Case Name: Larry L. PAGE and the Christian Civic Action Committee v. W. J. "Bill" McCUEN, In His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Arkansas Mike Wilson, Indiv. and on Behalf of the Committee to Promote Arkansas, lntervenors Delta Resorts Limited Partnership, Intervenor
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1994-10-20
Citations: 318 Ark. 342
Docket Number: 94-922
Parties: Larry L. PAGE and the Christian Civic Action Committee v. W. J. “Bill” McCUEN, In His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Arkansas Mike Wilson, Indiv. and on Behalf of the Committee to Promote Arkansas, lntervenors Delta Resorts Limited Partnership, Intervenor
Judges: Dudley, J. and Special Justice Enfield dissent; Special Justice Brown concurs.
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 318
Pages: 342–357

Head Matter:
Larry L. PAGE and the Christian Civic Action Committee v. W. J. “Bill” McCUEN, In His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Arkansas Mike Wilson, Indiv. and on Behalf of the Committee to Promote Arkansas, lntervenors Delta Resorts Limited Partnership, Intervenor
94-922
884 S.W.2d 951
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Opinion delivered October 20, 1994
[Rehearing denied October 28, 1994. ]
Williams & Anderson, by: Leon Holmes, for petitioners.
Winston Bryant, Att’y Gen., by: John D. Harris, Asst. Att’y Gen., for respondent.
Dover & Dixon, P.A., by: David A. Couch and Philip E. Dixon, for intervenors Mike Wilson, individually and on behalf of the Committee to Promote Arkansas.
Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, A Professional Limited Co., by: Sherry P. Bartley, John Selig, and Marshall S. Ney, for intervenor Delta Resorts Limited Partnership.
Dudley, J., and Special Justice William Enfield, would grant rehearing. Hays and Brown, JJ., not participating.

Opinion:
Tom Glaze, Justice.
This case represents the third ballot title matter submitted for our review for the 1994 General Election. The first case was Bailey v. McCuen, Case No. 94-951 (opinion delivered October 14, 1994) where the court held two things wrong with the title, namely, (1) it omitted a legal rule used in construing workers' compensation laws and the rule would change, requiring the courts to construe workers' compensation laws "lib erally" rather than "strictly" and (2) it failed to mention that legal fees payable on appeals are presently limited by law but would not be limited under the proposed amendment. The second case where this court invalidated the ballot title was in Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen, Case No. 94-881 (opinion delivered October 14, 1994). There, the court decided the title was misleading because it used the euphemistic phrase "additional racetrack wagering" when referring to the establishment of what would amount to gambling casinos at existing racetracks in Hot Springs and West Memphis. We noted that the drafters had used the terms "casinos" and "gambling houses" in telling the voters what would be prohibited at other locations.
In the present case, petitioners challenge the ballot title of a proposed amendment which, by popular name, is to authorize one casino in Crittenden County, create an Arkansas Casino Gaming Commission and permit the levy of casino taxes to fund crime prevention and law enforcement. Petitioners contend the title is designed in a manner that the voter will be unable to make an intelligent choice, fully aware of the consequences of his vote, by reading the ballot title while in the voting booth. Intervenors, Mike Wilson and Delta Resorts Limited Partnership, disagree, and argue the title summarizes the basic purposes and provisions of the proposal and the voter would be able to cast his or her ballot with a fair understanding of the proposal.
The proposal here is forty pages long. It comprises twenty-three sections and more than 150 sub-sections to describe its purposes. In preparing the ballot title, with the Attorney General's assistance, the drafters used 587 words in their attempt to convey to the voter a fair understanding of the issue. See Ferstl v. McCuen, 296 Ark. 504, 758 S.W.2d 398 (1988). For comparison purposes, the ballot titles in Bailey and Christian Civic Action Committee I, contained 706 and 709 words respectively and those two cases involved proposals nowhere near the length or complexity as the one now before us.
Obviously, in drafting the ballot title for Amendment 5 here, the sponsors could not possibly cover the entire proposal because, if they had, the voter would have found it impossible to read, understand and cast his or her vote on the issue while at the polling precinct. As a consequence, the sponsors were nec essarily forced to omit portions of the proposal when preparing the ballot title. We hold that some of those omissions were important for a fair understanding of the amendment and would give the voter "serious ground for reflection" on whether to vote for the measure. Hoban v. Hall, 229 Ark. 416, 316 S.W.2d 185 (1958).
One of the most serious omissions in the ballot title concerns the important substantive language contained in Section 12 of the proposal. That section reads, "Casino gambling shall be lawful and casino/resort development shall be considered appropriate land use in Crittenden County at a location described as:
That part of Section 3, Township 6 North, Range 9 East that lies North of the Burlington-Northern Railroad right-of-way and West of the St. Francis Levee District levee right-of-way; and that part of Section 34, Township 7 North, Range 9 East lying South and East of the drainage canal known as Drainage Ditch No. 2 and West of the St. Francis Levee District levee right-of-way, all of which is situated in Crittenden County, Arkansas."
The foregoing provision specifies a known piece of land owned by unnamed individuals. Nonetheless, the measure's ballot title states only that the measure authorizes the establishment of one casino "at a designated site" in Crittenden County to be operated by a gaming licensee "who can demonstrate ownership of the designated land."
Any voter reading the ballot title, and being unaware of the specific legal description contained in the measure, would unwittingly be led to believe that "a designated site" is yet to be selected. Not so. The constitutional measure, if approved, guarantees some owner of a known and legally described parcel of property in Crittenden County the right to establish and operate a casino. Before casting their ballots, voters no doubt would pause for reflection if they were aware "the" designated site had already been established in the proposed constitutional measure itself, thereby guaranteeing the site's owner whatever benefits that would result from the measure's passage.
Another example of the ballot title not reflecting substantive and important provisions contained in the proposed amendment involves Section 11 .C, which sets forth the general powers of the Casino Gaming Commission. Twenty-nine (29) subsections are listed, most setting forth numerous powers in detail. A majority of those subsections are not mentioned in the ballot title. For example, Section 11.C.8 empowers the commission "to issue subpoenas and compel the attendance of witnesses for its meetings and investigations, to hold hearings, to administer oaths and to require testimony under oath." In addition, the commission can initiate proceedings or actions to enforce provisions of Amendment 5 and then recommend those persons being investigated to be prosecuted for violations not only of any provision of Amendment 5 but of state law, too. A state grand jury has no greater powers. Furthermore, section 11.C.16 gives the commission authority to make any investigation necessary to determine whether there has been any violation of the proposed amendment or any regulations adopted thereunder. These undisclosed powers of the commission would give any disinterested voter serious ground for reflection.
A third serious ballot title omission concerns Sections 9 and 11.C.14 which provide as follows:
Section 9. The Casino Gaming Commission shall require the casino gaming licensee to work with the Casino Gaming Commission to provide training programs for Arkansas residents so that they may be qualified applicants for positions within the casino gaming establishment opened pursuant to this Amendment. These training programs may be operated through post-secondary vocational schools, colleges and universities currently existing in the state.
Section 11.C.14. The gaming activities of schools or training institutions regulated by the Casino Gaming Commission shall be deemed to be legal under the laws of the State of Arkansas. (Emphasis added.)
Although the ballot title reflects that training programs may be provided through existing post-secondary vocational schools, colleges or universities, it contains nothing to reflect that gaming activities conducted at these state institutions are made legal by the proposal. In sum, we have no hesitancy in stating the Arkansas voters, especially those residing where voca tional schools, colleges and universities exist, would determine it important, when casting their ballots, to know that gaming activities will be legal in their communities.
Other substantive and misleading ballot title omissions could be listed, but the foregoing examples suffice. Neither Christian Civic Action nor Bailey involved the type of serious omissions presented here. The Amendment 5 sponsors' choice or insistence in covering the establishment and operation of casino gaming in so much detail can be said to have sounded the proposal's own death knell. Here, proposed Amendment 5 is so all-encompassing that to include every important factor of the proposal in the ballot title would cause the ballot title to be so complex, detailed and lengthy that the Arkansas voter could not intelligently make a choice on the title within the five minutes allowed in the voting booth. Cf. Dust v. Riviere, Secretary of State, 277 Ark. 1, 638 S.W.2d 663 (1977); see also Gaines v. McCuen, 296 Ark. 513, 758 S.W.2d 403 (1988); Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-522(d) (Repl. 1993). Although Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution does not specify a limit on 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 on the issue. In sum, proposed Amendment 5 is so expansive that it precludes the writing of an acceptable ballot title.
For the reasons given above, we hold Amendment 5's ballot title deficient. Petitioner's request for relief is granted, and the Secretary of State is enjoined from canvassing and certifying any returns on Amendment 5.
We point out at this stage that, during this 1994 election year, the court has been presented with more initiative and referendum measures and other election-issue cases than it has had in any past election year. Time constraints have not permitted us the deliberative time we would have liked when deciding such important matters. In 1989, the General Assembly passed Act 280 in an effort to provide timetables that would permit the early review of ballot titles. In a 4-3 decision, this court invalidated the Act, holding its provisions conflicted with Amendment 7. See Finn v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 418, 798 S.W.2d 34 (1990).
We commend the General Assembly's past effort in attempting to establish reasonable statutory timetables to implement initiative and referendum measures under Amendment 7. We respectfully ask its further consideration and action and encourage the General Assembly to make another attempt to establish an initiative and referendum procedure that will permit early resolution of such issues. Until appropriate action is taken to correct the problems attendant to proposals submitted under Amendment 7, citizens can continue to expect measures to be removed from the ballot immediately prior to the election. This court does not enjoy being in the "last-minute" position of review. The people of Arkansas deserve an initiative and referendum procedure which allows them the confidence that measures, after having been adequately reviewed, will not be removed from the ballot. The sponsors of initiative proposals should also be assured their ballot titles and proposed measures meet required guidelines and rules before they spend their time, energy and monies in getting their proposal before the voters.
The mandate is ordered issued within five days from the filing of this opinion unless a petition for rehearing is filed.
Dudley, J. and Special Justice Enfield dissent; Special Justice Brown concurs.
Hays and Brown, JJ., not participating.