Court Opinion

ID: 9837368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:33:29.411638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:25.101920
License: Public Domain

HOWARD W. BRILL, Chief Justice, concurring. It is certainly not the task of this court to give'advisory opinions or to expressly tell citizens how to draft ballot titles. But I do believe it is the duty of the court to answer questions presented to us when they are likely to arise again. Legislators propose amendments, citizens seek signatures for proposed amendments, and the Attorney General approves ballot titles. The spirit of Amendment 7, which gives power to the people, requires us to give appropriate guidance to those constituencies. To leave the impression that simply changing the ballot title to correct or expand on “non-economic damages” would be sufficient to correct the defects is misleading. For example, the challengers to this amendment presented serious issues concerning the impact |nthat this amendment would have on the right to a jury trial; likewise, the challengers argued the question whether the ballot title properly explains the change in the relationship of the three branches of government and the limitation on the rule making power of this court. In sum, I believe this court should have addressed the primary challenges to the ballot title, thereby giving some guidance for the future. Wood, J., joins.