Court Opinion

ID: 9776550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:38:55.967098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:39.716155
License: Public Domain

Steele Hays, Justice, dissenting. I hold no brief for the proposed lottery amendment, but I believe its approval or rejection must rest with the public rather than with this court. I earnestly disagree that the provisions of Act 280 of 1989 are unconstitutional. Amendment 7, quite sensibly, makes express provision that laws may be enacted to facilitate the operation of the initiative and referendum process and that, I believe, is answer enough. We have said it is for the legislature, rather than the courts, to decide how Amendment 7 is to be implemented. Czech v. Munson, 280 Ark. 219, 656 S.W.2d 696 (1983). Today’s holding, at the very least, denies to the general public the power to initiate law, provident or otherwise, so plainly reserved under Amendment 7. It is clear this court has departed from the rule of liberal construction in favor of a strict and ad hoc interpretation of Amendment 7 issues. That does not bode well for initiated reform in Arkansas. I share the views of Justices Dudley and Glaze expressed in their dissenting opinions, in which I join.