Opinion ID: 1292946
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Contents of Legislation Unfair

Text: Petitioners assert that the legislation is unfair to them and other persons who retired from employment with the federal government. They point out that separate class-action litigation is pending elsewhere to determine the legality of the referred legislation. Examples of petitioners' dissatisfaction with the contents of the legislation abound in the written comments submitted during the administrative process and the petition to review the certified ballot title. One petitioner suggested that the question to be certified to the voters for their answer should be: QUESTION: Does HB 3508 satisfy the March US Supreme Court's decision that requires all public pensions to be taxed alike in Oregon? Another petitioner commented that the draft [ballot title] does not correctly address what HB 3508 should have done. A third characterizes the legislature's adoption of HB 3508 and the resulting referendum requiring a ballot title as mean spirited grid lock. The petition for our review complains that the legislation which is the subject of the referendum contains a refund mechanism [that] perpetuates inequality by purporting to repeal the tax exemption on retirement income, but giving all or virtually all of the taxes collected back to these retirees, plus interest thereon at the rate of 11% per annum. In the context of a ballot title review, this court may not consider contentions about the legality or fairness of the legislative measure. Statutes concerning ballot title development and review contain no provision which could arguably permit a decision about the legality or fairness of the measure. A ballot title review is not designed to test the wisdom or propriety of the legislation to which it relates.