Court Opinion

ID: 9764127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:11:22.696226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:53.768224
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. In my opinion neither the popular name nor the ballot title is proper. The whole purpose of this proposed amendment is to increase the legal rate of interest in Arkansas and to eliminate the penalties now applied for usurious contracts. The heart of the proposed amendment is to remove the 10% per annum limit on interest rates from the present constitution. I do not consider whether the proposed amendment is a good one or a bad one. I make no attempt to decide whether the people would be better off with its adoption or rejection. These issues are not for us to consider in this case nor would this Court ever be in a position to consider whether an amendment is a good one or bad one. We are considering only its legality. In considering the legality, we must decide whether the popular name and ballot title are proper. All parties to this proceeding seem to agree that neither the popular name or ballot title should be unfair or misleading. We have ruled that the popular name and ballot title must not be misleading or color the merits of the proposal. Hope v. Hall, Secy. of State, 229 Ark. 407, 316 S.W. 2d 199 (1958); Moore v. Hall, Secy. of State, 229 Ark. 411, 316 S.W. 2d 207 (1958); Hoban v. Hall, Secy. of State, 229 Ark. 416, 316 S.W. 2d 185 (1958); Mason & Lamb v. Jernigan, Sec'y. of State, 260 Ark. 385, 540 S.W. 2d 851 (1976). We have made substantially the same ruling when we considered the ballot title only in the case of Fletcher v. Bryant, 243 Ark. 864, 422 S.W. 2d 698 (1968). In Fletcher we stated the title was sufficient if it identifies the proposed act and fairly alleges the general purpose. There is no disagreement that the burden of proof is upon those attacking the validity of the popular name and ballot title of a proposal. Neither is there any disagreement that we give a liberal construction to the proposals in such cases. I have previously stated the purpose of this proposal is to eliminate the present 10% limit on interest rates in the present constitution and to eliminate the penalties now provided in usury cases. The proposed ballot title does not indicate there is to be a change in the constitution, nor does it refer to the present 10% limit on interest charges. I simply cannot link the popular name to the purpose of the act. The ballot title is equally defective. There is no reference to a change in the present constitutional limit and penalties as they relate to usury. The main thrust of the proposal is to allow the General Assembly to increase the interest rate to any amount they desire by a two-thirds vote. There is nothing in the ballot title stating the purpose is to allow an increase in the present 10% limit except by innuendo. There is nothing in either the title or the name to inform the people that there will be no limit on the interest rate as long as the legislature so provides. There are no guidelines or limitations, indeed nothing, in the popular name or title which would enable a person to understand the proposition on which he is voting. Either the name or the title should inform the people that the General Assembly, by a two-thirds vote, may establish the interest rate at any figure if the proposal is adopted. In other words, the interest rate will be determined by two thirds of the membership of the General Assembly. There is no other limiting power. The ballot title does not even hint that the approval of the act would have the effect of validating contracts which at the present time are invalid. Neither is there a hint that the legislature would be able to determine which charges constituted interest and which charges were non-interest. I am not saying the name and title are fraudulent or deliberate misrepresentations. It is only natural that the proponent of any proposition to be voted upon by the people would obtain the most favorable name and title possible in order to enhance the chances of approval by the voters. I feel that in the present case the omissions cause the proposal to be defective. None of the statements used in the name or title are false; however, they simply do not measure up to what I consider to be the standards required to notify the voters of the full nature of the amendment.