Opinion ID: 2382879
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: applying the standard in this case

Text: The petitioners do not question the sufficiency of the ballot title description of the first three proposed categories of gambling, which include a lottery, bingo games, and raffles. The argument is over the sufficiency, scope, and fairness of the fourth and fifth categories of gambling authorized. The majority opinion seems to question the sufficiency of the fourth category and holds the fifth category manifests a fatal misleading tendency.
The ballot title describes the fourth category of gambling, pari-mutuel wagering on horse racing and greyhound racing, as follows: Authorizing a pari-mutuel franchisee to conduct pari-mutuel wagering, including simulcasting and merged-pool wagering, on horses in Garland County, Arkansas, and a pari-mutuel franchisee to conduct pari-mutuel wagering, including simulcasting and merged-pool wagering, on greyhounds in Crittenden County, Arkansas; providing that horse racing and greyhound racing wagering thereon shall not constitute a lottery and shall be regulated by the General Assembly. The language provides that the amendment would authorize one franchise for pari-mutuel betting on horse racing in Garland County and one franchise for pari-mutuel betting on greyhound racing in Crittenden County, with pari-mutuel betting taking place at both racetracks. The less obvious, but equally important, question is whether the ballot title informs the voters that the proposed amendment would repeal current laws so that neither the general assembly nor the Racing Commission could authorize a franchise for horse racing in a county other than Garland, nor could the legislature or the Commission authorize a franchise for greyhound racing in a county other than Crittenden. Also of concern is whether the ballot title informs the voters that the citizens of Crittenden County would no longer be able to stop greyhound racing in that county. The ballot title provides that it is an amendment [p]rohibiting all wagering activities other than those authorized by this amendment and is an amendment [r]epealing all constitutional provisions and laws to the extent they conflict with the amendment. The language informs the voter that the proposal would grant an exclusive license to the holders of the two racetrack franchises, and anything to the contrary would be repealed. As a result, it comes within the standard for an initiated provision. The majority opinion does not hold to the contrary, but questions the fact that there is no express disclosure that the citizens of Crittenden County could no longer vote to stop greyhound racing. It is not necessary for the ballot title to discuss in detail the law repealed. While we must first determine the changes a proposal would make before determining the sufficiency of a petition, there is no requirement that those changes be specifically set out in the ballot title. Moore v. Hall, 229 Ark. 411, 316 S.W.2d 207 (1958).
Petitioners' principal argument is that the ballot title is misleading because the voter is being asked to approve casino-style gambling, but the word casino does not appear in the section defining authorized activities. The majority opinion embraces this argument. The question of law is whether the ballot title adequately informs the voter that he or she is being asked to approve the various kinds of gambling that are proposed to take place at the two exclusive franchises. Contrary to the holding of the majority opinion, the popular name of the proposal suggests the correct answer to the issue. It is, An amendment to authorize a state lottery, nonprofit bingo, pari-mutuel wagering and additional games of chance at racetrack sites. (Emphasis added.) The ballot title states that the proposal is an amendment: Authorizing pari-mutuel franchisees to conduct additional wagering on or adjacent to the sites where horse racing is conducted in Garland County, Arkansas, and where greyhound racing is conducted in Crittenden County, Arkansas. The language plainly states that the wagering authorized, in addition to the pari-mutuel wagering, would take place in either some part of the existing racetrack facilities, or in some facility adjacent to the racetrack sites. A casino is defined in Webster's International Dictionary as 1. a small country house. 2. a building or room used for social meetings, or public amusements, for dancing, gaming, etc. Webster's International Dictionary, 416 (2d ed. 1953). It is defined in Webster's Third New International Dictionary as 1. a building or room used for social meetings and public amusement (as dancing); (specif.); a building or room for gambling. Webster's New International Dictionary, 347 (3d ed. 1961). In the context of a building or room, the ballot title provides all the information that the word casino would provide. That is, some part of the currently existing buildings at the racetracks or some building or room adjacent to the current facilities would be used for gambling. The language sufficiently apprises the voter of the location, scope, and extent of the buildings proposed to be used for the additional wagering. The majority opinion, however, states that the voter will not be informed that the buildings will contain such games as video poker, slot machines, roulette wheels, blackjack, craps, poker, and other games of chance are proposed for the buildings located at or adjacent to the current facilities. The rhetoric of the majority opinion ignores the plain language of the ballot title. The ballot title plainly states that the two holders of the two race track franchises would be authorized to conduct additional wagering. It then defines this additional racetrack wagering as wagering on games of chance or skill conducted by mechanical, electrical, electronic or electromechanical devices and table games; providing that this additional racetrack wagering shall not be limited to when racing is being conducted and shall not constitute a lottery. The majority opinion holds that the phrase additional racetrack wagering is misleading partisan coloring that should void the proposal. The argument might well be valid if additional racetrack wagering stood alone and was not defined, but the phrase is defined as wagering on games of chance or skill and table games whether conducted electrically, mechanically, or electromechanically at the racetrack sites. Such a definition informs the voter that gambling on various games of chance or skill is proposed for each of the two locations. It is not necessary that the specific games of chance be specified. In summary, the fifth category of gambling, wagering on games of chance at the race tracks, in addition to pari-mutuel betting on races, meets the requirements for a ballot title. The majority opinion also holds that the sequence the information is placed in the ballot title prevents the voter from understanding the issue. The ballot title follows the order of the text of the amendment. That is how it should be. The majority opinion cites no authority to the contrary.