Title: Crochet v. Priest

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Gerald J. CROCHET, Jr., Petitioner v. Sharon
PRIEST, In Her Official Capacity as Secretary
of State of the State of Arkansas,
Respondent; 
Bill Walmsley, Individually and as President
of the Arkansas Horsemen's Benevolent and
Protective Association, Inc., an Arkansas
Corporation, Petitioners v. Sharon Priest, In
Her Official Capacity as Secretary of State
of the State of Arkansas, Respondent; 
The Committee for Lottery, Charitable Bingo
and Raffles, and Video Games, Intervenor

96-1013, 96-1021                                   ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered October 21, 1996


1.   Elections -- popular name -- need not contain information
     required of ballot title. -- The popular name of a proposed
     amendment is primarily a useful legislative device that need
     not contain the same detailed information or include
     exceptions that might be required of a ballot title. 

2.   Elections -- ballot title -- sufficiency of -- requirements. -
     - Ballot titles must include an impartial summary of the
     proposed amendment that will give voters a fair understanding
     of the issues presented and of the scope and significance of
     the proposed changes in the law; they cannot omit material
     information that would give the voter serious ground for
     reflection; they must be free from misleading tendencies that,
     whether by amplification, omission, or fallacy thwart a fair
     understanding of the issues presented.

3.   Elections -- ballot title -- determining sufficiency of --
     Ark. Const. amend. 7 liberally construed. -- Amendment 7 to
     the Arkansas Constitution places the burden of proof in legal
     challenges to initiative matters upon those who challenge the
     proposed measure; when determining the sufficiency of ballot
     titles, the supreme court construes the requirements of
     Amendment 7 liberally in order to secure its purposes to
     reserve to the people the right to adopt or reject
     legislation; however, that liberality is not without limits or
     common sense; the question is not how the members of the
     supreme court feel concerning the wisdom of the proposed
     amendment but instead whether Amendment 7's requirements for
     submission of the proposal to the voters have been satisfied.

4.   Elections -- supreme court vested with original and exclusive
     jurisdiction over sufficiency of statewide petitions. -- The
     supreme court, under Ark. Const. amend. 7, is vested with
     original and exclusive jurisdiction over the sufficiency of
     statewide petitions; thus, while the court considered the fact
     that the attorney general had certified the ballot title, the
     court did not defer to the attorney general's opinion or give
     it presumptive effect.

5.   Elections -- practical constraint on length of proposed
     amendment and its ballot title. -- Although length is a
     consideration, it is by no means the determining factor on the
     question of the sufficiency of a ballot title; likewise, there
     is no restriction on the length of a proposed amendment;
     however, there is in effect a practical constraint on the
     length of both a proposed amendment and its ballot title that
     stems from the requirements that a ballot title convey the
     scope and import of the proposal while also imparting a fair
     description of the proposal to allow voters to vote
     intelligently in the limited time allotted them in a voting
     booth.

6.   Elections -- ballot title -- supreme court declined to hold
     insufficient on length alone. -- Although the proposed
     amendment and ballot title were, in relative terms, at least
     as long and detailed as most that the supreme court had
     considered, the court declined to hold the ballot title
     insufficient because of its length alone; rather, the length
     was but one consideration for the court as it determined the
     sufficiency of the ballot title.

7.   Elections -- ballot title -- material information concerning
     powers of lottery commission omitted. -- The proposed
     amendment would have created an Arkansas Lottery Commission
     and would have given the commission the power to amend the
     terms of the amendment as it related to bingo and raffles; the
     supreme court noted that this power of the commission to amend
     a constitutional amendment was not disclosed in the ballot
     title; before casting their votes, citizens no doubt would
     pause for reflection if they were aware that they might be
     giving the commission authority to amend, or even completely
     rewrite, parts of the very amendment upon which they were
     voting; the supreme court concluded that the omission in the
     ballot title of the commission's power to amend the terms of
     the proposed amendment was a material omission that rendered
     the ballot title insufficient.

8.   Elections -- popular name and ballot title -- use of term
     "video terminal games" misleading -- tinged with partisan
     coloring. -- The supreme court held that, as used in the
     ballot title, the term "video terminal games" was misleading
     and tinged with partisan coloring because it did not evoke
     images or thoughts of gambling in any respect; any possible
     enlightenment from the ballot title's definition was diluted
     by the strategic placement of the definition midway through
     the lengthy ballot title; the court concluded that the use of
     the term "video terminal games" created a fatally misleading
     tendency in the popular name and ballot title and tinged them
     with partisan coloring.

9.   Elections -- ballot title -- reference to "twenty-five cent
     video terminal games" misleading. -- The supreme court held
     that the ballot title was misleading in its use of the term
     "twenty-five cent video terminal games" and the appearance of
     numerous references to the amount of twenty-five cents,
     especially when coupled with the omission of the two-dollar
     maximum wager on a single play; it was clear that while the
     "video terminal games" would accept a twenty-five-cent coin,
     twenty-five cents was not a limitation on the amount of the
     total wager; rather, the text of the proposal clearly provided
     a two-dollar limit on the amount of the total wager for a
     single play; voters would no doubt pause for reflection if
     they knew that, by voting for a ballot title that would
     authorize "twenty-five cent video terminal games," they were
     in fact voting for an amendment that would authorize two-
     dollar video terminal games.

10.  Elections -- popular name and ballot title held
     constitutionally insufficient -- request for injunctive relief
     granted. -- The supreme court held the proposed amendment's
     popular name and ballot title insufficient to satisfy the
     requirements of Ark. Const. amend. 7 and granted petitioners'
     request for injunctive relief; the court enjoined respondent
     placing proposed Amendment 5 on the ballot for the general
     election or, alternatively, from canvassing and declaring the
     results.


     Original Action Petition; granted.
     Petitioner Gerald J. Crochet, Jr., pro se.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Melissa K. Rust, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for respondent.
     Tom Thompson, for petitioner Bill Walmsley.
     Arnold, Grobmyer & Haley, by:  Robert R. Ross, for intervenor.

     Donald L. Corbin, Justice.
     Two original action petitions filed pursuant to Amendment 7 to
the Arkansas Constitution of 1874 were consolidated in this case. 
Both petitions seek injunctions restraining Respondent, Secretary
of State Sharon Priest, from placing proposed Amendment 5 to the
Arkansas Constitution, which bears the popular name "AN AMENDMENT
TO AUTHORIZE LOTTERY TICKET GAMES, CHARITABLE BINGO, RAFFLES, AND
VIDEO TERMINAL GAMES" on the ballot for the general election to be
held November 5, 1996.  Alternatively, they request Respondent be
enjoined from canvassing and declaring the results of proposed
Amendment 5.
     Petitioners are Bill Walmsley, individually and on behalf of
the Arkansas Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association,
Incorporated, and Gerald J. Crochet, Jr., a citizen, resident,
taxpayer, and registered voter of this state.  We allowed the
intervention of The Committee For Lottery, Charitable Bingo and
Raffles, and Video Terminal Games, a ballot question committee as
defined in Ark. Code Ann.  7-9-402(2) (Repl. 1993).  Petitioners
challenge both the popular name and ballot title of the proposed
amendment.  The text of the ballot title is appended to this
opinion.  We find merit to their claim that the popular name and
ballot title are insufficient and therefore grant the petition
requesting injunctive relief.  
                       Procedural History
     The following facts are taken from the petitions and responses
filed in this case.  The sponsors of the proposed amendment
submitted a proposed popular name and ballot title to the Attorney
General of this state on February 9, 1996.  Approximately six to
ten days later, the Attorney General expressed concern over the
length of the proposed ballot title and its susceptibility to
challenge, but nevertheless certified the popular name as submitted
and a substituted ballot title.  On August 9, 1996, Respondent
certified the proposed amendment to be placed on the ballot for the
November 5, 1996, general election.
     Petitioners Crochet and Walmsley filed separate original-
action petitions on August 29 and 30, 1996, respectively.  On
September 23, 1998, we granted three motions concerning these
petitions:  Intervenor's motion to intervene in Petitioner
Walmsley's case, Petitioner Crochet's motion to consolidate the two
cases, and Petitioner Crochet's motion to expedite the cases for
our consideration.
                       Standard of Review
          Sufficiency of Popular Name and Ballot Title

     We recently summarized the applicable standard for our review
of ballot-title cases:
          The popular name is primarily a useful legislative
     device that need not contain the same detailed
     information or include exceptions that might be required
     of a ballot title.  Chaney v. Bryant, 259 Ark. 294,