Court Opinion

ID: 9591118
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:02:20.249826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:57.768834
License: Public Domain

FADELEY, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur that the ballot title should be modified. However, I do not agree that the court’s proposed modification goes far enough to accurately or adequately advise the voters of the chief purpose, true subject or major effect of this measure. The inaccurate information which the modified ballot title will provide results from the title’s failure to expressly notice that all existing liquor revenues, derived from the existing level of liquor prices and beverage excises as well as the proposed increase, will be lost to the general fund under the provisions of the measure.
Because these lost revenues exceed the amount to be raised by the proposed revenue increases from higher prices and gallonage rates, I do not concur with leaving the voters in the dark. I am not content to describe only the tail on the dog when the voters are being asked to approve both dog and tail in a single vote.
Presently, 56 percent of net revenues from liquor and alcoholic beverages go into the state general fund, 34 percent go to cities and 10 percent go to counties. ORS 471.810. In determining the net revenues, the cost of operation of the Oregon Liquor Control Commission are deducted and paid to the tune of about $47 million dollars for the biennial budget *520period. The proposed measure continues this deduction by confirming the provisions of ORS 471.805.
The measure removes all 56 percent of the liquor-related net revenues from the state general fund and may also shift more of the impact of the deduction for liquor-control administrative costs onto the general fund than it now bears. The former loss would equal $56.5 million if the measure were in full effect for the current budget period. See 1989-91 Adopted Budget 9 (Schedule C - General Fund Revenues).
The combined effect of this measure and its companion involving cigarette and tobacco taxes is discussed in the specially concurring opinion in Nelson v. Roberts, 309 Or 499, 789 P2d 650 (1990). That opinion also more fully discusses the problem with the majority analysis in these companion measures.
Van Hoomissen, J., joins this specially concurring opinion.