Lavey v. Kroger, 350 Or. 559

258 P.3d 1194 (2011) · Supreme Court of Oregon · July 28, 2011 · No. SC S059447

Summary

The Supreme Court of Oregon reviewed the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 16, concerning restrictions on the use of studded tires. The court held that the caption and yes-vote result statement inaccurately suggested that the initiative would create an absolute year-round ban, because other statutory exemptions would remain. The court referred the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification.

Court
Supreme Court of Oregon
Writing for the Court
Landau, J.
Jurisdiction
Oregon
Decision date
July 28, 2011
Docket number
SC S059447
Procedural posture
Petitioners sought review of the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 16 (2012), challenging its compliance with ORS 250.035(2).
Standard of review
The court reviews a certified ballot title to determine whether it substantially complies with the statutory requirements of ORS 250.035(2).
Precedential value
Published, precedential opinion of the Oregon Supreme Court
Parties
Daniel P. Lavey, Anna Richter Taylor v. John R. Kroger, Attorney General, State of Oregon
Disposition
remanded

Topics

ballot accesselection lawstatutory interpretationadministrative law

Practice areas

Election lawAdministrative lawStatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the certified ballot-title caption reasonably identified the subject matter of Initiative Petition 16 under ORS 250.035(2)(a).
  2. Whether the certified yes-vote result statement accurately described the result of approving Initiative Petition 16 under ORS 250.035(2)(b).

Holdings

  1. The caption did not substantially comply with ORS 250.035(2)(a) because it inaccurately and overly broadly stated that the measure would create a year-round ban on studded-tire use, without explaining that the measure would repeal only two exemptions from an existing ban and leave ten other exemptions in place.
  2. The yes-vote result statement did not substantially comply with ORS 250.035(2)(b) because it inaccurately stated that a yes vote would create a year-round ban on studded-tire use without clarifying that ten statutory exemptions would remain.

Key quotations

The change proposed in Initiative Petition 16 would repeal only two of 12 exemptions of the already-existing, year-round ban on the use of studded tires. (258 P.3d at 1196)
Thus, the caption fails to substantially comply with the requirements of ORS 250.035(2)(a) and must be referred to the Attorney General for modification. (258 P.3d at 1197)
Therefore, we also refer the "yes" vote result statement to the Attorney General to modify that statement in a way that clarifies that result. (258 P.3d at 1197)

Factual background

Initiative Petition 16 would repeal the seasonal studded-tire exemption in ORS 815.165(7), repeal the exemption for retractable studded tires in ORS 815.165(12), and amend ORS 818.200 to prohibit variance permits authorizing studded-tire use. Oregon law already imposed a general prohibition on studded tires but contained twelve exemptions, including exemptions for private roads, construction vehicles, school buses, emergency vehicles, and certain other uses. The Attorney General's certified caption stated that the initiative would prohibit studded-tire use at all times of year, and the petitioners argued that this description was inaccurate and misleading because ten exemptions would remain.

Procedural history

The Attorney General certified a ballot title for Initiative Petition 16, which proposed eliminating specified exemptions from Oregon's restrictions on studded tires and prohibiting variance permits for studded-tire use. Petitioners filed a petition for review in the Oregon Supreme Court. The court rejected most arguments without discussion but held that the caption and the yes-vote result statement were deficient and referred the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification.

Remand instructions

The certified ballot title was referred to the Attorney General for modification of the caption and the yes-vote result statement to accurately describe the initiative's limited repeal of two exemptions and the continuation of ten other exemptions.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…