Court Opinion

ID: 9627973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:01:48.012421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:53.922524
License: Public Domain

*617FADELEY, J.,
dissenting.
This is a statutory proceeding to test a ballot title. Neither the Attorney General, who is legislatively required to propose a ballot title for proposed initiative petitions filed with the Secretary of State, nor interested electors, who may hear about a proposed initiative measure and its ballot title and desire to direct comments about how it should be changed to better reflect the measure’s contents, are given much time by the pertinent statutes to do their jobs. The Attorney General has five business days from the time a preliminary initiative petition is filed to propose a tentative ballot title. ORS 250.065(3). The electors have 10 business days thereafter to leam of the proposed ballot title and to comment on needed changes. ORS 250.067(1). The Attorney General then has just five business days to consider the electors’ comments, make any changes in the title, and certify to the Secretary of State the proposed ballot title that will be circulated with the measure to obtain voters’ signatures so that the measure may be placed on the ballot sometime hence. ORS 250.067(2).
That ballot title, in part at least,1 will then be printed on the ballot for the voters’ ready reference in deciding whether to approve or disapprove the measure.
Perhaps in recognition of the short deadlines for the Attorney General to propose and the electors to suggest improvements to ballot titles, the legislature has prescribed that proposed ballot titles must meet only a lesser level of accuracy. Although a ballot title should not mislead and is to be an impartial statement, ORS 250.035(2), “substantial compliance” with the statutory requirements for ballot titles is good enough. ORS 250.085(5).
In two arenas, however, this court has held that substantial compliance requires a high degree of accuracy. One is in adherence to legislated limits on the number of words that may be used for each segment of the ballot title: 10 words for the caption means no more than 10; 15 words for *618the result statement means no more than 15; and the 85-word limit for summarizing the contents of a measure is strictly enforced, no matter how long or complicated the text of that measure. The other area where a high degree of accuracy has been required by this court involves use in a measure of a special definition for words that otherwise have a common meaning to the populace, but where that commonly understood meaning is not the same as the meaning that a special definition assigns to those words for purposes of that measure. Witt v. Kulongoski, 319 Or 7, 14-16, 872 P2d 14 (1994); Mabon v. Keisling, 317 Or 406, 416, 856 P2d 1023 (1993). See also Greene v. Kulongoski, 322 Or 169, 175, 903 P2d 366 (1995) (employing negative descriptors serially and in close proximity risked voter confusion as to meaning, title deemed insufficient); Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Roberts, 308 Or 169, 174, 777 P2d 406 (1989) (ballot measure would not enact what a word in the title conveyed, title deemed insufficient).
This case falls in the latter category. Not one but two terms or phrases have special meaning as specially defined in the measure. A main prohibition in the measure employs both of the specially defined terms: “No public funds shall be spent to collect or assist in the collection of political funds.” (Emphasis added.) That 16-word sentence is substantially expanded in meaning and coverage by the 95 words of special definition for the two underlined phrases contained in the measure. But the caption and result statements do nothing to inform the voters of that meaning and scope, although it is their office to do so. ORS 250.035. And while the summary goes some distance toward reporting the contents of the special definitions, it is also deficient, because it does not reflect that existing law will be changed. The result statements should show the impact of the measure, i.e., what actual changes in law would result from adopting the measure.
I would agree with one petitioner that the ballot title’s use of the phrase “public funds” in a nonstandard way is misleading. The Attorney General recognized the problem, but did not adequately solve it. Although the proposed title substitutes the word “resources” for the word “funds,” the substitution does nothing to inform the voters that an unusual meaning of “funds” is intended because of a special, *619expanded definition for that term. Changing the word “funds” to the word “resources” does not alert the voter to the fact or extent of the special definition used in the measure.
The same is true of the second phrase, “political funds,” which also is defined in a way that goes well beyond the usual understanding of “funds” or “political.” At a minimum, voters should be informed that the phrases have been given special meaning by putting the words “public resources” and “political funds” in quotation marks wherever they appear in the caption and result statements. No corrective change was offered by the Attorney General in that instance.
The major effect of the measure is to nullify, by constitutional amendment, existing statutes and government practices under those statutes relating to public employee union dues. Those statutes permit a public employee to direct her or his employer to deduct dues and other voluntary contributions to the labor organization to which that employee belongs. The measure extends so far as to prohibit complying with those statutes where there is not any cost savings to the government, further demonstrating the inadequately informing nature of using words like “funds” or “resources” (or even “money,” a term that the proposed title uses) in describing the subject, results, or major effect of this measure. The measure is not limited to prohibiting a “political use” of public funds or resources, as those terms are generally understood.
The caption should inform the voters that special definitions are central to the scope of the measure’s prohibitions by placing the specially defined terms in quotation marks and by advising, to the extent possible within the 10-word caption limitation, of the fact that special definitions apply, not common usage. And the fact that the measure operates in an area of governmental conduct that statutes in force presently regulate is also information needed by the voters to identify the subject of this constitutional amendment.
The Attorney General’s change in the subject caption from the words of the measure — “public funds” — to use *620the term “public resources” is commendable in that the measure’s prohibitions are not limited to funds or money according to the special definitions it would enact. But the change simply highlights the problem of misinforming the voters without correcting it in a way that will be understood.
As the foregoing discussion demonstrates, all parts of the ballot title should be amended, to read as follows:
AMENDS CONSTITUTION: PROHIBITS STATUTES PERMITTING “PUBLIC RESOURCES” USE TO COLLECT “POLITICAL FUNDS”
RESULT OF “YES” VOTE: ‘Yes” vote prohibits using “public funds” to collect “political funds,” enacts special definitions of terms.
RESULT OF “NO” VOTE: “No” vote rejects prohibition on “public resources” use to collect “political funds,” retains present statutes.
SUMMARY: Amends constitution. Prohibits using “public funds” to collect or assist in collecting “political funds.” “Public funds” defined. Includes public employee time, public property or equipment and supplies. “Political funds” defined. Includes any use supporting or opposing a candidate, ballot measure or initiative petition. Prohibition applies even if public entities are reimbursed for use of public funds for collection. Measure prohibits public employee payroll deduction presently allowed by statute for any entity that uses any funds deducted politically or that commingles political and non-political funds.
I would certify the foregoing ballot title to inform the voters.

 The statutes do not require that the summary portion of a ballot title be printed on the voters’ ballots. ORS 254.175. Many counties have opted to not print the summary there.