Opinion ID: 1290435
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Initiative Title and Summary

Text: (21a) According to petitioners, the preelection petitions which were circulated to qualify the initiative measure contained a misleading title and summary. The title, Initiative Constitutional Amendment-Property Tax Limitation, was assertedly defective in its implication that only property taxes would be affected by the measure; in fact, other forms of state and local taxes were also involved. (Art. XIII A, §§ 3, 4.) Further, the summary of the measure stated in part that it [a]uthorizes specified local entities to impose special taxes except ... [real property taxes]. In fact, section 4 of the measure restricts the imposition of such special taxes by imposing a two-thirds vote requirement. It is argued that each of these variances is fatal to the constitutional validity of the article. Petitioners further observe that the sample ballots distributed in Alameda and San Diego Counties also contained the foregoing defects. As for other counties, the ballot materials were corrected by court order: The title was changed to Tax Limitation  Initiative Constitutional Amendment, and the summary was revised to read [a]uthorizes imposition of special taxes by local government (except on real property) by 2/3 vote of qualified electors. According to respondents, these corrections were incorporated into the voters pamphlet subsequently mailed to all registered voters. Nevertheless, petitioners insist that the petition signers, and certain voters in Alameda and San Diego Counties, may have been misled or confused by the incorrect title and summary. (22) Prior to the circulation of an initiative measure, the Attorney General is required to prepare a title and summary of its chief purposes and points  not exceeding 100 words. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (d); Elec. Code, §§ 3502, 3503.) The Attorney General's statement must be true and impartial, and not argumentative or likely to create prejudice for or against the measure. (Elec. Code, § 3531.) The main purpose of these requirements is to avoid misleading the public with inaccurate information. (See Clark v. Jordan (1936) 7 Cal.2d 248, 249-250 [60 P.2d 457, 106 A.L.R. 549]; Boyd v. Jordan (1934) 1 Cal.2d 468, 471 [35 P.2d 533].) (23) We have said, however, that the title and summary need not contain a complete catalogue or index of all of the measure's provisions and if reasonable minds may differ as to the sufficiency of the title, the title should be held sufficient. ( Epperson v. Jordan (1938) 12 Cal.2d 61, 66 [82 P.2d 445].) As a general rule, the title and summary prepared by the Attorney General are presumed accurate, and substantial compliance with the chief purpose and points provision is sufficient. ( Perry v. Jordan, supra, 34 Cal.2d 87, 94.) (21b) In the present case, we conclude that the title and summary, though technically imprecise, substantially complied with the law, and we doubt that any significant number of petition signers or voters were misled thereby. We deem that the title, stressing only the property tax aspects of the initiative, was reasonably sufficient in light of the fact that the measure was principally addressed to the subject of real property tax relief. Similarly, the original summary was not so incomplete as to be fatally defective, because it alerted petition signers and voters alike to the fact that the measure contained a provision affecting the imposition of special taxes by local agencies. The summary's omission of any reference to the two-thirds vote requirement was not critical for, as we noted above, the initiative measure was extensively publicized and debated, in all of its several aspects, and a corrected summary was contained in the voters pamphlet which was mailed to all voters. We repeat our observation of some time ago that we ordinarily should assume that the voters who approved a constitutional amendment ... have voted intelligently upon an amendment to their organic law, the whole text of which was supplied each of them prior to the election and which they must be assumed to have duly considered.... ( Wright v. Jordan (1923) 192 Cal. 704, 713 [221 P. 915].) We conclude that the initiative title and summary comply with existing legal requirements.