Wilhelms v. Rosenblum

ORS 250.035(2)(a) requires ballot-title captions to “reasonably identify[y] the subject matter of the state measure. ORS 250.035(2)(b) requires that yes statements be “simple and understandable statement[s] . . . that describe[] the result if the state measure is approved.” ORS 250.035(2)(d) requires that the summaries “summarize[e] the state measure and its major effect.”

Petitioners challenged the ballot-title for Initiative Petition 9, a campaign-finance and election law reform ballot measure. Petitioners assigned error to the ballot title’s caption, yes statement, and summary. On appeal, Petitioners argued that the caption, yes statement, and summary violated ORS 250.035 because they did not accurately identify the “actual major effect” of the ballot measure. In response, the Attorney General argued that the ballot title did comply with ORS 250.035. ORS 250.035(2)(a) requires ballot-title captions to “reasonably identify[y] the subject matter of the state measure. ORS 250.035(2)(b) requires that yes statements be “simple and understandable statement[s] . . . that describe[] the result if the state measure is approved.” ORS 250.035(2)(d) requires that the summaries “summarize[e] the state measure and its major effect.” The Court reviewed the the ballot title under a "substantial compliance" standard. The Court held that the caption and yes statement were insufficient, reasoning that because each petitioners had their own issue for why the ballot does not substantially comply, the "yes" result statement, and summary should be modified. Referred for modification.