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

Heading: Failure to Disclose Effect on Laws Protecting Both Married and Unmarried Persons

Text: For their next challenge, Petitioners argue that the ballot title fails to disclose to the voter the effect of the amendment. Specifically, they assert that the voter is not informed that the amendment will allegedly repeal existing laws, such as those that prohibit discrimination against and protect the rights of persons regardless of whether they are married or single. See, e.g., Ark.Code Ann. § 4-87-104 (Repl. 2001); Ark.Code Ann. § 9-3-107 (Repl. 2002). They assert further that Proposed Amendment 3 will impliedly repeal Article 9, § 3, of the Arkansas Constitution, which provides homestead rights to state residents who are either married or the head of a family. They contend that the ballot title's failure to disclose these consequences to the voters renders it insufficient. We note at the outset that Petitioners have failed to cite any legal authority or make any convincing argument in support of this point. Instead, their argument is based entirely on speculation and conjecture as to how this amendment may be interpreted or construed in the future and how it may affect current laws. The present case is not like that of Bailey, 318 Ark. 277, 884 S.W.2d 938, where the proposed amendment undeniably would have changed the current state of the law, but the ballot title made no mention of the change. There, the text of the proposed amendment plainly provided that the workers' compensation laws would be interpreted liberally, but the ballot title made no such mention of this liberal interpretation. This court concluded that the ballot title was misleading in omitting this information, on the ground that the amendment would have repealed the current law requiring strict construction. This court held that the omission of this information would give the voters a serious basis for reflection on how to cast their ballots. Id. at 288, 884 S.W.2d at 944. Nor is this case like that of Kurrus v. Priest, 342 Ark. 434, 29 S.W.3d 669 (2000), where the ballot title failed to inform the voters of the far-reaching consequences of the measure, which would have, immediately upon its approval, ceased the collection of revenues collected from sales and use taxes on used goods. The ballot title further failed to inform the voters that those lost revenues could not be made up for until the next regularly scheduled statewide election. This court concluded that such information was so significant and material that it would give the voter serious ground for reflection. This court held that because such information was omitted, the ballot title failed to convey to the voters the scope and import of the proposed measure. In the present case, the argument made by Petitioners amounts to nothing more than an assertion that some current laws may be affected or even impliedly repealed with the passage of Proposed Amendment 3. Unlike the two cases cited above, the laws allegedly implicated in this case are by no means certainly implicated, such that the ballot title must inform the voters of this. Accordingly, the ballot title does not fail in this respect. This court has held that it is not necessary that a ballot title include every possible consequence or impact of a proposed measure. In Ferstl, 296 Ark. 504, 510, 758 S.W.2d 398, 401, this court stated unequivocally: Certainly not every detail of an amendment or how it will work in every situation can be revealed in the name and title. It is not possible to do so. (Emphasis added.) More recently, this court has reiterated: The [ballot] title is not required to be perfect, nor is it reasonable to expect the title to cover or anticipate every possible legal argument the proposed measure might evoke. Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654, 658, 841 S.W.2d 139, 141 (1992), overruled in part on other grounds by Bailey, 318 Ark. 277, 884 S.W.2d 938. The bottom line is that Petitioners' assertions on this point are too speculative for us to hold that such information is so material that it would give the voter serious ground for reflecting. [2] Before we leave this point, we must address Petitioners' assertion that where the language of the ballot title mirrors that of the amendment itself, this court has no choice but to interpret the amendment. While we agree that in such a situation, our review of the language of one will necessarily result in the review of the other, we do not agree that such a review extends to the prospective application of the amendment. In other words, while we may be required to consider the language of the amendment itself to determine whether a term or phrase in the title is vague or misleading, this does not mean that we will interpret the amendment in the sense of construing or applying it. However, we note that our holding today does not foreclose Petitioners from pursuing this argument in the event the proposed amendment is approved by the voters. Until that time, our review is limited.