Opinion ID: 1871043
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Disclose Prohibition on Legal Relationships Other Than Marriage

Text: Petitioners' third argument is that the ballot title does not inform the voters that a vote for this proposal will prohibit the future recognition of legal relationships between unmarried couples other than marriage, like civil unions or domestic partnerships. In other words, they contend that the ballot title does not inform the voter that the amendment not only bans same-sex marriage, but also bans any similar legal relationship between unmarried persons. They contend that by using the phrase legal status for unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to marital status, Intervenors are attempting to cloak the intended meaning, which is to prohibit civil unions or domestic partnerships. They rely on this court's holdings in Christian Civic Action Comm., 318 Ark. 241, 884 S.W.2d 605, Crochet, 326 Ark. 338, 931 S.W.2d 128, and Kurrus, 342 Ark. 434, 29 S.W.3d 669. In Christian Civic Action Comm., 318 Ark. 241, 884 S.W.2d 605, this court struck a proposed measure from the ballot in part due to the misleading term additional racetrack wagering. This court explained: It is evident, as the petitioners suggest, that additional racetrack wagering is a euphemism and, further, that the definition consists of compounded euphemisms designed to cloak in semantic obscurity the actual nature of the proposed enterprise. What, in fact, the definition obliquely describes in highly technical terms are the elements of casino-style gambling. Yet voters favoring or opposing the inauguration of casino-style gambling may well be unaware that this is precisely what Amendment 4 seeks to accomplish. Id. at 249, 884 S.W.2d at 609-10 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Crochet, 326 Ark. 338, 931 S.W.2d 128, this court concluded that the proposed measure's use of the term video terminal games was misleading, holding: While voters may be able to discern that the term video terminal games means slot machines, they should not be forced to guess the meaning of a proposed amendment to their state's constitution. The very purpose of the ballot title is to convey a fair and impartial understanding of the proposal. To call slot machines video terminal games, which connotes a present-day video game such as Nintendo or Sega Genesis, is anything but fair and impartial. Consequently, we conclude that the use of the term video terminal games creates a fatally misleading tendency in the popular name and ballot title and tinges them with partisan coloring. Id. at 346-47, 931 S.W.2d at 133 (emphasis added). Finally, Petitioners rely on this court's statement in Kurrus, 342 Ark. 434, 29 S.W.3d 669, that misleading or vague language placing the voter in a position of either having to be an expert in the subject of [the proposed amendment] or having to guess as to the effect his or her vote would have is impermissible. Id. at 444, 29 S.W.3d at 674 (citing Dust v. Riviere, 277 Ark. 1, 638 S.W.2d 663 (1982)). Petitioners argue that because Proposed Amendment 3 fails to disclose what particular kinds of relationships will be prohibited by the amendment and leaves the voters to guess what the amendment means, it is, by its own terms, vague and misleading. Intervenors argue that it is Petitioners who are being unclear. They assert that the terms civil union and domestic partnership are not legally recognized terms in Arkansas and would not be readily understood by voters. They also assert that, contrary to Petitioners' urging, Proposed Amendment 3 will not prohibit unmarried couples from entering into civil unions or domestic partnerships, so long as these relationships are not marriage by another name. They contend that Proposed Amendment 3 makes clear that whatever alternative forms of marital status other jurisdictions may recognize and by whatever terms such jurisdictions use to identify them, those unions will not be recognized in Arkansas if they are nothing more than marriages with new labels. Intervenors assert that this is a concept that the voters can readily understand. As with the previous point, we conclude that Petitioners' argument on this point requires us to interpret the amendment or, at a minimum, to assume that Petitioners are correct in asserting that the amendment will in fact prohibit civil unions or domestic partnerships. We cannot make such an assumption. The ballot title itself does not specifically prohibit unmarried persons from having the legal status of a civil union or domestic partnership; rather, it prohibits unmarried persons from having a legal status that is identical or substantially similar to marital status. The text of the amendment mirrors the ballot title. Thus, the ballot title is not misleading for failing to give specifics where the amendment does not. Moreover, the amendment clearly provides the General Assembly with the power to pass further legislation determining the rights, obligations, privileges, and immunities of marriage. Until such legislation is enacted, we cannot know whether the amendment will prohibit civil unions or domestic partnerships. Finally, we note that the terms civil union and domestic partnership have not been legally defined in this state. [3] Thus, if the terms were used in the ballot title, we would have to engage in legal interpretation and construction to ascertain what those terms mean in order to determine whether they will be prohibited as a legal status that is identical or substantially similar to marital status. As with the previous point, Petitioners must wait to be heard on this issue until the amendment is approved by a majority of the voters and a justiciable case arises.