Opinion ID: 2743192
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legal Sufficiency of the Ballot Title

Text: The second issue before the court is whether the ballot title at issue, “The Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Amendment,” is legally sufficient. Richardson asserts that the ballot title fails to convey to the voters an intelligible scope and import of the proposed amendment. 1 While the concurring opinion states that “Ark. Code Ann. § 7-1-108 (Repl. 2011) . . . alone . . . controls, rather than Ark. Const. Amendment 51, § 9(l), that pertains to voter registration,” we disagree. We have repeatedly held that “the Arkansas Constitution must be considered as a whole, and every provision must be read in light of other provisions relating to the same subject matter.” Forrester, 2010 Ark. 397, at 7, 373 S.W.3d 871, 875. Here, the plain language of Amendment 51, § 9(l) specifically speaks to “election law deadline[s].” 6 Cite as 2014 Ark. 429 The ballot title is as follows: Ballot Title A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE THAT, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015, THE MANUFACTURE, SALE, DISTRIBUTION AND TRANSPORTATION OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS IS LAWFUL WITHIN THE ENTIRE GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF EACH AND EVERY COUNTY OF THIS STATE; THAT “INTOXICATING LIQUORS” IS DEFINED FOR PURPOSES OF THE AMENDMENT AS ANY BEVERAGE CONTAINING MORE THAN ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT (0.5%) OF ALCOHOL BY WEIGHT; THAT THE MANUFACTURE, SALE , DISTRIBUTION AND TRANSPORTATION OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS MAY BE REGULATED , BUT NOT PROHIBITED, BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY; AND THAT ALL LAWS WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE AMENDMENT, INCLUDING LAWS PROVIDING FOR A LOCAL OPTION ELECTION (WET-DRY ELECTION ) TO DETERMINE WHETHER INTOXICATING LIQUORS MAY BE SOLD OR NOT SOLD, ARE REPEALED TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY CONFLICT WITH THE AMENDMENT. With regard to the legal sufficiency of ballot titles, we have explained, Our decisions upon the sufficiency of ballot titles have been so numerous that the governing principles are perfectly familiar. On the one hand, it is not required that the ballot title contain a synopsis of the amendment or statute. It is sufficient for the title to be complete enough to convey an intelligible idea of the scope and import of the proposed law. We have recognized the impossibility of preparing a ballot title that would suit every one. Yet, on the other hand, the ballot title must be free from any misleading tendency, whether of amplification, of omission, or of fallacy, and it must not be tinged with partisan coloring. Bradley v. Hall, 220 Ark. 925, 927, 251 S.W.2d 470, 471 (1952) (internal citations omitted). The applicable standard for review of ballot-title cases requires that “[b]allot titles must include an impartial summary of the proposed amendment that will give voters a fair understanding of the issues presented and of the scope and significance of the proposed changes in the law.” Parker v. Priest, 326 Ark. 123, 129, 930 S.W.2d 322, 325 (1996). The ballot title must be (1) intelligible, (2) honest, and (3) impartial. Ward v. Priest, 350 Ark. 345, 7 Cite as 2014 Ark. 429 359, 86 S.W.3d 884, 891 (2002). “However, this court is neither to interpret a proposed amendment nor discuss its merits or faults.” Id. at 359, 86 S.W.3d at 891 (internal citations omitted). The ballot title is sufficient if it “informs the voters with such clarity that they can cast their ballot with a fair understanding of the issue presented.” Ferstl v. McCuen, 296 Ark. 504, 509, 758 S.W.2d 398, 400 (1988) (internal citations omitted). In addition, when reviewing a challenge to the ballot title, the court recognizes that Amendment 7 of article 5, § 1 “places the burden upon the party challenging the ballot title to prove that it is misleading or insufficient.” Cox v. Daniels, 374 Ark. 437, 444, 288 S.W.3d 591, 595(2008) (internal citations omitted). Finally, we liberally construe Amendment 7 in determining the sufficiency of ballot titles. Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. 219, 604 S.W.2d 555 (1980). Applying these standards, we will review Richardson’s two challenges to the ballot title. A. Liquor Stores Located Within 1,000 Feet of Schools or Churches First, Richardson asserts that the ballot title is insufficient and misleading because the voters will not understand the impact of the amendment on the legality of liquor stores being located within 1,000 feet of any church or school. Richardson contends that the title fails to make clear to voters that the statutory prohibition on new liquor stores being located near churches or schools will be abolished, specifically Arkansas Code Annotated § 3-4-206(b) (Repl. 2008). Further, Richardson asserts that the disclosure in the ballot title, “will repeal 8 Cite as 2014 Ark. 429 inconsistent laws,” focuses on repealing wet-dry election laws and directs the voters’ attention away from the subject singling out the wet-dry election. In sum, Richardson asserts that the ballot title is legally insufficient because voters will not understand that the prohibition on new liquor stores located within 1,000 feet of a school or a church will be repealed and location alone will never be sufficient to prevent a liquor store from being opened near a church or school. The language of the ballot title states: “ALL LAWS WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE AMENDMENT, INCLUDING LAWS PROVIDING FOR A LOCAL OPTION ELECTION (WET-DRY ELECTION ) TO DETERMINE WHETHER INTOXICATING LIQUORS MAY BE SOLD OR NOT SOLD, ARE REPEALED TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY CONFLICT WITH THE AMENDMENT.” Here, after reviewing the ballot title, we conclude that it informs the voters in an intelligible, honest, and impartial manner that all laws which are in conflict will be repealed. This court has held that it is not necessary that a ballot title include every possible consequence or impact of a proposed measure. In Ferstl, this court stated unequivocally: “Certainly not every detail of an amendment or how it will work in every situation can be revealed in the name and title. It is not possible to do so.” 296 Ark. 504, 510, 758 S.W.2d 398, 401; see also Cox v. Martin, 2012 Ark. 352, 423 S.W.3d 75. With regard to location of where liquor may be sold, the ballot title states: “THE MANUFACTURE, SALE, DISTRIBUTION AND TRANSPORTATION OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS IS LAWFUL WITHIN THE ENTIRE GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF EACH AND EVERY COUNTY OF THIS 9 Cite as 2014 Ark. 429 STATE.” Here, the ballot title clearly instructs the voter on the location where the alcohol can be sold: each and every county of the state of Arkansas. We hold that the ballot title is sufficient under our law. Finally, we note that the parties take issue with whether the existing laws regarding the distance liquor may be sold from schools and churches are “regulations” or “prohibitions” because the amendment will allow the General Assembly to regulate but not prohibit. We need not address this argument because it does not address the sufficiency of the title of the ballot before us; rather, it is directed at the implementation. See Ferstl, 296 Ark. at 510, 758 S.W.2d at 401 (“It is not our function in the present litigation to interpret the amendment or explain how it is to be implemented. Neither is it our purpose in this opinion to discuss the proposal’s merits or its faults. It is rather our function to see that the popular name and ballot title are a fair and honest means of presenting this measure to the people for their consideration. We must simply determine whether the sponsors of the proposed amendment have complied with the law, and whether the popular name and ballot title fairly represent the issue which will be presented to the electors.). B. The Voters Will Not Understand that They Will Lose Their Right to Vote On Whether to Allow the On-Premises Consumption of Mixed Drinks Richardson also contends that the ballot title at issue is legally insufficient because it fails to inform the voters that the right to a referendum election on the sale of mixed drinks will be lost if the amendment is adopted. Richardson asserts that currently, a business located in a wet county cannot necessarily sell mixed drinks. Rather, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 10 Cite as 2014 Ark. 429 §§ 3-9-203 and 221 (Supp. 2013), he contends that a separate referendum election is required in order to approve on-premises consumption. Therefore, Richardson asserts that the failure to inform the voters of this specific issue renders the ballot title legally insufficient. Here, the ballot title states: [T]HAT “INTOXICATING LIQUORS” IS DEFINED FOR PURPOSES OF THE AMENDMENT AS ANY BEVERAGE CONTAINING MORE THAN ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT (0.5%) OF ALCOHOL BY WEIGHT; THAT THE MANUFACTURE, SALE , DISTRIBUTION AND TRANSPORTATION OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS MAY BE REGULATED , BUT NOT PROHIBITED, BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY; AND THAT ALL LAWS WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE AMENDMENT, INCLUDING LAWS PROVIDING FOR A LOCAL OPTION ELECTION (WET-DRY ELECTION ) TO DETERMINE WHETHER INTOXICATING LIQUORS MAY BE SOLD OR NOT SOLD, ARE REPEALED TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY CONFLICT WITH THE AMENDMENT. Again, the title need not include every detail from the Act. In May v. Daniels, 359 Ark. 100, 111, 194 S.W.3d 771, 780 (2004), we held that “it is not necessary that a ballot title include every possible consequence or impact of a proposed measure.” “Certainly not every detail of an amendment or how it will work in every situation can be revealed in the name and title. It is not possible to do so.” Ferstl, 296 Ark. at 510, 758 S.W.2d at 401. More recently, this court has reiterated: “The [ballot] title is not required to be perfect, nor is it reasonable to expect the title to cover or anticipate every possible legal argument the proposed measure might evoke.” May, 359 Ark. at 111, 194 S.W.3d at 780 (internal citations omitted). Here, the ballot title gives the voter a fair understanding of intoxicating liquors and specifically defines the intoxicating liquors in a manner that is clear to encompass mixed drinks. Further, the amendment makes clear to voters that alcohol may be sold anywhere in the State, laws 11 Cite as 2014 Ark. 429 in conflict are repealed, and regulations by the General Assembly are permitted. Thus, Richardson has not met his burden of proving that the ballot title is insufficient. We conclude that while inside the voting booth, the voters will be able to reach an intelligent and informed decision for or against “The Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Amendment” and understand the consequences of his or her vote based on the ballot title. Kurrus v. Priest, 342 Ark. 434, 29 S.W.3d 669 (2000). The mandate herein will issue immediately. No petition for rehearing will be entertained by the court. Petition denied. CORBIN and DANIELSON, JJ., concur.