Title: Dale v. Myers
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S44984
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: March 26, 1998

FILED: March 26, 1998

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

ALICE DALE, ROGER GRAY, and
JAMES SAGER,

		Petitioners,

	v.

HARDY MYERS, Attorney General,
State of Oregon,

	Respondent,

    and

N. M. RYMAL,

	Intervenor.

(SC S44984)

	In Banc 	

	On petition to review a ballot title.

	Argued and submitted March 5, 1998.

	Lynn-Marie Crider, Salem, argued the cause for petitioners
and filed the petition for Alice Dale.  With her on the petition
was Paul B. Gamson, of Smith, Gamson, Diamond and Olney,
Portland, for petitioners Roger Gray and James Sager.

	Janet A. Metcalf, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued
the cause for respondent.  With her on the answering memorandum
were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds,
Solicitor General.	

	Gregory W. Byrne, Portland, filed a brief for intervenor.

	LEESON, J.

	Ballot title certified as modified.  This decision shall
become effective in accordance with ORAP 11.30(10).

		LEESON, J.

		This is an original proceeding to review a ballot title
for a proposed initiative measure that would amend the Oregon
Constitution.  Petitioners are electors who timely submitted
written comments about the Attorney General's draft ballot title,
ORS 250.067(1), and therefore are entitled to seek a different
title in this court, ORS 250.085(2).  They challenge the result
statements and the summary of the ballot title.  We review the
ballot title for substantial compliance, modify the result
statements and, as modified, certify the ballot title.  ORS
250.085(5).

		The proposed measure, which would add a new section to
Article I of the Oregon Constitution, is entitled the "Taxpayer
Protection Initiative" and generally provides: 

		"No new tax, fee, or charge shall be imposed,
assessed or levied, and no existing tax, fee or charge
shall be increased by the state or any local government
or taxing district, unless the new tax, fee, or charge,
or increase thereof is first approved by not less than
two-thirds of voters voting on the question in an
election held on the first Tuesday after the first
Monday of November of any year."

The measure, if adopted, also would repeal some previously
enacted taxes and fees.

		The Attorney General certified the following ballot
title for the proposed measure:

"AMENDS CONSTITUTION: REQUIRES 2/3 VOTER APPROVAL FOR 
MOST NEW, INCREASED TAXES, FEES

		"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE: 'Yes' vote requires 2/3
voter approval for most new, increased, and some past,
taxes, fees.

		"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE: 'No' vote rejects requiring
2/3 voter approval for most new, increased, some past,
tax measures.

		"SUMMARY: Amends Constitution.  Law currently
permits voters to pass tax measures by majority vote;
not all new, increased taxes, fees must be approved by
voters.  Measure prohibits most new, increased taxes,
fees, charges unless approved by 2/3 of those voting. 
Repeals some taxes, fees imposed or increased in
preceding year, unless approved by 2/3 vote.  Prohibits
ballot, other government publications from stating how
some new, increased taxes, fees would be used.  Lists
exemptions, including some temporary increases, renewal
of public safety levies, bond measures.  Other
provisions."

ORS 250.035(2) requires a ballot title for a state measure to
contain a caption of not more than 10 words that reasonably
identifies the subject matter of the measure; simple and
understandable statements of not more than 15 words each that
describe the result if the measure is approved or rejected; and a
concise and impartial statement of not more than 85 words
summarizing the measure and its major effect. 

		Petitioners do not challenge the Attorney General's
caption.  They do contend that the "yes" and "no" result
statements do not comply substantially with the requirements of
ORS 250.035.  According to petitioners, the Attorney General's
"yes" result statement is underinclusive, because it does not
explain adequately that certain taxes and fees that were
increased or imposed during the year before the December 1998
effective date of the proposed measure would be repealed. 
Furthermore, petitioners contend, voters will be confused by the
assertion that two-thirds voter approval is required for "some
past, taxes, fees."  They suggest that the phrase, "applies
retroactively," is more accurate than "some past, taxes, fees."

		The Attorney General's "yes" result statement does not
explain adequately that some taxes and fees would be repealed if
the proposed measure is approved.  Consequently, the "yes" result
statement fails to comply substantially with the requirements of
ORS 250.035(2).  We certify instead the following "yes" result
statement:

		RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "Yes" vote requires 2/3
majority to approve most tax, fee increases; repeals
certain taxes, fees.

		Petitioners also object to the "no" result statement,
contending that it suggests that the proposed measure creates a
supermajority rule applicable to tax measures that already
require voter approval and that the proposed measure applies only
to taxes and not to fees.  We conclude that the "no" result
statement's reference to "tax measures" fails to comply
substantially with ORS 250.035(2).  We certify the following "no"
result statement:

		RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "No" vote retains current
rules for approving, increasing taxes, fees; maintains
previously approved taxes, fees.    

		Finally, petitioners contend that the Attorney
General's summary fails to comply substantially with the
statutory requirements, because it fails to explain that it is a
vote of the people that is required to approve the taxes, fees,
and charges to which the measure applies and because the summary
sometimes uses the phrase "taxes, fees" and other times uses
"taxes, fees, charges."  However, read as a whole, the Attorney
General's summary makes clear that "those voting" refers to
voters and not to the legislature or some other elected or
appointed body.  Moreover, in the light of the 85-word limitation
that applies to a ballot title summary, reference to "taxes,
fees" substantially complies with the statutory requirements.

		Pursuant to ORS 250.085(5), we certify the following
ballot title to the Secretary of State:

AMENDS CONSTITUTION: REQUIRES 2/3 VOTER APPROVAL FOR 
MOST NEW, INCREASED TAXES, FEES

		RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "Yes" vote requires 2/3
majority to approve most tax, fee increases; repeals
certain taxes, fees.

		RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "No" vote retains current
rules for approving, increasing taxes, fees; maintains
previously approved taxes, fees.    

		SUMMARY: Amends Constitution.  Law currently
permits voters to pass tax measures by majority vote;
not all new, increased taxes, fees must be approved by
voters.  Measure prohibits most new, increased taxes,
fees, charges unless approved by 2/3 of those voting. 
Repeals some taxes, fees imposed or increased in
preceding year, unless approved by 2/3 vote.  Prohibits
ballot, other government publications from stating how
some new, increased taxes, fees would be used.  Lists
exemptions, including some temporary increases, renewal
of public safety levies, bond measures.  Other
provisions.

		Ballot title certified as modified.  This decision
shall become effective in accordance with ORAP 11.30(10).