Summary
The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed challenges to the ballot title and explanatory statement for Referendum No. 301, designated Ballot Measure 66, concerning personal income tax increases and related funding. The court held that references to maintaining or reducing currently budgeted funds were misleading because the referendum would provide new revenue rather than preserve existing legally available revenue. It referred the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification and certified a revised explanatory statement to the Secretary of State.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the ballot title substantially complied with ORS 250.035 when it stated that Ballot Measure 66 would maintain funds currently budgeted for public services.
- Whether the ballot title substantially complied with ORS 250.035 when it stated that rejecting Ballot Measure 66 would reduce currently budgeted funding.
- Whether the explanatory statement was sufficient and clear under ORS 251.215(1) and Oregon Laws 2009, chapter 714, section 13 when it stated that the measure would maintain currently budgeted funds.
Holdings
- The terms "maintains" and "maintain" inaccurately described the measure because the referendum meant that the new tax revenue was not legally available unless voters approved the measure. Those terms had to be replaced with "provides."
- The phrase "reduces funding currently budgeted" was inaccurate because rejection would not reduce legally available funding; it would leave the legislature's budget underfunded by an estimated $472 million.
- The explanatory statement was insufficient and unclear to the extent it stated that the measure would maintain currently budgeted funds. The court replaced "maintain" with "provide."
Key quotations
“The terms of a ballot title that state or imply the law that the proposal would enact must describe that law accurately.” (415)
“A rejection of Ballot Measure 66 by the voters will leave the legislature's budgeted services underfunded, but will not "reduce" funding for those services.” (416)
“Our task is to determine whether the explanatory statement contains a sufficient and clear statement explaining the measure.” (417)
Factual background
House Bill 2649 increased certain Oregon personal income taxes beginning in tax year 2009 to raise revenue for education, health care, public safety, and other public services. The legislation was subject to referendum, so its new revenue provisions did not take effect unless approved by the voters. The ballot title and explanatory statement described the measure as maintaining currently budgeted funds, and the court concluded that this wording inaccurately implied that the revenue was already legally available.
Procedural history
The Oregon Legislature enacted House Bill 2649, which increased certain personal income taxes and was submitted to referendum. A joint legislative committee prepared the ballot title and explanatory statement for Ballot Measure 66. Petitioners challenged both documents in the Oregon Supreme Court, which found several descriptions misleading or insufficient and ordered the specified modifications.
Remand instructions
The ballot title was referred to the Attorney General for modification: replace "maintains" or "maintain" with "provides" in the caption, yes-vote result statement, and summary, and replace the no-vote language with a statement that the amount currently budgeted would remain underfunded by an estimated $472 million. The certified explanatory statement replaces "maintain" with "provide".