Opinion ID: 1662285
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: original action petition

Text: Petitioner initiated this original action by filing a petition in this court pursuant to Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution of 1874 and Ark. Sup.Ct. R. 6-5. In his petition, Petitioner raises five points for injunctive relief, arguing that the popular name and ballot title are insufficient and misleading because: (1) there is no definition of state lottery; (2) there is no geographical location for voters in Hot Springs; (3) they are unclear as to whether one or two issues will be decided in the Hot Springs local election on the location of casino gambling; (4) voters will not be able to ascertain in the five minutes they are allotted in the voting booth that the purpose of the proposed amendment is to give Oaklawn Racetrack a constitutionally sanctioned monopoly on for-profit gambling; and (5) they are lengthy, complex, and confusing as they relate to casino gambling. In oral argument, Petitioner's counsel abandoned the first two of these points. The third point is raised in Intervenor Crochet's brief and is addressed below. The last two points are raised in Petitioner's brief and will be addressed below. In his supporting brief, Petitioner's challenge has four grounds as to the ballot title only: (1) the ballot title is not sufficient to enable a voter to make an intelligent decision as to whether to vote for or against the proposed law; (2) the length, design, and complexity of the ballot title will prevent the voter from comprehending what choice he is being asked to make in the time allotted a voter; (3) the design of the ballot title does not enable the voter to comprehend the consequences of voting to approve the proposal as it applies to casino gambling and pari-mutuel wagering at Oaklawn Racetrack; and (4) the ballot title does not uphold the very purpose of the initiative process. Intervenor Crochet raises the following four challenges to the ballot title in his brief: (1) the ballot title sets a date certain for commencement of casino gambling at Oaklawn, but does not disclose whether and when casino gambling will commence at the other two casinos; (2) the ballot title does not inform voters that Oaklawn Racetrack is the only pari-mutuel franchisee in Hot Springs; (3) the ballot title misleads voters into thinking more than three casinos will be authorizedan unlimited number at or adjacent to Oaklawn and two elsewhere; and (4) the ballot title does not inform voters of a significant change in the law that it would allegedly achievechanging the source of the right to conduct dog racing from statutory law to constitutional law. We consider all arguments separately below.