Opinion ID: 836572
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Application of the Separate-Vote Requirement to Initiated Amendments

Text: We first address the state's contention that the separate-vote requirement of Article XVII, section 1, applies only to amendments proposed by the legislature. In doing so, we must consider the specific wording of Article XVII, section 1, the historical circumstances that led to its creation, and the case law surrounding it. See Priest v. Pearce, 314 Or. 411, 415-16, 840 P.2d 65 (1992) (setting out construction methodology). [4] Article XVII, section 1, provides, in part: Any amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be proposed in either branch of the legislative assembly, and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each of the two houses, such proposed amendment or amendments shall    be    referred by the secretary of state to the people for their approval or rejection   . If a majority of the electors voting on any such amendment shall vote in favor thereof, it shall thereby become a part of this Constitution. The votes for and against such amendment, or amendments, severally, whether proposed by the legislative assembly or by initiative petition, shall be canvassed by the secretary of state in the presence of the governor, and if it shall appear to the governor that the majority of the votes cast at said election on said amendment, or amendments, severally, are cast in favor thereof, it shall be his duty forthwith    to declare the said amendment, or amendments, severally    to have been adopted by the people of Oregon as part of the Constitution thereof, and the same shall be in effect as a part of the Constitution from the date of such proclamation. When two or more amendments shall be submitted in the manner aforesaid to the voters of this state at the same election, they shall be so submitted that each amendment shall be voted on separately.    This article shall not be construed to impair the right of the people to amend this Constitution by vote upon an initiative petition therefor. (Emphasis added.) Article XVII, section 1, prescribes the procedure for the legislature to propose constitutional amendments, as well as other requirements relating to amendment of the constitution. For purposes of our analysis in this case, the most significant requirement is that, if two or more amendments are submitted at the same election, they must be so submitted that each amendment shall be voted on separately. As noted, the state contends that the separate-vote requirement applies only to amendments proposed by the legislature, not to amendments initiated by the people. In the state's view, Article XVII, section 1, as relevant here, can be analyzed as three distinct parts: (1) the first two sentences, which set out voting and referral procedures for legislatively proposed amendments; (2) the third sentence, which sets out the procedure for canvassing votes on a proposed amendment, whether proposed by the legislative assembly or by initiative petition; and (3) the fourth sentence, which imposes the separate vote requirement [w]hen two or more amendments shall be submitted in the manner aforesaid.  (Emphasis added.) The state contends that the words submitted in the manner aforesaid refer to only the first part of Article XVII, section 1, which sets out voting and referral procedures for legislatively proposed amendments ( i.e., the manner in which such amendments are submitted). We disagree with that parsing of the text of Article XVII, section 1. First, the separate-vote requirement appears after the reference in the third sentence to amendments proposed by the legislative assembly or by initiative petition. (Emphasis added.) That placement of the separate-vote requirement suggests that the requirement applies both to amendments proposed by the legislature and those proposed by initiative. Additionally, the third sentence of Article XVII, section 1, which pertains to canvassing of votes, refers to [t]he votes for and against such amendment, or amendments, severally, proposed by either the legislature or initiative petition. (Emphasis added.) That wording is significant for two reasons. First, by referring to such amendment or amendments proposed in either manner, immediately after stating the procedure for referring legislatively proposed amendments, the third sentence appears to incorporate the procedures for submitting constitutional amendments by initiative petition, set out in Article IV, section 1. Second, by repeatedly using the word severally, the third sentence emphasizes that the voters must vote upon and adopt two or more amendments separately, regardless of the manner of their proposal. As contextual support for its reading of Article XVII, section 1, the state points to Article IV, section 1(4)(b), which provides that [i]nitiative and referendum measures shall be submitted to the people as provided in this section and by law not inconsistent therewith. The state reads that provision as clarifying that Article IV, section 1 not Article XVII, section 1 governs the method for submitting amendments proposed by initiative petition. However, the text of Article IV, section 1(4)(b), cuts against the state's argument. Significantly, that section provides that initiated amendments must be submitted in accordance with Article IV, section 1,  and by law not inconsistent therewith.  (Emphasis added.) Thus, Article IV, section 1(4)(b), itself acknowledges that certain requirements in addition to those set out in Article IV, section 1 such as the separate-vote requirement of Article XVII, section 1 also govern the submission of initiated amendments. Another part of Article IV section 1(4)(d) illustrates that point. That section specifically provides that initiated laws and amendments shall become effective 30 days after their approval,  [n]otwithstanding section 1, Article XVII of this Constitution.  (Emphasis added.) That phrase would be surplusage if the requirements contained in Article XVII, section 1, were inapplicable to initiated amendments. Further, it is significant that nothing in Article IV, section 1, similarly insulates initiated amendments from the separate-vote requirement of Article XVII, section 1. In sum, the specific wording of Article XVII, section 1, as well as the context provided by parts of Article IV, section 1, suggest that Article XVII, section 1, incorporates the procedures for submitting amendments proposed by initiative. The text and context further suggest that, with the exception of specific procedures for legislatively proposed amendments, Article XVII, section 1, applies to amendments proposed by the legislative assembly or by initiative petition, unless Article IV, section 1, specifically provides otherwise. The historical development of Article XVII, section 1, and Article IV, section 1, as relevant here, supports that conclusion. When the Oregon Constitution went into effect in 1859, Article XVII provided the only method for changing the constitution by legislative proposal. The original version of Article XVII included a separate-vote requirement that is worded similarly to the current version of that requirement now contained in Article XVII, section 1. See 327 Or. at 263-64, 959 P.2d at 57 (setting out text of 1859 version of Article XVII). In 1902, Article IV, section 1, was amended to grant the people the initiative and referendum power, including the ability to propose constitutional amendments by initiative petition. At that time, Article IV, section 1, provided that [p]etitions and orders for the initiative    shall be filed with the secretary of state, and in submitting the same to the people he, and all other officers, shall be guided by the general laws and the act submitting this amendment, until legislation shall be especially provided therefor. Or. Const., Art. IV, § 1 (1902) (emphasis added). Thus, since the creation of the initiative and referendum power in 1902, Article IV, section 1, has provided that submission of such measures shall be guided both by Article IV, section 1, and other applicable laws, presumably including Article XVII, section 1. In 1906, Article XVII was amended, pursuant to the people's initiative power, to implement the new initiative and referendum process. The amended version is the same as the current version of Article XVII, section 1. Or. Const., Art. XVII, § 1 (1906). The 1906 amendment added what is now the third sentence of Article XVII, section 1, pertaining to the canvassing of votes, including the reference to amendments    proposed by the legislative assembly or by initiative petition. The new third sentence contained three references to an amendment or amendments, severally. (Emphasis added.) The 1906 amendment also reworded the separate-vote requirement, albeit not materially, and incorporated it into section 1, thereby replacing sections 1 and 2 with a new version of section 1. The 1906 amendment to the text of Article XVII is instructive for our purposes here in two ways. First, by specifically incorporating references to the people's recently acquired initiative power, it appears that the voters intended the requirements contained in Article XVII, which originally pertained only to legislatively proposed amendments, to apply to initiated amendments as well. Second, by repeatedly including the phrase amendment or amendments, severally, the 1906 amendment emphasized that two or more amendments must remain separate from one another, regardless of the manner of their proposal. [5] Finally, in 1968, the people adopted a new version of Article IV, section 1, pursuant to legislative proposal. The new version included the current wording of Article IV, section 1(4)(b), that initiated measures must be submitted as provided in this section and by law not inconsistent therewith. Or. Const., Art. IV, § 1(4)(b) (1968). That wording is similar to the earlier requirement in Article IV, section 1, that submission of initiated amendments must be guided by the general laws, as well as by Article IV, section 1. As noted, that wording suggests that the provisions of Article XVII, section 1, including the separate-vote requirement, apply to initiated amendments, unless Article IV, section 1, dictates otherwise. Turning to the applicable case law, we note that only one case, Baum v. Newbry et al., 200 Or. 576, 267 P.2d 220 (1954), has attempted to address whether the separate-vote requirement applies to amendments proposed by initiative petition. However, in Baum, the court assumed, without deciding, that the separate-vote requirement applied to initiated constitutional amendments. 200 Or. at 581, 267 P.2d 220. Baum, therefore, is not helpful to our analysis here. In sum, the specific wording and historical development of Article XVII, section 1, as well as the context provided by parts of Article IV, section 1, indicate that Article XVII, section 1, incorporates by implication the procedures for submitting constitutional amendments by initiative petition. Additionally, since 1902, Article IV, section 1, itself has provided in some form that the submission of initiated amendments shall be governed by applicable laws not inconsistent with Article IV, section 1. Nothing about the separate-vote requirement of Article XVII, section 1, is inconsistent with any provision of Article IV, section 1. Accordingly, we conclude that the separate-vote requirement applies to constitutional amendments proposed by initiative, as well as those proposed by the legislature.