Opinion ID: 1777946
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Length and Complexity of Ballot Title

Text: Petitioners contend that the proposed amendment, with its 11 definitions, 17 sections, and 127 subsections, is so all-encompassing and expansive that it precludes an acceptable ballot title. As a result, argue Petitioners, the approximate 1,000 words in the ballot title do not adequately inform the voter in sufficient detail of the content of the proposed amendment. Both Respondent and Intervenor view this argument as one coming out of both sides of Petitioners' mouths, i.e., the ballot title is too long but also omits material information. To the contrary, we view this argument as an attempt to align the present case with this court's statements in Page v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 342, 347, 884 S.W.2d 951, 954 (1994): The Amendment 5 sponsors' choice or insistence in covering the establishment and operation of casino gaming in so much detail can be said to have sounded the proposal's own death knell. Here, proposed Amendment 5 is so all-encompassing that to include every important factor of the proposal in the ballot title would cause the ballot title to be so complex, detailed and lengthy that the Arkansas voter could not intelligently make a choice on the title within the five minutes allowed in the voting booth. Cf. Dust v. Riviere, Secretary of State, 277 Ark. 1, 638 S.W.2d 663 (1982); see also Gaines v. McCuen, 296 Ark. 513, 758 S.W.2d 403 (1988); Ark.Code Ann. § 7-5-522(d) (Repl.1993). Although Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution does not specify a limit on the length of a proposal, the proposed measure must be of a size capable of having a ballot title which will not only convey the scope and import of the measure, but also impart a description of the proposal so voters can cast their votes intelligently and with a fair understanding on the issue. In sum, proposed Amendment 5 is so expansive that it precludes the writing of an acceptable ballot title. Indeed, Petitioners cite Page in support of this argument. However, they also acknowledge that length alone does not render a ballot title insufficient and argue that when the length is combined with the omissions and misleading language, this ballot title is insufficient. Petitioners are correct that while length is a consideration, it is by no means the determining factor on the question of the sufficiency of a ballot title. Parker, 326 Ark. 123, 930 S.W.2d 322. Likewise, there is no restriction on the length of a proposed amendment. Page, 318 Ark. 342, 884 S.W.2d 951 (citing Amendment 7). As this court intimated in the foregoing quotation from Page , however, there is in effect a practical constraint on the length of both a proposed amendment and its ballot title that stems from the requirements that a ballot title convey the scope and import of the proposal while also imparting a fair description of the proposal to allow voters to vote intelligently in the limited time allotted them in a voting booth. In the words of the Attorney General's opinion certifying the ballot title at issue here, with any proposed initiative similar in length to the one submitted in this instance, the sponsor runs the risk of an unacceptable ballot title. The present proposed amendment and ballot title are, in relative terms, at least as long and detailed as most that have been considered by this court. See, e.g., Page, 318 Ark. 342, 884 S.W.2d 951. Nevertheless, we decline to hold the ballot title insufficient because of its length alone. Rather, the length is but one consideration for us as we determine the sufficiency of the ballot title.