Blosser/Romain v. Rosenblum (IP 45)
358 Or. 295
| Or. | 2015Background
- IP 45 would amend provisions of SB 324 (2009) governing the Environmental Quality Commission's low carbon fuel standards and related cost-containment measures.
- Petitioners Blosser and Romain challenged the certified ballot title's caption, the yes/no statements, and the summary under ORS 250.035(2).
- AG drafted the ballot title; after public comment the title was modified and certified to the Secretary of State.
- The court reviews ballot-title compliance for substantial compliance with statutory requirements, per ORS 250.085(5) and related provisions.
- The court concluded IP 45 modifies the scope of low carbon fuel standards to blended liquid fuels, and would eliminate the fuel credits program and impose commercial-availability constraints.
- The court referred the caption and the yes statement to the AG for modification; the no statement and summary were discussed but the primary rulings focused on caption/yes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Caption compliance | Romain argues caption misleadingly groups changes as 'other limits'. | AG says caption identifies major legal change in scope. | Caption must note elimination of fuel credits; caption revised. |
| Elimination of fuel credits | Caption should separately mention fuel credits elimination. | Caption need not detail every major effect within 15 words. | Caption must reference elimination of fuel credits. |
| Yes statement accuracy | Term 'commercially available' is misleading without cost qualifiers. | Context supports broad understanding of the restriction within IP 45. | Yes statement must reflect availability with cost/quantitative limitations. |
| No statement accuracy | Statement misstates cost-containment implications under IP 45. | No statement correctly describes current-law cost considerations with IP 45’s changes. | No statement found substantially compliant; addressed as appropriate. |
| Summary compliance | Summary should more precisely describe major effects. | Summary substantially complies with statutory requirements. | Summary substantially complies; focus remained on caption/yes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lavey v. Kroger, 350 Or 559 (2011) (caption must reasonably identify subject matter within 15 words)
- Tauman v. Myers, 343 Or 299 (2007) (false impression from term definitions in ballot title)
- Rogers v. Roberts, 300 Or 687 (1986) (ballot title should not speculate about outcomes)
- Sager v. Myers, 328 Or 528 (1999) (same principle as Tauman; term usage in ballot title)
- Lavey v. Kroger, 350 Or 559 (2011) (referenced for caption length and subject-matter identification)