Conroy v. Rosenblum

The Attorney General must revise and re-file Initiative Petition 62 because it was vague, overbroad, and confusing in its caption, and inconsistent between its caption and its result statements.

Initiative Petition 62 (IP 62) was before the Court for the second time after the Attorney General filed a modified ballot title. IP 62 would amend provisions of the Oregon Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act. Petitioners argued the modified caption was vague, overbroad, and likely to confuse voters because it did not inform voters that a union would no longer have authority to set its own membership requirements and defray costs through dues; instead, it generally referred to new “obligations” of public employee union members. Petitioners also objected to the phrase “employees might benefit without sharing bargaining costs” as asserting a possibility rather than conveying the certainty that union members will not have to pay for union activities they might find objectionable. Petitioners had similar objections to the result statements as vague and misleading, and the summary as inconsistent with the caption. The modified ballot title was referred to the Attorney General for additional modification.