- Court: Oregon Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: Ballot Titles
- Date Filed: 04-29-2022
- Case #: S069164
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Dehoog, J. for the Court; En Banc.
- Full Text Opinion
Two electors disagreed with Initiative Petition 34 ("IP 34") and petitioned the Court for review. Both Petitioners argued that the ballot title, caption, the results statement, and summary do not comply with the requirements of ORS 250.035. Both Petitioners argued, (1) the caption fails to identify the significant and immediate effect of IP 34, (2) the phrasing in the results statement does not explain the provision to be repealed and is potentially misleading, and (3) the summary requires a more expansive explanation. In response, the Attorney General argued that capturing the precise and immediate effect of IP 34 is impossible to do within the 15-word limit, and the phrasing in the results statement conveys the results of the measure that would be most significant to Oregon citizenry. ORS 250.035(2)(a) specifies, a ballot title and caption must “reasonably identif[y]” the “subject matter.” ORS 250.035(2)(d) specifies, a summary must provide a concise and impartial statement. The Court reasoned that IP 34 would repeal and replace the legislature’s recently enacted redistricting plans for the current decennium and held that both the caption and the summary must be modified to substantially comply with ORS 250.035(2) to communicate the changes. The ballot title is referred to the Attorney General for modification.