Opinion ID: 1631664
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Define the Term State Lottery

Text: For his next challenge, Petitioner argues that, without a definition of the term state lottery in either the ballot title or the text of the proposed amendment, voters are not adequately informed as to whether, by approving the proposed amendment, they will be authorizing the General Assembly to approve (1) only the sale of lottery tickets by or on behalf of the State or (2) other games of chance operated by or on behalf of the State that may comply with the definition of lottery as set forth by this court in previous decisions. Moreover, Petitioner argues that, by making the term plural, nothing in the language prohibits the State from operating multiple types of lotteries, and the voters are not adequately informed of this possibility. Respondent and Intervenors point out that this court has already said that most voters will readily understand what a state lottery entails, citing Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 241, 248, 884 S.W.2d 605, 609 (1994). Respondent further argues that the ballot title explicitly apprises the voters that the General Assembly will be vested with authority to supply these details, and Petitioner is asking the court to speculate on future legislation. Intervenors emphasize that the term lottery is not now and never has been defined in the current Arkansas Constitution since its adoption in 1874. Moreover, no definition appears in the earlier state constitutions adopted in 1836, 1861, 1864, and 1868. We have held that a ballot title is sufficient if it identifies the proposed measure and fairly recites the general purpose, and it need not be so elaborate as to set forth the details of the measure. Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. at 223, 604 S.W.2d at 557. In this case, the text of the proposed amendment does not contain a definition for state lottery. When the text of the proposed amendment mirrors the ballot title, we have said that the ballot title is not misleading for failing to give specifics where the amendment does not. May v. Daniels, 359 Ark. at 114, 194 S.W.3d at 782. Petitioner cites Kinchen v. Wilkins, 367 Ark. 71, 238 S.W.3d 94 (2006), and argues that when the text is insufficient, the fact that the ballot title mirrors the text does not make the title sufficient. While Petitioner is correct in his interpretation of Kinchen v. Wilkins , we have consistently approved the use of the term state lottery in ballot titles without a definition. See Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen, supra ; Parker v. Priest, 326 Ark. 123, 930 S.W.2d 322 (1996). We have stated that most voters could readily understand the term state lottery. Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen, 318 Ark. at 248, 884 S.W.2d at 609. In an effort to distinguish the instant case from Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen , Petitioner suggests that voters can distinguish state lottery from charitable bingo game or a charitable raffle, but cannot understand the meaning of state lottery if it stands alone in the ballot title. We disagree. Our conclusion was not that voters can distinguish different types of gambling, but that voters can understand each of the terms, including the term state lottery. Id., 884 S.W.2d at 609; Parker v. Priest, 326 Ark. at 132, 930 S.W.2d at 327. A highly technical definition is disfavored in ballot titles. While we have approved the use of commonly used terms such as state lottery and charitable bingo game in ballot titles, we have disapproved the use of terms that are technical and not readily understood by voters, such that voters would be placed in a position of either having to be an expert in the subject or having to guess as to the effect his or her vote would have. See Kurrus v. Priest, 342 Ark. 434, 29 S.W.3d 669 (2000); Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen, supra ; Crochet v. Priest, 326 Ark. 338, 931 S.W.2d 128 (1996). For example, in the Christian Civic Action Committee case, we struck a proposed measure from the ballot because the ballot title was misleading in that it used a definition full of highly technical terms in order to avoid using the term casino-style gaming. Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen, supra . In another attempt to distinguish the instant case from Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen and Parker v. Priest , Petitioner argues that, in those two cases, the definition of state lottery was included in the text of the proposed amendment. If omission of the definition of state lottery would make the ballot title misleading or insufficient, the fact that the definition was included in the text of the proposed amendment would not cure the defect. The popular name and ballot title of the petition are the only portions of the proposal that appear on the ballot. McDonald v. Bryant, 238 Ark. 338, 339, 381 S.W.2d 736, 737 (1964). For his last argument under this point, Petitioner contends that by omitting a definition of the term state lottery, voters will not know whether the proposed amendment only includes the sale of lottery tickets by or on behalf of the State or whether it also includes other games of chance operated by or on behalf of the State that may fall under the broad judicial definition of lottery in Burks v. Harris, 91 Ark. 205, 208, 120 S.W. 979, 980 (1909), Longstreth v. Cook, 215 Ark. 72, 80, 220 S.W.2d 433, 437 (1949), and Shuffield v. Raney, 226 Ark. 3, 7, 287 S.W.2d 588, 591 (1956). In addition, he suggests that the plural form of lottery may be interpreted to authorize the State to run more than one lottery. As stated earlier, the ballot title does not have to state the existing law. Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. at 224, 604 S.W.2d at 558. Accordingly, the ballot title is not required to inform voters of the current case law on lotteries. Moreover, Petitioner's argument would require this court to interpret the proposed amendment, which we do not do in reviewing the sufficiency of ballot titles. May v. Daniels, 359 Ark. at 112, 194 S.W.3d at 781. The proposed amendment in the instant case, like the proposal in May v. Daniels , puts the voters on notice that the General Assembly will pass further legislation to establish, operate, and regulate state lotteries. Until such legislation is enacted, we cannot interpret the particulars of the amendment. Id. at 109, 194 S.W.3d at 779. While Petitioner may disagree with the wisdom of such delegation or the broad discretion afforded by the proposed measure, our court will only review the sufficiency of a ballot title, and will not examine the merits of the proposed changes in the law. Even if proponents of the ballot title came up with a list of games or a definition of lottery, that list or definition would still be subject to further judicial interpretation in the event the proposed amendment is adopted. [2] In sum, our job is not to review the relative merit or fault of the proposed initiative, nor is it to fashion a perfect or even a better ballot title. May v. Daniels, 359 Ark. at 107, 194 S.W.3d at 777. We also bear in mind that strict technical construction is not required, but that substantial compliance with Amendment 7 is all that is needed. Id. at 109, 194 S.W.3d at 779. It is not necessary that a ballot title include every possible consequence or impact of the proposed measure, or anticipate every possible legal argument the proposed measure might evoke. Id. at 111, 194 S.W.3d at 780. It is our duty to approve a ballot title if it represents an impartial summary of the measure and contains enough information to enable the voters to mark their ballots with a fair understanding of the issues presented. Id. at 110, 194 S.W.3d at 779.