Towers v. Rosenblum
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Oregon Supreme Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Oregon Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
The petitioners in this case sought review of the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 9 (2014). They argued the ballot title did not satisfy the requirements of ORS 250.035(2). Initiative Petition 9, if adopted by the voters, would amend provisions of the Oregon Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act. Upon review of the ballot title, the Supreme Court concluded that the proposed ballot title did not contain a concise and impartial summary of not more than 125 words that summarized the proposed measure and its effects. Furthermore, the Court found that the proposed summary of the initiative did not disclose that employees who were not members of the union but who were members of the bargaining unit would receive representation without cost. Accordingly the title was referred back to the Attorney General's office for modification.
Download PDF
Filed: September 12, 2013 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON ARTHUR TOWERS, GAIL RASMUSSEN, and BETHANNE DARBY, Petitioners, v. ELLEN ROSENBLUM, Attorney General, State of Oregon, Respondent. (S061292) En Banc On petitions to review ballot title filed May 7, 2013; considered and under advisement August 6, 2013. Steven C. Berman of Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlacher, P.C., Portland, filed the petition and response for petitioner Towers. Margaret S. Olney of Bennett, Hartman, Morris & Kaplan LLP, Portland, filed the petition and response for petitioners Rasmussen and Darby. Douglas F. Zier, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the answering memorandum for respondent. With him on the answering memorandum were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General. Jill Gibson Odell, Beaverton, filed the amicus curiae memorandum for herself. Paul Gamson, Portland, filed the memorandum for amici curiae Tom Chamberlain and Patrick Green. LANDAU, J. The ballot title is referred to the Attorney General for modification. 1 LANDAU, J. 2 Petitioners seek review of the Attorney General's certified ballot title for 3 Initiative Petition 9 (2014), arguing that the ballot title does not satisfy the requirements 4 of ORS 250.035(2). We review a certified ballot title to determine whether it 5 substantially complies with those statutory requirements. See ORS 250.085(5) (stating 6 standard of review). For the reasons that follow, we refer the ballot title to the Attorney 7 General for modification. 8 9 Initiative Petition 9, if adopted by the voters, would amend several provisions of the Oregon Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act (PECBA). PECBA 10 currently allows public employers and unions to enter into "fair-share" union security 11 agreements. ORS 243.666(1); ORS 243.672(1)(c). Under those agreements, public 12 employees choosing not to join a union are nevertheless responsible for a proportional 13 share of the representation costs incurred by the union, collected as "payment-in-lieu-of- 14 dues" sums. ORS 243.650(10); Dale v. Kulongoski, 321 Or 108, 111-12, 894 P2d 462 15 (1995). 16 Initiative Petition 9 declares that "[a] person shall have the individual 17 freedom of choice in the pursuit of public employment" and that no one may be required 18 either to join or not join a labor organization as a condition of public employment. It 19 further provides that, "[i]f an employee does not choose to join and participate in a labor 20 organization, such employee shall not pay an amount of money in-lieu-of-dues to a labor 21 organization, another organization, or third party as a condition of employment." That 22 type of legislation is often referred to by its popular political slogan, "right to work." 1 1 2 The Attorney General certified the following ballot title for Initiative Petition 9: 3 4 "BALLOT TITLE: Prohibits compulsory payment of union representation costs by public employees choosing not to join union 5 6 7 "Result of 'Yes' Vote: 'Yes' vote prohibits requiring represented public employees who choose not to join union to make compulsory 'payment in lieu of dues' for union representation costs. 8 9 10 "Result of 'No' Vote: 'No' vote allows requiring represented public employees who choose not to join union to make compulsory 'payment in lieu of dues' for union representation costs. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 "Summary: Current law allows public employees to bargain collectively through a labor organization/union as their exclusive representative; prohibits requiring union membership as condition of public employment; requires union to fairly represent members and nonmembers in bargaining unit; allows contracts requiring public employees who choose not to join union to make compulsory 'payment in lieu of dues' for cost of union representation. Measure affirms public employees' right to join or decline to join union; prohibits requiring public employees choosing not to join union to make compulsory 'payment in lieu of dues' for union representation costs; makes entry into such compulsory payment agreements an unfair labor practice. Measure applies only to new, renewed, or extended contracts entered into after the effective date of the measure. Other provisions." 24 Petitioners challenge the caption, result statements, and summary of the 25 certified ballot title. We reject, without discussion, all of those challenges save one, 26 which is that the caption, result statements, and summary all fail to identify properly the 27 subject matter and effect of the initiative. According to petitioners, all three components 28 of the ballot title fail to explain that the major effect of the measure is "to allow 29 employees to refuse to share in the costs of representation that the union is legally 30 obligated to provide." In petitioners' view, the effect of the measure is thus to permit 31 "free riders" to obtain the benefits of the representation that the union must provide 2 1 without having to pay for them. Petitioners argue that, in several prior cases, this court 2 has concluded that the law required that ballot titles for similar measures include 3 information about the free-rider effect of adopting those measures. 4 The Attorney General answers that the ballot title substantially complies 5 with statutory requirements. She argues that the law requires that the ballot title identify 6 the "subject matter" of the proposed measure and the subject matter of Initiative Petition 7 9 "is a proposed prohibition on requiring 'payments in lieu of dues' * * * [from] public 8 employees who choose not to join a union." The Attorney General does not appear to 9 address petitioners' argument that this case is controlled by prior decisions of this court 10 concerning similar measures, which decisions required the ballot titles to include an 11 explanation of the free-rider effect of adopting those measures. 12 We begin with the requirements for the caption. ORS 250.035(2)(a) 13 requires that a ballot title for a proposed state measure contain a caption of not more than 14 15 words that reasonably identifies the "subject matter" of the proposed measure. The 15 caption is the "headline" of the ballot title; it "provides the context for the reader's 16 consideration of the other information in the ballot title" and must describe the proposed 17 measure's subject matter accurately. Greene v. Kulongoski, 322 Or 169, 175, 903 P2d 18 366 (1995). For the purposes of this court's review, the "subject matter" of a ballot title is 19 "the 'actual major effect' of a measure or, if the measure has more than one major effect, 20 all such effects (to the limit of the available words)." Whitsett v. Kroger, 348 Or 243, 21 247, 230 P3d 545 (2010). 22 As petitioners correctly observe, this is not the first case in which this court 3 1 has been asked to address the sufficiency of a ballot title pertaining to a right-to-work 2 initiative. In Novick/Bosak v. Myers, 333 Or 18, 36 P3d 464 (2001), the court considered 3 the proposed ballot title for a proposed constitutional amendment that declared that all 4 employees have a "right to bargain directly as individuals with their employers" and that 5 no one may "be required to accept or pay for representation or any other service" by labor 6 organizations unless the employee requests the representation or service in writing. Id. at 7 21. 8 9 The Attorney General's certified caption read: "AMENDS CONSTITUTION: DECLARES RIGHT OF INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES TO 10 'BARGAIN' WITH EMPLOYERS; REQUIRES WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE OF UNION 11 REPRESENTATION." Id. at 22. The petitioners challenged the sufficiency of the 12 caption, arguing that, among other things, it failed to explain the free-rider effect of the 13 measure. Id. at 23. This court agreed, explaining, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 "Under current law, unions and employers may negotiate union security agreements that, in one form or another, require bargaining unit employees who are not union members to pay for the cost of union representation. In practical terms, a prohibition on such agreements enables those employees to receive union representation without cost and represents a significant change in Oregon law. We agree with petitioners that that prohibition is one of the * * * 'subject matters' that the proposed measure addresses and that the Attorney General's caption fails to identify that subject matter." Id. at 26 (citations omitted). The court addressed the same issue in Sizemore/Terhune v. Myers, 342 Or 24 578, 157 P3d 188 (2007). In that case, the court addressed the sufficiency of a ballot title 25 for a proposed measure that would have created a new statute declaring that no person 4 1 may be required to "become or remain a member of a labor organization" or "pay any 2 dues, fees, assessments or other similar charges, however denominated, of any kind or 3 amount[,] to a labor organization." The Attorney General's ballot title caption stated: 4 "PROHIBITS NEGOTIATED CONTRACTS REQUIRING: PRIVATE EMPLOYEES 5 TO JOIN UNION, REPRESENTED NONMEMBERS TO SHARE 6 REPRESENTATION COSTS." Id. at 582. The petitioners argued that the caption was 7 deficient because, among other things, it failed to explain the free-rider effect of the 8 measure. Id. at 588. This court agreed: 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 "In context, the subject matter of the proposed measure consists of two identifiable legal changes. The proposed measure will eliminate any employment condition requiring any person to pay money to a union, and, thereby, it will entitle employees to receive the union's legally mandated representation services without sharing in the cost of those services. The certified caption refers to only one of those subjects. * * * The Attorney General must address that deficiency on referral." Id. at 588-89 (emphasis in original). This case is controlled by our prior decisions in Novick/Bosak and 18 Sizemore/Terhune. As in both of those cases, the measure at issue in this one would, if 19 adopted, declare a right not to be required to join a labor organization as a condition of 20 employment and a right not to pay dues, fees, or other charges to such labor 21 organizations. As in both of those cases, an "actual major effect" is that employees who 22 choose not to be represented will be able to receive services from a labor organization 23 without having to pay for them. And, as in both of those cases, the Attorney General's 24 certified ballot title caption is deficient for failing to identify that actual major effect. 25 As we have noted, petitioners argue that the certified ballot title result 5 1 statements and summary are deficient for the same reason. Petitioners are correct. ORS 2 250.035(2)(b) and (c) set out the requirements for result statements. They require that a 3 ballot title contain simple and understandable statements, not to exceed 25 words, 4 describing the result of approval or rejection of the proposed measure. ORS 5 250.035(2)(d) requires that a ballot title for a proposed state measure contain a concise 6 and impartial summary of not more than 125 words that summarizes the proposed 7 measure and its major effects. 8 In Dale, this court considered the Attorney General's certified ballot title for 9 a proposed constitutional amendment that would have provided that "no public employee 10 * * * shall be required or unduly pressured to join or otherwise be connected to, or pay 11 dues, or contribute fair share, or pay fees or assessments to a public employee union." 12 321 Or at 116. The Attorney General prepared a ballot title that included a summary 13 stating that the measure "[b]ans requiring employees to join union or to pay dues or 14 representation costs." Id. at 110. The petitioners argued that the summary was 15 inadequate because it failed to identify the free-rider effect of the measure, and this court 16 agreed, holding that the summary did "not disclose that employees who are not members 17 of the union, but who are members of the bargaining unit, will receive representation 18 without cost." Id. at 114. 19 20 21 Again, this court's prior case law is controlling. The Attorney General must address the foregoing deficiencies on referral. The ballot title is referred to the Attorney General for modification. 6
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
