable." 
For that proposed initiative measure, the Attorney General
certified the following ballot title:
"AMENDS CONSTITUTION: ALLOCATES TEN
PERCENT OF INCOME TAX REVENUES FOR
HIGHWAYS; DISTRIBUTES SOME REVENUE
TO CITIES, COUNTIES
		"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE:  'Yes' vote allocates ten
percent of state income tax revenue to supplement
existing funding for highway construction and
maintenance; distributes some revenue to cities,
counties.
		"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE:  'No' vote retains current
manner of funding public highway construction and
maintenance through dedicated fuel taxes, registration
and licensing fees, and federal and local money.
		"SUMMARY:  Amends constitution.  Currently federal
and state money, dedicated funds (fuel taxes,
registration, licensing fees) finance highway
construction and maintenance.  Measure supplements
existing highway funding by allocating ten percent of
state income and excise tax revenue (divided equally
between state, local entities) along with federal
highway money and all taxes, fees on vehicle fuel and
use to segregated fund for highway construction and
maintenance.  Requires 40 percent or more of state
taxes and fees on motor vehicle fuel and use (including
vehicle registration fees) to be 'equitably'
distributed to cities and counties; they currently
receive 39.95 percent.  Does not define 'equitably.'
Reduces revenue available for other state expenditures;
provides no replacement funding.  Eliminates current
authority to use highway funds for administration, bond
retirement, parks.  Other provisions."
		Petitioner challenges all aspects of the ballot title 
-- the caption, result statements, and summary.  We have
considered each of petitioner's arguments and conclude that only
his challenge to the "yes" vote result statement is well taken. 
We confine our discussion to that argument.
		 The "yes" vote result statement must contain a "simple
and understandable statement of not more than 25 words that
describes the result if the * * * measure is approved."  ORS
250.035(2)(b).  To the extent practicable, the "yes" and "no"
vote result statements must be written so that they are parallel. 
ORS 250.035(3).
		Petitioner claims that the "yes" vote result statement
does not comply substantially with the requirements of ORS
250.035(2)(b) because it fails to state that, in dedicating 10
percent of the income tax to highway funding, the proposed
measure correspondingly would result in a reduction in the State
General Fund (General Fund).  Income tax revenues currently are
deposited into the General Fund, which funds education, public
safety, health care, and other state services.  Because the
proposed measure would dedicate 10 percent of the income tax
revenues to highway funding, petitioner submits that, if
approved, it would result both in an increase in the amount of
funds available for highways and in a decrease in the amount of
funds available for services paid from the General Fund.
		The Attorney General concedes that petitioner "is
largely accurate" respecting the impact that the proposed measure
would have on the General Fund.  The Attorney General defends the
"yes" vote result statement on the ground that the primary result
of the proposed measure would be to establish additional
dedicated highway funding.  Because the "yes" vote result
statement states as much, the Attorney General argues that it
substantially complies with the statute.  According to the
Attorney General, any reduction in the General Fund that would
result if the proposed measure is approved would be an incidental
fiscal consequence that properly should be, and in fact is,
addressed in the summary. (1)  
		We disagree with the Attorney General's
characterization that the impact that the proposed measure would
have on the General Fund is "incidental."  Because the proposed
measure does not provide alternative funding sources, a direct
result of the proposed measure, if approved, would be a decrease
in the source of General Fund revenues.  
		As noted, under ORS 250.035(2)(b), the "yes" vote
result statement must describe the result of a proposed measure
if approved.  Because the Attorney General's "yes" vote result
statement does not describe the reduction in the General Fund
that would result from the proposed measure the ballot title does
not comply substantially with ORS 250.035(2)(b) and must be
modified.  In addition, although we reject petitioner's challenge
to the "no" vote result statement, the Attorney General may
modify the "no" vote result statement if he desires.  See ORS
250.035(2)(b) (setting out requirements for "no" vote result
statement); ORS 250.035(3) (to extent practicable result
statements shall be parallel).
		Ballot title referred to the Attorney General for
modification.



1. 	Specifically, the Attorney General notes that the
summary states that the proposed measure "[r]educes revenue
available for other state expenditures; provides no replacement
funding."