Opinion ID: 2352048
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Partisanship and Consequences

Text: In their second and fifth points, APPLES's contentions amount to a challenge of the ballot title for failing to inform the voter of the consequence of their vote and for being partisan. We disagree. The voters are informed that the amendment abolishes all forms and types of taxes on food and medicine (as those terms are defined herein) and will result in a loss of revenue for state, county, and city governments, as well as school districts, with the result that a reduction in the services provided by those entities and/or an increase in other taxes may be required. The crux of APPLES argument is that the voters will not be able to understand the fiscal impact the passage of the amendment will have. In that regard, APPLES claims that the ballot does not sufficiently inform voters that the soft-drink tax and hamburger tax would be repealed resulting in a significant cut in the State Medicaid Program. The Arkansas Soft Drink Tax Act, codified at Ark.Code Ann. §§ 26-57-901-909 (Repl.1997), levies a tax on soft-drink syrup or simple syrup, bottled soft drinks, and powder or other base products. The hamburger tax, codified at Ark.Code Ann. §§ 26-74-501(2), 26-75-602(a), (c)(2) (Repl.1997), provides for the taxation of certain prepared meals. APPLES looks to the statutory language and determines that the proposed amendment's definition of food covers items in the soft-drink tax and, thus, effectively repeals the Soft Drink Tax Act. Moreover, APPLES concludes that food encompasses prepared meals, so the hamburger tax would also be repealed. APPLES alleges that the revenues from the soft-drink tax are deposited in the Arkansas Medicaid Program Trust Fund and used exclusively for the state match of federal funds under the Arkansas Medicaid Program. APPLES goes on to conclude that the loss of revenue from the soft drink tax alone will result in a loss of $118.9 million in federal matching funds. Thus, according to APPLES, the voters will not get a fair understanding of what it is they are being asked to decide. APPLES also alleges that the phrase a reduction in the services provided by those entities and/or an increase in other taxes may be required soft-pedals the material fiscal impact of the amendment, making it partisan and misleading. These conclusions are disputed by ALERT. It suggests that only wholesalers, distributers, and manufacturers are subject to the soft-drink tax, and since food stamps cannot be used to buy from these entities, the soft-drink tax will not be affected. ALERT also asserts that APPLES is actually arguing the merits of the initiative, and the respondent points out that a finding as to the impact of the proposed amendment on the soft-drink tax or hamburger tax necessarily requires an interpretation of the measure's language and is beyond the scope of review by this court. We agree. As stated earlier, it is not our function to interpret the amendment or explain how it is to be implemented. Ferstl v. McCuen, 296 Ark. 504, 758 S.W.2d 398 (1988). This ballot title is readily distinguishable from three other cases cited by APPLES. Here, a representation in the text of the amendment is not omitted from the ballot title, as happened in Page v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 342, 884 S.W.2d 951 (1994). The ballot title at issue is simply not complex, detailed, lengthy, misleading, and confusing as was the case in Dust v. Riviere, 277 Ark. 1, 638 S.W.2d 663 (1982). The internal inconsistencies present in the ballot title in Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 20 S.W.3d 376 (2000), are not present here. Lastly, the Attorney General appropriately added language to the ballot title in order to comply with our holding in Kurrus v. Priest, 342 Ark. 434, 29 S.W.3d 669 (2000) (satisfaction of contractual obligations and the possible risk of losing government services). The ballot title in this case presents the voter with a fair understanding of the issues presented and the scope and significance of the proposed changes. Specifically, even a cursory examination of the popular name and ballot title reveals that the proposed amendment will eliminate taxes on food and medicine. The ballot title tracks the language in the proposed amendment and uses an established benchmark to define food and medicine state and federal nutrition and health care assistance programs. The ballot title also tells the voter unequivocally that the proposed amendment will result in a loss of revenue for state, county, and city governments, as well as school districts and that a reduction in the services provided by those entities and/or an increase in other taxes may be required. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the ballot title in this case is intelligible, honest, and impartial. Further, we conclude that the ballot title is an impartial summary of the proposed amendment and it gives voters a fair understanding of the issues presented and the scope and significance of the proposed changes. Moreover, the ballot title is free from any misleading tendencies that, whether by amplification, omission, or fallacy, would thwart a fair understanding of the issues presented. In short, the proposed initiative is adequately identified by popular name, and its general purposes are fairly stated in the ballot title. Petition denied. The mandate shall issue immediately. HANNAH, J., and HOLT, Sp.J, concur in part and dissent in part. GLAZE, CORBIN, and BROWN, JJ., dissent. ARNOLD, C.J., and IMBER, J., would deny the petition. HANNAH, J., and HOLT, Sp.J., would grant the petition. See concurring opinions of HANNAH, J., and HOLT, Sp.J. THORNTON, J., not participating.