McCann / Harmon v. Rosenblum
320 P.3d 548
Or.2014Background
- Oregon Supreme Court reviews certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 30 (2014) challenging minimum tax changes for corporations.
- IP 30 would eliminate the current cap on minimum tax and impose a new formula starting at $50 million in Oregon sales.
- IP 30 would halve the minimum tax for corporations with $500,000–$9,999,999 in Oregon sales and tax profits would be eliminated for those under $10,000,000.
- The Attorney General certified caption, yes/no statements, and summary; petitioners McCann and Harmon challenge these elements.
- Court analyzes caption, yes/no, and summary under ORS 250.035(2) for substantial compliance, then refers to AG for modification.
- Court ultimately concludes caption, yes/no, and summary must be revised to reflect major effects, with ballot title referred back.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Caption accuracy and identification of subject matter | McCann: caption omits significant effects; underinclusive and vague using 'modifies'. | Rosenblum: caption should identify main subject, not every detail; 'modifies' appropriately signals main change. | Caption must be modified to convey major effects. |
| Yes vote result statement adequacy | McCann: should include profits-tax exemption for <$10M sales; lacks full effects. | AG: yes statement communicates changes in minimum tax; subsidiary profits tax exempt not essential. | Yes statement must disclose profits-tax exemption for < $10M sales. |
| No vote result statement adequacy | McCann: current law retained without noting profits tax; omits result of no vote. | AG: no statement accurately reflects current law regarding minimum tax. | No statement must disclose continued profits tax for corporations with < $10M sales. |
| Summary accuracy and clarity | McCann: summary omits significant effects and uses potentially misleading 'tax' phrasing. | AG: summary adequately conveys major effects and uses contextual 'tax' appropriately. | Summary must be clarified; 'modifies' wording inadequate for high-sales bracket and profits tax context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lavey v. Kroger, 350 Or 559 (2011) (identification of 'actual major effect' in ballot measures)
- Rasmussen v. Kroger, 350 Or 281 (2011) (contextual approach to subject matter and major effects)
- Brady/Berman v. Kroger, 347 Or 518 (2009) (caption must not understate scope by selecting only one subject)
- Greenberg v. Myers, 340 Or 65 (2006) (clarity required when 'income' is used in ballot title)
- Novick/Crew v. Myers, 337 Or 568 (2004) (yes statement should reflect most significant and immediate effects)
- Whitsett v. Kroger, 348 Or 243 (2010) (summary must inform voters to understand effects)
- Kain v. Myers, 336 Or 116 (2003) (describes balancing detail vs. breadth in caption language)