III. CONCLUSIONCf.Kane v. Kulongoski , 319 Or. 88, 91, 872 P.2d 981 (1994) (explaining that, although the fiscal effect of a measure may qualify as a major effect that must be included in the summary, such effects must be clear, not merely speculative; declining to require summary to include a "prediction" about the potential fiscal impact of a proposed repeal of constitutional property tax limits). In sum, we conclude that the caption, the "yes" result statement, and the summary of the certified ballot title for IP 5 all require modification.
The Attorney General responds that petitioner's arguments are speculative and that the Attorney General does not have the authority to speculate as to the meaning of a proposed measure in writing a ballot title. See Kane v. Kulongoski, 319 Or. 88, 91, 872 P.2d 981 (1994) (so holding). We disagree with the Attorney General that petitioner's arguments are speculative.