Title: Parker v. Priest

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Paul R. PARKER, Petitioner v. Sharon PRIEST,
In Her Official Capacity as Secretary of
State of the State of Arkansas, Respondent;
Mike Wilson, Individually and On Behalf of
The Committee to Promote Arkansas,
Intervenors

96-995                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered October 21, 1996


1.   Elections -- ballot title -- must not be misleading -- must
     disclose enough information so that voters can make
     intelligent choice. -- The majority of voters will read a
     proposed amendment for the first, and only, time when they
     read it on the ballot; thus, it is crucial that the ballot
     title not be misleading and that it disclose enough
     information so that voters can make an intelligent choice and
     be fully aware of the consequences of their vote.

2.   Elections -- initiative process -- not undermined by
     initiative that benefits few. -- It is not the supreme court's
     function to express its view on, or to determine the merits
     of, a proposed measure; that power is expressly reserved to
     the people; furthermore, the purpose of the initiative process
     is not undermined by an initiative that directly benefits a
     relative few of the people so long as the benefits to the few
     are not concealed from the voters.

3.   Elections -- ballot title -- party challenging bears burden of
     proof. -- The party challenging a ballot title has the burden
     of proving that it is misleading or insufficient; the
     petitioner is not entitled to a ballot title that pleases him
     or her personally because it is impossible to draft a ballot
     title that would suit everyone.

4.   Elections -- ballot title -- sufficiency of -- requirements. -
     - The supreme court will be liberal when construing the
     sufficiency of a ballot title; while the ballot title is not
     required to summarize every aspect of the initiative, it must
     give the voter an intelligible idea of the scope and import of
     the proposed law; in other words, the ballot title must enable
     the voter to reach an intelligent and informed decision for or
     against the proposal and to understand the consequences of his
     or her vote.

5.   Elections -- ballot title -- sufficiency of -- further
     requirements. -- Although the ballot title need not summarize
     every aspect of the initiative, if the information is an
     essential fact that would give the voter serious grounds for
     reflection, it must be disclosed; moreover, the ballot must be
     free from any misleading tendency, whether of amplification,
     or omission, or of fallacy, and it must not be tinged with
     partisan coloring.

6.   Elections -- ballot title -- not clear that voter would know
     that two racetracks were designated sites for casino gaming. -
     - It was clear that the voter would not know from the ballot
     title that Southland and Oaklawn Racetracks were two of the
     three sites specifically designated in proposed Amendment 7
     for casino gaming and that they would therefore benefit
     greatly from the passage of the measure; the issue was thus
     whether such information was an essential fact that would give
     the voter serious grounds for reflection.

7.   Elections -- ballot title -- concealed from voters direct
     benefit to two racetracks. -- The supreme court concluded that
     the ballot title for proposed Amendment 7 clearly concealed
     from the voters the direct benefit to Oakland and Southland
     Racetracks, which were significant and important Arkansas
     gambling interests.

8.   Elections -- ballot title -- identities of two racetracks
     constituted essential fact that should have been disclosed. --
     The supreme court stated that the benefit to specific private
     interests can indeed be a matter that would give the voter
     serious grounds for reflection; that Oaklawn and Southland
     Racetracks were such interests; and that their identities
     constituted an essential fact that should have been disclosed,
     and indeed could have been disclosed, with fewer words than
     actually used in the ballot title.

9.   Elections -- ballot title -- failure to disclose information
     was material omission that rendered the ballot title fatally
     defective. -- The supreme court held that it was clear that
     the voters would not be made aware that, by voting for
     proposed Amendment 7, they would not simply be voting to
     authorize "two sites" in Garland County and "two sites" in
     Crittenden County, three of which were "specifically
     designated in the amendment"; instead, they would be voting to
     authorize casino gaming "at Oaklawn Race Track in Hot Springs"
     and at "Southland Race Track in West Memphis"; the failure to
     disclose this information was a material omission that
     rendered the ballot title fatally defective.

10.  Elections -- ballot title -- injunctive relief granted. -- The
     supreme court granted the original-action petition and
     enjoined respondent from placing proposed Amendment 7 on the
     general-election ballot or, in the alternative, from counting
     the votes cast on the issue.


     Original Action Petition; granted.
     Wright & Burke, by: William Randal Wright, for petitioner.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Kay J. Jackson DeMailly,
Asst. Att'y Gen., for respondent.
     Dover & Dixon, P.A., by: David A. Couch, for intervenors.

     Andree Layton Roaf, Justice.
     This is an original action by the petitioner, Paul Parker, to
enjoin the Respondent, Secretary of State, Sharon Priest, from
placing on the ballot proposed Amendment 7, which would authorize
a state lottery and legalize bingo, raffles, and casino gaming. 
This court has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to
Ark. Const. amend. 7 and Ark. S. Ct. R. 6-5.  The original action
petition is opposed by the respondent, and by the intervenors, Mike
Wilson, individually and on behalf of the Committee to Promote
Arkansas, who are the sponsors of proposed Amendment 7.
     The petition challenges the sufficiency of the ballot title  
of the proposed amendment and asserts that it is defective because:
1) it does not disclose that Oaklawn and Southland racetracks are
two of the three sites designated in the amendment where casino
gaming is authorized; 2) it does not state how four additional
sites for casinos will be selected by the General Assembly; 3) it
does not inform the voters that the primary purpose of the proposed
amendment is to legalize casino gaming at Oaklawn and Southland
racetracks or that its passage would grant a monopoly on the
combination of pari-mutuel wagering and casino gaming to these two
entities; and 4) the initiative petition filed with the Secretary
of State omitted a portion of the ballot title.   We hold that the
failure to disclose that two of the three designated sites for
casino gaming are Oaklawn and Southland racetracks causes the
ballot title to be fatally deficient.
     Certain general principles of law for ballot title cases have
been set forth in recent cases decided by this court and are
pertinent to this case. See Parker v. Priest et al., No. 96-779
(Ark. S. Ct., Sept. 30, 1996); Christian Civic Action Committee v.
McCuen, 318 Ark 241,