Opinion ID: 1704745
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hiding The Ball

Text: To conform to section 101.161(1), a ballot summary must state the chief purpose of the proposed amendment. [28] In evaluating an amendment's chief purpose, a court must look not to subjective criteria espoused by the amendment's sponsor but to objective criteria inherent in the amendment itself, such as the amendment's main effect. [29] In the present case, as explained above, the main effect of the amendment is simple, clear-cut, and beyond dispute: The amendment will nullify the Cruel or Unusual Punishment Clause. This effect far outstrips the stated purpose (i.e., to preserve the death penalty), for the amendment will nullify a longstanding constitutional provision that applies to all criminal punishments, not just the death penalty. Nowhere in the summary, however, is this effect mentioned-or even hinted at. The main effect of the amendment is not stated anywhere on the ballot. (The voter is not even told on the ballot that the word or in the Cruel or Unusual Punishment Clause will be changed to and [30] a significant change by itself.)