Blosser/Romain v. Rosenblum

The Oregon Supreme Court weighed in on the wording of ballot titles for two voter initiatives that would modify requirements for the state’s low carbon fuel standards (LCFS). Oregon voters could see the oil industry-sponsored initiatives on November 2016 ballots. Both measures would, among other provisions, limit application of the LCFS to blended liquid fuels and would eliminate a fuel credit trading program as an alternative means of compliance. Both initiatives would also restrict the LCFS requirements to blending of liquid fuels that are “available in commercial quantities.” The court said that the caption should mention the elimination of the fuel credit trading component. The court also agreed with an LCFS advocate’s view that the use of “commercially available” in the “yes” result statement was misleading because voters would think the LCFS would apply if the alternative fuel was available for purchase in the marketplace, while the initiatives would actually establish a more restrictive definition for commercially available. The court did not require the caption or “yes” result statement to mention one initiative’s creation of an administrative review action to challenge commercial availability determinations, citing the word limits and the complexity of the initiative’s provisions—but did require that the ballot title’s 125-word summary refer to the review action. The court rejected some challenges to the ballot title’s language made by an oil industry lobbyist, concluding that the concerns raised were more relevant to “ultimate efforts to persuade voters” to vote for the initiatives. The court referred the ballot titles to the Oregon Attorney General for modification.