Title: Scott v. Priest

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Monty SCOTT, Bob Wheeler, Eric Jackson, Bill
Walmsley, and Bill Goodwin, Individually and
On Behalf of the Committee Against Amendment
8, and All Others Similarly Situated,
Petitioners v. Sharon PRIEST, Secretary of
State of the State of Arkansas, Respondent;
The Local Option Casino and Arkansas Lottery
Committee, Intervenor

96-1078                                            ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered October 21, 1996


1.   Elections -- ballot title -- length does not render
     insufficient. -- Length, in itself, does not render a ballot
     title insufficient.

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; and 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 -- failed to mention preferential
     treatment given certain licensees. -- Where proposed Amendment
     8 provided for casino gambling in Boone, Chicot, and Garland
     counties without the voters first being given the right to
     approve such gambling at a local-option election; where the
     licensee at each designated site in these three counties were
     guaranteed gaming benefits upon the proposal's adoption at the
     general election; where eight other casino enterprises were
     authorized under proposed Amendment 8 only after approval of
     the voters of the county or counties where those enterprises
     were to be located; and where the ballot title failed to
     mention this preferential treatment given the three licensees
     in Boone, Chicot, and Garland counties, the supreme court
     concluded that this omission would give the voters serious
     ground for reflection on whether to vote for the measure.

4.   Elections -- ballot title -- failed to convey change in voter-
     approval percentage requirement. -- The voter-approval
     percentage requirement in proposed Amendment 8 conflicted with
     that in Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution, which
     requires only 15% of the legal voters of the county to pass a
     local-initiative measure; proposed Amendment 8 would change
     existing law by requiring that 20% of the qualified voters in
     a county approve casino gambling; while the ballot title
     informed the voter of the 20% requirement, it failed to
     disclose that the percentage was higher than the requirement
     under Ark. Const. amend. 7; because the ballot title failed to
     convey this change so that the voters could have a fair
     understanding of the issue, the supreme court concluded that
     this nondisclosure added to the title's invalidity.

5.   Elections -- ballot title -- failed to reveal proposal's
     definition of "Gross Gambling Revenue." -- Where the ballot
     title failed to reveal proposed Amendment 8's definition of
     "Gross Gambling Revenue," which provided that casinos pay
     state taxes of 8% and municipal and county taxes of up to 2%
     on their gross gambling revenues, the supreme court, noting
     that the definition would be of obvious import when
     calculating the amount of taxes owed by a licensee, concluded
     that voters could be misled concerning how much of the
     gambling revenues would be taxed; furthermore, voters also
     would be confused as to whether lottery revenues, legalized by
     proposed Amendment 8, would be taxed as well; under the
     proposal, they would not, but the ballot title did not reveal
     that fact.

6.   Elections -- ballot title -- erroneously represented that no
     more than eleven licensed casinos could be simultaneously
     operated. -- Although the ballot title represented that "no
     more than eleven licensed casinos may be simultaneously
     operated" in the state, and Section 7 of proposed Amendment 8
     made a fair attempt to restrict the number of licensed casinos
     in operation at one time to eleven, Section 1(D) authorized
     "casino gambling in other constitutional amendments" as well;
     this provision conflicted with the existing law in Ark. Const.
     amend. 7, which provides that if conflicting measures
     initiated or referred to the people are approved by a majority
     of votes at the same election, the one receiving the highest
     number of affirmative votes shall become law; the supreme
     court declared that it was clear that Arkansas could well end
     up with more than eleven casinos if another gambling proposal
     besides proposed number 8 were enacted.

7.   Elections -- ballot title -- failed to disclose unequal edge
     in treatment given new casino licensees. -- Where the ballot
     title failed to disclose that proposed Amendment 8 would allow
     its initial licensees to compete with two existing pari-mutuel
     enterprises by permitting them to engage immediately in
     "simulcast sport wagering" but that the two pari-mutuel
     enterprises would not be allowed to offer casino gambling
     until two years after the general election, the supreme court
     concluded that this unequal edge in treatment given the new
     casino licensees was not revealed in the ballot title and
     could well have made a difference in the voters' decision when
     voting on the proposal.

8.   Elections -- proposed measure must be of size capable of
     having ballot title that imparts description so that voters
     can vote intelligently. -- While Ark. Const. amend. 7 does not
     limit the length of a proposal, the proposed measure must be
     of a size capable of having a ballot title which will not only
     convey the scope and import of the measure, but also impart a
     description of the proposal so voters can cast their votes
     intelligently and with a fair understanding of the issue; the
     supreme court held that, in this respect, proposed Amendment
     8's ballot title failed.

9.   Elections -- ballot title -- declared insufficient --
     placement on ballot enjoined. -- Under present law as provided
     in Ark. Const. amend. 7, the supreme court declared the ballot
     title to proposed Amendment 8 insufficient and invalid and
     enjoined its placement on the general-election ballot or,
     alternatively, directed that any votes cast on the proposed
     amendment not be counted or certified.


     Original Action Petition; granted.
     Huckabay, Munson, Rowlett & Tilley, P.A., by: Beverly A.
Rowlett, for petitioners.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  M. Wade Hodge, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for respondent.
     Kaplan, Brewer and Maxey, P.A., by: Philip E. Kaplan, and
Silas H. Brewer, Jr., for intervenor.

     Tom Glaze, Justice. 
     Petitioners Monty Scott and others bring this original action
challenging the validity of the ballot title to proposed Amendment
8, which would allow the establishment of up to eleven gambling
casinos in the state, and legalize lottery, charitable raffles, and
bingo games in the state.  Petitioners generally contend the ballot
title is too long, complex, and detailed to permit a voter to read
and comprehend the proposed amendment and make an informed decision
on the proposal.  Petitioners recognize this court's prior holdings
that length, in itself, does not render a ballot title
insufficient, Christian Civic Action Comm. v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 241,