Opinion ID: 2382879
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Length of ballot title

Text: First, the petitioners contend that the ballot title in the present case is so lengthy that it cannot be read and comprehended within the time a voter is permitted to remain in the voting booth and, therefore, does not adequately inform the voter to enable him or her to make an intelligent choice for or against the amendment. We have held that a ballot title must not be unduly long because a voter is subject to statutory restrictions on the amount of time a voting booth may be occupied. Gaines v. McCuen, 296 Ark. 513, 758 S.W.2d 403 (1988). Here, the ballot title runs to 709 words in length and, as mentioned earlier, is reprinted in full for convenient reference in an appendix to this opinion. Length, in itself, does not render a ballot title insufficient. In Newton v. Hall, 196 Ark. 929, 120 S.W.2d 364 (1938), for example, we held a 900-word ballot title (to the Refunding Amendment), which had been attacked for not providing enough detail, sufficient to apprise the voter of the contents of the proposal. Although the ballot title's length was not actually an issue as such, we observed that: The brevity of the ballot title here involved does not appear to be its chief fault. Rather, ... its very length is a more serious objection. The elector could not read many such ballot titles within the five minutes he is allowed ... to occupy a booth or compartment for the purposes of voting. 196 Ark. at 948, 120 S.W.2d at 373. The practical concern voiced in Newton was echoed in Dust v. Riviere, supra . There, in an opinion dealing with a challenge to the sufficiency of a 727-word ballot title (to The Arkansas Utility Regulation Amendment), we stated that: While neither the length nor the complexity of the ballot title should be a controlling factor, it is a consideration.... [C]ommon sense requires that we ask whether the average voter can make an intelligent considerate decision based on the ballot title.... We have concluded that the proposed ballot title is so complex, detailed, lengthy, misleading and confusing that the Arkansas voter cannot intelligently make a choice based on the title. The best evidence of that is the ballot title itself. We attach the ballot title as an addendum to this opinion and invite any disinterested person to read it in the time one would ordinarily use in a voting booth, and understand the changes that the amendment proposes. (Emphasis added.) 277 Ark. at 6, 638 S.W.2d at 666. Clearly, other factors were involved in our decision to enjoin the Secretary of State from certifying the proposed Utility Regulation Amendment as valid. But, it must be noted, the special prominence accorded the ballot title's length obviously signaled our conviction that length can become a major, though not controlling, consideration in determining the sufficiency of a ballot title. The appended ballot title in the present case, like the one in Dust , speaks eloquently for itself. On November 8, 1994, Arkansas electors will vote on other proposed amendments and choose between candidates for the United States House of Representatives, Governor of Arkansas, Attorney General of Arkansas, Secretary of State of Arkansas, and various other state and local offices. Under Ark.Code Ann. § 7-5-522(d) (Repl. 1993), [n]o voter shall remain in the voting booth longer than five (5) minutes, if voters are waiting in line. It requires little imagination to foresee, under these statutory time constraints, the practical difficulty posed to the elector in the voting booth by a ballot title of such complexity and length. Even so, we must emphasize that, standing alone, the present ballot title's insufficiency is not attributable to its length. We are, however, troubled by the length in its relation to other critical factorsparticularly, the strategic employment of abstract terminology to mask plain meaning and the tactical placement of key elements relating to for-profit gambling in the middle or near the end of the title's text, the combination of which is unacceptable.