Opinion No.
Background
- Arkansas Attorney General certifies popular name and ballot title for proposed constitutional amendment per A.C.A. § 7-9-107.
- Proposed amendment would replace gubernatorial appointment with elected members to the Arkansas State Game and Fish Commission and set terms, districts, residency, salary, and vacancies.
- AG staff identifies multiple ambiguities in Sections 2–9 of the proposal and corresponding terms of Amendment 35 and Amendment 29 references.
- AG declines to certify a ballot title due to ambiguities, stating the title would mislead or be unclear without redrafting.
- Promoter may resubmit after clarifying ambiguities; AG emphasizes cannot advise on merits and will not certify until ambiguities are resolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the proposed ballot title/name sufficiently clear and impartial? | White | McDaniel | AG rejects due to ambiguities; cannot certify |
| Do residency and district qualifications create ambiguity in Section 2? | White | McDaniel | Ambiguities identified; needs remedy |
| Are term limits and succession provisions sufficiently defined? | White | McDaniel | Ambiguities identified; cannot summarize impact |
| What effect do cross-references to Amendment 29 and Amendment 15 have on vacancy/removal procedures? | White | McDaniel | Ambiguities identified; needs clarification |
| Does the salary provision align with existing constitutional salary/expense rules? | White | McDaniel | Ambiguities identified; cannot certify |
Key Cases Cited
- Finn v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 418 (1990) (ballot title must reflect current law effects; avoid confusion)
- Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813 (2000) (internal inconsistencies between name, title, and measure induce confusion)
- Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654 (1992) (ballot title need not cover every argument but must be non-misleading)
- Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. 219 (1980) (ballot title must be intelligible, honest, and impartial)
- 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 will not address merits in ballot-title review unless clearly illegal)