Towers v. Myers, 338 Or. 542

Summary

The Supreme Court of Oregon reviews a certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 15, which would amend the Oregon Constitution to regulate the use of public employees’ payroll deductions for political purposes. The court holds that the ballot-title summary fails to substantially comply with statutory requirements because it inaccurately describes current law and uses underinclusive language referring to covered entities as “anyone.” The court refers the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification.

Holdings

1. The summary failed to substantially comply with ORS 250.035(2)(d) because it inaccurately stated that current law neither limited the use of public employee payroll deductions nor required segregation of deductions earmarked for political purposes.
2. The summary failed to substantially comply with ORS 250.035(2)(d) because its repeated use of 'anyone' incorrectly suggested that the segregation and disqualification provisions applied only to individuals, although the initiative also covered corporations and organizations.
3. The summary was not deficient for failing to use the word 'permanent' because the word 'barred' fairly communicated the permanent nature of the consequence, and a ballot title does not fail merely because it could be worded better.
4. The court declined to consider the argument because ORS 250.085(6) generally precludes consideration of ballot-title arguments not presented in writing to the Secretary of State, and the exception for wording added or removed after the comment period did not apply.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the certified ballot-title summary inaccurately described current law by stating that current law neither limited the use of public employee payroll deductions nor required segregation of deductions earmarked for political purposes.
2. Whether the summary's use of the pronoun 'anyone' was underinclusive because the initiative applied to corporations and organizations as well as individuals.
3. Whether the summary was required to state expressly that the measure's bar on receiving future payroll deductions was permanent.
4. Whether the court could consider the petitioner's argument that the summary failed to explain that the measure covered efforts to obtain or discourage the gathering of initiative-petition signatures when that argument had not been presented to the Secretary of State.

Disposition

remanded