Richardson v. Martin, 444 S.W.3d 855

Petitioners Brian Richardson and Mary Dillard filed an original action on Sept. 5, 2014 challenging the timeliness and ballot-title sufficiency of an initiative ("The Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Amendment," Issue No. 4) certified by Secretary of State Mark Martin. Intervenors Linda Bowlin and J. Ross Jones sponsored the initiative.
Bowlin filed the initiative with the Secretary of State on July 7, 2014; Secretary Martin initially found the signature count deficient, gave 30 days to cure, and later certified the petition and directed county boards on Aug. 21 and Aug. 29, 2014.
Richardson argued the petition was untimely because Amendment 7 requires filing not less than four months before the election (i.e., by July 4, 2014 for the Nov. 4 election).
Richardson also argued the ballot title, "The Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Amendment," was legally insufficient because it did not inform voters of certain consequences (e.g., repeal of statutes banning liquor stores within 1,000 feet of schools/churches and loss of local referendum rights on on-premises mixed-drink sales).
The Supreme Court exercised original jurisdiction under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-5(a) and considered constitutional text, Amendment 51 § 9(1), and election statutes governing deadlines and holidays.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness: whether filing met Amendment 7's "not less than four months" requirement	Richardson: petition was untimely because it was filed July 7, not by July 4 (four months before Nov. 4)	Bowlin/Martin: July 4 was a legal holiday; statutes and constitutional provision moving deadlines off holidays extend the deadline to July 7	Petition timely — July 4 fell on a legal holiday, so deadline moved to July 7; filing on July 7 satisfied Amendment 7
Ballot-title sufficiency: whether title fairly informs voters of scope and consequences	Richardson: title misleads/omits key consequences — will repeal proximity restrictions (e.g., 1,000-foot rule) and eliminate local referenda on on-premises mixed-drink sales	Bowlin: title broadly states repeal of conflicting laws and defines "intoxicating liquors," giving voters a fair understanding; not required to list every consequence	Title sufficient — fair, intelligible, honest, and impartial; need not enumerate every detail or consequence

Porter v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 674 (Ark. 1992) (Amendment 7 must be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes)
Bradley v. Hall, 220 Ark. 925 (Ark. 1952) (ballot title need not be a synopsis but must convey intelligible idea of scope and import)
Parker v. Priest, 326 Ark. 123 (Ark. 1996) (ballot titles must provide impartial summary so voters understand scope and significance)
Ward v. Priest, 350 Ark. 346 (Ark. 2002) (ballot title must be intelligible, honest, and impartial)
Ferstl v. McCuen, 296 Ark. 504 (Ark. 1988) (title sufficiency standard: inform voters so they can cast an informed ballot; cannot include every detail)
May v. Daniels, 359 Ark. 100 (Ark. 2004) (title need not anticipate every legal argument or cover every possible consequence)
Kurrus v. Priest, 342 Ark. 434 (Ark. 2000) (voters must be able to reach an intelligent decision based on the ballot title)