Title: Prozanski v. Myers
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S44807
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: February 12, 1998

FILED:  February 12, 1998

IN THE SUPREME COURT  OF THE STATE OF OREGON

FLOYD PROZANSKI, MICHAEL E. ROSE,
and TODD D. OLSON,

										Petitioners,

	v.

HARDY MYERS, Attorney General,
State of Oregon,

										Respondent.

(SC S44807)

	On petition to review a ballot title.

	Argued and submitted January 6, 1998.

	Katherine A. McDowell, Portland, argued the cause and filed
the petition for petitioners.

	Erika L. Hadlock, 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.

	Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Van Hoomissen,
Graber, Durham, and Kulongoski, Justices.*

	CARSON, C.J.

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

	*Fadeley, J., retired January 31, 1998, and did not
participate in this decision.

		CARSON, C.J.

		This is an original proceeding concerning the ballot
title for a state-wide referendum.  Petitioners are dissatisfied
electors who submitted timely written comments to the Secretary
of State about the draft ballot title prepared by the Attorney
General.  Petitioners now challenge the Attorney General's
certified ballot title in this court.  As we shall explain, we
conclude that the Attorney General's ballot title substantially
complies with the requirements of ORS 250.035(2).  See ORS
250.085(5) (setting out this court's standard of review). 
Accordingly, we certify the Attorney General's ballot title.

		The measure at issue originated during the 1997
legislative session as House Bill (HB) 3643.  HB 3643 changed the
offense of possessing less than one ounce of marijuana from a
violation, punishable by a fine between $500 and $1,000, to a
Class C misdemeanor, punishable by the same fine, as well as
possible imprisonment for up to 30 days. 

		HB 3643 passed both the House and the Senate.  After
the bill was signed by the Governor, opponents circulated a
referendum petition and obtained the requisite number of
signatures to place the bill on the ballot as a referred measure. 
See Or Const, Art IV, § 1(3) (setting out process for referring a
legislative enactment to the voters for rejection or approval). 
The referendum petition was filed with the Secretary of State,
and the Attorney General then prepared a draft ballot title.      
ORS 250.065, 250.067(1) &amp; (2).  After considering petitioners'
and other comments, the Attorney General revised the draft ballot
title and certified the following ballot title for the referred
measure:

"MAKES POSSESSION OF LIMITED AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA
CLASS C MISDEMEANOR

	"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE:  'Yes' vote makes
possession of less than one ounce of marijuana a Class
C misdemeanor.

	"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE:  'No' vote retains statute
making possession of less than one ounce of marijuana a
violation.

	"SUMMARY:  Under current Oregon law, possession of
less than one ounce of marijuana is a violation,
punishable by 500 to 1000 dollar fine; charges against
first-time offenders may be dismissed upon completion
of marijuana diversion agreement.  Measure makes
possession of less than one ounce of marijuana a Class
C misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days
imprisonment, plus 500 to 1000 dollar fine.  Measure
also makes failure to complete diversion agreement
ground for six-month suspension of offender's driving
privileges.  Allocates $600,000 for enforcement."

Petitioners challenge the caption, the "yes" result statement,
and the summary.

		We begin with the caption, which must contain "not more
than 10 words that reasonably identif[y] the subject matter of
the * * * measure."  ORS 250.035(2)(a).  Petitioners raise two
challenges to the certified caption.  First, they contend that
the caption does not reasonably identify the subject of the
measure, because it refers only to a "limited amount of
marijuana," instead of "less than one ounce of marijuana." 
Second, petitioners contend that the caption clearly should
convey that the measure recriminalizes the act of possessing less
than one ounce of marijuana.  In petitioners' view, a lay person
might not understand that reclassification as a Class C
misdemeanor means that the offense will be a crime and thus will
be more serious than the present treatment of that offense. 
Petitioners propose the following caption:  "MAKES POSSESSING
LESS THAN ONE OUNCE OF MARIJUANA A CRIME."

		We disagree with petitioners that, as to the amount of
marijuana at issue, the certified caption fails to substantially
comply with ORS 250.035(2)(a).  Although it is true that the
measure concerns possession of "less than one ounce of
marijuana," the Attorney General may convey that subject using
fewer words in the caption, as long as those words reasonably
identify the subject matter of the measure.  In our view, the
reference to a "limited amount of marijuana" in the certified
caption substantially complies with that requirement.

		As to petitioners' second contention, we again disagree
that the Attorney General's caption fails to substantially comply
with ORS 250.035(2)(a).  The proposed measure would make
possession of less than one ounce of marijuana a Class C
misdemeanor.  The Attorney General's caption specifically conveys
that criminal classification to the voters, thereby identifying
the subject matter of the measure.  Further, we do not think that
the words "Class C misdemeanor" will confuse or mislead the
voters, as petitioners contend.  In short, we conclude that the
certified caption substantially complies with ORS 250.035(2)(a).

		Petitioners next challenge the certified "yes" result
statement, which must contain "[a] simple and understandable
statement of not more than 15 words that describes the result if
the * * * measure is approved."  ORS 250.035(2)(b).  Petitioners
contend that, like the caption, the "yes" statement should
identify the amount of marijuana at issue and should state that
the measure would criminalize the offense.  Petitioners also
propose changing the word "makes" to "increases," in order to
clarify the more serious treatment of the offense under the
proposed measure.  Petitioners propose the following "yes"
statement:  "'Yes' vote increases possession of less than one
ounce of marijuana to a crime."

		We reject petitioners' challenges to the certified
"yes" result statement for the same reasons that we rejected
their challenges to the caption.  The Attorney General's "yes"
statement accurately summarizes the result if the proposed
measure is approved.  Although petitioners propose an alternative
"yes" statement that also summarizes the result, they have not
demonstrated that the Attorney General's "yes" statement fails to
substantially comply with ORS 250.035(2)(b).

		Finally, petitioners challenge the summary of the
certified ballot title, which must contain "[a] concise and
impartial statement of not more than 85 words summarizing the
measure and its major effect."  ORS 250.035(2)(d).  Petitioners
suggest replacing the second sentence of the Attorney General's
summary with the following sentence:  "This measure
recriminalizes possession of less than one ounce of marijuana,
making it a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days
imprisonment and $500 to $1000 fine."  Petitioners again argue
that the word "recriminalizes" clearly would convey that the
proposed measure would increase the seriousness of the offense.

		We reject petitioners' challenge to the summary for the
reasons already stated.  While petitioners may be correct that
including the word "recriminalizes" in the summary might advance
the voters' understanding of the measure, they have not
demonstrated that the Attorney General's summary fails to
substantially comply with ORS 250.035(2)(d).  See Crumpton v.
Keisling, 317 Or 322, 325, 855 P2d 1107 (1993) ("The question on
review is not whether a more exact or better ballot title may be
written, but only whether the one certified * * * substantially
complies with the requirements of statute.").

		After considering all of petitioners' challenges, we
conclude that the Attorney General's certified ballot title
substantially complies with the requirements set forth in     
ORS 250.035(2).  Accordingly, we certify the ballot title without
modification.

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