Unger v. Rosenblum
S065159
| Or. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- Chief petitioners Geddry and Booker filed a prospective initiative (IP 55 (2016)) and submitted 1,000 sponsorship signatures; Secretary of State forwarded the text to the Attorney General for a draft ballot title.
- The Secretary of State concluded IP 55 (2016) violated Article XVII, §1 (separate-amendment rule) and refused to approve a certified ballot-title cover for circulation; petitioners sought judicial review in Marion County Circuit Court.
- The circuit court held IP 55 (2016) satisfied procedural constitutional requirements, but that judgment issued after the deadline to submit circulated-petition signatures for the 2016 election had passed.
- The trial court ordered the Secretary to assign a new initiative number for the 2018 cycle; the Secretary appealed and sought a stay from an appellate commissioner, who conditioned the stay on the Attorney General’s issuance of a certified ballot title for the renumbered measure (IP 29 (2018)).
- The Attorney General certified a ballot title for IP 29 (2018) based on comments submitted in 2016; no new prospective petition, no new 1,000 sponsorship signatures, and no new draft-title comment period occurred for 2018.
- Petitioners (who had commented in 2016) sought Supreme Court review of the certified ballot title; the Supreme Court questioned whether statutory prerequisites for ballot-title review had been met and requested briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Supreme Court has authority to review a ballot title when preliminary statutory steps for the current election cycle were not completed | Geddry/Booker: prior compliance in 2016 (prospective petition, sponsorships, draft title, comments) suffices; renumbering preserves rights | Secretary: no new petition or sponsorships for 2018; statutory prerequisites for review not satisfied; case should be dismissed or held in abeyance | Held: Court lacks authority; statutory prerequisites across the entire ORS ch. 250 process must be satisfied for review, and they were not for IP 29 (2018) |
| Whether ballot-title review prerequisites are confined to post-certification rules (ORS 250.085) or include earlier steps in the initiative cycle | Geddry/Booker: only the ORS 250.085 timing/filing rules matter for Supreme Court review | Secretary/Unger/Stagg: the whole interconnected statutory process matters, including earlier steps and election-cycle deadlines | Held: Whole statutory scheme governs; early-stage requirements and election-cycle deadlines are prerequisites to court authority |
| Whether a measure survives an expired election-cycle deadline so that earlier compliance triggers review after renumbering | Geddry/Booker: measure survived and renumbering continues prior compliance | Secretary: deadline passing voided the 2016 measure; proponents must start anew in next cycle | Held: Deadline passage effectively expired IP 55 (2016); proponents must restart for a new cycle |
| Whether the pending Court of Appeals appeal affects Supreme Court authority here | Geddry/Booker: case is ripe and should proceed to avoid delay that would hinder signature gathering | Secretary: outcome of Geddry v. Richardson may moot or affect this proceeding; authority lacking now | Held: Court declined to proceed on merits because it lacked statutory authority regardless of the pending appeal; dismissed petitions |
Key Cases Cited
- Sizemore v. Myers, 327 Or 71 (1998) (ballot-title review is statutory and court authority is limited to cases meeting statutory prerequisites)
- Mabon v. Myers, 329 Or 1 (1999) (dismissal where petitioner failed to meet statutory notice requirements)
- Girard/Edelman v. Myers, 334 Or 114 (2002) (court will not correct ballot-title errors not first raised in required administrative comments)
- WalMart Stores, Inc. v. City of Central Point, 341 Or 393 (2006) (ORS chapter 250 limits the court's authority to review ballot titles)
- Kerr v. Bradbury, 340 Or 241 (2006) (challenge to initiative certification becomes moot after the election cycle passes)
- Dale v. Bradbury, 330 Or 567 (2000) (dismissal where election-cycle deadline passed and case became moot)
- Armatta v. Kitzhaber, 327 Or 250 (1998) (Article XVII, §1 separate-amendments requirement explained)