Meek v. Gray, (SC S47798)

• Citation: 331 Or. 21,10 P.3d 251
• Decision Date: 08 September 2000
• Docket Number: (SC S47798)
• Parties: Daniel MEEK, Petitioner, v. Roger GRAY, Becky Miller, Margaret Olney, Bill Sizemore, Cecil Tibbets, Respondents.
• Court: Supreme Court of Oregon

10 P.3d 251

331 Or. 21

Daniel MEEK, Petitioner, v. Roger GRAY, Becky Miller, Margaret Olney, Bill Sizemore, Cecil Tibbets, Respondents.

(SC S47798)

Supreme Court of Oregon, En Banc.

Argued and Submitted August 24, 2000.

Decided September 8, 2000.

Daniel W. Meek, Portland, pro se, argued the cause and filed the petition.

Margaret Olney, Portland, argued the cause and filed the memoranda for respondent Roger Gray and for herself as respondent.

Gregory W. Byrne, Portland, argued the cause for respondents Becky Miller and Bill Sizemore.

Cecil Tibbets, Salem, pro se, argued the cause.

GILLETTE, J.

In this original proceeding, petitioner challenges the explanatory statement for Ballot Measure 98 (2000). See ORS 251.205 (providing for creation and manner of selection of committee of five citizens to prepare explanatory statement for initiated and referred measures); ORS 251.215 (providing for preparation and filing of explanatory statement by committee). The initiative measure would amend Article XV of the Oregon Constitution by adding a restriction that no public funds shall be spent to collect or assist in the collection of political funds.

After the explanatory statement committee prepared and filed the explanatory statement at issue, the Secretary of State held a hearing to receive comments on the statement. Petitioner offered suggestions for changes to the explanatory statement at that hearing. Petitioner therefore is entitled to seek a different explanatory statement in this court. ORS 251.235; see also Homuth v. Keisling, 314 Or. 214, 218, 837 P.2d 532 (1992)

(ORS 251.235 authorizes Supreme Court review of explanatory statement when any suggestions were offered at Secretary of State's hearing).

The committee is directed by statute to prepare an explanatory statement that is an "impartial, simple and understandable statement explaining the measure." ORS 251.215(1). This court's task is to determine whether the explanatory statement contains a sufficient and clear statement explaining the measure. See Sizemore v. Myers, 327 Or. 456, 459, 964 P.2d 255 (1998)

(so stating); ORS 251.235 (authorizing court to consider challenges to explanatory statement on grounds that statement is "insufficient or unclear"). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that the explanatory statement is insufficient or unclear. June v. Roberts, 310 Or. 244, 248, 797 P.2d 357 (1990).

Petitioner raises several arguments as to why he believes that the committee's statement is both insufficient and unclear. His primary argument is that the explanatory statement fails to indicate that one of the effects of Measure 98 would be to

"eviscerate the Oregon Voters' Pamphlet by removing at least 65-70% of the funding that is necessary for its production and publication. The result will be either no Voters' Pamphlet or one that contains no candidate statements or arguments supporting or opposing ballot measures."

As noted, Measure 98 would prohibit spending "public funds" to collect or assist in collecting "political funds," as the measure defines each of those terms. The measure, however, exempts from the definition of the term "public funds" "the fee charged by the Secretary of State or a county elections division for placing a paid statement in an official Voters' Pamphlet." The committee explained that exemption as follows:

"Political funds do not include the fee charged by the Secretary of State or a county for placing a paid statement in an official voters' pamphlet, however, public resources are used to produce the voters' pamphlet."

Petitioner argues that the foregoing explanation necessarily but incorrectly implies that, if voters adopt the measure, then state and local governments will continue to publish a voters' pamphlet. From that argument, petitioner concludes that the committee failed to prepare a statement that comports with statutory standards, because the statement does not detail what he asserts necessarily will be the effect of the measure on the voters' pamphlet.

We understand petitioner's argument to be that the committee was required to include in the explanatory statement a discussion of the impact that the measure would have on the continuing financial viability of the voters' pamphlet. We reject that argument. The choice of which effects to include or omit is a discretionary one for the committee, Sizemore, 327 Or. at 466-68, 964 P.2d 255, and one that we will not disturb unless a challenge can show that the choice makes the explanatory statement as a whole insufficient or unclear. Id. Petitioner has not made that showing here.

We have considered the other arguments that petitioner raises and conclude that they do not establish that the explanatory statement for Ballot Measure 98 is either insufficient...