Rasmussen v. Kroger
253 P.3d 1031
Or.2011Background
- Petitioners seek review of the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 10 (2012) alleging noncompliance with ORS 250.035(2).
- Initiative Petition 10 would amend Article IV, §6 to replace legislative redistricting by the Legislative Assembly or Secretary of State with redistricting by a commission of retired circuit judges appointed by the Chief Justice.
- The measure would have the commission create a redistricting plan every 10 years after the census, with the Supreme Court available to finalize a plan if the commission fails.
- It would constrain redistricting criteria to a single factor—geographic maximal compactness—and require a Fresh Start Apportionment in 2013 based on the 2010 census.
- The Attorney General certified a ballot title with a caption, yes/no statements, and a summary; petitioners challenge the caption and the yes vote statement as misleading, and challenge the summary as insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Caption fails to identify major effects of the measure | Rasmussen argues caption understates changes | Kroger argues caption identifies subject matter within 15 words | Caption inadequate; referred for modification |
| Yes vote result statement fails to convey major effect | Yes statement omits Fresh Start Apportionment impact | Yes statement only notes 2013 start, not full effect | Yes statement inadequate; referred for modification |
| Summary of the measure is insufficiently descriptive | Summary omits critical changes to reapportionment process | Summary captures core changes | Court did not address in detail but rejected other challenges; no explicit ruling beyond referral for caption/yes statement modifications |
Key Cases Cited
- Kain/Waller v. Myers, 337 Or. 36 (2004) (caption must accurately describe subject matter to avoid confusion)
- Greene v. Kulongoski, 322 Or. 169 (1995) (subject matter identification must be accurate and non-misleading)
- Whitsett v. Kroger, 348 Or. 243 (2010) (actual major effects determine subject matter for caption)
- Novick/Crew v. Myers, 337 Or. 568 (2004) (yes vote must convey the most significant immediate effect)