- PDF Free Download

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download ""

Reynold Golden
6 years ago
Views:

9 COMMENTS ON DRAFT BALLOT TITLE FOR PETITION 12 (2018) April 28, 2017 Elizabeth Trojan and Ron Buel [hereinafter "we"] are electors and are the chief petitioners on this petition. We o er these comments on the draft ballot title (DBT) for Petition 12 (2018). The entire text of the measure is this: Be it enacted by the People of the State of Oregon, there is added an Article II, Section 25, of the Constitution of Oregon: Oregon laws consistent with the freedom of speech guarantee of the United States Constitution may regulate contributions and expenditures (including transfers of money or resources) with the purpose or e ect of in uencing the outcome of any election. The draft ballot title reads: Amends Constitution to allow laws regulating political campaign contributions/expenditures. Revives previous voter-enacted campaign nance measure. Result of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" vote amends constitution to authorize laws regulating campaign contributions/expenditures; 2006 voter-enacted initiative takes e ect, limiting contributions/expenditures and imposing disclosure/reporting requirements. Result of "No" Vote: "No" vote retains Oregon Constitutions current provisions, which prohibit campaign contribution and expenditure limits; voter-enacted contribution/expenditure limits and disclosure/reporting requirements remain inoperative. Summary: Amends the Oregon Constitution. The free-expression provision of the Oregon Constitution (Article I, section 8) has been interpreted by the Oregon Supreme Court to protect most political campaign contributions and expenditures from limits. The proposed measure amends Oregons constitution to allow laws that regulate campaign contributions and expenditures. If the amendment passes, Measure 47 (enacted by the voters in 2006) will become operative and will alter current election laws. Measure 47 limits campaign contributions and expenditures, and establishes new reporting and advertising disclosure requirements for the sources and amounts of campaign contributions/expenditures. Even if the amendment passes, laws regulating campaign contributions and COMMENTS ON DRAFT BALLOT TITLE FOR PETITION 12 (2018) Page 1

10 expenditures (including Measure 47) still must comply with the free-speech provision of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I. CAPTION. ORS (2)(a) requires a "caption of not more than 15 words that reasonably identi es the subject matter of the state measure." The DBT reads: Amends Constitution to allow laws regulating political campaign contributions/expenditures. Revives previous voter-enacted campaign nance measure. We suggest: Amends Constitution: Allows laws regulating political campaign contributions/expenditures. Revives previous voter-enacted campaign nance reform [or limits] measure. (15 words) The DBTs caption adds "to" after "Amends Constitution" instead of inserting the traditional colon there (which does not count as a word). Substituting a colon in place of "to" allows re nement of the caption to include the word "reform" or the word "limits" just before the last word of the caption. This clari es the nature of the previous voter-enacted measure. We agree that Petition 12 "revives previous voter-enacted campaign nance measure." That was a prominent part of the certi ed ballot title for Petition 77 (2016). We also agree that the previous measure should be referred to as a "voterenacted measure." That distinguishes it from a measure enacted by the Legislature and clari es that Petition 12 does not seek to reinstate a law enacted by the Legislature. We also agree that Petition 12 is correctly interpreted as referring to "laws regulating political campaign contributions/expenditures." Petition 12 refers to "contributions and expenditures (including transfers of money or resources) with the purpose or e ect of in uencing the outcome of any election." That phrase is the same as that used in Petition 77 (2016), where the certi ed ballot title correctly abbreviated it to "laws limiting campaign contributions/expenditures." It is also essentially the same as that used in Petition 8 (2006), where the certi ed ballot title correctly abbreviated it to laws * * * regulating campaign contributions, expenditures." See Meyer v. Bradbury, 341 Or 288, 142 P3d 1031 (2006). COMMENTS ON DRAFT BALLOT TITLE FOR PETITION 12 (2018) Page 2

11 II. YES/NO STATEMENTS. ORS (2)(b) requires a "simple and understandable statement of not more than 25 words that describes the result if the state measure is approved," while ORS (2)(c) requires a similar statement describing the result if the measure is not approved. A. THE "YES" STATEMENT. The DBT reads: Result of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" vote amends constitution to authorize laws regulating campaign contributions/expenditures; 2006 voter-enacted initiative takes e ect, limiting contributions/expenditures and imposing disclosure/reporting requirements. We suggest: Result of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" vote authorizes laws limiting campaign contributions/expenditures; revives 2006 voter-enacted statewide initiative limiting campaign contributions/expenditures, requiring political advertisements identify largest campaign funders. (24 words) The DBTs "yes" statement omits a central, key feature of Petition 12: reviving the 2006 voter-enacted measures requirement that political advertisements identify the largest donors to the campaign (or to the independent expenditure e ort). This is known as a "tagline" or "disclaimer" requirement. It is not necessary, or traditional, for the "yes" statement to repeat that the measure amends the Oregon Constitution. And "revives" can be used in place of "takes e ect." The saved words can instead clarify the measure by stating that the 2006 initiative was "statewide" and to more speci cally identify the major disclosure requirement of the 2006 measure ("requiring political advertisements identify largest campaign funders"). If it is absolutely necessary to again state that this measure amends the constitution (although ballot titles for many amendments do not mention that in the "yes" statement), we suggest: Result of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" vote amends constitution to authorize laws limiting campaign contributions/expenditures; revives 2006 voter-enacted initiative limiting campaign contributions/expenditures, requiring political advertisements identify largest funders. (25 words) Also, the DBTs "yes" statement is only 24 words, so at least the word "statewide" should be inserted after "voter-enacted." COMMENTS ON DRAFT BALLOT TITLE FOR PETITION 12 (2018) Page 3

12 B. THE "NO" STATEMENT. The DBT reads: Result of "No" Vote: "No" vote retains Oregon Constitutions current provisions, which prohibit campaign contribution and expenditure limits; voter-enacted contribution/expenditure limits and disclosure/reporting requirements remain inoperative. We suggest: Result of "No" Vote: "No" vote retains Oregon Constitutions prohibition on political campaign contribution and expenditure limits; 2006 voter-enacted contribution/expenditure limits and disclosure/reporting requirements remain inoperative. (24 words) Our version uses fewer words to convey the same meaning, allowing us to add the word "political" to more speci cally identify "campaign contribution and expenditure limits." Our version is 24 words. COMMENTS ON DRAFT BALLOT TITLE FOR PETITION 12 (2018) Page 4

13 III. SUMMARY. ORS (2)(d) requires a ballot title summary consisting of a "concise and impartial statement of not more than 125 words summarizing the state measure and its major e ect." The draft ballot title summary reads: Summary: Amends the Oregon Constitution. The free-expression provision of the Oregon Constitution (Article I, section 8) has been interpreted by the Oregon Supreme Court to protect most political campaign contributions and expenditures from limits. The proposed measure amends Oregons constitution to allow laws that regulate campaign contributions and expenditures. If the amendment passes, Measure 47 (enacted by the voters in 2006) will become operative and will alter current election laws. Measure 47 limits campaign contributions and expenditures, and establishes new reporting and advertising disclosure requirements for the sources and amounts of campaign contributions/expenditures. Even if the amendment passes, laws regulating campaign contributions and expenditures (including Measure 47) still must comply with the free-speech provision of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. We suggest: Summary: Amends the Oregon Constitution. The free-expression provision of the Oregon Constitution (Article I, section 8) has been interpreted by the Oregon Supreme Court to ban some laws that limit political campaign contributions and expenditures. The proposed measure amends Oregons Constitution to allow laws that regulate campaign contributions and expenditures. If the amendment passes, Measure 47 (enacted by the voters in 2006) will become operative and will alter election laws. Measure 47 (1) limits political campaign contributions and expenditures, (2) establishes new reporting requirements for the sources and amounts of campaign contributions/expenditures, and (3) requires political advertisements to identify the largest funders of the campaign. Laws regulating campaign contributions and expenditures (including Measure 47) still must comply with the free-speech provision of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. (124 words) First, the sweeping statement about current interpretation of Article I, 8, is unwarranted. That section has not been interpreted by the Oregon Supreme Court to ban necessarily "most" laws that limit political campaign contributions or expenditures. Thus, we use the word "some" to moderate that statement. Second, we believe clarity is served by referring to the Oregon Supreme Courts current view of the Oregon Constitution as "to ban some laws that limit political COMMENTS ON DRAFT BALLOT TITLE FOR PETITION 12 (2018) Page 5

15 STATEMENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH PROCEDURAL CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PETITION 12 (2018) April 28, 2017 Elizabeth Trojan and Ron Buel [hereinafter "we"] are electors and are the chief petitioners on this petition. We o er this statement regarding Petition 12s compliance with procedural constitutional requirements. The Secretary of States process for accepting such comments is inherently unfair to chief petitioners and other supporters of a proposed measure, because it allows opponents to le comments anytime before 5 p.m. on the nal day that comments can be led by the chief petitioners, thus allowing chief petitioners no opportunity to see the arguments made by opponents or to respond to those arguments. Some may argue that Petition 12 violates Article XVII of the Oregon Constitution by proposing multiple unrelated amendments. The Secretary of State correctly rejected this argument when it was raised against Petition 8 (2006), which became Measure 46 (2006). ACLU then led suit to appeal the Secretarys determination. After over 18 months of litigation, and considerable cost to the State and to the petitioners, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the multiple amendments proposed by Petition 8 (2006) were "closely related" and thus allowed by Article XVII. Meyer v. Bradbury, 341 Or 288, 142 P3d 1031 (2006). That decision has since governed "multiple amendment" cases in Oregon: State v. Rogers, 352 Or 510 (2012); Martinez v. Kulongoski, 220 OrApp 142 (2008); Lincoln Interagency Narcotics Team (LINT) v. Kitzhaber, 341 Or 496 (2006). Some may raise that Petition 77 (2016) was rejected by Secretary of State Atkins on "single amendment" grounds. The chief petitioners there declined to appeal that decision to the courts, because of the late date within the election cycle. Petition 77 contained separate subsections: Be it enacted by the People of the State of Oregon, there is added an Article II, Section 25, of the Constitution of Oregon: Oregon laws consistent with the freedom of speech guarantee of the United States Constitution may: (1) limit contributions and expenditures (including transfers of money or resources) to in uence the outcome of any election; and (2) require disclosure of the true sources and amounts of such contributions or expenditures (a) to the public and (b) in the communications they fund. Petition 12 contains no such enumeration or bifurcation. It simply states: Be it enacted by the People of the State of Oregon, there is added an Article II, Section 25, of the Constitution of Oregon: STATEMENT ON PROCEDURAL CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS RE PETITION 12 (2018) Page 1

16 Oregon laws consistent with the freedom of speech guarantee of the United States Constitution may regulate contributions and expenditures (including transfers of money or resources) with the purpose or e ect of in uencing the outcome of any election. Petition 8 (2006) read: Be it enacted by the People of the State of Oregon, there is added an Article II, Section 24, of the Constitution of Oregon, as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, the people through the initiative process, or the Legislative Assembly by a three-fourths vote of both Houses, may enact and amend laws to prohibit or limit contributions and expenditures, of any type or description, to in uence the outcome of any election. Note that Petition 8 (2006) included authority for (2) laws to prohibit contributions, (2) laws to limit contributions, (3) laws to prohibit expenditures, and (4) laws to limit expenditures. The Oregon Supreme Court con rmed that Petition 8 (2006) did not run afoul of Oregon Constitution, Article XVII, section 1. It is not necessary that an amendment proposed by initiative have no conjunctions in it. Note the very similar wording of Petition 8 (2006) and Petition 12. Both refer to contributions and expenditures to "to in uence the outcome of any election" or with that purpose or e ect. The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that Petition 8 (2006) did not contain unrelated amendments: First, IP 8 does not change di erent constitutional provisions that confer di erent fundamental rights on di erent groups of persons. See Armatta, 327 Or at 28384, 959 P2d 49 (changes to constitutional provisions involving separate constitutional rights granted to di erent persons not closely related for separate-vote requirement); see also Lehman, 333 Or at 246 n9, 37 P.3d 989 (when separate constitutional provisions conferring separate rights on di erent groups are a ected by proposed amendment, it is "strong indication" that provisions not closely related for separate-vote requirement). Meyer v. Bradbury, 341 Or 288, 301, 142 P3d 1031, 1038, 2006 WL (2006). It is easy to observe that Petition 8 (2006) certainly contained more alleged "amendments" than does Petition 12. Some persons may le comments stating that Petition 12 violates Article IV, Section (1)(2)(d). That section states: (d) An initiative petition shall include the full text of the proposed law or amendment to the Constitution. A proposed law or amendment to the STATEMENT ON PROCEDURAL CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS RE PETITION 12 (2018) Page 2

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO A-ENGROSSED SENATE BILL 229

SB -A (LC ) // (DRG/ps) Requested by HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RULES PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO A-ENGROSSED SENATE BILL 1 1 On page 1 of the printed A-engrossed bill, line, after the semicolon insert creating new