Caruso

Caruso v. State of Oregon

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 6, 200504-35155California7,158 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

The Oregon Constitution reserves to the people “the initia- tive power, which is to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution and enact or reject them at an election indepen- dently of the Legislative Assembly.” Or. Const. art. IV, § 1. Under Oregon law, the ballot titles for initiatives that propose the imposition of a local option tax must include an additional statement commonly referred to as the “three-percent warn- ing”: “This measure may cause property taxes to increase more than three percent.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 280.070(4)(a).

Appellee Michael Caruso was among the chief petitioners for an initiative measure which appeared on the ballot for the March 9, 2004, Yamhill County Special Election. Consistent with section 280.070(4)(a), the Yamhill County Commission adopted, on November 26, 2003, the following ballot title for the measure:

MEASURE 36-

AUTHORIZES SPECIAL LEVY IF YAMHILL

COUNTY PUD1 IS FORMED

QUESTION: Shall voters authorize levy of $0.003 per $1,000 of assessed valuation if Yamhill County People’s Utility District is formed? 1 Formation of the Yamhill County People’s Utility District (“PUD”) was proposed by Measure 36-54, which…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.