Opinion ID: 836184
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: amends constitution: prohibits using payroll deduction process, other public resources to collect `political' money from public employees

Text: RESULT OF `YES' VOTE: `Yes' vote prohibits using any public resource, including payroll deduction process, in collecting money used for `political purposes' (as defined), even if collection costs reimbursed. RESULT OF `NO' VOTE: `No' vote retains current law, rejects prohibition on using any public resource, including payroll deduction process, in collecting money used for `political purposes' (as defined). SUMMARY: Amends constitution. Current law permits voluntary payroll deductions from public employees for political purposes, prohibits compelled contributions; limits political activity on government time. Measure would prohibit using payroll deduction process, taking any other actions using `public funds' even if funds reimbursedto collect money for union or any other entity that uses any portion of collected money for any `political purpose.' Use for `political purpose' includes direct, indirect contribution to political candidate, committee, party; expenditure supporting or opposing candidate or ballot measure, encouraging or discouraging petition signatures; commingling with other money used for political purpose. `Public funds' include public employee work time, public buildings, equipment, supplies. Measure allows using collected money for lobbying (with exceptions), producing official Voter's Pamphlet. Double penalty for violations. Other provisions. Petitioner Sizemore challenges the caption and result statements of the Attorney General's certified ballot title on the ground that they improperly focus on one effect of the proposed initiative measurepayroll deductionsinstead of the actual subject of the measure-a prohibition on the use of public resources for political purposes. Petitioner Sizemore relies on two cases in which this court certified ballot titles different from the one on review for proposed initiative measures similar to the one on review. Dale v.. Myers, 328 Or. 466, 473, 980 P.2d 157 (1999); Peppers v. Myers, 325 Or. 611, 616, 942 P.2d 273 (1997). The fact that this court has certified different ballot titles for similarly worded measures, however, does not preclude the court from determining that the present ballot title substantially complies with ORS 250.035. We conclude that petitioner Sizemore's arguments regarding the caption and result statements are not well taken. Petitioner Novick challenges the summary of the Attorney General's certified ballot title. For the reasons explained below, we agree with petitioner Novick that the summary misstates existing law and, consequently, fails to comply substantially with ORS 250.035(2)(d). We therefore refer the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification. See Or Laws 2001, ch 802, § 2 (amending ORS 250.085 to give this court discretion, on determining that ballot title does not substantially comply with statutory requirements, to refer matter to Attorney General for modification); Flanagan v. Myers, 332 Or. 318, 325, 30 P.3d 408 (2001) (determining that challenged ballot titles did not comply substantially with statutory requirements and referring those ballot titles to Attorney General for modification). ORS 250.035(2)(d) provides that the ballot title of any initiative measure shall include [a] concise and impartial statement of not more than 125 words summarizing the state measure and its major effect. The Attorney General properly has attempted to summarize the proposed measure and its major effect by contrasting existing law with the new prohibitions that the proposed measure would place in the Oregon Constitution. Specifically, the Attorney General's summary states: Current law permits voluntary payroll deductions from public employees for political purposes, prohibits compelled contributions; limits political activity on government time. Measure would prohibit using payroll deduction process, taking any other actions using `public funds'  even if funds reimbursed to collect money for union or any other entity that uses any portion of collected money for any `political purpose.'    `Public funds' include public employee work time [.] (Emphasis added.) In other words, the proposed measure would prohibit the use of public funds to collect money for a political purpose and defines public funds to include employee work time. The summary contrasts what the proposed measure would prohibit with current law, which, according to the summary, limits political activity on government time. (Emphasis added.) Taken as a whole, the summary connotes that current law restricts or reduces, but does not prohibit, public employees from collecting money for a political purpose on work time. That is not an accurate statement of current law. A statute currently in effect already prohibits public employees from collecting or attempting to collect political contributions during work hours. ORS 260.432(2) provides: No public employee shall solicit any money, influence, service or other thing of value or otherwise promote or oppose any political committee or promote or oppose the nomination or election of a candidate, the gathering of signatures on an initiative, referendum or recall petition, the adoption of a measure or the recall of a public office holder while on the job during working hours. However, this section does not restrict the right of a public employee to express personal political views. By suggesting that current law merely limits the relevant political activitycollecting political contributions on work timeand that the proposed measure would prohibit that activity, the Attorney General's summary conveys the misleading impression that the proposed measure would close a loophole that permits public employees to exercise a limited right to collect political contributions on the job. There is no such loophole. The Attorney General argues that the phrase limits political activity on government time is not an inaccurate characterization of ORS 260.432(2). We understand his argument to be that a prohibition is indeed a limit (albeit the strongest sort of limit) and, thus, his summary, although not as precise as it could be, is not inaccurate. We agree, in the abstract, that the term limit might not be an inaccurate synonym for prohibit. Initiative Petition 19, however, actually is confined to one particular subject: collecting political contributions with public resources. In the context of that subject, discussing any other limits on public employees' political activity during work hours is irrelevant and, in the form chosen by the Attorney General, misleading. We conclude that petitioner Novick has demonstrated that the summary fails to comply substantially with ORS 250.035(2)(d). Accordingly, we refer the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification. Ballot title referred to Attorney General for modification.