Opinion ID: 1662285
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: pari-mutuel wagering on dog racing

Text: Intervenor Crochet contends that the ballot title is misleading because it does not inform voters of a substantial change in the law, namely that the proposed amendment will now constitutionally authorize pari-mutuel wagering on dog races. This argument is based upon an entirely false premise and is therefore wholly without merit. It is true that pari-mutuel wagering on dog racing is currently allowed in this state not by way of constitutional law but by way of statutory law. Ark.Code Ann. §§ 23-111-101 to -515 (Repl.1992 & Supp.1995); Scott v. Dunaway, 228 Ark. 943, 311 S.W.2d 305 (1958). However, it is not true that the proposed amendment would change the law so that pari-mutuel wagering on dog races would be constitutionally authorized. The ballot title and proposed amendment prohibit wagering activities, including lotteries, casinos, and gambling activities other than pari-mutuel wagering on horses and dogs, that are not authorized in this proposal or other proposals passed in the November 5, 1996, election. While this language does not prohibit pari-mutuel wagering on dog racing, it does not expressly authorize it via the proposed constitutional amendment either. Moreover, this language does not change Arkansas law; it simply preserves the status quo. The fact that pari-mutuel wagering on dog racing is not prohibited by our current constitution or the proposed amendment simply does not mean that such wagering would be constitutionally authorized if the proposed amendment passes. All arguments presented are without merit. Accordingly, we deny the petition for injunction.