Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Markley v. Rosenblum

Supreme Court of Oregon, En Banc

May 3, 2018

Kyle MARKLEY and Lars Hedbor, Petitioners,
v.
Ellen F. ROSENBLUM, Attorney General, State of Oregon, Respondent. Trent LUTZ, Petitioner,
v.
Ellen F. ROSENBLUM, Attorney General, State of Oregon, Respondent.

         On objections to modifed ballot title fled March 22, 2018; considered and under advisement April 10, 2018.

          Gregory A. Chaimov, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Portland, fled the objection for petitioners Markley and Hedbor.

          Steven C. Berman, Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter, PC, Portland, fled the objection for petitioner Lutz.

          Daniel W. Meek, Portland, fled the brief on behalf of amici curiae B. Elizabeth Trojan and Ronald A. Buel.

          No appearance by respondent.

         Case Summary: After the Supreme Court referred the certified ballot title for an initiative petition to the Attorney General for modification in Markley/ [362 Or. 856] Lutz v. Rosenblum, 362 Or. 531, 413 P.3d 966 (2018), the Attorney General fled a modified ballot title. The same petitioners who objected to the originally certified ballot title objected to the modified ballot title under ORS 250.085(9). Held: The caption and "yes" vote result statement do not comport with the Supreme Court's directive in its previous opinion that, in using the word "regulate, " the ballot title must "signal that 'regulate' is undefined and could encompass some or all of a range of regulatory measures." Because the caption and "yes" result statement do not substantially comply with the requirements in ORS 250.035, the modified ballot title is referred to the Attorney General for modification.

         [362 Or. 857] PER CURIAM.

         In MarkleylLutz v. Rosenblum, 362 Or. 531, 413 P.3d 966 (2018), we referred the ballot title for Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28) to the Attorney General for modification. The Attorney General has filed a modified ballot title, and the two sets of petitioners who challenged the original ballot title have challenged the modified title. We write to address one of their challenges.

         IP 28, if enacted, would modify Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution to permit either a legislative body or the people exercising their initiative power to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures. See id. at 533-34 (describing the proposed measure). In describing the subject matter of the proposed measure, the caption of the original ballot title explained that the measure would permit the "regulation]" of campaign contributions and expenditures, which this court has held constitute expressive activity. See id. (setting out original ballot title and describing previous decisions).

         Among other things, petitioners challenged the ballot title's unqualified use of the word "regulate." They noted, and we agreed, that "the word 'regulate, ' when used in the context of regulating expressive activity, can encompass a range of different types of regulations." Id. at 537. Regulation of contributions and expenditures could authorize only the disclosure and reporting of those activities, or it could go further and authorize substantive limitations on the permissible amount of contributions and expenditures. Id. We concluded that, "[b]ecause the measure does not identify the extent to which IP 28 would permit the regulation of campaign contributions and expenditures, we think that the caption should signal that 'regulate' is undefined and could encompass some or all of a range of regulatory measures." Id. at 537-38. We held that other parts of the ballot title that also used "regulate" without any qualification suffered from the same problem. See id. at 539, 541 (noting issue in the "yes" result statement and summary). For that and other reasons, we referred the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification.

         [362 Or. 858] The Attorney General filed the following modified ballot title:

"Amends Constitution: Allows laws that 'regulate contributions and expenditures' made to 'influence the outcome of any election' "Result of 'Yes' Vote: 'Yes' vote allows laws passed 'by initiative or by an elected legislative body by a three-fourths vote' that 'regulate contributions and expenditures' to influence elections.
"Result of 'No' Vote: 'No' vote retains Oregon Constitution's existing free-expression provision; laws limiting contributions to candidates or political committees by a person, corporation or union violate constitution.
"Summary: Amends Constitution. The Oregon Supreme Court has interpreted the Oregon Constitution's free-expression provision (Article I, section 8) to prohibit limits on many political campaign contributions and expenditures. The proposed measure amends Article I, section 8 to allow laws that 'regulate contributions and expenditures' made to 'influence the outcome of any election' (quoted terms undefined). Such laws would need to be consistent with the federal constitution's free-speech provision and 'adopted or amended by initiative or by an elected legislative body by a three-fourths vote.' If amendment passes, Measure 47 (2006), which limited campaign contributions/ ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.