Markley/Lutz v. Rosenblum

The “subject matter” of a ballot title is “the ‘actual major effect’ of a measure or, if the measure has more than one major effect, all such effects (to the limit of the available words).” Lavey v. Kroger, 350 Or 559, 563, 258 P3d 1194 (2011); ORS 250.035(2).

The Attorney General’s certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28) was challenged by two sets of petitioners. Petitioners challenged the caption, the results of statements “yes” and “no,” and the summary. Petitioners specifically argued that the “caption” referenced a measure that was not a subject matter of the IP 28 and that the word“regulate” was unclear and created uncertainty. Petitioners further argued the “yes” statement was ambiguous and faulty, and the “no” statement was invalid because it did not state the substance of current law.The “subject matter” of a ballot title is “the ‘actual major effect’ of a measure or, if the measure has more than one major effect, all such effects (to the limit of the available words).” Lavey v. Kroger, 350 Or 559, 563, 258 P3d 1194 (2011); ORS 250.035(2). In response, the Attorney General argued that petitioners failed to raise an objection to the ballot title.The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the Attorney General’s ballot title did not substantially comply with requirements of a ballot title under ORS 250.035(2) and therefore is referred to the Attorney General for modification. The certified ballot title is referred to the Attorney General for modification.