Opinion No.
Background
- Denham requested AG certification of the proposed popular name and ballot title for an initiated measure under A.C.A. § 7-9-107.
- The measure proposes medical marijuana legalization in Arkansas with nonprofit dispensaries, patient/caregiver protections, and related regulatory provisions.
- AG must certify or substitute a suitable popular name and ballot title and may reject if misleading; merits review is prohibited.
- AG rejects the proposed popular name and ballot title due to textual ambiguities and incompleteness of the summary, prohibiting substitution at this time.
- AG identifies numerous ambiguities (e.g., definitions of nonprofit dispensary/designated caregiver/registered patients) and omissions that prevent a full, correct summary of the measure.
- AG advises sponsor to redesign and resubmit with a proposed new popular name and ballot title after clarifying ambiguities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ballot title fairly summarizes the measure | Denham contends the title captures core scope of the proposal. | McDANIEL finds ambiguities that prevent an accurate, impartial summary. | Rejected; ballot title deficient and not a correct summary. |
| Whether the popular name is properly focused and non-misleading | Denham argues the name reflects the measure's purpose. | McDANIEL finds the name potentially deficient due to focus on one aspect. | Rejected; both title and name require revision. |
| Whether textual ambiguities undermine the certification | Denham asserts ambiguities are not fatal to certification. | McDANIEL identifies multiple ambiguities that obstruct full and correct summary. | Ambiguities compel rejection and redesign. |
| Whether the proposal's effect on current law is clear | Denham argues the measure operates within regulatory framework. | McDANIEL notes unclear effects on existing law and interrelated definitions. | Unclear effects require redesign to clarify current-law impact. |
| Whether the text omissions render the ballot title misleading | Denham contends omissions are acceptable given length. | McDANIEL cites significant omissions (federal legality, affirmative defense, etc.). | Omissions render title unacceptable; must be revised. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinchen v. Wilkins, 367 Ark. 71 (2006) (ballot title must be intelligible and impart impartial information)
- Hoban v. Hall, 229 Ark. 416 (1958) (ballot title must be intelligible, honest, and impartial)
- Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277 (1994) (omission of essential facts requires disclosure in ballot title)
- Finn v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 418 (1990) (text of proposed amendment cannot confuse with popular name and ballot title)
- Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813 (2000) (internal inconsistencies between text, popular name, and ballot title create confusion)
- Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654 (1992) (ballot title must not be complex or omit essential factors)
- Chaney v. Bryant, 259 Ark. 294 (1976) (ballot title must avoid misleading coloration)