Court Opinion

ID: 9929028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 17:11:52.020462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:05:15.896993
License: Public Domain

No. 1                 February 1, 2024                      1

           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
                 STATE OF OREGON

                      Tim KNOPP,
                    Daniel Bonham,
            Suzanne Weber, Dennis Linthicum,
                   and Lynn Findley,
                       Petitioners,
                            v.
              Lavonne GRIFFIN-VALADE,
                Oregon Secretary of State,
                   Elections Division,
                      Respondent.
               (CA A182122) (SC S070456)

   On certification from the Court of Appeals under ORS
19.405.
   Argued and submitted December 14, 2023.
   John DiLorenzo Jr., Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, Portland,
argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioners. Also on
the briefs were Aaron K. Stuckey and Blake Robinson.
   Dustin E. Buehler, Assistant Attorney General, Salem,
argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent. Also on
the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and
Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
   Steven C. Berman, Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter,
P.C., Portland, filed the brief for amici curiae APANO,
Basic Rights Oregon, Oregon AFSCME Council 75, Oregon
Education Association, Oregon League of Conservation
Voters, Accion Politica PCUNnista, Planned Parenthood
Advocates of Oregon, and SEIU Local 503. Also on the brief
was Lydia Anderson-Dana.
    Margaret S. Olney, Bennet Hartman, LLP, Portland,
filed the brief for amici curiae Andrea Kennedy-Smith and
Reed Scott-Schwalbach.
   Kelly Simon, American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon,
Portland, filed the brief for amicus curiae American Civil
2                                                 Knopp v. Griffin-Valade

Liberties Union of Oregon. Also on the brief was Alicia
LeDuc Montgomery.
  Before Flynn, Chief Justice, and Duncan, Garrett, DeHoog,
Bushong and James, Justices, and Walters, Senior Judge,
Justice pro tempore.*
    PER CURIAM
  The Secretary of State’s Temporary Rules ELECT 12-2023
and ELECT 16-2023 are upheld.

______________

    * Masih, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cite as 372 Or 1 (2024)                                      3

        PER CURIAM
         In 2022, voters approved Ballot Measure 113, which
amended Article IV, section 15, of the Oregon Constitution.
That amendment provides that any state legislator who
accrues 10 or more unexcused absences during a legislative
session shall be disqualified from holding legislative office
“for the term following the election after the member’s cur-
rent term is completed.” Or Const, Art IV, § 15.
         The parties in this proceeding dispute the timing
of the disqualification imposed by that amendment. In rules
promulgated to implement the amendment, the Secretary of
State has applied the disqualification to a legislator’s next
term of office—that is, the term immediately following the
term in which the legislator accrued 10 or more unexcused
absences. Petitioners are legislators who each accrued 10 or
more unexcused absences during the 2023 legislative ses-
sion. They challenge the secretary’s rules, contending that
the disqualification should apply one term later—that is,
that a legislator who accrues 10 or more unexcused absences
during a legislative session should be allowed to serve the
next term of office, but not the term after that.
         The resolution of that dispute requires that we apply
our well-established methodology to construe the text of the
amendment, by determining how the voters who adopted
the amendment most likely understood its text, including
considering the information presented to the voters through
the ballot title and in the voters’ pamphlet. That informa-
tion expressly and repeatedly described the disqualification
as occurring immediately following the legislator’s current
term. Petitioners concede that that information supports the
secretary’s interpretation and not their own. Nevertheless,
petitioners argue that what they view as the plain meaning
of the amendment’s text must control. They contend that the
text clearly applies the disqualification to the term after the
next term of office and is not capable of supporting the sec-
retary’s interpretation.
         As we will explain in greater detail, we disagree.
Contrary to petitioners’ argument, the text is capable of sup-
porting the secretary’s interpretation. And that interpretation
4                                      Knopp v. Griffin-Valade

is uniformly supported by the ballot title and the voters’ pam-
phlet, both of which inform voters’ understanding of ballot
measures. Reading the text of the amendment in light of
the ballot title and the voters’ pamphlet, voters would have
understood the disqualification to apply to the term of office
immediately following the term in which a legislator accrued
10 or more unexcused absences. Thus, for the reasons that
follow, we conclude that voters intended that result and reject
petitioners’ challenge to the secretary’s rules.
                      I.   BACKGROUND
        Each chamber of the Oregon Legislative Assembly
may conduct business only if two-thirds of the chamber’s
members are present. Or Const, Art IV, § 12. In some cir-
cumstances, therefore, a minority of legislators may prevent
a chamber from conducting business by not being present.
That practice is commonly known as a legislative walk-
out. Although legislators have used walkouts throughout
Oregon’s history, the frequency of walkouts has increased in
recent years.
         Measure 113 was designed to curtail legislative walk-
outs. To do so, the measure proposed amending Article IV,
section 15. Before the amendment, that constitutional pro-
vision authorized either chamber of the legislature to “pun-
ish its members for disorderly behavior” and, “with the con-
currence of two thirds, [to] expel a member.” Or Const, Art
IV, § 15 (2020). Measure 113 proposed adding the following
words:
    “Failure to attend, without permission or excuse, ten or
    more legislative floor sessions called to transact business
    during a regular or special legislative session shall be
    deemed disorderly behavior and shall disqualify the mem-
    ber from holding office as a Senator or Representative for
    the term following the election after the member’s current
    term is completed.”
(Emphasis added.)
        Measure 113 originated as an initiative petition, for
which the Attorney General must prepare a draft ballot title
and then, following a comment period, a certified ballot title.
ORS 250.065 - 250.067. The ballot title for a state measure
Cite as 372 Or 1 (2024)                                                        5

consists of three parts: (1) a caption of not more than 15
words that reasonably identifies the measure’s subject mat-
ter; (2) simple and understandable statements of 25 words
or less that describe the results of a “yes” vote and a “no”
vote; and (3) a concise and impartial statement of not more
than 125 words that summarizes the measure and its major
effect. ORS 250.035(2).
          The certified ballot title plays an important role in
the initiative process. The ballot itself—that is, the document
that voters use to cast their votes—is required to include the
caption and the result statements of the certified ballot title.
ORS 254.175(2). Counties also may choose to print the full
ballot title, including the summary. ORS 254.145(7).
         For the initiative petition that became Measure 113,
the Attorney General prepared a draft ballot title, which
became the certified ballot title after it was neither revised
(following a comment period) nor challenged in this court.1
Each part of the ballot title addressed the timing of the
proposed disqualification, stating that the measure would
disqualify a legislator from holding legislative office for the
term immediately following the term in which the legislator
accrued 10 or more unexcused absences during a legislative
session. The ballot title caption provided:
       “Amends Constitution: Legislators with ten unex-
    cused absences from floor sessions disqualified from hold-
    ing next term of office.”
(Emphasis added.) The result statements provided:
       “Result of ‘Yes’ Vote: ‘Yes’ vote disqualifies legis-
    lators with ten unexcused absences from legislative floor
    sessions from holding office as legislator for term following
    current term of office.
       “Result of ‘No’ Vote: ‘No’ vote retains existing law.
    Absent legislators may be punished by legislative chamber
    (potentially expelled by supermajority); present legislators
    have legal authority to compel attendance.”

    1
      As noted, the Attorney General first prepares a draft ballot title, which is
subject to a public comment period. ORS 250.067(1). Following any revisions by
the Attorney General, any elector who submitted a timely comment on the draft
may challenge the ballot title by petitioning this court. ORS 250.085(2).
6                                                Knopp v. Griffin-Valade

(Emphasis added.) And the summary provided, in relevant
part:
    “Measure specifies that ‘disorderly behavior’ includes legis-
    lator’s failure to attend ten or more legislative floor sessions
    during a regular or special legislative session without per-
    mission or excuse. Under measure, legislator who engages
    in ‘disorderly behavior’ through unexcused absences is dis-
    qualified from serving as a Senator or Representative for
    the term following the end of the legislator’s current term.”
(Emphasis added.)2
         More information about Measure 113 was provided
to voters in the voters’ pamphlet, which is sent to every
household with a registered voter. OAR 165-022-0060(7).
The voters’ pamphlet contained the full text of Measure 113
and the full ballot title—both set out above—as well as an
explanatory statement and arguments that advocates sub-
mitted on the merits of the measure. ORS 251.185(1); Official
Voters’ Pamphlet, General Election, Nov 8, 2022, 65-71.3
         The explanatory statement is “an impartial, simple
and understandable statement explaining the measure” in
500 words or less. ORS 251.215(1). The explanatory state-
ment is approved by a committee of five members: two pro-
ponents of the measure, two opponents of the measure, and a
fifth member chosen either by the four other members or by
the Secretary of State. ORS 251.205(2)-(5). In this case, all
five members of the committee voted to approve the explan-
atory statement that appeared in the voters’ pamphlet. See
ORS 251.215(4) (requiring statement to show dissenting
votes, if any); Official Voters’ Pamphlet at 66 (showing no
members dissented or were absent). Like the ballot title, the
explanatory statement characterized the measure as dis-
qualifying a legislator from holding legislative office for the
term immediately following the term in which the legislator
accrued 10 or more unexcused absences:

     2
       Two people submitted comments on the Attorney General’s draft ballot title
during the public comment period. Neither comment challenged how the ballot
title characterized the timing of the disqualification that would be created by the
measure.
     3
       Page cites to the Official Voters’ Pamphlet refer to the pamphlet circulated
to Marion County voters.
Cite as 372 Or 1 (2024)                                                        7

    “The measure deems the failure to attend without excuse
    to be disorderly behavior and disqualifies the legislator
    from holding office after the legislator’s current term ends.”
Official Voters’ Pamphlet at 66 (emphasis added).4
         As noted, the voters’ pamphlet also included numer-
ous arguments that advocates submitted on the merits of
the measure. By either paying a $1,200 fee or obtaining sig-
natures from 500 voters, any person or organization may
submit a written argument—not exceeding 325 words—
supporting or opposing the measure for publication in the
voters’ pamphlet. ORS 251.255(1)-(2); ORS 251.255(4); OAR
165-022-0050(5). The voters’ pamphlet for the 2022 elec-
tion contained 19 advocate arguments—each supporting
Measure 113, and none opposing it. While not all the argu-
ments addressed the timing of the proposed disqualification,
those that did described it as disqualifying a legislator from
holding legislative office for the term immediately following
the term in which the legislator accrued 10 or more unex-
cused absences. Official Voters’ Pamphlet at 67-71.5
        Media coverage of Measure 113 was consistent
with the statements in the ballot title and voters’ pamphlet.
The secretary has cited numerous media accounts that
described the measure as disqualifying a legislator with
10 or more unexcused absences during a legislative session
from holding office during the next term of office.6 For their
     4
       The explanatory statement is subject to a public hearing, ORS 251.215(2),
and possible challenge in this court, ORS 251.235(1). No challenge to the explan-
atory statement for Measure 113 was filed in this court; the record before us does
not reveal whether a public hearing was held, and if so, what happened at any
such hearing.
     5
       See, e.g., Official Voters’ Pamphlet at 68 (argument submitted by Tan
Perkins, Vote Yes On 113) (“It would create a consequence for lawmakers who
skip 10 sessions without an excuse, by banning them from holding their seat
the following term.”); Official Voters’ Pamphlet at 70 (argument submitted by
Heather L. Stuart, Fair Shot For All Coalition) (“Under Measure 113, if a politi-
cian has 10 or more unexcused absences, they will be barred from holding their
office the following term.”).
     6
       See, e.g., Claire Withycombe, Midterm ballot measure to decide if Oregon
lawmakers will be punished for absences, Statesman Journal, (Sept 19, 2022),
https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/politics/2022/09/19/2022-ore-
gon-midterm-election-ballot-measure-113-walk-outs-republicans/66152421007/
(accessed Jan 25, 2024) (reporting that the measure “would disqualify state law-
makers from holding office for the next term” if they accrued enough absences);
Editorial Board, Voters can already remove legislators for unexcused absences,
8                                                Knopp v. Griffin-Valade

part, petitioners have not identified any media accounts sug-
gesting that the timing of the disqualification would work
differently.
         At the November 2022 General Election, voters
approved Measure 113, thus amending Article IV, section
15, to add the new disqualification. The total vote count was
1,292,127 to 599,204, with 68.3 percent voting in favor and
31.7 percent voting in opposition. The parties report that,
during the 2023 legislative session, which was the first ses-
sion after the amendment took effect, 10 senators accrued
10 or more unexcused absences and that petitioners were
among those senators.
          In August 2023, the secretary adopted temporary
administrative rule ELECT 12-2023 to, among other things,
implement the amendment for the 2024 General Election.
That rule adopted, and incorporated by reference, the State
Candidate Manual, which applied the amendment’s disqual-
ification to the term of office immediately following the term
in which the legislator accrued too many unexcused absences.
Specifically, the rule provided that candidates for state repre-
sentative and state senator “must not have 10 or more unex-
cused absences from legislative floor sessions during a regular
or special legislative session to be eligible for the term immedi-
ately following their current term.” State Candidate Manual 10
(rev Aug 2023) (emphasis added). In September 2023, the
secretary suspended that rule and adopted a revised version
of the State Candidate Manual through temporary adminis-
trative rule ELECT 16-2023. No changes were made to the
section of the revised State Candidate Manual implementing
the amendment. State Candidate Manual 10 (rev Sept 2023).
Accordingly, the more recent rule similarly applies the dis-
qualification to the immediate next term of office.
        Petitioners challenged both rules in the Court of
Appeals under ORS 183.400, arguing that the rules violate
Article IV, section 15, by applying the disqualification to
the next term of office, rather than the term after that. The
Bend Bulletin, (Sept 13, 2022), https://www.bendbulletin.com/opinion/editori-
al-voters-can-already-remove-legislators-for-unexcused-absences/article_152d-
30ca-3387-11ed-bb34-2f960479e9bd.html (accessed Jan 25, 2024) (reporting that
disqualified legislators would be barred “from holding office in the term following
the current term”).
Cite as 372 Or 1 (2024)                                                      9

Court of Appeals certified the matter to this court under
ORS 19.405, and we accepted the certification.
                           II. DISCUSSION
         As amended by the voters’ approval of Measure 113,
Article IV, section 15, now disqualifies legislators with 10 or
more unexcused absences from holding a future term of office:
   “Failure to attend, without permission or excuse, ten or
   more legislative floor sessions called to transact business
   during a regular or special legislative session shall be
   deemed disorderly behavior and shall disqualify the mem-
   ber from holding office as a Senator or Representative for the
   term following the election after the member’s current term
   is completed.”
(Emphasis added.) The dispute in this case centers on
whether the disqualification applies to the immediate next
term of office, as the secretary argues, or the term after
that, as petitioners argue.
         Resolving that dispute presents a question of inter-
pretation. We interpret the Oregon Constitution by “exam-
in[ing] the text, in its historical context and in light of rel-
evant case law, to determine the meaning of the provision
at issue most likely understood by those who adopted it,
with the ultimate objective of identifying relevant underly-
ing principles that may inform our application of the con-
stitutional text to modern circumstances.” Couey v. Atkins,
357 Or 460, 490-91, 355 P3d 866 (2015).7 Therefore, when
interpreting a constitutional amendment adopted through
an initiated ballot measure, we consider “the voters’ intent,”
focusing on the text and context as well as “the measure’s
history, should it appear useful to our analysis.” State v.
Algeo, 354 Or 236, 246, 311 P3d 865 (2013). A measure’s
history includes the ballot title, other materials in the vot-
ers’ pamphlet, and media reports. AAA Oregon/Idaho Auto
Source v. Dept. of Rev., 363 Or 411, 418, 423 P3d 71 (2018).
      We begin with the text. The amendment applies to
members of the legislature and provides that a member’s
    7
      The amendment at issue in this case does not require identifying underly-
ing principles that must be applied to modern circumstances, because the voters
adopted this amendment in November 2022.
10                                   Knopp v. Griffin-Valade

failure to attend 10 or more legislative floor sessions without
excuse “shall disqualify the member from holding office as a
Senator or Representative for the term following the election
after the member’s current term is completed.” Or Const, Art
IV, § 15 (emphasis added). As an initial matter, the parties
agree that “term” refers to a legislator’s term of office. In
Oregon, senators are elected to a four-year term of office,
while representatives are elected to a two-year term of
office. Or Const, Art IV, § 4. The parties also agree that “the
member’s current term” refers to the term of office in which
a legislator accrues 10 or more unexcused absences during a
legislative session.
         The parties disagree, however, as to the term for
which the legislator would be disqualified from holding
office—whether it is the term immediately following the
legislator’s current term or the term after that. Their dif-
fering interpretations depend on the interplay between the
distinct phrases used in the text of the amendment.
         Petitioners interpret the amendment to mean that
a legislator who accrues 10 or more unexcused absences
would be allowed to serve the next term of office but would
be disqualified from holding office for the term after that. To
get there, petitioners read the amendment so that the words
“the term” are modified by “following the election,” and then
the words “the election” are modified by “after the mem-
ber’s current term is completed.” According to petitioners, to
identify “the term following the election after the member’s
current term is completed,” we should begin by identifying
when the legislator’s current term is completed, then iden-
tify the election after that, and then identify the term that
follows that election.
         For example, as petitioners posit, if a senator
accrues 10 or more unexcused absences during a legislative
session in a four-year term that begins in January 2021,
then the senator’s “current term is completed” in January
2025. See Or Const, Art IV, § 4 (a legislative term shall
commence on the second Monday in January following
the legislator’s election). Petitioners argue that the phrase
“the election after the member’s current term is completed”
should be understood to refer to the first general election
Cite as 372 Or 1 (2024)                                                     11

for the legislator’s office held after the legislator completes
their current term. That election would take place during
the next term of office because general elections are held
in November of the year before a new term begins. So, if a
senator’s current term is completed in January 2025, then
the next general election for that senate office would take
place in November 2028, for the term beginning in January
2029.8 And if “the election after the member’s current term
is completed” refers to the November 2028 General Election,
then “the term following the election after the member’s cur-
rent term is completed” must refer to the term that begins
after that election—namely, the term beginning in January
2029. So, according to petitioners, a senator who accrued
10 or more unexcused absences during the 2023 legislative
session and whose term of office would end in January 2025
would be allowed to serve during the next term of office—
beginning in January 2025—but would be disqualified from
holding legislative office for the term after that—beginning
in January 2029.
         The secretary interprets the amendment’s text dif-
ferently. She interprets the text to mean that a legislator
who accrues 10 or more unexcused absences would not be
allowed to serve the immediate next term of office. In her
view, the words “the term” (for which a legislator is disqual-
ified) are modified by both the phrase “following the elec-
tion” and the phrase “after the member’s current term is
completed.” As a result, whereas petitioners understand the
phrase “after the member’s current term is completed” to
modify the words “the election,” the secretary understands
the phrase “after the member’s current term is completed”
to modify the words “the term.” She maintains that reading
the amendment that way emphasizes two facts about the
term of disqualification: that it follows an election, and that
it occurs after the disqualified legislator completes their
current term. The secretary thus understands the term
“after the member’s current term is completed” to refer to
the term immediately following the term in which a legisla-
tor accrues 10 or more unexcused absences.
   8
     For a member of the Oregon House of Representatives whose term ends
January 2025, the next general election after that term is completed would be in
November 2026, for a term beginning January 2027. Or Const, Art IV, § 4.
12                                    Knopp v. Griffin-Valade

          Applying that interpretation to the same exam-
ple from above, if a senator accrues 10 or more unexcused
absences during a legislative session in a four-year term
that begins in January 2021, then the senator’s “current
term is completed” in January 2025. The term immediately
following that term would also begin in January 2025; the
election to decide who would serve in that following term
would be held in November 2024. The senator would be dis-
qualified from holding legislative office for the term of office
that both follows the November 2024 election and comple-
tion of the senator’s current term of office—that is, the term
beginning in January 2025.
         The text of the amendment does not unambiguously
support either interpretation. The text would more clearly
support petitioners’ reading—and weaken the secretary’s
reading—if it referred to “the term following the election
[that occurs] after the member’s current term is completed.”
Without those bracketed words, the intended interplay
among the distinct phrases in the amendment is less imme-
diately apparent, and the secretary’s reading gains plausi-
bility. Still, petitioners are not wrong to argue that their
proposed reading is supported by certain interpretative
principles. Namely, it conforms with two canons of construc-
tion: the rule against surplusage, which provides that we
interpret a provision’s text to give effect to every word and
avoid redundancy, State v. Clemente-Perez, 357 Or 745, 755,
359 P3d 232 (2015); and the doctrine of the last antecedent,
which provides that “ ‘[r]eferential and qualifying words and
phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely
to the last antecedent,’ ” State v. Webb, 324 Or 380, 386, 927
P2d 79 (1996) (quoting Norman J. Singer, 2A Sutherland
Statutory Construction § 47.33 at 270 (5th ed 1992)); see also
AAA Oregon/Idaho Auto Source, 363 Or at 418 (explain-
ing that, when examining constitutional text, “we apply
rules of construction that bear directly on the provision’s
interpretation”).
         Under the secretary’s interpretation, the amend-
ment to Article IV, section 15, would contain a redundancy,
because the amendment would have the same legal effect
even if the words “following the election” were deleted from
Cite as 372 Or 1 (2024)                                     13

the text—it would disqualify the “Senator or Representative
for the term * * * after the member’s current term is com-
pleted.” The secretary contends that the redundancy high-
lights a fact that might otherwise not be apparent to the
voters—that a legislator’s disqualification takes effect only
after the election to replace them has occurred and not
before the newly elected person can take office.
          The secretary’s interpretation also creates tension
with the doctrine of the last antecedent because it does not
treat the modifying phrase “after the member’s current term
is completed” as modifying the words immediately preced-
ing it, “the election.” Instead, the secretary reads the phrase
“after the member’s current term is completed” as modify-
ing the words “the term.” The secretary acknowledges that
her interpretation would be clearer if a comma separated
the phrases “following the election” and “after the member’s
current term is completed.” Petitioners’ interpretation does
not present a similar difficulty.
         Canons of construction, however, are merely guide-
lines for interpreting text that, in any given case, may give
way to contrary evidence of intent. See State v. Lane, 357
Or 619, 629, 355 P3d 914 (2015) (describing canons of con-
struction as “mere assumptions that always give way to
more direct evidence of legislative intent”); see also State
v. Cloutier, 351 Or 68, 97, 261 P3d 1234 (2011) (“[T]he fact
that a proposed interpretation of a statute creates some
measure of redundancy is not, by itself, necessarily fatal.
Redundancy in communication is a fact of life and of law.”);
Thomas Creek Lumber and Log Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 344 Or
131, 138, 178 P3d 217 (2008) (adopting interpretation of a
tax statute that made “some words * * * redundant,” not-
ing that “nothing prohibits the legislature from saying the
same thing twice”); Johnson v. Craddock et al, 228 Or 308,
316, 365 P2d 89 (1961) (stating that the “doctrine of the last
antecedent is not inflexible and is never applied when a fur-
ther extension is clearly required by the intent and meaning
of the context or when to apply a grammatical rule literally
would lead to an absurd or unreasonable result, defeating
the legislative purpose”).
14                                    Knopp v. Griffin-Valade

          For example, both the rule against surplusage and
the doctrine of the last antecedent gave way to ballot mea-
sure history in Lipscomb v. State Bd. of Higher Ed., 305 Or
472, 753 P2d 939 (1988). In that case, we were required to
interpret a referred constitutional amendment that pro-
vided the governor with the authority to veto “any provision
in new bills declaring an emergency.” Or Const, Art V, § 15a.
The defendants interpreted the amendment broadly to
mean that, in new bills that contained a provision declaring
an emergency, the governor could veto any provision within
the bill, not only the provision declaring an emergency. The
plaintiffs, by contrast, interpreted the amendment narrowly
to mean that the governor could veto only the provision that
declared an emergency in a new bill. In support of their
interpretation, the plaintiffs argued that the word “provi-
sion” was modified by both “in new bills” and “declaring an
emergency.” 305 Or at 485. The defendants countered that
the plaintiffs’ interpretation created a redundancy because
the phrase “in new bills” would have no legal effect—all bills
presented to the governor are new bills. Id. The defendants
further pointed out that their interpretation conformed with
the doctrine of the last antecedent, under which the word
“provision” was modified only by “in new bills,” and the word
“bills” was modified by “declaring an emergency.” Id. The
defendants, therefore, argued that their interpretation rep-
resented the unambiguous meaning of the amendment.
          We concluded that the amendment was “not as
unambiguous as defendants claim.” Id. Ultimately, we
held that the canons of construction must yield to the voter
understanding demonstrated by the ballot measure his-
tory, including material in the voters’ pamphlet, which
supported the plaintiffs’ interpretation. See id. at 486
(“Contemporaneous materials widely available to the voters
in 1921, particularly the explanation by a committee of leg-
islators in the official Voters’ Pamphlet, leave no doubt that
the amendment to Article V, section 15a, was intended to
authorize the Governor to veto a declaration of emergency
in a bill so as to protect the opportunity of voters to petition
for a referendum.”).
Cite as 372 Or 1 (2024)                                                        15

          In this case, as the court did in Lipscomb, the sec-
retary relies on the ballot measure history—in particular,
the ballot title and explanatory statement—to determine
how the voters would have understood the words used in the
amendment to Article IV, section 15. As noted above, the bal-
lot title caption and the result statements were printed on
every ballot.9 The ballot title caption expressly stated that a
legislator with too many unexcused absences would be “dis-
qualified from holding next term of office.” The “yes” result
statement characterized the amendment as disqualifying a
legislator for the “term following current term of office.” The
voters’ pamphlet contained both those statements as well
as the ballot title summary, which stated that the disqual-
ification would apply to “the term following the end of the
legislator’s current term.” Official Voters’ Pamphlet at 65.
Also contained in the voters’ pamphlet was the explanatory
statement, which stated that the disqualification would pro-
hibit “the legislator from holding office after the legislator’s
current term ends.” Id. at 66.
         Petitioners acknowledge that the ballot measure
history materials uniformly support the secretary’s inter-
pretation. No statements that appeared on the ballot or in
the voters’ pamphlet support petitioners’ interpretation. And
the parties have not identified any media accounts prior to
the election suggesting that anyone understood the amend-
ment to allow a legislator to serve one more term before the
disqualification would take effect. Nevertheless, petitioners
contend that we must disregard the ballot measure history
materials that contradict their proposed interpretation
because, according to petitioners, the text of the amendment
is capable of only one meaning—as disqualifying a legisla-
tor from holding office for the term after the next term.
        If petitioners were correct that the text is capable
of supporting only one meaning, then no ballot measure his-
tory could justify a different meaning. Cf. State v. Gaines,
346 Or 160, 173, 206 P3d 1042 (2009) (“When the text of
a statute is truly capable of having only one meaning, no
    9
      See Ecumenical Ministries v. Oregon State Lottery Comm., 318 Or 551, 575,
871 P2d 106 (1994) (Fadeley, J., concurring) (discussing the importance of the
ballot title and results statements because they “are printed on the ballot used by
every person who voted to adopt the initiative amendment”).
16                                    Knopp v. Griffin-Valade

weight can be given to legislative history that suggests—or
even confirms—that legislators intended something differ-
ent.”). But we disagree with petitioners’ assertion that the
amendment in this case is capable of only one meaning. See
generally Lipscomb, 305 Or at 485 (“[C]ourts rarely see dis-
putes over interpretation when the opposing party cannot
show a possible alternative reading of the words, which it
claims to be correct in context.”).
         While petitioners’ interpretation of the text may be
the more grammatical reading, the text is capable of sup-
porting the secretary’s interpretation. The amendment at
issue is a complex sentence. The parties’ competing inter-
pretations depend on how they understand the relation-
ship between three phrases within the amendment: (1) “the
term”; (2) “following the election”; and (3) “after the member’s
current term is completed.” Or Const, Art IV, § 15. Those
phrases have no single necessary relationship between
them. As explained above, if the sentence had contained
the additional phrase “that occurs” immediately after “the
election,” petitioners’ reading would be more compelling.
Without that or a similar phrase, the intended meaning of
the sentence is more uncertain. The words “the term” may
be modified by both the phrase “following the election” and
the phrase “after the member’s current term is completed,”
as the secretary argues. That is the same construction that
this court applied in Lipscomb, concluding that one word
was modified separately by the two phrases that followed it.
See 305 Or at 485 (holding that “provision” was modified by
both “in new bills” and “declaring an emergency”). Applying
that construction here treats the two phrases—“following
the election” and “after the member’s current term is com-
pleted”—as emphasizing two different facts about the dis-
qualification: that voters would retain the right to choose
the person who would serve during the next term of office
and that the disqualified legislator would be allowed to
serve the remainder of the current term of office.
         If we were required to choose between petitioners’
and the secretary’s interpretations based on the text alone,
petitioners would have a strong argument that their read-
ing is the better one. But we do not review the text in a
Cite as 372 Or 1 (2024)                                          17

void. We instead seek to understand how voters would have
understood the text in the light of the other materials that
accompanied it. And those other materials expressly and
uniformly informed voters that the amendment would apply
to a legislator’s immediate next terms of office, indicating
that the voters so understood and intended that meaning.
         In arguing against that conclusion, petitioners con-
tend that the ballot measure history materials are categor-
ically insufficient to overcome what they regard as the more
natural way to read the amendment’s text. Petitioners sup-
port that argument by relying on statements that this court
made in Northwest Natural Gas Co. v. Frank, 293 Or 374,
648 P2d 1284 (1982). There, the court was asked to inter-
pret a constitutional amendment that had been referred by
the legislature and adopted by the voters through a ballot
measure. The amendment dedicated the revenue from cer-
tain taxes to the Common School Fund. Id. at 378. Applying
that ballot measure as it was drafted, however, would have
disrupted funding for the Department of Energy, which was
evidently not an effect that the legislature had considered
or intended when it drafted the measure. Id. The court was
asked to apply the ballot measure in a manner that would
avoid that unintended consequence compelled by the text of
the measure. In rejecting that argument, the court stated:
   “There is no reliable record of what the voters intended
   beyond the language of the amendment itself. There are no
   official committees, no minutes, no formal debates. Given
   the fact that it is the electorate, the ultimate sovereign,
   which has adopted the amendment to our Constitution, we
   are slow to go beyond the face of the enacted language into
   materials not presented to the public at large.”
Id. at 381. Petitioners rely on those statements to argue that
ballot measure history is entitled to little weight in inter-
preting constitutional amendments adopted by the voters.
         We disagree with petitioners’ reading of Northwest
Natural Gas. As an initial matter, the court’s statements
in that case must be understood in the context of that case.
The court was rejecting a specific argument based on the
specific ballot measure history offered in that case—namely,
that the legislators who had drafted the measure had not
18                                    Knopp v. Griffin-Valade

considered the legal effect of the text that they chose. When
the court referred to “materials not presented to the public
at large,” the court was referring to materials from legisla-
tive proceedings demonstrating that legislators never con-
sidered how the amendment would affect the Department of
Energy’s funding. Id. at 381.
           Further, in Lipscomb, this court expressly rejected
reading Northwest Natural Gas as imposing broad meth-
odological constraints on our constitutional interpretation,
noting that Northwest Natural Gas does not confine us “to
historically blind exegesis” of constitutional text and that
questions of constitutional interpretation “cannot be decided
simply by parsing the words of the amendment.” 305 Or at
484-85. Reading Northwest Natural Gas as imposing such
constraints would be inconsistent with the court’s practice,
both before and after that decision, to routinely consider bal-
lot measure history, “to the extent that it appears useful to
our analysis.” AAA Oregon/Idaho Auto Source, 363 Or at 418;
see, e.g., Couey, 357 Or at 490 (discussing recent case law on
the role of ballot measure history); State ex rel. Chapman v.
Appling, 220 Or 41, 68, 348 P2d 759 (1960) (noting that the
court had “recognized in a number of cases that arguments
in the official Voters’ Pamphlet relative to measures submit-
ted to the people may be resorted to as an aid to construc-
tion” and collecting cases); Allen v. Multnomah County, 179
Or 548, 562, 173 P2d 475 (1946) (“As the amendment was
adopted by initiative, we turn to the 1912 Voter’s Pamphlet
as an aid to its interpretation.”); Turnidge v. Thompson, 89
Or 637, 175 P 281 (1918) (reviewing the ballot title prepared
by the Attorney General, noting that the ballot title “was
printed upon the ballots submitted to the electorate”).
         Instead of making categorical judgments about
the role of ballot measure history in our analysis, we
assign weight based on the substance and probative qual-
ity of those materials. See generally Gaines, 346 Or at 172
(“[W]hether the court will conclude that the particular legis-
lative history on which a party relies is of assistance in deter-
mining legislative intent will depend on the substance and
probative quality of the legislative history itself.” (Emphasis
in original.)). Not all ballot measure history materials serve
Cite as 372 Or 1 (2024)                                   19

the same role or are owed the same weight. See, e.g., State
v. Sagdal, 356 Or 639, 643, 343 P3d 226 (2015) (expressing
caution in relying too heavily on statements in the section
of voters’ pamphlet containing arguments from advocates).
         The ballot measure history materials on which
the secretary relies in this case—namely, the ballot title
(including the caption, the “yes” result statement, and the
summary) and the explanatory statement—directly and
unequivocally address the question at issue, each stating
that the amendment would disqualify a legislator from hold-
ing office during the immediate next term of office. Further,
those materials were widely distributed to the voters. As
noted above, the ballot title caption and the result state-
ments are required to be printed on the ballots, ensuring
that they were visible to all voters. ORS 254.145(7); ORS
254.175(2). And the complete ballot title and the explana-
tory statement are included in the voters’ pamphlet that
is mailed to every household with a registered voter. OAR
165-022-0060(7).
          Petitioners do not offer any ballot measure his-
tory materials that contradict those materials. Instead,
they argue that those materials do not reflect how the vot-
ers would have understood the amendment because those
materials neither were drafted by the voters nor purport
to record the thoughts of voters. But petitioners misunder-
stand the role of the ballot title and explanatory statement.
Those materials reflect voter understanding not because
they record that understanding, but because they inform
that understanding. For example, the purpose of the bal-
lot title “is to guide and inform the voters.” Richardson v.
Neuner, 183 Or 558, 562, 194 P2d 989 (1948). Similarly, the
explanatory statement is intended to be “an impartial, sim-
ple and understandable statement explaining the measure,”
ORS 251.215(1), drafted by a committee composed of mem-
bers who both support and oppose the ballot measure, ORS
251.205(3)-(5). Here, the explanatory statement reveals that
the drafting committee unanimously agreed to the construc-
tion of the amendment on which the secretary now relies.
       Petitioners maintain, however, that we cannot
assume that voters read and understood the ballot title and
20                                   Knopp v. Griffin-Valade

explanatory statement. We disagree. We assume that vot-
ers have familiarized themselves with the issue that is pre-
sented on the ballot, just as we assume that legislators have
familiarized themselves with the bills on which they vote.
See Anthony et al. v. Veatch et al., 189 Or 462, 498, 220 P2d
493 (1950) (“On the whole, in view of the jealous regard of
the people for the initiative process and of the opportuni-
ties which exist for the voters to acquaint themselves with
the background and merits of a proposed initiative measure,
we are of the opinion that, in the construction of such mea-
sures, the courts should indulge the same presumption as to
the knowledge of historical facts on the part of the people,
as they indulge with reference to acts passed by the leg-
islature.”). The ballot title and explanatory statement are
materials accessible to all voters attempting to familiarize
themselves with a ballot measure.
         Because the text is capable of supporting the sec-
retary’s interpretation, and considering the clear import of
the ballot title and explanatory statement in this case, we
agree with the secretary that voters would have understood
the amendment to mean that a legislator with 10 or more
unexcused absences during a legislative session would be
disqualified from holding legislative office during the imme-
diate next term, rather than the term after that. Petitioners’
contrary interpretation fails to account for the ballot title
and explanatory statement, which expressly and repeatedly
described the disqualification as taking place during the
next term. Voters would have understood the meaning of
the amendment’s text in light of those materials. The uni-
formity of those materials, and their availability to voters,
persuades us that the voters would have understood the
amendment to disqualify legislators with too many unex-
cused absences from holding office during the next term of
office.
                    III.   CONCLUSION
         After considering the text and the ballot measure
history of the amendment to Article IV, section 15, that
voters approved in 2022, we conclude that the phrase “the
term following the election after the member’s current term
is completed” refers to the term immediately following the
Cite as 372 Or 1 (2024)                                  21

term in which a legislator accrued 10 or more unexcused
absences during a legislative session. That construction is
consistent with the secretary’s interpretation of the amend-
ment, as reflected in her temporary rules, ELECT 12-2023
and ELECT 16-2023.
       The Secretary of State’s Temporary Rules ELECT
12-2023 and ELECT 16-2023 are upheld.