Court Opinion

ID: 9825126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:08:44.428129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:26.321170
License: Public Domain

COSHOW, 0. J.
 This is an appeal from the Attorney General’s rule on a ballot title for House Bill No. 330, enacted by the 1929 legislature, for the purpose of providing two additional circuit judges for the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Oregon, comprising Multnomah County. A petition to refer *306said bill to tbe people has been duly filed. Tbe Attorney General described tbe purpose of tbe bill as follows: “To provide for two additional judges of tbe Circuit Court of tbe State of Oregon for tbe Fourth Judicial District, comprising Multnomah County.” No objection bas been or could be taken to tbe statement of tbe purpose of tbe bill as prepared by tbe learned Attorney General. Tbe objection is to tbe short ballot title which is as follows: “Two Additional Circuit Judges Bill.” Tbe intent of tbe law is to prepare a short ballot title sufficient to attract tbe attention of tbe voter, and to identify tbe bill on tbe ballot with tbe law enacted by tbe legislature. It would be difficult for any person to prepare a short ballot title free from criticism. Different people look at everything from slightly different angles. A short ballot title is not supposed to be a substitute for tbe title of tbe bill. It is a means for identifying tbe measure referred or initiated and is sufficient if it does that. Tbe only bill passed by the last legislature providing for two additional judges is tbe one referred and described as House Bill No. 330. Tbe short ballot title prepared by tbe Attorney General is not misleading. It is fair. It can refer to only one act of tbe legislature because there was no other act providing for two judges in any part of tbe state. The purpose of tbe bill as expressed in tbe petition fully informs those solicited to sign tbe petition.
It is urged that tbe titles are insufficient because they allude to tbe act of tbe legislature sought to be referred to tbe people as a bill. In this language tbe learned Attorney General bas strictly followed tbe Constitution of tbe state: Art. IV, § 1. Tbe model petition set out in tbe statute also designates the act of tbe legislature sought to be referred as a *307bill: Or. L., § 4095. In fact the measure enacted by the legislature, which is referred to the people, is not a law. It will never become a law unless a majority of voters voting upon the referred bill vote in favor of the bill. The bill enacted by the legislature does not become operative until ninety days after the adjournment of the legislature. During that period if it is referred to the people, it is again reduced to a bill.
For the petition, Mr. Martin L. Pipes, Mr. James B. Kerr, Mr. W. Lair Thompson and Mr. Eugene K. Oppenheimer.
Contra, Mr. I. E. Ycm Winkle, Attorney General, and Mr. Clarence E. Yeager.
Other matters are discussed in the petition. The only thing properly here, however, is the sufficiency of the titles. We decline to review other matters ably argued by appellant. The titles as certified by the learned Attorney General are affirmed and will be certified to the Secretary of State as required by the 1927 General Laws, p. 323, Chapter 255.
Affirmed.
Brown, J., absent.
Rehearing denied September 17, 1929.