Opinion ID: 1279153
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: captions

Text: The Attorney General is required to provide, and this court to certify, a caption of not more than 10 words by which the measure is commonly referred to. ORS 250.035(1)(a). The quoted part of the statute is simply out of touch with the times. The genesis of that language is Oregon Laws 1913, chapter 36, section 1, which provided:    The ballot title shall contain:   (2) A distinctive short title in not exceeding 10 words by which the measure is commonly referred to or spoken of by the public or press.    Seventy years ago it may well be that measures sought to be enacted through the initiative process were made well known to the press and public before being filed with the Secretary of State and being transmitted to the Attorney General for preparation of a ballot title. With rare exceptions, that is no longer the case. Neither the proponents of the measure at hand nor the Attorney General have argued to us that there are any words by which this measure is commonly referred to. We certainly have no independent information to permit us to discharge our statutory duty to certify a title containing a caption meeting that statutory language. In an effort to perform a duty which ordinarily cannot be performed, about 40 years ago this court decided to test the caption for sufficiency by attempting to predict how the measure will be commonly referred to rather than complying with the text of the statute. See Young v. Neuner et al, 178 Or. 625, 630, 169 P.2d 124 (1946). In that decision this court approved a 10 word short title (as the caption was then called), finding that it was descriptive of the measure, distinguished the measure from any other measure, so far as known, that might appear on the same ballot and was not argumentative. The court quoted from Davis v. Van Winkle, 130 Or. 304, 306, 278 P. 91, 280 P. 495 (1929): [1] The intent of the law is to prepare a short ballot title sufficient to attract the attention of the voter, and to identify the bill on the ballot with the law enacted by the legislature. It would be difficult for any person to prepare a short ballot title free from criticism. Different people look at everything from slightly different angles. A short ballot title is not supposed to be a substitute for the title of the bill. It is a means of identifying tho measure referred or initiated and is sufficient if it does that. Neither of those decisions of this court has been expressly distinguished or overruled; nevertheless, the Attorney General, litigants in ballot title challenges and this court have largely abandoned any attempt to determine what a given measure either is or will be commonly referred to and have drifted away from the precept that the caption is primarily for the purpose of identification of the measure. More recent efforts on the part of the Attorney General, litigants and this court have been to summarize the measure in the caption. For example, see Oregon Taxpayers Union v. Paulus, 296 Or. 476, 480-81, 676 P.2d 305 (1984), resolving the litigants' disagreement as to what parts of the measure must, or should, be reflected in the caption. [2] Although the practice of attempting some degree of summarization of the purpose of the measure probably did not start with our decision in ACLU v. Paulus, 282 Or. 539, 580 P.2d 168 (1978), we did thereby unnecessarily encourage litigation over the content of the 10 word caption. We stated: The statute they [petitioners in this court] rely on, ORS 254.070(2) [in pertinent part, now ORS 250.035(1)(a)], does not require the caption to state the purpose of the measure, but only to give the name `by which the measure is commonly referred to or spoken of   .' The statute is silent on how to caption a measure, such as the present one, that is not commonly referred to. However, the word `caption' itself means that heading shall not only identify the measure but also should serve as an appropriate heading for the abbreviated statement that follows it. 282 Or. at 542, 580 P.2d 168. This was a well intentioned but, nevertheless, patent departure from what the statute specifies. It was occasioned by the fact that the statute is out of touch with the times. By passage of time and the changing utilization of the laws permitting exercise of the initiative, the statute is no longer relevant to what is actually taking place in the political arena. By decisions such as that in ACLU v. Paulus, supra , this court attempts to do what should be done by the legislature. If the legislature wants a 10 word caption to summarize the measure, that constitutional department should so state. This constitutional department has no business doing so. The best way to bring attention to a bad law is to enforce or apply it. Quite understandably, the parties to this case have not briefed the propriety or legality of this court's attempts to make the statute workable or whether we have erred in striking out to rewrite the statute so as to require a sufficient, fair and concise caption that summarizes the purpose of the measure. We have entered upon this discussion, hoping that the legislature will address the issue.