Justia Oregon Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioners sought review of the ballot title for Initiative Petition 44 (2014) that if adopted, would have enacted statutory provisions to impose certain requirements on food manufacturers and retailers concerning the labeling of genetically engineered foods. The Supreme Court considered the various challenges to the certified ballot title that each petitioner advanced and concluded that only one had merit. The ballot title error that the Court identified in this proceeding was an acknowledged scrivener's error, the correction of which was straightforward and ministerial. The Supreme Court corrected the error and certified the corrected ballot title to the Secretary of State. View "Bates v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

In a consolidated ballot title case, three sets of petitioners asked the Supreme Court to review the ballot title for Initiative Petition 47 (2014). Initiative Petition 47 (IP 47), if enacted, would have changed the way that liquor was sold in Oregon. IP 47 would eliminate the current system of state-licensed liquor stores and allow "holders of distilled liquor self-distribution permits" (wholesalers) to distribute liquor to "qualified retailers," who would, in turn, sell the liquor to the public. In this case, if the Attorney General had used the word "fee" to describe the "revenue replacement fee," her use of that word would have raised substantial questions. In addition, petitioners challenged the AG's use of language in the "yes" vote result statement. Finding "difficulties" that the Attorney General faced in trying to describe accurately and succinctly the extensive changes that IP 47 would effect, the Court could not say that the remainder of the ballot title did not substantially comply with her statutory obligations. View "McCann v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

Petitioners McCann and Harmon sought review of the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 33 (2014). Initiative Petition 33 (IP 33) would make substantive changes to Oregon tax law. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the ballot title for IP 33 gave voters less information than they need to understand adequately the change that the measure would make. The ballot title referred to Attorney General for modification. View "McCann v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought review of the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 31 (2014). IP 31 ("Oregon Lottery Local Control Act") was a proposed constitutional amendment that would dedicate 50 percent of state lottery net proceeds to a "county revenue distribution fund." IP 31 would amend the Oregon Constitution to provide that "50% of the net proceeds from the State Lottery shall be deposited in a county revenue distribution fund to be created by the Legislative Assembly." Upon review, the Supreme Court found that IP 31's the caption did not reasonably identify the subject matter of the measure as required by Oregon law. Therefore the Court referred the caption to the Attorney General for modification. View "Milne v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

Initiative Petition 30, if adopted, would have changed the minimum tax corporations paid: it would have eliminated the current cap on minimum taxes, and changed the cap on certain others. Petitioners sought review of the certified ballot title for IP 30 (2014). After the Supreme Court conducted its review, the Court referred the caption, “yes” and “no” result statements and the initiative summary back to the Attorney General for further modification. View "McCann / Harmon v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought review of the ballot title for Initiative Petition 12 (2014). Because the Supreme Court concluded that the ballot title did not 4 substantially comply with ORS 250.035(2), it referred it to the Attorney General for modification. View "Rasmussen v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

Two petitioners sought review of the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 11 (2014). Among them, petitioners advanced a host of arguments asserting various inadequacies of the ballot title. After careful review, the Supreme Court found the ballot title did not substantially comply with ORS 250.035(2). Therefore, the Court referred the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification. View "Buehler v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

The petitioners in this case sought review of the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 9 (2014). They argued the ballot title did not satisfy the requirements of ORS 250.035(2). Initiative Petition 9, if adopted by the voters, would amend provisions of the Oregon Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act. Upon review of the ballot title, the Supreme Court concluded that the proposed ballot title did not contain a concise and impartial summary of not more than 125 words that summarized the proposed measure and its effects. Furthermore, the Court found that the proposed summary of the initiative did not disclose that employees who were not members of the union but who were members of the bargaining unit would receive representation without cost. Accordingly the title was referred back to the Attorney General's office for modification. View "Towers v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

In 2006, two ballot measures were placed before Oregon voters at the polls. Measure 46 (2006) sought to amend the Oregon Constitution to permit the enactment of laws prohibiting or limiting electoral campaign "contributions and expenditures, of any type or description." Measure 47 (2006) sought to create new campaign finance statutes that would, essentially, statutorily implement the constitutional changes proposed in Measure 46. Voters rejected Measure 46 but approved Measure 47. The issue before the Supreme Court in this case required the examination of the operative text of Measure 47. The trial court concluded that the text at issue was severable from the ballot measure and ruled that the remaining provisions of the measure were, according to the plain text of the measure itself, dormant. The Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. Upon review, the Supreme Court also affirmed the trial court's judgment and the decision by the Court of Appeals. View "Hazell v. Brown" on Justia Law

Two petitioners sought review of the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition (IP) 28 (2012). Before 2009, Oregon imposed a 6.6 percent tax rate on a corporation's "taxable income." In 2009, the voters approved Ballot Measure 67, which modified the marginal tax rate that corporations pay on their taxable income. Petitioner Patrick Green raised a single challenge to the caption, the "yes" vote result statement, the "no" vote result statement, and the summary. He contended that each part of the ballot title was defective because it referred to a tax on "corporate income" rather than a tax on corporate "profits" or "taxable income." He reasoned that the use of the phrase "corporate income" was misleading because it failed to communicate that the tax would fall only on corporate profits. Petitioner Dan Harmon raised a similar challenge, noting that what the IP would have modified was a corporate excise tax and that the ballot title should have either referred to an excise tax or used the phrase "taxable income." In his view, either phrase would have been more accurate and less misleading than the use of the unmodified term "income." In each instance, the certified ballot title used the term "income," even though that term can refer to more than one type of income and even though those differing types of income may have significantly different tax consequences. The Supreme Court concluded the Attorney General advanced no legitimate reason for not using a more accurate term, which would reduce the potential for misleading the voters that the certified ballot title currently presents. The Court agreed with Petitioners that referring to a tax on corporate "income" was, without more, misleading. Accordingly, the Court referred the caption, the "yes" result statement, the "no" result statement, and the summary to the Attorney General for modification. View "Green/Harmon v. Kroger" on Justia Law