Kendoll v. Rosenblum

A ballot title must conform to the requirements of ORS 250.035(2)(a)-(d); if it fails to conform, it may be referred for modification.

Petitioner sought review of the Attorney General’s certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 52 (2016) (IP 52). If enacted, IP 52 would supplement federal immigration law by requiring employers to utilize E-Verify to determine employees’ work eligibility, something federal law merely encourages. Petitioner challenged the caption, “yes” and “no” result statements, and the summary. Petitioner argued the caption failed to meet the standards articulated in ORS 250.035(2)(a) because, among other things, it failed to make clear the major effect of the measure, which is that employers would be required to use E-Verify. Petitioner challenged the “yes” result statement (ORS 250.035(2)(b)) because it did not identify the significant and immediate effect of the measure, the mandated E-Verify use, and the “no” result statement (ORS 250.035(2)(c)) because it improperly implied the source of the current law is state, rather than federal, law. Finally, Petitioner challenged the summary (ORS 250.035(2)(d)) because it did not use the term “E-Verify” and did not highlight certain exemptions. The Court found Petitioner’s arguments regarding the caption and “yes” and “no” result statements persuasive, and referred the ballot title for modification. Ballot title referred to Attorney General for modification.