Swanson v. Rosenblum, S065181

Petitioner Matt Swanson sought judicial review of the Attorney General’s certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 19 (IP 19), which would limit state legislators to eight years’ service in any 12‑year period.
IP 19 expressly states that current and prior legislative service are included in calculating years of service (i.e., the measure is retroactive), subject to limited exceptions.
The Attorney General certified the caption: “Limits service by state legislators: No more than eight years in any twelve‑year period.”
Swanson argued the caption fails ORS 250.035(2)(a) because it omits the measure’s retroactive application, a major effect that could change the legislature’s composition sooner than voters might expect.
The Attorney General acknowledged the caption could be more explicit but maintained the absence of a temporal qualifier reasonably notifies voters, with details appearing elsewhere in the ballot materials.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether the caption reasonably identifies the measure’s subject matter (its actual major effect[s]) and referred the ballot title back to the Attorney General for modification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the caption reasonably identifies the measure’s subject matter under ORS 250.035(2)(a)	Swanson: Caption omits a major effect — retroactive application (current/prior service counted) — so voters may be misled about when the measure will affect legislators.	Rosenblum: Lack of temporal words is sufficient; voters get details in the summary and "Yes" statement; caption need not include every detail.	Caption failed to substantially comply because it did not inform voters of the measure’s retroactive effect; referred for modification.

Whitsett v. Kroger, 348 Or 243 (2010) (defines “subject matter” as the actual major effect(s) of a measure)
Kain/Waller v. Myers, 337 Or 36 (2004) (procedure for assessing whether a caption reasonably identifies a measure’s subject matter)
Conroy v. Rosenblum, 358 Or 807 (2016) (caption may omit complex details only if it still accurately identifies major effects and won’t mislead voters)
Kain v. Myers, 333 Or 446 (2002) (concluded modification required when caption failed to state a measure’s retroactive application)
Greene v. Kulongoski, 322 Or 169 (1995) (caption must describe subject matter accurately and avoid confusing potential voters)