Kendoll v. Rosenblum
358 Or. 282
| Or. | 2015Background
- Petitioner Kendoll challenges IP 40 (2016) ballot title for procedural compliance under ORS 250.035(2).
- IP 40 would make English the official language and restrict non-English language requirements in state actions, with exceptions.
- IP 40 would create standing to sue for declaratory relief and potentially injunctive relief against alleged violations.
- Ballot title initially drafted by the Attorney General was certified and circulated; petitioner submitted comments and now seeks review under ORS 250.085(2).
- Court analyzes caption, yes result statement, and summary for substantial compliance with ORS 250.035(2) requirements.
- Court determines caption and yes statement understate/obscure major effects and thus must be modified; summary largely acceptable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the caption sufficiently describe IP 40's major effects? | Kendoll: caption underdescribes scope; should state English-only requirement and employment eligibility. | Rosenblum: caption notes changes to English/other-language use and lawsuits; sufficient within limits. | Caption must be modified to clearly describe expansion of English-use and English-only eligibility. |
| Is the yes result statement clear and accurate within 25 words? | Kendoll: yes statement fails to convey major effects; too unclear. | Rosenblum: caption/yes statement as drafted should be adequate. | Yes statement must be modified to describe expanded English-use requirements and English-only eligibility. |
| Should the summary be revised for accuracy of IP 40's effects? | Kendoll contends the summary misstates or omits key aspects. | Rosenblum: summary is concise and reflects major effects. | Summary largely complies; no substantive revision required beyond caption/yes statement changes. |
| How should the term 'subdivisions' be treated for caption purposes? | Kendoll argues undefined term creates confusion; caption must clarify scope. | Rosenblum provides no decisive resolution here; focus remains on major effects. | Not essential to resolve to modify caption; guidance provided about scope without altering core holding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lavey v. Kroger, 350 Or 559 (Or. 2011) (caption must state scope of change; multiple major effects require full disclosure)
- Greenberg v. Myers, 340 Or 65 (Or. 2006) (caption must inform readers of subject matter and scope)
- Rasmussen v. Kroger, 350 Or 281 (Or. 2011) (major changes to existing law require informing voters of scope)
- Rasmussen v. Kroger, 351 Or 358 (Or. 2011) (caption must reflect broad scope when measure changes law)
- Dixon/Frohnmayer v. Rosenblum, 355 Or 364 (Or. 2014) (sweeping caption fails to disclose principal substantive choices)
- Greene v. Kulongoski, 322 Or 169 (Or. 1995) (caption must permit voters to understand subject matter)
- Mabon v. Kulongoski, 324 Or 315 (Or. 1996) (caption should not use incomprehensible wording)
- Mabon v. Kulongoski, 325 Or 121 (Or. 1997) (caption must be comprehensible within statutory word limits)
- Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Roberts, 308 Or 169 (Or. 1989) (caption should reflect subject matter in proposing limits)
- Terhune v. Myers, 342 Or 475 (Or. 2007) (caption must reveal sweep of proposed measure)