Court Opinion

ID: 9530111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:57:23.444705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:00.147184
License: Public Domain

VAN HOOMISSEN, J.,
dissenting.
In my view, the certified ballot title substantially complies with the requirements of ORS 250.0351 and, therefore, I would approve it. ORS 250.085(4).2
Even if we do not believe that a certified ballot title is the best of all possible ballot titles, this court must approve a certified ballot title that substantially complies with the statutory standards. Ransom v. Roberts, 309 Or 654, 659, 791 P2d 489 (1990). We are not empowered to change a certified ballot title merely because we are of the opinion that we can write a “better” one. Priestley v. Paulus, 287 Or 141, 145, 597 P2d 829 (1979); Allison v. Paulus, 280 Or 197, 199, 570 P2d 368 (1977).
*396The initiative measure here contains three subsections, plus a severability clause. Subsection (1) provides:
“This state shall not recognize any categorical provision such as ‘sexual orientation,’ ‘sexual preference,’ and similar phrases that includes homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism. Quotas, minority status, affirmative action, or any similar concepts, shall not apply to these forms of conduct, nor shall government promote these behaviors.” (Emphasis added.)
Subsection (2) provides:
“State, regional and local governments and their properties and monies shall not be used to promote, encourage, or facilitate homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism.” (Emphasis added.)
Thus, subsections (1) and (2) provide that Oregon shall not “recognize,” or “promote” the listed “behaviors,” and that governments and their “properties or monies” shall not be used to promote those “behaviors.” Subsection (3) provides:
“State, regional and local governments and their departments, agencies and other entities, including specifically the State Department of Higher Education and the public schools, shall assist in setting a standard for Oregon’s youth that recognizes homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism and masochism as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse and that these behaviors are to be discouraged and avoided.” (Emphasis added.)
Thus, all levels of Oregon government shall assist in setting a ‘ ‘standard for Oregon’s youth’ ’ that recognizes that the listed “behaviors” are “abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse” and are “to be discouraged and avoided.”
With that text in mind, I proceed to examine whether the certified ballot title here substantially complies with the requirements of ORS 250.035.

The Caption

The first question is: Does the certified ballot title’s Caption “reasonably identify] the subject of the measure”? ORS 250.035(l)(a).
*397The certified ballot title’s Caption reads:
“AMENDS CONSTITUTION:
GOVERNMENT MAY NOT PROMOTE HOMOSEXUALITY, OTHER LISTED ‘BEHAVIORS’ ”
The modified ballot title’s Caption reads:
“AMENDS CONSTITUTION:
GOVERNMENT CANNOT FACILITATE, MUST DISCOURAGE HOMOSEXUALITY, OTHER ‘BEHAVIORS’ ”
Is there really a sufficient difference between the two Captions to mandate a change in the wording? Stated differently, does the modified Caption do more to “reasonably identif[y] the subject of the measure”?3 I think not.
The majority changes “may not” to “cannot” (and, thus, saves a word) and changes “promote” to “facilitate.” I suggest that that is nothing more than another way of saying essentially the same thing. It is a distinction without a difference.
The majority adds “must discourage.” The text of the measure, however, does not require the government affirmatively to “discourage” anything. It requires the government to assist is setting a “standard for Oregon’s youth.” It is that “standard” that must recognize that the listed “behaviors” are to be “discouraged.”4 Moreover, the *398majority’s modifications do not respond to petitioners’ complaints about the certified Caption.5
More importantly, by deleting the word “listed” from the certified ballot title’s Caption, the majority has made the modified Caption so general as to be meaningless. As modified, the Caption tells the voters that the government “cannot facilitate” and that it “must discourage * * * other ‘behaviors.’ ” The words “other ‘behaviors’ ” could refer to driving while intoxicated, smoking cigarettes, or owning a “pit bull” terrier, for all the modified Caption communicates. See Baker v. Keisling, 312 Or 8, 12, 815 P2d 698 (1991) (rejecting a certified ballot title’s Caption in an earlier version of this same initiative concept, because the Caption failed to reasonably identify the subject of the measure). In modifying the certified Caption, the majority is doing the very thing that this court condemned just a few months ago in Baker v. Keisling, supra. In that case, this court modified a certified ballot title Caption by adding the word “listed, ” so as to more reasonably identify that the relevant “behaviors” were the “behaviors” listed in the measure’s text. In this case, the majority modifies the certified ballot title’s Caption by deleting the word “listed.” Apparently, as Emerson observed, foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
The certified ballot title’s Caption reasonably identifies the subject of the measure and, therefore, substantially complies with the requirements of ORS 250.035(l)(a).

The.Question

The second question is: Does the certified ballot title’s Question “plainly [phrase] the chief purpose of the measure”? ORS 250.035(l)(b).
*399The certified ballot title’s Question reads:
“Shall Oregon’s constitution forbid government promotion of homosexuality, other listed ‘behaviors,’ or recognizing such conduct through ‘sexual orientation’ label, quotas?” (Emphasis added.)
The modified ballot title’s Question reads:
“Shall constitution be amended to require that all governments discourage homosexuality, other listed ‘behaviors,’ and not facilitate or recognize them?” (Emphasis added.)
The difference between the Questions appears to be one of emphasis. The certified Question asks whether the constitution should forbid government “promotion” or “recognizing.” The modified Question asks whether the constitution should require government to “discourage,” “not facilitate or recognize.” By its emphasis on what the measure explicitly forbids, rather than on the secondary effects that might follow, the certified Question more plainly, and I submit, more accurately, phrases the measure’s chief purpose. Moreover, the language of the certified Question is truer to the measure’s text than the modified Question.
Subsection (1) of the measure forbids the state from recognizing “any categorical provision,” etc. The potential secondary effect of forbidding promotion or recognition may be to discourage and not facilitate or recognize the listed “behaviors.” The explicit focus of the subsection, however, is on forbidding the government from promoting or recognizing something, not on requiring the government to discourage or “not facilitate” or recognize anything. The modified Question, therefore, impermissibly turns the measure’s focus, as expressed in its text, on its head.
Furthermore, because it also speaks to the additional issues of “label(s)” and “quotas,” the certified Question provides more information about the measure than does the modified Question. To that extent, it more “plainly phrases” the measure’s chief purpose.
The certified ballot title’s Question “plainly phrases the chief purpose of the measure” and, therefore, it substantially complies with the requirements of ORS 250.035(l)(b).

*400
The Summary

The third question is: Does the certified ballot title’s Summary contain a concise and impartial statement summarizing the measure and its major effect”? ORS 250.035(l)(c).
The certified ballot title’s Summary reads:
“Amends Oregon Constitution. Governments in Oregon may not use funds or facilities to promote, encourage or facilitate homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism, or masochism. State may not recognize or protect this conduct under ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘sexual preference’ labels, or through quotas, minority status, affirmative action or similar concepts. All levels of government, including the state Department of Higher Education and public schools, must assist in setting a standard for Oregon’s youth which recognizes that these ‘behaviors’ are ‘abnormal, wrong, unnatural and perverse. ’ ”
The modified ballot title’s Summary reads:
“Amends Oregon Constitution. All governments in Oregon may not use their monies or properties to promote, encourage or facilitate homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism, or masochism. All levels of government, including public education systems, must assist in setting a standard for Oregon’s youth which recognizes that these ‘behaviors’ are ‘abnormal, wrong, unnatural and perverse’ and that they are to be discouraged and avoided. State may not recognize this conduct under ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘sexual preference’ labels, or through ‘quotas, minority status, affirmative action, or similar concepts.’ ”
Each Summary contains four sentences. In each Summary, the first sentence is the same.
The only difference between the second sentences is that the modified Summary adds the essentially surplus word “all,” and substitutes the essentially synonymous words “monies and properties” for the words “funds or facilities.” So far, I suggest that there is little difference.
The order of the third and fourth sentences is reversed in the modified Summary. The majority opinion fails to disclose why this reversal is appropriate. The two sentences address different concerns of the sponsors. I suggest that the sponsors’ priorities as reflected in the text of their initiative *401petition should be respected in the absence of a clear explanation as to why that is not being done.
The modified Summary deletes the words “or protect” from the third sentence of the certified Summary. I do not find that petitioners objected to the use of the words “or protect” in the certified Summary.6
Finally, the modified Summary changes “including the state Department of Higher Education and public schools” to “including public education systems,” and adds that the listed “ ‘behaviors’ ” are to be “discouraged and avoided.” In my view, these changes are entirely cosmetic and, thus, unwarranted.
The certified ballot title Summary is a concise and impartial statement summarizing the measure and its major effect and, therefore, it substantially complies with the requirements of ORS 250.035(l)(c).
The majority opinion’s modified ballot title is different, and some even may read it as being “better.” This court, however, is not empowered to review a challenged ballot title that sufficiently does its job to see if we can write abetter one. Because the certified ballot title substantially complies with the requirements of ORS 250.035,1 would approve it.
Peterson and Unis, JJ., join in this dissent.

 ORS 250.035(1) provides:
“The ballot title of any measure to be initiated or referred shall consist of: “(a) A caption of not more than 10 words which reasonably identifies the subject of the measure;
“(b) A question of not more than 20 words which plainly phrases the chief purpose of the measure so that an affirmative response to the question corresponds to an affirmative vote on the measure; and
“(c) A concise and impartial statement of not more than 85 words summarizing the measure and its major effect.”

 ORS 250.085(4) provides:
“The court shall review the title for substantial compliance with the requirements of ORS 250.035 and 250.039, and shall certify a title meeting this standard to the Secretary of State.”
Petitioners make no challenge under ORS 250.039 (readability test).

 The statute limiting a Caption to 10 words makes it very difficult to accurately and completely identify the measure’s subject. A “better” Caption might be, “Amends Constitution: Government Cannot Recognize, Promote Homosexuality, Other Listed Behaviors.” The certified ballot title’s Caption is acceptable, however, because it “reasonably identifies the subject of the measure.” ORS 250.035(l)(a).

 1 fear that the majority’s conclusion that there is an affirmative duty to discourage homosexuality and the other listed “behaviors,” in addition to not being faithful to the text of the measure, also amounts to a premature interpretation of the measure on a critical point. This court’s initial interpretation of the apparent meaning of the words of the measure, vis-a-vis the ballot title, will become a part of the “legislative” history of the measure and that apparent meaning of the terms of the measure would be one of our primary guides for discerning the intent of the measure, if enacted, in a substantive case. See Seymour v. Dept. of Rev., 311 Or 254, 258-59, 809 P2d 100 (1991) (looking to ballot title and Voter’s Pamphlet to interpret a ballot measure); see also State ex rel Chapman v. Appling, 220 Or 41, 68, 348 P2d 759 (1960) (“This court has recognized in a number of cases that arguments in the official Voter’s Pamphlet relative to measures submitted to the people may be resorted to as an aid to construction.”). Suffice it to say that the end result of a measure’s erroneous ballot title is a potentially erroneous result in a future case involving the interpretation of that measure.

 Petitioners complain that the subject of the measure is “the elimination of an existing fundamental constitutional right: the right to be free from governmental discrimination based on sexual orientation,” and that “governments must not use their resources, legislative, judicial and/or executive, to lessen the burdens imposed on homosexuals.”

 Petitioner Gemant complains that the “major effect” of the measure is “the removal of existing constitutional barriers to governmental discrimination based on sexual orientation.” Petitioner Baker complains that the certified Summary uses words like “promote,” “facilitate,” and “encourage,” without explaining what those words mean and that, therefore, the Summary ‘ ‘fails to advise an impartial reader of the significance of those words.”