Opinion No.
Background
- Attorney General reviews proposed initiative for popular name and ballot title under A.C.A. § 7-9-107 due to prior rejections and amendments.
- Proponent submitted THE NATURAL GAS SEVERANCE TAX ACT OF 2012 with a ballot title proposing a 7% severance tax on natural gas collected in Arkansas, effective January 1, 2013.
- AG previously rejected or amended similar measures due to ambiguities in ballot title language and text under previous submissions (see Op. Att'y Gen. No. 2008-011, 2008-027).
- AG identifies an ambiguity in revenue distribution provisions: the measure references the Arkansas Highway Distribution Law but the proposed distribution conflicts with statutory sequencing and top-off provisions (3%/unspecified top-off, then 70%/15%/15%).
- Under precedent, ballot titles must fairly summarize effects on current law; internal inconsistencies between the measure and existing law render a suitable title impossible at this time.
- AG declines to certify a new title and instructs resubmission with clarified, non-ambiguous language addressing the distribution effects and alignment with the Highway Distribution Law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the proposed ballot title accurate given the revenue-distribution ambiguities? | Nelson argues the measure follows the Highway Distribution Law with a 7% rate to raise highway funds. | McDaniel identifies 3% and unspecified top-off deductions, causing inconsistency with § 27-70-206 and the Highway Distribution Law. | Rejected due to ambiguities; cannot certify a proper title at this time. |
Key Cases Cited
- Finn v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 418, 793 S.W.2d 34 (1990) (Ark. 1990) (ballot title must be intelligible, honest, and impartial; avoid internal inconsistencies)
- Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654, 841 S.W.2d 139 (1992) (Ark. 1992) (ballot title not required to cover every argument but must be free from misleading amplification)
- Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 20 S.W.3d 376 (2000) (Ark. 2000) (internal inconsistencies between popular name, ballot title, and proposed measure create confusion)
- Kurrus v. Priest, 342 Ark. 434, 29 S.W.3d 669 (2000) (Ark. 2000) (court modifies ballot-title-review standards requiring no constitutional meritorious inquiry)
- Donovan v. Priest, 326 Ark. 353, 931 S.W.2d (1996) (Ark. 1996) (court limits its review to sufficiency of summary, not merits)
- Chaney v. Bryant, 259 Ark. 294, 532 S.W.2d 741 (1976) (Ark. 1976) (ballot title and popular name must not be misleading or partisan)
- Becker v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 482, 798 S.W.2d 71 (1990) (Ark. 1990) (ballot title must be intelligible, honest and impartial)