State v. Mercer, 344 P.3d 109

Measure 73 (2010) increased penalties for repeat offenders: mandatory 25‑year minimum for certain second major‑felony sex crimes and made a third DUII a Class C felony with a 90‑day mandatory minimum and state reimbursement to counties.
Defendant was convicted of a third DUII after Measure 73; trial court applied Measure 73 (codified at ORS 813.011) and treated the offense as a felony.
Defendant challenged Measure 73 as violating the Oregon Constitution’s initiative single‑subject requirement (Art IV, §1(2)(d)), seeking reversal of the felony conviction and resentencing as a misdemeanor.
The trial court rejected the single‑subject challenge; the defendant appealed.
The appellate court reviewed the single‑subject question de novo and framed the inquiry under the established two‑part test: (1) whether a unifying principle connects all provisions; and (2) whether other matters are properly connected to that principle.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Measure 73 violates the initiative single‑subject rule	State: Measure 73 addresses a single subject and is valid	Defendant: Measure 73 embraces two distinct subjects (third‑time felony DUII and 25‑year sex‑offense minimums); any unifying subject would be too broad	Measure 73 is valid: a unifying principle—"enhanced punishments for offenders repeatedly convicted of specified crimes"—connects the provisions and no unrelated matters are included

State ex rel Caleb v. Beesley, 326 Or 83 (establishes two‑part single‑subject framework for initiatives)
State v. Fugate, 332 Or 195 (upheld statute covering varied criminal‑justice provisions as one subject: prosecution and conviction)
Mclntire v. Forbes, 322 Or 426 (invalidated a statute that grouped multiple unrelated topics; extreme example of single‑subject violation)
OEA v. Phillips, 302 Or 87 (treats single‑subject clauses for legislation and initiatives as having the same meaning)