stating that phrase “ban requiring” is not accurate unless there is law “requiring”
How later courts described this case
- stating that phrase “ban requiring” is not accurate unless there is law “requiring”
- discussing “free rider” issue
- ballot title should not misstate existing law, even by implication
- “With respect to compulsory union membership, there is none.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*117 GRABER, J.,
dissenting.
I would certify the ballot title prepared by the Attorney General and, accordingly, dissent.
The majority’s ballot title may be “better” than the Attorney General’s. The problem is that the Attorney General’s ballot title complies substantially with the requirements of ORS 250.035. In other words, the statutorily required premise for modification of this ballot title is absent. This court is required to certify a title that complies substantially with ORS 250.035. 1 ORS 250.085(5).
The measure provides in part that the Oregon Constitution be amended to include this wording:
“No public employee * * * shall be required * * * to join or otherwise be connected to, or pay dues, or contribute fair share, or pay fees or assessments to a public employee union
There presently is no provision in the Oregon Constitution on that topic.
The Attorney General’s Caption is:
“AMENDS CONSTITUTION: PUBLIC EMPLOYEES NEED NOT SHARE UNION REPRESENTATION COSTS”
The Attorney General’s Question asks, in part:
“Shall constitution ban requiring public employees to join unions, pay dues or representation costs * * *?”
The Attorney General’s Summary states, in part:
“Amends state constitution. Bans requiring public employees to join union or to pay dues or representation costs.”
In my view, it takes the most strained of readings to say that the Attorney General’s ballot title does not tell voters what the measure says and does.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
Carson, C. J., joins in this dissent.
No challenge is made in this case under ORS 250.039.