Opinion ID: 2455506
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The ballot title

Text: Having concluded that we are not barred from reviewing the merits of the secretary of state's decision with respect to the ballot title, we proceed to do so, and we find the ballot title which has been approved by both the attorney general and the secretary of state is insufficient. We are liberal in construing Amendment 7 and determining sufficiency of a ballot title. Dust v. Riviere, 277 Ark. 1, 638 S.W.2d 663 (1982). However, if information not given by a ballot title would give the elector `serious ground for reflection' it must be disclosed. Gaines v. McCuen, 296 Ark. 513, 758 S.W.2d 403 (1988). We have no quarrel with the popular name of the proposed amendment which is STATE LOTTERY, BINGO AND STATE LOTTERY COMMISSION AMENDMENT. The ballot title is as follows: An Amendment to Article 19, Section 14 of the Arkansas Constitution of 1874; to authorize a state lottery and legalize bingo; to form the State Lottery Commission which shall develop, implement and operate the lottery; to provide net revenues to benefit public education (including higher education); to develop a mechanism to grant or reject requests to operate bingo in the State of Arkansas. In Dust v. Riviere, supra , we enjoined the secretary of state from placing on the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment which would have created a new government entity, the Ratepayers Utility Board. We found the ballot title misleading in two respects. First, it provided the purpose of the act was to represent and advocate the interests of residential and small business utility customers. The proposed act provided for appointments of persons by various state officials from various fields of endeavor. For example, the lieutenant governor was to appoint one from at least three nonprofit consumer organizations having statewide membership. We decided the ballot title was insufficient because it did not inform the voter of the interests of the seven people who will direct that Board and this is an important fact since their interests may not necessarily coincide with those of the majority of the residential and small business customer. Here, the ballot title does not reveal the fact that the proposed amendment actually names the persons to occupy the initial board positions. The proposed amendment provides that Walker, Batch, Rice, and the now-deceased Simmons are to be four of the five members of the board. To say the least, it is remarkable, if not unique, in our experience to find initial board members, either the quick or the dead, named in a proposal for a constitutional amendment creating a powerful arm of state government. We cannot resist analogizing to elections to public office. The electors are being asked to elect at least three people to important positions without being informed of that fact in the ballot title. Not only are the voters not to be informed in the ballot title of the names or interests of these prospective board members, they are not even being told that named persons will become the board. The second reason given in the Dust case for holding the ballot title there insufficient was that the new proposed Ratepayers Utility Board was to be a new government entity subject to no check or control by any existing branch of government, and the voters were not being informed of that fact. We held that such a title tended to be misleading and not free from partisan coloring. The proposed amendment in this case makes no mention whatever of any legislative, judicial, or executive department. The board to be created is to run the lottery operation without any known check from any other branch of government. In the Dust case, we wrote: the voter has a right to know when a new entity or department of government is created that will not be subject to existing constitutional controls granted to [the legislature]. In Hoban v. Hall, 229 Ark. 416, 316 S.W.2d 185 (1958), we were presented with a similar, although more troublesome, proposed amendment and ballot title. The ballot title referred to states' rights which, we wrote, was an appealing phrase, much like helping education in this case and helping the aged and blind in Walton v. McDonald, 192 Ark. 1155, 97 S.W.2d 81 (1936). The ballot title, however, did not address the portions of the proposed amendment which would have made a State's Rights Commission totally independent of the other branches of government. We wrote: The Commission, created by Article I of the measure, consists of twelve members. Sections 5 and 6 of this article destroy the system of checks and balances that has characterized our government since its birth. Section 5 provides that no court shall be empowered to enjoin the Commission from performing the duties set out in the amendment. Those duties, however, are not clearly defined. By § 7 the Commission is invested with the duty and the power to perform any and all things deemed necessary and proper to protect the sovereignty of the several states and to resist the usurpation of the rights reserved to the states. Within the vague limits of this clause it is difficult to conceive of any powerlegislative, executive, or judicialthat the Commission might not lay claim to. The ballot title, it may be observed, does not even mention the powers of the commission, much less does it give a hint of their unlimited scope [229 Ark. at 418-419, 316 S.W.2d at 187]. While the proposed lottery amendment does not contain provisions, like the ill fated states' right proposal, setting the commission free of all checks and balances, it contains nothing on the subject. It provides for the administration of the lottery and bingo by the proposed commission, period. The proponents have submitted an affidavit to the effect that they will seek an implementing legislative package, but that is not in the proposed amendment and, as far as we know, would not bind the proponents if the voters passed the proposed amendment. Again, if there were disclosure of these facts in the ballot title, voters would be given ample cause to pause and reflect before approving or disapproving the proposal. Clearly, if the voters were made aware not only that, by voting for the proposed amendment they were creating an ostensibly autonomous board to handle what could become huge amounts of state money and naming persons to that board, they would have cause to pause and reflect. Gaines v. McCuen, 296 Ark. 513, 758 S.W.2d 403 (1988). The ballot title is insufficient. In view of our decision on the merits of the ballot title, we need not consider the question raised about the validity of signatures counted after Mr. Simmons's death. The secretary of state is enjoined from placing the proposed State Lottery, Bingo and State Lottery Commission Amendment on the election ballot for the November 6, 1990, general election. The mandate implementing the opinion shall issue immediately. Any votes cast in the general election of 1990 on the proposed amendment which is the subject of this opinion will not be counted. DUDLEY, HAYS and GLAZE, JJ., dissent. PRICE, J., concurs.