Court Opinion

ID: 9587265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:20:23.587595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:11.809887
License: Public Domain

*406PETERSON, C. J.
ORS 250.125 requires designated state officials to prepare financial estimates respecting specified state measures, which estimates shall be “certified” and “filed” not later than the 90th day before the election at which the measures are to be voted upon. With respect to measures to be considered at the November 1990 general election, the designated officials failed timely to do so.1 Some citizens filed actions in the Marion County Circuit Court to enjoin the Secretary of State from printing the fiscal impact estimates. Two Marion County Circuit Court judges granted that relief. We affirmed those judgments in Dennehy v. Roberts, 310 Or 394, 798 P2d 663 (1990).
After the Marion County judgments were entered, and before the appeals were taken in Dennehy v. Roberts, supra, the Secretary of State announced that, by reason of the judgments of the circuit court and the refusal of the Oregon Supreme Court to grant mandamus, she would publish no fiscal impact estimates for any measures. That decision was followed, on September 19 and 20, 1990, by a flurry of complaints filed in the Marion County Circuit Court in which the plaintiffs alleged that the absence of the fiscal impact estimates required by ORS 250.125 in effect invalidated the initiative measures, and required the entry of an order enjoining the Secretary of State from submitting Ballot Measures 4,5,6, 7 and 11 to the voters in the November 1990 election. The cases were decided by the trial judge on September 24, 1990. His ruling was:
“IT IS ADJUDGED that Secretary of State Barbara Roberts has not complied with ORS 250.125 in submitting Ballot Measures 4,5,6,7 and 11 to the voters at the November 6,1990 General Election. She cannot submit those measures without estimates of the fiscal impact, as required by law. Previous judgments of this court enjoin the Secretary of State from printing fiscal impact estimates in the voters pamphlet and on the ballot because the estimates were not timely certified. ORS 250.125 is a valid statute which is not inconsistent with the power of initiative provided in Oregon Constitution, Article IV, Section 1.
*407“IT IS FURTHER ADJUDGED that the plaintiffs are entitled to certain injunctive relief. Accordingly, defendant Secretary of State Barbara Roberts and anyone acting under her authority are ordered and enjoined from counting any ballots during the 1990 General Election concerning Ballot Measures, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11.”
On September 27, 1990, the Secretary of State appealed to the Court of Appeals from the judgments. See ORS 246.910. These appeals have been consolidated and the certification of the appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court was made and accepted on September 27, 1990. ORS 19.210; ORAP 10.1.
ANALYSIS
Our opinion in Dennehy v. Roberts, supra, today affirms the correctness of the trial court judgments that the untimely certification and filing of the fiscal impact estimates require that the fiscal impact estimates not be included on the ballot or in the Voters’ Pamphlet. The question before us in the instant cases is whether the legislature intended that the failure of the responsible public officials timely to certify and file the fiscal impact estimates required by ORS 250.125 — which, in turn, resulted in no fiscal impact estimates being printed on the ballots or in the Voters’ Pamphlet — requires that there be no vote on the initiative measures. The answer to this question must be in the negative.
The analysis begins with the Constitution of Oregon. We quote from Crumpton v. Roberts, 310 Or 381, 387, 798 P2d 1100 (1990):
“The Constitution of Oregon expressly provides that ‘ [t]he people reserve to themselves the initiative power.’ Or Const, Art IV, § 1(2)(a). Section l(4)(b) of Article IV provides:
“‘Initiative and referendum measures shall be submitted to the people as provided in this section and by law not inconsistent therewith.’
“Pursuant to that express authority, the legislature has enacted ORS 250.045 and other statutes pertaining to the initiative process.”
ORS 250.125 was enacted pursuant to the constitutional authority to enact laws “not inconsistent” with the constitution.
*408Our review of the legislative history reveals that the statute here involved was originally enacted in 1951, Or Laws 1951, ch 290, § 1, “to inform the people of the cost of a measure being voted upon.” Minutes, Senate Tax Committee, March 22, 1951, 1:00 p.m. hearing on HB 489. The statute, ORS 250.125, is silent as to the effect if the responsible public officials fail timely to certify and file the fiscal impact measures. Nor does the legislative history aid us.
In Crumpton v. Roberts, supra, we stated:
“In construing legislation that affects initiatives in process, it is reasonable to assume that the legislature intended that there be stability in the elections process and that the legislature did not intend to interfere with ongoing efforts to collect signatures on approved initiative petitions.” 310 Or at 388.
ORS 250.125 was enacted to further, not fetter, the initiative process. It envisions that the responsible public officials timely would certify and file the fiscal impact estimate following the filing of the prospective petition, the issuance of the ballot title, the approval of the initiative petition, the circulation of the initiative petitions, the obtaining of the necessary signatures, and the counting and verification of the signatures by the election officials. At that point, the people have done what is required of them to place the measure on the ballot.
Were we to conclude that the absence of fiscal impact estimates occasioned by the failure of the responsible public officials timely to certify and file the fiscal impact estimates would result in the invalidation of all preceding efforts by the citizenry to put initiatives or referendums on the ballot, that would entirely thwart the goal that the constitution seeks to attain — the right of citizens “to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution and enact or reject them independently of the Legislative Assembly.” Or Const, Art IV, § 1(2)(a). Invalidation very probably would thwart, as well, the legislative goals that other initiative statutes contained in ORS Chapter 250 seek to attain — the effectuation of that right. The goal’s constitutional underpinnings cause us to believe that any contrary legislative intent must be expressed in the clearest terms. There is no such intent expressed in such (or any) terms in ORS 250.125. We have no doubt that *409the intent of the legislature rather was one consistent with the constitutional end to be sought, viz., that if the responsible public officials fail timely to certify and file the fiscal impact estimates, the election goes on without them. That is our decision.2
Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed.

 See the opinion in Dennehy v. Roberts, 310 Or 394, 798 P2d 663 (1990), for a summary of the facts involved.

 We do not reach the assertion of defendant Mclntire that the legislature lacked authority to enact ORS 250.125. See discussion in Crumpton v. Roberts, 310 Or 381, 387, 798 P2d 1100 (1990).