Background
- Attorney General responds to a certification request under A.C.A. § 7-9-107 for the proposed popular name and ballot title of a constitutional amendment.
- The AG may substitute a more suitable name and ballot title or reject the petition if the title is misleading; the office does not assess merits.
- The review focuses on whether the popular name and ballot title honestly, intelligibly, and fairly summarize the proposed measure.
- The AG rejects the proposed popular name and ballot title due to ambiguities in the amendment's text; cannot summarize the proposal without resolution of those ambiguities.
- Preliminary concerns are raised that the measure would change current law in numerous ways and may require voter approval in contexts not fully described.
- Ambiguities identified include scope to local instrumentality and improvement districts, definition of 'new tax,' mutually exclusive use of 'Municipality' and 'City,' the meaning of 'to which' voters, timing of tax approvals, and the definition of 'majority vote.'
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do ambiguities prevent a fair ballot title? | Riable argues ambiguities hinder summary. | Riable asserts necessity to resolve ambiguities; title must summarize effects. | Ambiguities preclude summary; title cannot be certified. |
| Is the proposed 'Voter Approval Amendment' misleading as to tax effects? | Proposed title lacks clarity on which taxes require approval. | Proposed title could imply all taxes require periodic approval without basis. | Yes, the title is inherently misleading and must be revised. |
| Does the enacting clause impact ballot title clarity? | Enacting clause could confuse voters; not required for initiated amendments. | Enacting clause is confusing and unnecessary for an initiated constitutional amendment. | Clause contributes to confusion; not addressed in certification. |
| Do scope ambiguities (local instruments, improvement districts) affect certification? | Ambiguity about applicability to instruments like improvement districts. | Ambiguity exists; cannot be summarized fairly. | Ambiguities preclude summary; requires revision. |
| Is 'new tax' definition sufficiently clear? | Definition needed for taxes not currently levied or not subject to voter approval. | Term is vague and undefined, leading to ambiguous application. | Yes, definition is ambiguous; must be clarified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Finn v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 418 (1990) (ballot title must describe proposed changes to current law)
- Bradley v. Hall, 220 Ark. 925 (1952) (ballot title must be intelligible and explain changes in law)
- Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813 (2000) (internal inconsistencies between title and measure create confusion)
- Becker v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 482 (1990) (ballot title must be honest, impartial, and intelligible)
- Hoban v. Hall, 229 Ark. 416 (1958) (ballot title must convey scope and significance of proposed change)
- Kurrus v. Priest, 342 Ark. 434 (2000) (court-ordered review framework for ballot titles)
- Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654 (1992) (title need not be perfect but must avoid misleading amplification)
- Leigh v. Hall, 232 Ark. 558 (1960) (ballot title must be intelligible, honest, and impartial)
- Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. 219 (1980) (ballot title standards for impartiality and clarity)
- United States Term Limits, Inc. v. Hill, 316 Ark. 251 (1994) (constitutional initiative framework and voters' understanding)