Court Opinion

ID: 9550877
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:44:12.150607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:37.677084
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Holland
dissenting.
I do not accept the majority opinion herein and therefore dissent. It is my view that the effect of the majority opinion will be an invasion of the functions of the chosen statutory officials.
*195This is an original proceeding instituted under, and controlled by, section 1, chapter 147, of the 1941 Session Laws as it relates to the initiative and referendum. Under the provisions of this statute our sole function is to point out errors of the board in its designation of a ballot title. The majority opinion fails, utterly, to disclose any error in the designated title and grounds its reversal solely on the proposition that the title so desigr nated is not a compliance with the statutory provision, “Ballot titles shall be brief * *
In my opinion accent is not to be placed on brevity to the exclusion of the other vital provision of the statute which is to the clear effect that the ballot title and submission clause “* * * shall correctly and fairly express the true intent and meaning of the law or constitutional amendment, * * It is not to be overlooked that the proposed amendment, as is fully set out in the opinion, is fraught with many complications. For the purposes of this dissent, I am not concerned with the merits of the proposed amendment, but the voter should be. Publication of the amendment as required by statute is only one of the two steps in the process of informing the voter. The other is providing the voter with a ballot title from which the ordinary person may exercise intelligent and enlightened judgment in deciding how to mark his ballot. No authority discounts this primary right. It is not the fortune of every voter to have been privileged with a study of all election proposals. He has a right to expect that from the ballot provided him in the exercise of his franchise, he can obtain a fair understanding about the proposal upon which he is to vote. Any ballot title that falls short of this should be open for condemnation. The true intent and meaning of the proposal is not to be clouded by undue detail,' neither is it to be so abbreviated as to not be readily comprehensible.
The petitioner is this case frankly states in his protest of the title filed with the board, “that it is utterly im*196possible to prepare a ballot title for any amendment which is both brief and comprehensible.” Such being the admitted dilemma with which the board was confronted, it is not to be criticized or condemned upon finding itself confronted with a complicated proposal, to employ much of the identical wording of the proposed amendment in a valid title for the voters’ information. The majority opinion makes much of the length of the designated title and says it contains 369 words while the proposed amendment itself contains only 505 words. The true criterion is not the number of words, but the kind. The statute places no limitation on the number of words to be used in a ballot title, and in other states, where such limitation has been made, the validity of such acts has often been brought into question. Some states require the printing of the full text of a proposed constitutional amendment. Our statute is directory and not mandatory on this subject, and the entire matter is left to the sound judgment and discretion of the officials charged with that duty. When they have acted without any abuse of that discretion, their finding or designation should have the respect of the courts. With intent to inform the voter, without concealment, quotation of the exact words of the proposed amendment is a virtue rather than a vice. This, regardless of the number of words necessary to fairly express the meaning and intent of the law. The majority opinion is critical of the action of the board by using the following language, “Obviously little effort was made to comply with the mandatory requirements of the statute that ballot titles be brief.” I believe this to be unjust criticism and it certainly does not point out an error of the board. Whether the board title is to contain too many words or few is a matter entirely within its judgment, having -in mind such brevity only as the fair disclosure or explanation of the terms of the proposal would permit. If we do not affirm the action of the board, our only function is'to point-out errors. *197It is not for this court to transcend the clear duties of the statutory officials in dictating to them what, in the majority opinion, is the model title. The majority opinion makes such suggestion by proposing a ballot title not in itself a model of brevity since it contains 105 words, and by this suggestion overpasses the final function of the board. The board is placed in the embarrassing position of having to accept the court’s proposed title or feel that bad taste is displayed in not doing so. The board should not be so shackled.
I perceive that the ordinary voter will be but little advised or informed as to the complicated matters involved in the proposed amendment by the ballot title suggested in the majority opinion.
The board having promptly functioned and exercised its best judgment without manifest errors, its designation should be respected, and I again say that the suggestion of a proper ballot title by this court is beyond our function'. The action of the board should be approved and affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice Hilliard concurs in this dissent.