SAGER v. MYERS, 330 Or. 243 (2000)

998 P.2d 1267

JAMES SAGER, Petitioner, v. HARDY MYERS, Attorney General, State of Oregon, Respondent.

No. SC S47230Oregon Supreme Court.Argued and submitted March 22, 2000.
Filed: April 13, 2000.

En Banc

On petition to review ballot title.

Margaret S. Olney, of Smith, Gamson, Diamond Olney, Portland, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioner.

Philip Schradle, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause and filed the answering memorandum for respondent. With him on the answering memorandum were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.

PER CURIAM

Ballot title certified. This decision shall become effective in accordance with ORAP 11.30(10)

Page 244

[EDITORS’ NOTE: THIS PAGE IS BLANK.]

Page 245

PER CURIAM

This is a ballot title review proceeding brought under ORS 250.085(2). Petitioner is an elector who timely submitted written comments to the Secretary of State respecting the content of the draft ballot title for a proposed measure designated by the Secretary of State as Initiative Petition 115 (2000). He therefore is entitled to seek review of the resulting ballot title for that measure certified by the Attorney General. See ORS 250.085(2) (stating that requirement). We review the Attorney General’s certified ballot title to determine whether it substantially complies with the requirements of ORS 250.035 (1997).[1] See ORS 250.085(5) (setting out standard of review).

We have considered each of petitioner’s arguments concerning the ballot title certified by the Attorney General. We conclude that none establishes that the Attorney General’s certified ballot title fails to comply substantially with the standards for such ballot titles set out in ORS 250.035(2)(a) to (d) (1997). Accordingly, we certify to the Secretary of State the following ballot title:

AMENDS CONSTITUTION: PERMITS INITIATIVES CONTAINING MULTIPLE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS; MODIFIES REVIEW, VOTING PROCEDURES
RESULT OF “YES” VOTE: “Yes” vote permits initiatives containing multiple constitutional amendments; modifies review and voting procedures.

Page 246

RESULT OF “NO” VOTE: “No” vote retains ban on initiatives containing multiple constitutional amendments; retains current review, voting procedures.
SUMMARY: Amends Constitution. Currently, Constitution cannot be amended by initiative proposals containing multiple constitutional amendments that are not closely related. Measure places requirement in Constitution for Secretary of State to review proposed amendments for compliance with single subject and multiple amendment requirements. Measure permits initiatives containing multiple amendments but requires ballot title explaining which articles of Constitution would be amended. Provides for judicial review of Secretary’s determination and explanation. Requires ballot to allow voters to decide which articles of Constitution would be amended by such measures.

Ballot title certified. This decision shall become effective in accordance with ORAP 11.30(10).

[1] The 1999 Legislature amended ORS 250.035 (1997) in several respects. Or. Laws 1999, ch 793, § 1. However, section 3 of that 1999 enactment provides in part:

“(1) The amendments to ORS 250.035 by section 1 of this 1999 Act do not apply to any ballot title prepared for:
“(a) Any initiative petition that, if filed with the Secretary of State with the required number of signatures of qualified electors, will be submitted to the people at the general election held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November 2000[.]”

The present proposed measure is one of those to which the 1999 act does not apply. We therefore apply the pertinent provisions of ORS 250.035 (1997).

Page 247

jdjungle