Lutz v. Rosenblum

Under ORS 250.035(2), the caption, result statements, and summary of ballot measures must succinctly and clearly identify the subject matter, purpose, and major effect of the proposed measure.

In accordance with ORS 250.085(5), Petitioners challenged the Attorney General’s certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 33 (2018) (IP 33).  Petitioner assigned error to the Attorney General’s phrasing in the caption, result statements, and summary of IP 33.  On appeal, Petitioner argued that (1) the caption failed to explain the “actual major effect” of IP 33; (2) the “No” Result Statement was inaccurate and misleading; and (3) the summary did not adequately describe current law on union disclosure requirements.  In response, Resondent argued that (1) the caption properly explained the major effect of IP 33; (2) that the “No” Result Statement was appropriate given the context and complexity of the requirements; and (3) the summary adequately disclosed the relevant information about IP 33.  Under ORS 250.035(2), the caption, result statements, and summary of ballot measures must succinctly and clearly identify the subject matter, purpose, and major effect of the proposed measure.  The Court of Appeals held that (1) the caption needed to include the role of the Secretary of State; (2) the “No” Result Statement correctly described the required disclosures; and (3) the summary needed to include “both the role of the Secretary of State and that the measure requires disclosure of union employee salaries.”  Ballot title referred to Attorney General for modification.