Lange v. Martin
2016 Ark. 337
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Petitioners Chuck Lange and Bill Walmsley (on behalf of Committee to Protect Arkansas’ Values/Stop Casinos Now) filed an original-action challenge under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-5 to the ballot title for Issue No. 5, a proposed constitutional amendment authorizing three casinos in Arkansas.
- Secretary of State certified the measure for the November 8, 2016 ballot; sponsors and individual intervenors moved to intervene; sponsors moved to dismiss.
- The Amendment’s ballot title described authorized casino activities to include accepting wagers on sporting events and any wagering permitted in casinos in specified states (including Nevada) as of Nov. 8, 2016.
- Petitioner argued the ballot title is legally insufficient because it fails to inform voters that federal law (PASPA) prohibits state authorization of sports betting, so the title is misleading and omits an essential fact.
- Respondents argued PASPA does not entirely ban sports wagering (exceptions exist), the General Assembly will account for federal law when enacting enabling legislation, and the Amendment contains a severability clause.
- The court limited its review to ballot-title sufficiency and whether omitted language (PASPA conflict) rendered the title misleading; it did not decide other constitutional challenges after resolving sufficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ballot title is legally sufficient given it permits "wagers on sporting events" without informing voters that federal law (PASPA) prohibits state authorization of sports betting | Lange: Title is misleading because it promises sports wagering that federal law forbids; omission is an essential fact voters must know | Sponsors: PASPA has exceptions; General Assembly will draft enabling laws consistent with federal law; severability preserves remainder | Court: Title is insufficient — omission of PASPA conflict is material and misleads voters; petition granted on this point |
| Whether other challenges to the ballot title or constitutionality of the Amendment should be reached | Lange: raised additional sufficiency and constitutional arguments | Respondents: moved to dismiss; other defenses asserted | Court: Did not reach other challenges because it granted relief on the PASPA omission; remanded only to require a sufficient title (mandate shortened; rehearing time limited) |
Key Cases Cited
- Parker v. Priest, 326 Ark. 123, 930 S.W.2d 322 (standard: ballot titles must give voters a fair understanding)
- Ward v. Priest, 350 Ark. 345, 86 S.W.3d 884 (ballot title must be intelligible, honest, and impartial)
- Ferstl v. McCuen, 296 Ark. 504, 758 S.W.2d 398 (title must inform voters so they can cast ballots with fair understanding)
- Cox v. Daniels, 374 Ark. 437, 288 S.W.3d 591 (burden on challenger to prove title misleading or insufficient)
- Cox v. Martin, 2012 Ark. 352, 423 S.W.3d 75 (contrasted prior decision where title explicitly noted conflict with federal law and was upheld)