Opinion ID: 1662285
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: petitioner's brief

Text: Here, Petitioner makes no specific allegation of insufficiency of the ballot title; he does not identify any specific language as misleading or omitted. Rather, Petitioner merely makes a conclusory allegation that the ballot title is insufficient, cites the applicable standard for our review, and identifies the issue before us as whether the voter, while in the voting booth, will be able to make an intelligent decision as to whether to vote for or against the proposed amendment based on the ballot title alone. Petitioner does not make a legal argument in support of this point, and we will not address the bare allegation any further. Williams v. State, 325 Ark. 432, 930 S.W.2d 297 (1996).
Petitioner acknowledges that the length of a ballot title alone is not a sufficient basis to invalidate it, but contends that length becomes a critical factor when combined with other factors. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the length and manner in which this ballot title is written places before the voter several considerations such as whether to approve four types of gambling not currently authorized by Arkansas law [1] and the various taxes and distribution of revenues associated with each. Consequently, Petitioner argues that the length, design, and complexity of this ballot title cannot be read and comprehended in the five minutes a voter is permitted to remain in the voting booth pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 7-5-522 (Repl.1993) and that the ballot title therefore does not adequately inform the voter of the changes in the law that he is asked to make. When previously considering a proposed amendment with objectives similar to the current one, this court quoted its earlier statement to the effect that while neither length nor complexity of the ballot title should be a controlling factor, they are considerations in determining whether a voter can make an intelligent decision based on the ballot title. Christian Civic Action Comm., 318 Ark. 241, 247, 884 S.W.2d 605, 608 (quoting Dust v. Riviere, 277 Ark. 1, 6, 638 S.W.2d 663, 666 (1982)). This court concluded in Christian Civic Action Committee that the ballot title had a fatal misleading tendency due to the combination of its length of 709 words, its use of specialized terminology that obscured meaning, and its artful amplifications and omissions that concealed the proposed amendment's potential effect. See id. at 250, 884 S.W.2d at 610. In considering Petitioner's argument, we find it significant that he does not suggest that the language of the ballot title misrepresents the text of the proposed amendment or that any material language is omitted from the ballot title. Rather, he contends that the voter will be confused by the presence of multiple considerations in the ballot title, specifically the consideration of four types of gambling along with the considerations that each form of gambling has a different taxation formula with nonuniform distribution of revenues generated. According to Petitioner, the length of the entire ballot title at issue here is 482 words. The portions of the ballot title relevant to this argument are as follows: A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH A STATE-OWNED LOTTERY, TO BE REGULATED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY; REQUIRING ALL STATE LOTTERY PROCEEDS, LESS EXPENSES AND PRIZES, TO BE APPROPRIATED AS FOLLOWS: 50% FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND 50% TO LOCAL PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS (ALLOCATED BY AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE); ... PROVIDING BINGO GAMES AND RAFFLES MAY BE CONDUCTED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES BY NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, AND SHALL BE REGULATED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY; PROVIDING IF AUTHORIZED BY VOTERS IN THE CITY OF HOT SPRINGS, CASINO GAMBLING SHALL BE LAWFUL ... IN HOT SPRINGS ... REQUIRING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO LEVY A PRIVILEGE TAX ON CASINO OPERATORS OF 14% TO 18% OF NET CASINO GAMBLING REVENUES; PROHIBITING OTHER SPECIAL TAXES OR FEES WITH RESPECT TO CASINO GAMBLING OR RELATED ACTIVITIES; ALLOCATING SUCH PRIVILEGE TAX 85% TO THE STATE, 10% TO HOT SPRINGS, AND 5% TO GARLAND COUNTY[.] The ballot title accurately summarizes the text of the proposed amendment with respect to each type of gambling authorized and the respective distribution of proceeds and tax revenues. There is nothing so complex about this ballot title that a voter could not understand. The language is plain and organized in a coherent manner with the respective provisions relating to proceeds and revenue distributions following each type of gambling authorized. We find that no material omissions have been made and that the ballot title is not misleading so as to thwart a fair understanding of these issues. Likewise, we find the ballot title is not so complex as to be beyond the voter's comprehension. Although for purposes of reviewing the particulars of this argument the foregoing quotation shortens the ballot title considerably, we find the total length of 482 words to be of no consequence, especially when considered in light of the absence of any misleading tendencies. We note that some of the specific terminology used in this ballot title was tacitly approved in Christian Civic Action Committee, 318 Ark. 241, 248, 884 S.W.2d 605, 609, where this court stated that most voters could readily understand the use of words such as state lottery, charitable bingo and raffles, and pari-mutuel wagering. It was, among other things, the use of the words additional racetrack wagering to mean casino-style gambling that created the misleading tendency in that case. The current ballot title clearly refers to casino gambling as casino gambling. In short, we are unwilling to hold this ballot title misleading simply because it presents multiple considerations to the voters. Our duty is to ensure that those considerations are presented to the voters in an impartial ballot title so that voters can make intelligent choices. Dust, 277 Ark. 1, 638 S.W.2d 663. We are convinced that such has been done in this case.
Petitioner contends that the primary purpose in the design of the ballot title is to disguise the true focus of the proposed amendmentcasino gambling at Oaklawn Racetrack. While it is not disputed that Oaklawn Racetrack supports this proposed amendment, Petitioner offers no evidence that casino gambling at Oaklawn is the true focus of the proposal. To the contrary, we find no merit to this contention since the proposal also establishes a state lottery, charitable bingo and raffles, and casino gambling at two sites in Hot Springs other than Oaklawn Racetrack. Moreover, the ballot title is very clear in its terms that casino gambling will be authorized at or adjacent to Oaklawn Racetrack. Thus, even if this were the true focus of the proposal, it is clearly disclosed in the ballot title and popular name. Petitioner contends further that the effect of the proposed amendment is to grant the pari-mutuel franchisee at Oaklawn Racetrack a constitutionally sanctioned monopoly inasmuch as it will be the only entity to provide both pari-mutuel wagering and casino gambling in Hot Springs. Even assuming arguendo that the proposed amendment will achieve the effect Petitioner alleges it will, that effect is clearly stated in the ballot title for the reasons expressed below in addressing Intervenor Crochet's second point. Additionally, to call the combination of two types of gambling a monopoly is a stretch of that word's definition when four types of gambling would actually be legalized if the proposal passes: state-owned lottery, charitable bingo and raffles, casino gambling, and pari-mutuel wagering.
Petitioner contends that, as used by the drafters of the proposed amendment, the initiative power reserved by the people in Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution of 1874 will be manipulated to promote the financial gain of a few. Petitioner argues that the proposed amendment will thereby defeat the purpose of the initiative process, which is, Petitioner contends, to permit the people to exercise some control over the policies of this state. Conversely, the responsive argument is that the initiative process is undermined when a few persons act to prevent the voters from receiving the opportunity to exercise their votes. Initially, we perceive at least three purposes of the proposed amendment: (1) to establish a state-owned lottery; (2) to establish charitable bingo and raffles; and (3) to establish casino gambling at three locations in Hot Springs. Thus, it is questionable whether the sole benefit of this proposal would be the financial gain of a few. There can be no doubt that the power reserved to the people in the Initiative and Referendum Amendment, Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution of 1874, is a cornerstone of our state's democratic government. When considering the Initiative and Referendum Amendment, this court has said, the voters of this state essentially have, within constitutional limits, a right to change any law or any provision of our Constitution they deem appropriate through Amendment 7 to the Constitution. Dust, 277 Ark. at 4, 638 S.W.2d at 665. That is indeed the purpose of the initiative process. It follows that this court's sole function in such a process is to ensure that the ballot title represents the proposed amendment in an honest, impartial, and intelligible manner. Bradley v. Hall, 220 Ark. 925, 251 S.W.2d 470 (1952). It is not our function to express our view on, or to determine the merits of, a proposed measurethat power is expressly reserved to the people. The purpose of the initiative process is not undermined by the presentation to the voters of an issue that directly benefits a relative few of the people so long as the benefits to the few were not concealed from the voters. Once the initiated proposal is put to a vote, the people then have their saythey may either accept or reject the proposal with a majority vote. The initiative process is not undermined when the people vote on an issue that was presented to them in a fair and intelligible manner. As evidence that the ballot title manipulates the initiative process, Petitioner contends that it is designed so that easily-understood concepts appear at the beginning, with the more complex concepts appearing near the end. Counsel for Intervenor Douglass explained during oral argument that, although the proposal was not drafted in any particular order, there was a decision to place the lottery first due to the current prohibition of lotteries in our constitution, art. 19, § 14, Ark. Const. of 1874. We find nothing misleading about this decision given our state's historical constitutional prohibition of lotteries since statehood. See Christian Civic Action Comm., 318 Ark. at 254, 884 S.W.2d at 612 (Dudley, J., dissenting). Finally, we note that this argument is nothing more than a repeat of Petitioner's Point II, which we have already rejected.