Court Opinion

ID: 9606724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:51:57.441949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:15.020422
License: Public Domain

VAN HOOMISSEN, J.,
concurring.
I concur in Justice Gillette’s opinion.
I write, to separately record my concerns about (1) the “readability” of the citizens committee’s explanatory statement, and (2) the manner in which this case was presented for review.
The citizens committee appointed under ORS 251.205(1) is charged to prepare and file with the Secretary of State an “impartial, simple and understandable statement *399[not to exceed 500 words] explaining the measure and its effect.” ORS 251.215(1).1
Having participated in this court’s decision in City of Portland v. Smith, 314 Or 178, 838 P2d 568 (1992), I am familiar with the issues presented by Ballot Measure 1. Nevertheless, when I first read the committee’s statement, I found it very difficult to understand. I was forced to reread the statement to try to understand it. Even then, I found it difficult to understand. In no way can that statement fairly be described as being a “simple and understandable statement explaining the measure and its effect.” ORS 251.215(1).
To test this conclusion, I subjected the citizens committee’s statement to a “Flesch” test. See ORS 250.039.2 I was not surprised to find that the Flesch Index for the committee’s statement is 33.673, indicating that the statement is “complex” and that it would be “difficult” for an average voter to read and understand. According to the Flesch standard, a reader would need a 14th grade level of education to understand the citizens committee’s statement.
Petitioner’s alternative explanatory statement is even worse. The Flesch Index for petitioner’s statement is 30.161, indicating that the statement is “complex” and would be difficult for the average voter to read and understand. A reader would need a 16th grade level of education to understand the petitioner’s alternative statement.
*400This court’s certified explanatory statement is almost as bad. Its Flesch Index is 34.677. It, too, is complex and will be difficult for the average voter to read and understand. A reader would need a 14th grade level of education to understand this court’s certified explanatory statement.
Petitioner, however, did not challenge the citizens committee’s statement on “readability” grounds. Nor is it clear that the requirements of ORS 250.039 apply to ORS 251.205 et seq.3 Suffice it to say that I seriously doubt that either the committee’s statement or this court’s statement satisfies the statutory mandate that the statement to be printed in the voters’ pamphlet should be “simple and understandable.” ORS 251.215(1).
Next, no party appeared in this court to defend the committee’s statement. ORS 251.215 does not require the Secretary of State to defend a Voters’ Pamphlet explanatory statement prepared by a citizens committee.4 Nor is the citizens committee legally obliged to do so. Teledyne Industries v. Paulus, 297 Or 665, 669-71, 687 P2d 1077 (1984). The statutory scheme is silent as to the committee’s prerogative or duty to defend its handiwork and as to provisions for counsel to represent the committee should it choose to do so. The committee, thus, appears to be an orphan. On the other hand, petitioner was represented by counsel, who submitted a well-considered brief and made a persuasive oral argument. Because neither the committee nor the Secretary of State was represented in this court, no response was made to petitioner’s brief or to his oral argument. Worse yet, several questions about the committee’s statement that appeared to trouble members of the court during oral argument went unanswered.
To illustrate:
Petitioner argued, and this court ultimately agrees, that the first sentence of the committee’s statement does not tell the voters anything that is pertinent to Ballot Measure 1, and that that sentence has no particular connections with the *401rest of the paragraph. I, for one, would like to have heard what the committee intended when it wrote the first paragraph in its statement.
Next, why did the committee make a statement that, apparently, is flatly inconsistent with ORS 457.420(3) (property may not be included in more than one urban renewal area)? Was the committee unaware of the provisions of that statute? If not, has this court mistakenly stricken language from the committee’s statement simply because the committee failed to appear in this court to defend its statement?
Third, although I understand the burden of proof is on the challenger in these cases, I am troubled when, in effect, the author of the statement defaults on review.
The legislature should consider some mechanism to ensure that a response is presented in a case such as this. By definition, a referendum is of sufficient importance that this court is entitled to hear both sides of the argument before it is asked to resolve a dispute between the citizens committee and a challenger who asserts that the committee’s explanatory statement does not satisfy the statutory directive found in ORS 251.215(1).
Finally, were I modifying the explanatory statement, I would omit the last paragraph in this court’s certified explanatory statement. That paragraph deals exclusively with technical and conforming provisions of the measure; its inclusion in the Voters’ Pamphlet contributes nothing to the goal of providing the voters with a “simple and understandable statement explaining the measure and its effect.” ORS 251.215(1). Moreover, omitting that paragraph would improve the “readability” of this court’s modified explanatory statement. Petitioner, however, does not challenge that paragraph.

 This procedure is different from that followed in most state ballot measures, where the ballot title including the measures’ summary, is prepared by the Attorney General. ORS 250.065(3).

 ORS 250.039 provides:
“For all measures, the Secretary of State by rule shall designate a test of readability and adopt a standard of minimum readability for a ballot title. The ballot title shall comply with the standard to the fullest extent practicable consistent with the requirements of impartiality, conciseness and accuracy.”
OAR 165-14-045 provides in part:
“(1) ORS 250.(039] provides that the Secretary of State shall designate a test of readability and adopt a standard of minimum readability for a ballot title.
“(2) The Flesch Formula for Readability is designated as the test for readability of a ballot title. Attainment of a specified readability level shall be complied with to the fullest extent practicable, consistent with the needs of impartiality, conciseness and accuracy. A Reading Ease Score of not less than 60 is adopted as the standard of minimum readability for this test.”

 The legislature should make the policy contained in ORS 250.039 specifically applicable to ORS 251.205(1).

 The Attorney General advised this court that the Secretary of State waived appearance in this case.