HUNNICUTT v. MYERS, 333 Or. 416 (2002)

41 P.3d 403

DAVID J. HUNNICUTT and LAWRENCE B. GEORGE, Petitioners, v. HARDY MYERS, Attorney General, State of Oregon, Respondent. JONATHAN POISNER, Petitioner, v. HARDY MYERS, Attorney General, State of Oregon, Respondent.

(S.C. S49001 (Control), S.C. S49019) (Cases Consolidated)Oregon Supreme Court.
Filed: February 25, 2002

En Banc

On modified ballot title filed February 14, 2002.[*]

[*] 333 Or. 268, 39 P.3d 190 (2002) (referring ballot title for modification).

No appearance by petitioners.

Janet A. Metcalf, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the filing of modified ballot title for respondent. With her on the filing were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.

The modified ballot title is certified. The appellate judgment shall issue in accordance with ORS 250.085(9).

Page 417

The court in this ballot title review proceeding determined that the Attorney General’s certified ballot title for a proposed initiative measure, which the Secretary of State denominated as Initiative Petition 119 (2002), failed to comply substantially with statutory standards.Hunnicutt/Poisner v. Myers, 333 Or. 268, 39 P.3d 190 (2002). Under ORS 250.085(8), the court referred the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification. The Attorney General has filed a modified ballot title for the proposed initiative measure, and no party to the ballot title review proceeding has objected. See ORS 250.085(9) (setting out period within which party may object to modified ballot title and requiring court to certify modified ballot title if no objection filed).

The modified ballot title for Initiative Petition 119 (2002) states:

“AMENDS CONSTITUTION: REPEALS ANY 2000

AMENDMENTS TO COMPENSATION RIGHT WHEN

GOVERNMENT TAKES PRIVATE PROPERTY;

RETAINS PRE-EXISTING RIGHT

“RESULT OF `YES’ VOTE: `Yes’ vote repeals any 2000 amendments providing for payment of compensation when government regulation reduces property value, retains preexisting right to payment of just compensation.
“RESULT OF `NO’ VOTE: `No’ vote rejects repeal of any amendments approved by voters in 2000 election that provide for payment of compensation when government regulation reduces property value.
“SUMMARY: Amends Constitution. Before 2000 election, the state constitution already provided for payment of just compensation when government takes private property for public use, but payment was not required when property value was only reduced. At 2000 election, voters voted on measure that, with some exceptions, generally expanded the right to payment of government compensation to a property owner by providing for payment when state, local government regulation reduces property value. 2000 measure also included other provisions. 2000 measure has been challenged on constitutional grounds. When this ballot title was prepared, that challenge had not been resolved. This proposal would repeal the 2000 measure if

Page 418

that measure survives the constitutional challenge and is upheld.”

The modified ballot title is certified. The appellate judgment shall issue in accordance with ORS 250.085(9).

Page 419

jdjungle