Court Opinion

ID: 9602419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:54:39.142016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:50:15.634096
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, J.,
specially concurring.
The preliminary petition filed with the Secretary of State’s office provided:
"THE AMENDMENT
"Be it enacted by the people of Oregon
" That this Article is added to the Constitution to read:
"Section 1.
"[a] The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed One and one-half percent *337[1 Vz%] of the full cash value of such property. The one and one-half percent [lVz%] tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.
"[b] The information provided for in subdivision [a] shall not apply to ad valorem taxes or special assessments to pay the interest and redemption charges on any indebtedness approved by the voters prior to the time this section becomes effective.
"Section 2.
"[a] The full cash value means the County Assessors valuation of real property as shown on the 1975-76 tax bill under 'full cash value’, or thereafter the appraised value of real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred after the 1975 assessment. All real property not already assessed up to 1975-76 tax levels may be reassessed to reflect that valuation.
"[b] The Fair market value base may reflect from year to year the inflationary rate not to exceed two percent [2%] for any given year or reduction as shown in the consumer price index or comparable data for the area under taxing jurisdiction.
"Section 3.
"From and after the effective date of this article, any changes in State taxes enacted for the purpose of increasing revenues collected pursuant thereto whether by increases or changes in methods of computation must be imposed by an Act passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature except that no new ad valorem taxes on real property, or sales or transaction taxes on the sales of real property may be imposed.
"Section 4.
"Cities, Counties and special districts, by a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors of such district, may impose special taxes on such district, except ad valorem taxes on real property or a transaction tax or sales tax on the sale of real property within such City, County or special district.
*338"Section 5.
"This article shall take effect for the tax year beginning on July 1 following the passage of this Amendment, except Section 3 which shall become effective upon the passage of this article.
"Section 6.
"If any section, part, clause, or phrase hereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining sections shall not be affected but will remain in full force and effect.”
The italicized language was omitted from the version circulated for signatures. My disagreement with the majority concerns two points:
1. The majority first concludes that the italicized language is merely "introductory” and was an unnecessary part of the initiative petition, relying on Schnell v. Appling, 238 Or 202, 395 P2d 113 (1964). The issue in that casé was whether an initiative petition was deficient because the text made reference by section number to related and repealed statutes and did not quote the full text of the referenced statutes. The court held that the full text of the referenced statutes was mere surplusage, and was not required by Article IV, § 1(2)(d) of the Oregon Constitution. The deleted language here is not surplusage, but essential to understanding that the purpose of the measure is to amend the constitution. The preliminary petition expressly stated that "this Article is added to the Constitution * * *.” Reading the petition as circulated, particularly the words "Be it Enacted ...” and Section 6, the severability clause, suggests that this initiative is intended to be statutory. We are thus confronted with an error in procedure by the sponsors of this measure which could have significant substantive impact.
2. I cannot agree with the majority that the error here may not be misleading. The majority assumes that because the ballot title prepared by the Attorney General states that the measure is a constitutional *339amendment, the signers of the petition believed they were signing a measure proposing a constitutional amendment. This may be true, but the fact is that the signers signed a measure which may not be a constitutional amendment. I am certainly not prepared in this case to hold as a matter of law that an Attorney General’s ballot title which was written with respect to an initiative petition that was different from the petition circulated provides the latter with a meaning it does not have.
The principal issue confronting us is unlike that presented in most of the cases discussed in the majority opinion, i.e., Lindstrom v. Myers, 273 Or 46, 539 P2d 1049 (1975); Miles et al. v. Veatch, et al, 189 Or 506, 220 P2d 511, 211 P2d 905 (1950); State ex rel. McNary v. Olcott, 62 Or 277, 125 P 303 (1919); Jewett v. Yerkovich, 27 Or App 127, 555 P2d 950 (1976). These cases stand for the proposition that statutes prescribing procedures for the initiative process must be construed liberally to carry out the purpose of the initiative and referendum embodied in Article IV of the Oregon Constitution. The principal issue here is not statutory, but whether the petition as circulated violated Article IV, § l(2)(d), which provides:
"(d) An initiative petition shall include the full text of the proposed law or amendment to the Constitution. * *
The majority also suggests that substantial compliance with this constitutional provision is all that is required, relying on State ex rel. McPherson v. Snell, 168 Or 153, 121 P2d 930 (1942) and Carson v. Kozer, 108 Or 550, 217 P 827 (1923). These cases, like Lindstrom etc., involve the application of statutory requirements. The dictum relied on by the majority at best requires that Article IV, § 1(2)(d) be construed to carry out its purpose.
The majority apparently perceives that the only purpose of the constitutional full text requirement is to inform petition signers adequately of the contents of *340the proposed measure, and, therefore, any error in preparing petitions can be ignored if the Attorney General’s ballot title corrects the defect. I perceive that Article IV, § l(2)(d) may have another salutary purpose which is to ensure certainty in the electoral process and avoid any possibility of manipulation, by requiring that the measure circulated for signatures be exactly the same as that proposed and filed by the sponsors. The fact that petitioner concedes that the evidence here indicates an inadvertent error does not promote certainty nor does it avoid the possibility with which Article IV, § l(2)(d) appears to be concerned.
The majority is correct that the only case interpreting Article IV, § l(2)(d) is Schnell v. Appling, supra. For the reasons I have already stated, that case does not assist in deciding the issues presented here and certainly does not justify the majority’s conclusion that the deleted language was unnecessary. This is not to say that on a more thorough analysis the majority ultimately may be correct. My point is that we should not decide that question here.
The majority and I agree that this is an inappropriate case for the exercise of equitable jurisdiction intervening in the initiative process. The majority opinion is in great part based upon an attempt to reconcile dicta contained in several election law cases. The majority reasons therefrom the courts will not inquire into the constitutional validity or the legality of the subject matter of an initiative measure prior to enactment, but will intervene for procedural irregularities which may mislead the electorate. I find it easier to reconcile the holdings in those cases. The fact is that courts have rarely enjoined the placing of an initiative measure on the ballot. The most notable recent exception was Holmes v. Appling, 237 Or 546, 392 P2d 636 (1964), wherein the proponents were prevented by the court from placing a constitutional revision on the ballot. The defect in that measure was not procedural, but directly concerned the subject matter.
*341The reason courts are reluctant to equitably intervene in the initiative process is obvious. The separation of powers doctrine dictates that the judiciary not intervene in legislative proceedings. For the same reason we are reluctant to intervene in the initiative process. Also, courts should not render advisory opinions concerning legislation that may never be enacted. Applying these principles, I would conclude that there are only two circumstances that would justify the exercise of equitable jurisdiction. First, courts should intervene if the actions of election officials would illegally prevent a valid initiative petition from reaching the ballot. Second, courts should intervene if it can be said without question that the initiative petition is void on its face either because of procedural or substantive defect. This was the case in Holmes v. Appling. To permit the measure at issue there on the ballot would have caused irreparable harm. The voters would have been required to engage in a fruitless exercise. Proponents and opponents would have expended resources on a cause that did not exist. Here it cannot be said without question that this measure is void. It may conceivably have a different substantive impact than contemplated, and possibly might be void. These are legal questions which have not been previously resolved with any certainty and should not be decided now.
The plaintiff and majority indicate that the test for the exercise of equitable jurisdiction is whether the procedural error may mislead or confuse the voters. I disagree. The procedural error here may lead to confusion and misunderstanding. Likewise, the substantive provisions of this initiative petition may be misleading and cause confusion. That characterization can be made for practically any piece of legislation. Because a measure is misleading should not be grounds for equitable intervention. Courts cannot and should not attempt to act as a substitute for an informed electorate.
*342I concur that the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.