Opinion ID: 6109821
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of the Ballot Title

Text: Petitioner argues that the ballot title is insufficient in three respects. First, petitioner argues that the ballot title omits necessary information because it fails to inform voters that Issue No. 4 overturns article 2, section 19's constitutional ban of monopolies and perpetuities by giving exclusive, perpetual licenses for casino gambling and alcohol sales. Next, petitioner argues that the ballot title misleads voters into believing that local elected officials can approve or disapprove of casinos in their respective communities. Finally, petitioner argues that the ballot title is misleading because it does not inform voters that the provisions of article 12 of the Arkansas Constitution, which allow for the revocation of a corporate charter, are superseded by Issue No. 4 and that voters are misled into thinking that they are gaining authority due to the requirement for a letter of approval when in reality they are losing authority. We recently discussed the familiar standards governing our review of ballot titles: The ballot title must be an impartial summary of the proposed amendment, and it must give the voters a fair understanding of the issues presented and the scope and significance of the proposed changes in the law. May v. Daniels , 359 Ark. 100 , 194 S.W.3d 771 (2004) ;  Scott v. Priest , 326 Ark. 328 , 932 S.W.2d 746 (1996). A ballot title must be free of any misleading tendency whether by amplification, omission, or fallacy, and it must not be tinged with partisan coloring. Parker v. Priest , 326 Ark. 386 , 931 S.W.2d 108 (1996) ; Bailey v. McCuen , 318 Ark. 277 , 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994). The ballot title need not contain a synopsis of the proposed amendment or cover every detail of it. See Becker v. McCuen , 303 Ark. 482 , 798 S.W.2d 71 (1990) ; Sturdy v. Hall , 204 Ark. 785 , 164 S.W.2d 884 (1942). However, if information omitted from the ballot title is an essential fact that would give the voter serious ground for reflection, it must be disclosed. Walker v. McCuen , 318 Ark. 508 , 886 S.W.2d 577 (1994) ; Page v. McCuen , 318 Ark. 342 , 884 S.W.2d 951 (1994). This court has long recognized the impossibility of preparing a ballot title that would suit everyone. Cox v. Daniels , 374 Ark. 437 , 288 S.W.3d 591 (2008) ; Hogan v. Hall , 198 Ark. 681 , 130 S.W.2d 716 (1939). Thus, the ultimate issue is whether the voter, while inside the voting booth, is able to reach an intelligent and informed decision for or against the proposal and understands the consequences of his or her vote based on the ballot title. Roberts v. Priest , 341 Ark. 813 , 20 S.W.3d 376 (2000) ; Porter v. McCuen , 310 Ark. 562 , 839 S.W.2d 512 (1992). The sufficiency of a ballot title is a matter of law to be decided by this court. May , supra ; Bailey, supra. Our most significant rule in determining the sufficiency of the title is that it be given a liberal construction and interpretation in order that it secure the purposes of reserving to the people the right to adopt, reject, approve, or disapprove legislation. May , supra ; Mason v. Jernigan , 260 Ark. 385 , 540 S.W.2d 851 (1976). However, this approach does not imply that liberality is boundless or that common sense is disregarded. Christian Civic Action Comm. v. McCuen , 318 Ark. 241 , 884 S.W.2d 605 (1994) ; Dust v. Riviere , 277 Ark. 1 , 638 S.W.2d 663 (1982). In addition, when reviewing a challenge to a ballot title, this court recognizes that article 5, section 1 places the burden upon the party challenging the ballot title to prove that it is misleading or insufficient. Richardson v. Martin , 2014 Ark. 429 , 444 S.W.3d 855 ; Cox v. Martin , 2012 Ark. 352 , 423 S.W.3d 75 . Finally, we observe that it is not our purpose to examine the relative merit or fault of the proposed changes in the law; rather, our function is merely to review the measure to ensure that, if it is presented to the people for consideration in a popular vote, it is presented fairly. Cox v. Daniels , supra ; May, supra . In other words, [t]he question is not how the members of this court feel concerning the wisdom of this proposed amendment, but rather whether the requirements for submission of the proposal to the voters has been met. Ferstl v. McCuen , 296 Ark. 504 , 509, 758 S.W.2d 398 , 401 (1988). Rose v. Martin , 2016 Ark. 339 , at 4-5, 500 S.W.3d 148 , 151-52. With these standards in mind, we turn to the specific arguments petitioner makes in his challenge to Issue No. 4's ballot title.
Petitioner first argues that the ballot title omits necessary information because it fails to inform voters that Issue No. 4 overturns article 2, section 19's constitutional ban on monopolies and perpetuities by giving exclusive, perpetual licenses for casino gambling and alcohol sales. Article 2, section 19 of the Arkansas Constitution provides that [p]erpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a republic, and shall not be allowed; nor  shall any hereditary emoluments, privileges or honors ever be granted or conferred in this State. Petitioner asserts that the proposed amendment is limited to gambling by named private-casino corporations and that licenses granted to those corporations can last into perpetuity. However, the proposed amendment does not overturn the constitution's general ban on monopolies. Just as a measure to allow a state lottery did not overturn the constitution's general ban on lotteries in Cox v. Daniels , supra , the amendment proposed here does nothing to invalidate the constitution's general prohibition on monopolies. Furthermore, the ballot title identifies Issue No. 4 as a constitutional amendment, which is sufficient to inform voters that change will result. Id. Additionally, petitioner is wrong in asserting that the proposed amendment is limited to gambling by named private-casino corporations. In reality, only two entities to receive casino licenses are identified. The proposed amendment would require the issuance of four casino licenses, one to Oaklawn, one to Southland, and one each in Jefferson and Pope Counties to an unnamed entity or entities. We considered a similar proposed amendment in Parker , supra , in which the ballot title explained that the proposed amendment would allow voters in Hot Springs to decide whether to authorize casino gambling at or adjacent to the Oaklawn racetrack. Parker , 326 Ark. at 138, 930 S.W.2d 322 . The proposal in Parker also provided for casino establishments at two other Hot Springs locations, as well as other types of gambling. Although we questioned whether the proposal there actually created a monopoly, we concluded that even if it did, that effect is clearly stated in the ballot title. Id. at 133 , 930 S.W.2d 322 . As in Parker , the ballot title here clearly sets forth the issue voters must decide by informing them that the proposed amendment requires the Arkansas Racing Commission to issue a casino license to Oaklawn, a casino license to Southland, and a casino license in both Jefferson and Pope Counties. Likewise, the ballot title clearly explains that the casinos may sell or offer complimentary liquor without allowing residents of a dry county or city to vote to approve the sale of liquor. Finally, petitioner is wrong in asserting that the licenses granted can last into perpetuity. In fact, petitioner himself acknowledges that licensees must be in compliance with the amendment for the renewal of their licenses. As we noted above, a ballot title need not contain a synopsis of the proposed amendment or cover every detail of it. See Becker , supra ; Sturdy, supra. It is enough for the ballot title to impart a fair understanding of the issues presented and the scope and significance of the proposed changes in the law. May, supra . We conclude that the ballot title adequately sets forth the proposed changes in the law with respect to the issuance and duration of casino licenses and the provision of alcoholic beverages.
Next, petitioner argues that the ballot title misleads voters into believing that local elected officials can approve or disapprove of casinos in their respective communities. Specifically, petitioner argues that the ballot title's description of the proposed amendment's requirement that applicants submit either a letter of support from the county judge or a resolution from the quorum court in the county where the casino would be located and, if the proposed casino is to be located within a city, a letter of support from the mayor of that city, may mislead voters into believing that local officials retain the power to approve or disapprove of a casino locating  in their community. We disagree. The ballot title does nothing more than accurately describe the proposed amendment's requirement that applicants for a casino license in Jefferson and Pope Counties obtain a letter of support before they may be issued a license. To the extent that petitioner argues that the term letter of support should be defined, we believe that most voters will understand the term without further explanation. Furthermore, not every term must be defined in the ballot title. Cox v. Martin, supra.
Finally, petitioner argues that the ballot title is misleading because it does not inform voters that the provisions of Article 12 of the Arkansas Constitution, which allow for the revocation of a corporate charter, are superseded by Issue No. 4, and that voters are misled into thinking that they are gaining authority due to the requirement for a letter of approval when, in reality, they are losing authority. However, the ballot title states that casinos are subject to laws enacted by the General Assembly and in accord with this amendment and regulations issued by the Arkansas Racing Commission. The amendment itself provides in section 4(e)(8) that the Racing Commission shall adopt rules governing the suspension or termination of casino licenses. The ballot title also states that all constitutional provisions, statutes, and common law of the state that conflict with the proposed amendment are not to be applied to the proposed amendment. Thus, the ballot title is not misleading in this respect. Although petitioner worries that the General Assembly would be unable to revoke Oaklawn's charter under article 12, section 6 if, in the future, it were to conclude that horse racing and gambling are injurious to the citizens, ballot titles are not required to include every possible consequence or effect of a proposed measure and need not cover or anticipate every possible legal argument that the proposed measure might evoke. Conway v. Martin , 2016 Ark. 322 , 499 S.W.3d 209 . We conclude that this point is without merit.