Oregon Traffic Safety Now, Inc. v. Roberts
This text of 745 P.2d 1218 (Oregon Traffic Safety Now, Inc. v. Roberts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Petitioners challenge a ballot title prepared by the Attorney General for a referendum measure seeking voter approval of amendments to ORS 811.210.1 Pursuant to ORS [400]*400250.035 and 250.065, the Attorney General drafted the following ballot title:
[401]*401“REQUIRES THE USE OF SAFETY BELTS
“Question: Shall law, effective December 8,1988, require safety belt use by motor vehicle drivers and passengers over 16?
“Explanation: Referred to voters. Approval enacts law requiring that motor vehicle drivers wear safety belts and secure passengers under 16 with safety belts, harnesses, or small child safety systems. Passengers over 16 must secure themselves. Requires vehicle owner to keep seatbelts in working order. Driver, owner, passenger violations are Class D traffic infractions. Provides exemptions. Law takes effect December 8, 1988. Voter rejection means prior law, requiring safety restraints only for passengers under 16, is effective.”
Petitioners challenge the ballot title as “insufficient and unfair” and propose an alternative ballot title:
“REQUIRES THE USE OF SAFETY BELTS
“Question: Shall law requiring safety belt use by drivers and passengers over 16 be enacted?
“Explanation: Referred to voters. Approval enacts law requiring motor vehicle drivers wear safety belts and secure passengers under 16 with safety belts, harnesses or small child safety systems. Passengers over 16 must secure themselves. Requires vehicle owners to keep safety belts in working order. Driver, owner and passenger violations are Class D traffic infractions. Provides exemptions. Voter rejection means prior law requiring safety restraints only for passengers under 16 remains effective.”
Our function on review of a proposed ballot title is established by ORS 250.085(4), which provides:
“The court shall review the title for substantial compliance with the requirements of ORS 250.035 and 250.039, and shall certify a title meeting this standard to the Secretary of State.”
To paraphrase, a ballot title is sufficient (and, therefore, is to be affirmed) if it “substantially complies” with ORS 250.035 and 250.039. See, e.g., Kafoury v. Roberts, 303 Or 306, 313, 736 [402]*402P2d 178 (1987); PGE v. Roberts, 300 Or 334, 709 P2d 1086 (1985). This ballot title does substantially comply.
A certain amount of statutory history is required in order to fully understand the posture of this case. The 1987 legislature passed two complementary measures dealing with the controversial topic of mandatory safety belt usage. The first, HB 2399 (Or Laws 1987, ch 385), contained an automatic “sunset” provision under which it expired 30 days after the November 1988 general election. Or Laws 1987, ch 385, § 6. That election will occur on November 8,1988. Therefore, HB 2399 expires on December 8,1988.
The second measure, SB 87 (Or Laws 1977, ch 755), contained substantive provisions identical to HB 2399. In the case of SB 87, however, the legislature chose to refer it to the people for consideration at the November 1988 general election. Or Laws 1987, ch 755, § 6. Because measures adopted by initiative or referendum go into effect 30 days after the general election at which they are approved, the substantive provisions of SB 87 will go into effect, if at all, on December 8,1988, the day HB 2399 “sunsets.”
From the foregoing it will be seen that the legislative scheme envisioned an immediate, interim mandatory safety belt law that would continue beyond December 8,1988, only if the electorate approved. This scheme has been partially derailed, however, because HB 2399 has been referred to the people by the signature-gathering process. Or Const, Art IV, § 1(3)(6). Bills so referred are treated by the Secretary of State as being in suspension, ile., without legal effect until voted upon.2 Article IV, section l(4)(d) of the Oregon Constitution provides:
“Notwithstanding section 1, Article XVII of this Constitution, an initiative or referendum measure becomes effective 30 days after the day on which it is enacted or approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon. * * *”
Because HB 2399 would, therefore, expire by its own terms the same moment it became effective, the measure now has no practical significance.
[403]*403Because of the referral of HB 2399, only two contentions of petitioners merit discussion. The first challenges as “confusing” the use of the effective date, December 8,1988, in the question portion of the ballot title.
The only issue before us is the ballot title for SB 87. Nowhere does that title mention HB 2399 at all, much less its now delayed effective date. The date given in the ballot title for SB 87 is correct. Safety belt use will be mandatory in Oregon only if SB 87 is approved by the voters and, even then, only on and after December 8,1988. Far from being confusing, this seems to answer a question many voters will have: “If I vote yes, when do I have to start buckling up?”
The second complaint of petitioners is that the title at one point refers to “seat belts” when it should have said “safety belts.” This mistake hardly warrants our intervention under ORS 250.085(4). We would be tinkering, and our doing so would trivialize our role in the initiative and referendum process.
Ballot title certified.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
745 P.2d 1218, 304 Or. 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oregon-traffic-safety-now-inc-v-roberts-or-1987.