Court Opinion

ID: 9603822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:10:04.137046+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:09.701658
License: Public Domain

UNIS, J.,
concurring in part, specially concurring in part.
I agree with the majority’s holding in this case and with most of its analysis. I am not willing, however, to join that part of the opinion that suggests that this court should put on analytical “blinders” so as to avoid considering relevant information as to what the voters intended in enacting an initiated constitutional provision.1 In interpreting an initiated constitutional provision, this court should consider available sources of information that bear on the interpretation of the provision. For example, even if the text and context seem unambiguous, I believe that this court should examine sources of information that were available to the voters that *578may disclose the voters’ understanding and intent in enacting an initiated constitutional provision. This includes, at least, those portions of the ballot title (normally the caption and question, ORS 254.175) that were actually before the voters at the time that they cast their ballots on the measure.2
In my view, the available sources of information that bear on the voters’ intent in this case, including the caption and ballot title, support the conclusion reached by the majority.

 In Roseburg School Dist. v. City of Roseburg, 316 Or 374, 378, 851 P2d 595 (1993), this court, in a unanimous opinion, which I authored, stated:
“In interpreting a constitutional provision adopted through the initiative process, our task is to discern the intent of the voters. * * * |T|f the fvoters’l intent is clear based on the text and context of the constitutional provision, the court does not look further.” (Citing Comeaux v. Water Wonderland Improvement Dist., 315 Or 562, 569, 570, 847 P2d 841 (1993).)
Upon further reflection, I now believe, as I state in the text, that this court should also consider available sources of information that bear on the voters’ intent.

 I find it unnecessary in this case to state what weight should be given in this interpretive process to any particular source of information bearing on the voters’ intent.