Cross v. Rosenblum

Summary

The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed challenges to the Attorney General’s certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 61, which would prohibit certain uses of public funds for abortions and health insurance coverage of abortions. The court held that the caption, yes-result statement, and summary required modification to address direct and indirect expenditures, reduced access to abortion, and the measure’s treatment of certain contraceptives. The ballot title was referred to the Attorney General for modification.

Holdings

1. The caption substantially complied with ORS 250.035(2)(a) by identifying the subject matter as prohibiting the expenditure of public funds for abortions; it was not required to state in the caption that enactment would reduce access to abortion.
2. The caption was inadequate because it did not indicate that Initiative Petition 61 prohibited both direct and indirect expenditures of public funds to pay for abortions.
3. The caption had to be modified because it placed both "public funds" and "abortion" in quotation marks but labeled only "abortion" as "(defined)," creating confusion.
4. The caption did not need to describe reduced access to abortion or explain that the definition of abortion included certain contraceptives, although those matters had to be addressed in the yes-result statement or summary as required by the statute.
5. The Attorney General had to revise the yes-result statement to reflect the caption modifications, explain that enactment would reduce access to abortion, and, if feasible within the 25-word limit, explain that the measure's definition of abortion included certain contraceptives.
6. The summary had to be modified to describe the limitation on access to abortion and to directly explain that the measure would bar some nonsurgical procedures, including certain forms of contraception that work after conception.
7. The court declined to require the ballot title to explain that Initiative Petition 61 would override an asserted Article I, section 20, constitutional protection concerning equal access to abortion based on ability to pay.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the certified ballot-title caption substantially complied with ORS 250.035 by adequately identifying the subject matter of Initiative Petition 61.
2. Whether the caption adequately conveyed that the measure prohibited both direct and indirect expenditures of public funds.
3. Whether the caption's treatment of the defined terms "public funds" and "abortion" created confusion.
4. Whether the caption, yes-result statement, or summary had to explain that the measure would reduce access to abortion and encompass certain contraceptives.
5. Whether the ballot title had to explain the proposed amendment's effect on asserted existing constitutional protections under Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution.

Disposition

other