Kain/Waller v. Myers
Decision Date | 25 May 2004 |
Citation | 337 Or. 36,337 Ore. 36,93 P.3d 62 |
Parties | Kris KAIN and Joann Waller, Petitioners on Review, v. Hardy MYERS, Attorney General, State of Oregon, Respondent on Review. Joann Waller and Kris Kain, Petitioners on Review, v. Hardy Myers, Attorney General, State of Oregon, Respondent on Review. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Margaret S. Olney, of Smith, Diamond & Olney, Portland, filed the petitions for petitioners.
Steven R. Powers, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the answering memoranda for respondent. With him on the answering memoranda were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.
Petitioners in these consolidated ballot title proceedings challenge the Attorney General's ballot titles for two proposed initiative measures that would amend the Oregon Constitution. For the reasons stated below, we refer the ballot titles to the Attorney General for modification.
The two proposed measures are closely related in substance. Initiative Petition 111 (2004) provides:
For that proposed initiative, the Attorney General certified the following ballot title:
Initiative Petition 112 (2004) provides:
For that proposed initiative, the Attorney General certified the following ballot title:
Each proposed measure would impose a single maximum limit on property taxes levied or imposed on a single family residence and the land upon which it is located. Initiative Petition 111 would set that limit at $200 per month. Initiative Petition 112 would set that limit at $2,000 per year and, in addition, would increase that limit two percent per annum.
Due to the similarity of the proposed measures, the Attorney General has certified ballot titles for the proposed measures that also are similar. Petitioners, in turn, have filed nearly identical challenges to each certified ballot title. As the following discussion indicates, we reach the same disposition regarding each challenge.
We begin with petitioners' challenge to the certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 111. Petitioners assert that the caption that the Attorney General certified is insufficient because it fails to "reasonably identif[y]," in 15 words or less, "the subject matter of the state measure." ORS 250.035(2)(a). According to petitioners, the Attorney General's reference in the caption to a "cap" on residential property taxes fails to disclose that the proposed measure would create a fundamental change in the relationship between a property's assessed value and the calculation of ad valorem property taxes payable on the property. Petitioners contend that the true subject of the proposed measure is the transformation of Oregon's system of property taxation from one based in significant part on the property's assessed value to one that, due to the cap, assesses taxes at a flat amount regardless of the property's assessed valuation.
The Attorney General responds that, if the people adopt Initiative Petition 111, property taxpayers will continue to face assessments of the value of their residential property by local taxing authorities, but the proposed measure will cap any assessment of taxes on the property at a specific dollar level. The Attorney General also argues that two recent measures, "Measure 5," Article XI, section 11b, of the Oregon Constitution, and "Measure 50," Article XI, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, imposed various limitations on property taxes without regard to the property's value. As a result, the Attorney General argues, voters will understand that Initiative Petition 111 similarly would impose a property tax cap that applies to all properties regardless of their assessed valuation. The Attorney General also contends that the point that petitioners raise is an effect of the proposed measure, not its subject matter, and, therefore, it more appropriately receives mention in the summary rather than the caption. Finally, the Attorney General explains that he chose not to mention petitioners' point in the caption because that would focus voter attention on one effect of the proposed measure, thus improperly elevating the importance of one effect over the proposed measure's other effects.
This court reviews the Attorney General's ballot title to determine whether it is in substantial compliance with statutory requirements. ORS 250.085(5). The caption must state or describe the proposed measure's subject matter "accurately, and in terms that will not confuse or mislead potential petition signers and voters." Greene v. Kulongoski, 322 Or. 169, 174-75, 903 P.2d 366 (1995). Greene also states:
Id. at 175, 903 P.2d 366 (citation omitted).
Because of its importance to the entire ballot title, the caption must use terms that reasonably identify the proposed measure's subject matter and do not understate or overstate the scope of the legal changes that the proposed measure would enact. For example, in Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Roberts, 308 Or. 169, 777 P.2d 406 (1989), the proposed measure would have created a right to gather signatures for initiatives and referenda at shopping malls. The proposed ballot title caption stated that the proposed measure would protect petitioning activity. This court determined that, in that context, "the verb `protects' could, for some voters, be misleading and does not reasonably identify the subject of the measure." Id. at 174, 777 P.2d 406. The court so held because the word "protects" implied, incorrectly, that the proposed measure simply asked the voters Id.
To determine the subject matter of a proposed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nearman v. Rosenblum
...state measure and its major effect’) all require a degree of interpretive effort by the Attorney General. See, e.g., Kain/Waller v. Myers, 337 Or. 36, 93 P.3d 62 (2004) (interpreting ORS 250.035(2)(a) and (b), and illustrating proposition). The Attorney General should not in the future rely......
-
Parrish v. Rosenblum
...examine its words and the changes, if any, that the proposed measure would enact in the context of existing law." Kain/Waller v. Myers , 337 Or. 36, 41, 93 P.3d 62 (2004). As explained, the ballot title for R.P. 301 has no applicable word limit, but its caption nonetheless must state or des......
-
Beyer v. Rosenblum
...measure gave that term "a very different and uncommon meaning," but the caption did not so notify voters); see also Kain/Waller v. Myers , 337 Or. 36, 40, 93 P.3d 62 (2004) (caption must use terms that identify the subject matter and neither understate nor overstate the scope of the legal c......
-
Buehler v. Rosenblum
...P.3d 988 (2001), and it cannot overstate or understate the scope of the legal changes that the measure would enact. Kain/Waller v. Myers, 337 Or. 36, 40, 93 P.3d 62 (2004). Similarly, we review challenges to the “yes” vote result statement for substantial compliance with ORS 250.035(2)(b), ......