Opinion ID: 1662285
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: pari-mutuel franchisee is oaklawn

Text: Intervenor Crochet contends that the ballot title is misleading because it states that casino gambling at Oaklawn Racetrack will be conducted by a pari-mutuel franchisee but does not inform the voters that there is only one pari-mutuel franchisee in Hot Springs, namely the entity that operates Oaklawn Racetrack. Conversely, Respondent contends that the ballot title contains all the information necessary for voters to identify the pari-mutuel franchisee. We agree with Respondent. The current ballot title defines pari-mutuel franchisee as a person or entity that holds a pari-mutuel franchise and conducts pari-mutuel wagering on horse racing at Oaklawn Racetrack[.] The current ballot title also defines Oaklawn Racetrack as the Oaklawn Racetrack site in Hot Springs where pari-mutuel wagering on horse racing was conducted in 1995[.] Thus, when the ballot title states that casino gambling shall be lawful at or adjacent to Oaklawn Race-track, when conducted by a pari-mutuel franchisee, there can be no doubt that the pari-mutuel franchisee is indeed Oaklawn Racetrack and no other entity. We find nothing misleading about this language. Intervenor Crochet argues that this language is misleading because it refers to Oaklawn as a pari-mutuel franchisee instead of the pari-mutuel franchise. We are convinced that voters will understand that a pari-mutuel franchisee refers to Oaklawn Racetrack. Moreover, Intervenor Crochet is not entitled to a ballot title that pleases him personally, as this court has previously recognized the impossibility of drafting a ballot title that would suit everyone. Hogan v. Hall, 198 Ark. 681, 130 S.W.2d 716 (1939), cited with approval in Bradley, 220 Ark. 925, 251 S.W.2d 470.