Milne v. Rosenblum

A measure's subject is reasonably identified if it states or describes the subject accurately and in terms that will not confuse or mislead potential petition signers and voters.

Patricia Milne, Cliff Sain-Thomason, and Wayne Simmons sought a review of the Attorney General’s certified ballot title for the Oregon Lottery Local Control Act, Initiative Petition 31. The proposed constitutional amendment would dedicate 50 percent of the state lottery’s net proceeds to a county revenue distribution fund—a change from the 100 percent distribution under the current constitution. The constitution currently provides that funds are to be used to create jobs; further economic development; finance public education; and restore and protect parks, beaches, watersheds and native fish and wildlife. The amendment would expand the purposes to be used for public safety. Milne, Sain-Thomason, and Simmons contended that the measure was misleading and suggested that the counties are not restricted on the use of the proceeds. A caption reasonably identifies a measure’s subject if it states and describes the subject accurately and in terms that will not confuse or mislead potential voters. The Court held that the certified “yes” result statement and the caption do not reasonably identify the subject matter of the measure. The caption and “yes” result statement are therefore referred to the Attorney General for modification.