Kendoll v. Rosenblum

Summary

The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the Attorney General’s certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 40 (2016), concerning expanded governmental English-language requirements, protections for English-only speakers, and enforcement lawsuits. The court held that the caption and yes-result statement required modification to more clearly describe the measure’s major effects, while the summary substantially complied with statutory requirements.

Holdings

1. The caption did not substantially comply with ORS 250.035(2)(a) because the phrase that the measure would change laws regarding English and other-language use did not adequately inform voters that the measure would expand governmental requirements for exclusive use of English and correspondingly limit governmental ability to require other languages.
2. The caption was deficient because it failed to identify Initiative Petition 40's significant new affirmative guarantee that English-only speakers would be eligible to participate in governmental programs, benefits, and opportunities, including employment, subject to exceptions.
3. The caption did not substantially comply because its wording, including multiple slash marks and the phrase regarding English/other-language use, was unnecessarily difficult for the average voter to understand.
4. The yes result statement did not substantially comply with ORS 250.035(2)(b) because it failed to clearly and accurately describe the expansion of governmental exclusive-English-use requirements and the guarantee of eligibility and opportunities for English-only speakers.
5. The summary substantially complied with ORS 250.035(2)(d); it was not required to separately state that Initiative Petition 40 declared English to be Oregon's official language because it accurately summarized the measure's key components and major effects.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the certified caption reasonably identified the subject matter and actual major effects of Initiative Petition 40 within the 15-word statutory limit.
2. Whether the caption was sufficiently understandable to the average voter.
3. Whether the yes result statement simply and understandably described the result of approving Initiative Petition 40 within the 25-word statutory limit.
4. Whether the summary substantially complied with the requirement to provide a concise and impartial statement of the measure and its major effects.

Disposition

other