Opinion No.
Background
- Attorney General reviews proposed initiated act popular name and ballot title under A.C.A. § 7-9-107.
- Proponent had two prior submissions; one rejected for ambiguity, another certified; revised popular name and ballot title submitted for certification.
- Proposed popular name: The Natural Gas Severance Tax Act of 2012; Ballot Title proposes increasing severance tax on natural gas to 7% of market value, effective Jan 1, 2013; repeals existing rates and various provisions, with funds distribution to highways and related accounts.
- Distribution plan: 95% of severance tax proceeds to special revenues for highway funding, with 5% to general revenues; 20 million to State Aid Street Fund during 2013-2014 and thereafter, with shortfalls handled by directing available funds to the State Aid Street Fund.
- Effective date and legislative actions: Act effective Jan 1, 2013; General Assembly to enact necessary laws to carry out intent; any conflicting laws repealed; ballot title must be impartial and not misleading; court will not rule on merits, only on summary and fairness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the popular name and ballot title sufficient and impartially summarize the act? | Proponents contend summary is accurate and not misleading. | AG-reviewed title and name meet impartiality and clarity standards after applying precedents. | Yes; the ballot title and popular name are sufficient and certified as submitted. |
| Does the Attorney General have authority to substitute a more suitable title or must he certify as submitted? | (ARGUMENT OF PROPONENT ON PROCEDURAL AUTHORITY) The AG may substitute if necessary for clarity. | AG may substitute or reject if titles are misleading, but chose to certify as submitted based on review. | Authority to substitute exists, but certification was affirmed as submitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kurrus v. Priest, 342 Ark. 434, 29 S.W.3d 669 (2000) (Ark. 2000) (ballot title review limits merited consideration to sufficiency and impartiality)
- Donovan v. Priest, 326 Ark. 353, 931 S.W.2d (1996) (Ark. 1996) (limits on addressing the merits in ballot title review)
- Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654, 841 S.W.2d 139 (1992) (Ark. 1992) (ballot title must be intelligible, honest, impartial; not perfect but not misleading)
- Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994) (Ark. 1994) (ballot title should be brief; avoid partisan coloring)
- Hoban v. Hall, 229 Ark. 416, 316 S.W.2d 185 (1958) (Ark. 1958) (ballot title must be intelligible and impartial)