Schoenheit/Unger v. Rosenblum

345 P.3d 436, 356 Or. 783
Oregon Supreme Court·Decided March 5, 2015·No. S062785; S062787·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

*785 LANDAU, J.

Petitioners seek review of the Attorney General’s certified ballot title for Initiative Petition (IP) 8 (2016), arguing that the ballot title does not satisfy the requirements of ORS 250.035(2). This court reviews a certified ballot title to determine whether it substantially complies with the requirements set out in that statute. See ORS 250.085(5). For the following reasons, we refer the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification.

IP 8, a copy of which is attached as an Appendix to this opinion, would alter the authority of metropolitan service districts in Oregon. In brief, it would eliminate the authority of a metropolitan service district to engage in various planning functions related to land use, urban growth, air and water quality, and transportation. It begins by declaring that a metropolitan service district may not: adopt land use planning goals and objectives; enact land use regulations; adopt a regional framework plan; designate urban or rural reserves or enter into an intergovernmental agreement with a county for the purposes of making such a designation; exercise certain “coordinative functions”; or serve as a “metropolitan planning organization,” an entity required by federal law for the purposes of long-range transportation planning and air quality control. See 23 USC § 134(d), (i) (2012). There follow a number of sections that would have the effect of amending or repealing various provisions of ORS chapters 195, 197, and 268 that currently authorize metropolitan service districts to engage in those actions. It also would provide that metropolitan service districts are permitted to “encourage, but not require!,]” cities to coordinate air quality, water quality, and transportation planning.

The Attorney General certified the following ballot title for IP 8:

“Eliminates authority of metropolitan service district to adopt, enforce land use, air/water quality plans
“Result of ‘Yes’ Vote: ‘Yes’ vote eliminates metropolitan service district’s authority to adopt regional plan for managing urban growth; coordinate land use; establish urban growth boundary, urban/rural reserves.
*786 “Result of ‘No’ Vote: ‘No’ vote retains metropolitan service district’s authority to adopt regional plan for managing urban growth; coordinate land use; establish urban growth boundary, urban/rural reserves.
“Summary: A metropolitan service district (‘district’) makes public services available in metropolitan area and adopts plans to control land use activities having metropolitan significance, including air and water quality, transportation impacts. Currently, only established district is Portland metropolitan area. A district adopts urban growth boundary; creates urban/rural reserves; creates regional plan; may review, change comprehensive plans of cities, counties in district; coordinates land use planning activities within district. District’s land use rules are binding on cities, counties within district. Electors of district may change, repeal district’s charter. Measure eliminates district’s authority to designate urban, rural reserves; adopt, enforce regional land use rules, air and water quality rules; coordinate land use planning within district; receive/ distribute federal transportation funds; shifts costs to cities/counties.”

Chief petitioner Schoenheit contends that the certified ballot title is deficient in a number of different respects pertaining to the caption, the results statements, and the summary. We reject those contentions without discussion.

Petitioner Unger challenges the ballot title in one respect that warrants at least brief discussion. Petitioner Unger contends that the “yes” and “no” vote results statements are deficient in that they omit any reference to air and water quality planning and thus are underinclusive. The state responds that, although IP 8’s elimination of that planning function certainly is a major effect of the measure, the results statements are not deficient, because the reference to authority to adopt “a regional plan managing urban growth” is adequate. We are not persuaded by the state’s response.

ORS 250.035(2)(b) provides that a result statement must be a “simple and understandable statement of not more than 25 words that describes the result” if the measure is approved or disapproved. The purpose of the “yes” result statement is to “notify petition signers and voters *787 of the result or results of enactment that would have the greatest importance to the people of Oregon.” Novick/Crew v. Myers, 337 Or 568, 574, 100 P3d 1064 (2004). The purpose of the “no” vote result statement is to accurately describe the “state of affairs” that will exist if the measure is rejected. Nesbitt v. Myers, 335 Or 424, 433, 71 P3d 530 (2003).

In this case, one of the major effects of the measure would be to eliminate a metropolitan service district’s authority to coordinate air and water quality planning. The Attorney General does not dispute that that is a major effect of the measure and in fact includes that effect in the ballot title caption. The reference in the results statements to a “regional plan for managing urban growth” is too broad to apprise potential petition signers and voters of that effect; it necessitates assuming that they will readily understand all that is entailed in a regional plan under current state law. Moreover, it fails to cover the role of a metropolitan service district as the federally mandated metropolitan planning organization charged with carrying out federal air and water quality planning responsibilities. We therefore refer the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification.

Petitioner Unger also contends that the ballot title caption is deficient because it fails to state that the measure would eliminate a metropolitan service district’s authority to “coordinate” various planning functions. The Attorney General agrees that referring to coordination of planning functions might improve the caption. Given that we refer the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification, the Attorney General is free to take petitioner Unger’s proposal into account in modifying the ballot title.

Ballot title referred to the Attorney General for modification.

*788 APPENDIX

Initiative Petition 8 (2016)

An Act to return land use authority to the counties and cities in Oregon

Be it enacted, the People of the State of Oregon propose amending State Statutes as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 2 of this 2014 Act is added to and made a part of ORS 268.300 to 268.393.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Schoenheit/Unger v. Rosenblum, 345 P.3d 436, 356 Or. 783 (Or. 2015).

345 P.3d 436 (Schoenheit/Unger v. Rosenblum) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Schoenheit/Unger v. Rosenblum
Oregon Supreme Court, 2015