Wilson/Fitz v. Rosenblum

Summary

The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed challenges to the Attorney General’s certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 21, which would increase the cigarette tax by $2 per pack, eliminate the cigar-tax cap, and direct cigarette-tax revenues to public health programs. The court held that the caption and “yes” vote result statement failed to state the magnitude of the cigarette-tax increase and referred the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification.

Holdings

1. The caption did not substantially comply with ORS 250.035(2)(a) because merely stating that the measure would increase the cigarette tax failed to convey the material magnitude of the increase, which was more than 150 percent.
2. The caption and yes-vote result statement should express the cigarette-tax increase in terms of the commonly understood amount per pack of 20 cigarettes, rather than only per cigarette.
3. The caption and yes-vote result statement were not required to disclose that portions of Initiative Petition 21 would apply retroactively.
4. The caption was not deficient for failing to state that the measure would increase cigar taxes or explain the use of cigar-tax revenue because eliminating the cigar-tax cap would not necessarily increase the tax on any particular cigar, and the measure did not specify how cigar-tax revenue would be used.
5. The summary was not required to state that higher cigarette prices might reduce demand and thereby reduce revenue for cities, counties, or other entities because those effects were speculative rather than actual effects established by the measure.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the ballot-title caption substantially complied with ORS 250.035(2)(a) despite failing to state the magnitude of the cigarette-tax increase.
2. Whether the caption and yes-vote result statement were required to express the cigarette-tax increase as an amount per pack and to identify the increase's magnitude.
3. Whether the caption and yes-vote result statement were required to disclose the measure's partial retroactivity.
4. Whether the caption was required to state that the measure would increase cigar taxes or explain the use of cigar-tax revenue.
5. Whether the ballot-title summary was required to disclose speculative economic effects, including possible reduced cigarette demand and reduced revenue for local governments.

Disposition

remanded