Unger v. Rosenblum
361 Or. 814
| Or. | 2017Background
- Petitioner sought review of the Attorney General’s certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 2 (IP 2), which would amend ORS 250.105 to allow digital signatures for initiative and referendum petitions and require the Secretary of State to create and administer a website for such signatures.
- Under current law, petition signatures must be handwritten on Secretary of State–approved sheets; IP 2 would permit digital signatures and require a state-run website to collect them.
- The Attorney General certified a caption, a 25‑word “yes” result statement, and a 125‑word summary describing those changes; petitioner challenged the caption, the “yes” statement, and the summary as misleading or incomplete.
- Petitioner argued the caption and “yes” statement omitted the major effect that the Secretary must create (not merely accept or manage) a website and that the title failed to convey who is responsible for gathering signatures.
- The Attorney General acknowledged creation/administration of a website is a major effect but argued the certified language sufficiently conveyed that and that word limits constrained phrasing.
- The Supreme Court reviewed for substantial compliance with ORS 250.035 and referred the ballot title back to the Attorney General for modification.
Issues
| Issue | Unger’s Argument | Rosenblum’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the caption reasonably identifies the subject matter | Caption omits major effect—Secretary must create and administer a website | Caption’s phrase “enable and accept digital signatures” suffices within 15‑word limit | Caption omitted the major effect (creation of a website); referred for modification |
| Whether the caption implies Secretary, not petitioners, will gather signatures | Caption should say Secretary is responsible for gathering digital signatures | Measure only requires Secretary to create/administer website; petitioners still must solicit signatures | Court rejected Unger’s contention that Secretary is required to gather signatures; no change needed on that point |
| Whether the “yes” vote result statement adequately describes immediate effects | Statement fails to state Secretary must create website (says “manage”) | Statement sufficiently informs voters Secretary will manage site accepting digital signatures | Statement omitted that Secretary must create the website; referred for modification |
| Whether the title implies Secretary may accept signatures collected on third‑party sites (preservation issue) | Caption could be read to permit acceptance of third‑party collected digital signatures | Argument not raised earlier to SOS; measure text ambiguous on exclusivity of state site | Argument unpreserved and court declined to consider it; court noted ambiguity but did not resolve it |
Key Cases Cited
- Blosser/Romain v. Rosenblum, 358 Or. 295 (describing requirement to identify actual major effect(s) in caption)
- Lavey v. Kroger, 350 Or. 559 (standards for interpreting ballot title subject matter)
- Rasmussen v. Kroger, 350 Or. 281 (identify changes the measure would enact in context of existing law)
- Brady/Berman v. Kroger, 347 Or. 518 (Attorney General may not select only one of multiple significant subjects)
- McCann/Harmon v. Rosenblum, 354 Or. 701 (requirement that “yes” statement describe most significant and immediate effects)