Court Opinion

ID: 9503300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:40:52.957804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:22.816902
License: Public Domain

BALMER, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I would certify the Attorney General’s ballot title for two reasons. First, in my view, the Attorney General’s ballot title for Initiative Petition 133 substantially complies with the statutory requirements for a ballot title. See ORS 250.085(5) (stating “substantial compliance” test). Second, this court earlier certified the Attorney General’s ballot title for another measure, Initiative Petition 104, that is similar to the measure at issue here. The Attorney General’s ballot titles for the two measures also are similar, as are petitioner’s grounds for challenging the ballot titles. Neither petitioner nor the majority suggests any basis to distinguish this case from the earlier case, and I am aware of none. It follows that we should certify the ballot title in this case. I turn to a brief discussion of those two grounds that lead me to conclude that the Attorney General’s ballot title should be certified.
A ballot title caption must “reasonably identiffy] ” the proposed measure’s “subject matter.” ORS 250.035(2)(a). The certified caption reads:
“MODIFIES LAWS RELATING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, CRIMINAL SANCTIONS, PROSECUTIONS, CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES INVESTIGATIONS; CREATES TAX CREDIT”
Neither petitioner nor the majority identifies anything that is inaccurate in the certified caption. Rather, petitioner argues that the caption “fails to adequately capture all *228of the disparate aspects” of the initiative, including the creation of “task forces.” The majority agrees in part, asserting that the phrase “modifies laws relating to” in the caption “is so broad that it fails to disclose the subject matter of the proposed measure in terms that give notice to the voters of the principal substantive choice or choices that the measure presents.” 344 Or at 224. In particular, the majority asserts that “[a] principal change” that the proposed measure would enact is the “creation of a commission, including task forces, to recommend legislation in several areas of the criminal law [.] ” Id. at 224. The majority states that that change can be described within the applicable word limit. The majority also argues, somewhat inconsistently, that the caption will mislead voters by making them think that the measure makes “substantive changes,” although changes recommended by the commission and task forces may not be enacted.
In my view, the creation of a new commission and associated task forces with the specific charge to make recommendations to reduce “incidences of domestic violence, child abuse, and sex crimes” is captured by the phrase “modifies laws relating to law enforcement, criminal sanctions, prosecutions * * *.” Moreover, the Attorney General’s use of somewhat general wording in the certified caption also allows the caption to encompass other changes that would be made by the proposed measure, including an additional sanction for sex offenders, the “Meth Strike Force” initiative, the new requirements regarding force levels for the state police, and the program to encourage retired peace officers to continue active service. The specific aspects of the measure, including the task forces and the changes just mentioned, are then identified in the “yes” vote and “no” vote result statements or in the summary.
I do not share the majority’s certainty that the caption could be worded in a way that would specifically refer to the commission and the task forces and still retain words that adequately describe the other changes identified above, while remaining within the word limit. Morever, given the specific changes that passage of the proposed measure itself would make in law enforcement, prosecution, and sanctions, it strikes me that the creation of a commission and task forces to make future recommendations to the legislature is *229less of a “principal substantive choice” for the voters than the other provisions of the measure. Whether I am correct on that score or not, however, the Attorney General made a permissible choice when he stated in the caption that the measure “modifies laws relating to law enforcement, criminal sanctions, prosecutions,” and then expanded on those modifications in the other parts of the ballot title. The Attorney General often faces the problem of identifying the subject of a proposed measure that makes multiple changes in the law, and we have endorsed the approach that he took here:
“This court has explained that the function of a ballot title caption is to identify generally the thread that connects a ballot measure’s various provisions, rather than ‘focusing on one or more of the most significant constituent parts.’ Rooney v. Kulongoski, 322 Or 77, 85, 902 P2d 1177 (1995). A caption that does not list multiple parts of an initiative measure nonetheless may comply substantially with the statutory standard, in the absence of a showing that unnecessary words have been inserted into the caption and that additional ideas could be communicated to the voters by replacing those unnecessary words. Crumpton v. Keisling, 317 Or 322, 325-26, 855 P2d 1107 (1993).”
Sizemore v. Myers, 326 Or 220, 225-26, 953 P2d 360 (1997).
Here, the Attorney General “identifiied] generally the thread that connects [the] ballot measure’s various provisions,” and petitioner has not demonstrated that the Attorney General has used unnecessary words in the caption. Even if the caption proposed by petitioner might be a better or more complete description of the subject matter of the measure, that would not provide a basis for rejecting the Attorney General’s certified caption. In my view, the certified caption adequately states the “subject matter” of the proposed measure. For the same reasons, the remainder of the ballot title substantially complies with the requirements of ORS 250.035(2).
As noted, this court previously considered challenges by petitioner and by others to Initiative Petition 104. That proposed measure, like this one, would have made changes to criminal sanctions, created Meth Strike Forces, established specific staffing levels for the state police, and allowed tax credits for contributions to crime prevention *230efforts. Also, Initiative Petition 104, like Initiative Petition 133, would have established a commission and two associated task forces to make recommendations to the legislature for reducing “domestic violence, child abuse, and sex crimes.” Initiative Petition 104 would have made a number of other changes in the criminal law that are not included in Initiative Petition 133, including repealing the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act and enacting a different program to provide prescribed “synthetic cannabinoids” for certain medical patients. Petitioner asserts that, with the exception of the changes in the medical marijuana laws, Initiative Petition 133 and Initiative Petition 104 are “virtually identical.” Although that is something of an overstatement, the two measures share many common features.
The Attorney General certified a ballot title for Initiative Petition 104 that was similar to the ballot title that he certified for Initiative Petition 133. The certified caption for Initiative Petition 104 stated:
“MODIFIES LAWS ADDRESSING CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS/SANCTIONS, LAW ENFORCEMENT; CREATES TAX CREDIT; REPLACES MEDICAL MARIJUANA ACT”
Like the certified caption for Initiative Petition 133, the caption for Initiative Petition 104 identified the subject matter of the measure by using general and inclusive terms to describe the measure (other than the specific references to the tax credit and medical marijuana law revision). Notably, that caption did not refer to the commission and the associated task forces that are to make recommendations to the legislature. Rather, as the Attorney General argued in response to challenges to the ballot title for Initiative Petition 104, the commission and the task forces were covered by the general reference to the modification of laws “addressing criminal prosecutions/sanctions, law enforcement * * They were then mentioned specifically in the summary.
Petitioner here challenged the certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 104, arguing, among other things, that the caption was deficient because it failed to mention the *231commission and the task forces. This court rejected petitioner’s challenges (and challenges made by others) and certified the ballot title. Mannix v. Myers, 343 Or 367, 170 P3d 1065 (2007). Although this court disposed of the challenge to Initiative Petition 104 by order rather than by opinion and, therefore, principles of stare decisis technically may not apply, the earlier certification order was correct and, in my view, is a further reason that the Attorney General’s ballot title for Initiative Petition 133 also should be certified.
For the reasons given above, I dissent.
Kistler and Linder, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.