Priestley v. PaulusPriestley v. Paulus
Oregon Taxpayers Union filed with the respondent, Secretary of State, a petition for a measure to be referred to the people of the state by the initiative.
Petitioner, alleging his dissatisfaction with that title, timely petitioned this court to review the title prepared by the Attorney General аnd prayed for a different title.
We are faced at the outset by a problem not usually encountered in this kind of proceeding. Petitioner has set forth in his petition what he asserts to be the title prepared by the Attorney General, but the respondent denies the accuracy of that assertion аnd, in an answering memorandum to the petition, sets forth what respondent contends is the title prepared by the Attorney General. Petitioner has filed nothing to contradict the accuracy of respondent’s contention. Oral argument was neither requested nor had; therefore, we have nothing of record as to petitioner’s position vis-á-vis that contention of respondent.
Petitioner alleges that the prepared title is as follows:
"CONSTITUTIONAL REAL PROPERTY TAX LIMIT PRESERVING 85% DISTRICTS’ 1977 REVENUE
"This measure proposes a new constitutional article providing a сonstitution [sic] limit on the property tax rate, an amount necessary to provide 85% (100% for emergency services) of each 19771978 [sic] districts’ revenues. Taxable values and district revenues may increase 2% only each year. Taxes for existing bonded indebtedness is [sic] not affected. Preserves present funding level for HARRP. Requires equivalent renter relief. Prohibits certain other taxes; tax increases will require 2/3 legislative or popular vote. Levies outside the 6% limitation require 2/3 popular vote. Voids measures receiving fewer votes also approved. Reduces nonessential services by 33 1/3% befоre the budget for 'essential’ services can be reduced.”
On the other hand, the respondent contends the prepared title is:
"CONSTITUTIONAL REAL PROPERTY TAX LIMIT PRESERVING 85% DISTRICTS’ 1977 REVENUE
'Constitutional amendment limits annual real property tax to 1% 1977 true cash value, plus amount necessary to provide 85% (100% for emergency services) 1977-78 districts’ revenues. Taxable values, district revenues may increase 2% annually. Tax for existing bonded indebtedness not affected. Preserves HARRP. Requires equivalent renter relief. State аd valorem, all sales, transaction taxes on real property prohibited; tax increases require 2/3 legislative or popular vote. Leviеs outside 6% limitation require 2/3 popular vote.”
The parties agree on little other than the wording of the caption.
See
footnote 1,
supra.
The differences in the two versions are not so inconsequential as to permit an inference of mere clerical error;
We cannot be sure that petitioner would have challenged the prepared title had he known of the true version, but it appears to us that he would at least have been dissatisfied with the caption and certain omissions of which he complains in the abbreviated statement. We shall, therefore, address those contentions.
Before moving to that task we note the ground rules. Our role is limited to determining whether the Attorney General’s title is a concise and impartial statement of the purpоse of the measure, and we are not concerned with whether the petitioner’s proposed title may be better or even whether we cоuld devise a better one ourselves.
Pacific Power & Light v. Paulus,
Petitioner proposes the following ballot title:
"CONSTITUTIONAL 1% PROPERTY TAX EMERGENCY SERVICES PRIVELEDGED [sic] TO SCHOOLS, SERVICES
"Constitutional amendment limits annual real property tax to 1% 1977 true cash value, plus amount to provide 85%(100% for emergency services) 1977-78 districts’ revenues with 2% annual increasе. Existing bonded indebtedness tax not affected. Preserves HARRP. Equivalent renter relief. State ad valorem, all sales, transaction taxes on real proрerty prohibited; tax increases require 2/3 legislative or popular vote. 2/3 popular vote required outside 6% limitation. Voids conflicting measures also approved. Prejudices 'nonessential’ services 33 l/3%.”
We find that the proposed caption is ambiguous and capable of an erronеous interpretation that either emergency services to schools alone are privileged or that schools actually constitute privileged emergency services. Moreover, the language is unfair in that it calls attention to schools, which constitute but one of several of the non-еmergency services to which the measure applies.
We further find that the proposed caption is inferior to that prepared by the Attornеy General in that the proposed caption does not disclose the preservation of the 85% revenue floor.
Petitioner’s abbreviated stаtement is in some respects quite ambiguous and accordingly misleading. At least one statement appears to have no meaning which we can find in the proposed initiative measure.
Petitioner complains of the omission of two subjects from the prepared title. He is correct that they are not mentioned, but the statutorily imposed 75-word limit requires the exercise of judgment in choosing which subjects must go unmentioned where the proposed measure covers too many subjects to permit mention of all. We cannot say that the prepared title, by reason of these omissions, is biased or рartial or that it is mis-, leading. If these two subjects were mentioned, we find that neither we nor the
In accordance with
"CONSTITUTIONAL REAL PROPERTY TAX LIMIT PRESERVING 85% DISTRICTS’ 1977 REVENUE
"Constitutional amendment limits annual real property tax to 1% 1977 true cash value, plus amount necessary to provide 85% (100% for emergency services) 1977-78 districts’ revenues. Taxable values,
district revenues may increase 2% annually. Tax for existing bonded indebtedness not affeсted. Preserves HARRP. Requires equivalent renter relief. State ad valorem, all sales, transaction taxes on real property prohibited; tax incrеases require 2/3 legislative or popular vote. Levies outside 6% limitation require 2/3 popular vote.”
Notes
Judicial notice may be taken of the official acts of the executive department of this state.