2016 Ark. 340
Ark.2016Background
- Petitioners (Col. Mike Ross et al. and Committee to Protect AR Families) filed an original action challenging certification of a proposed initiated constitutional amendment titled “An Amendment to Limit Attorney Contingency Fees and Non‑Economic Damages in Medical Lawsuits.”
- Petitioners alleged three grounds: (I) canvasser certification noncompliance, (II) insufficient verified signatures, and (III) an insufficient ballot title. The court bifurcated the case and reserved the ballot‑title issue for direct decision.
- The attorney general modified and certified the popular name and ballot title in April 2016; the Secretary of State certified the amendment for the November 8, 2016 general election after signature canvass completion.
- Intervenors moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and standing; petitioners moved to strike that motion as untimely. The court denied both the motion to strike and the motion to dismiss (consistent with Wilson v. Martin).
- The dispositive issue addressed here (as in the companion Wilson opinion) was whether the ballot title sufficiently informed voters, specifically whether it left critical terms (notably “non‑economic damages”) undefined.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of ballot title (does it define "non‑economic damages"?) | The ballot title is insufficient because it leaves critical terms like "non‑economic damages" undefined, thereby misleading voters. | The ballot title is adequate and gives a fair, impartial summary of the amendment. | Held deficient: court found the ballot title insufficient for leaving "non‑economic damages" undefined and enjoined counting/certifying ballots. |
| Jurisdiction / standing (intervenors' motion to dismiss) | Petitioners have standing and a justiciable controversy to challenge certification under amendment 7 procedures. | Intervenors argued lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction, no right of action, and no justiciable controversy; petitioners' motion to strike the dismissal motion as untimely. | Motion to dismiss denied; motion to strike denied. Court proceeded to decide ballot‑title issue. |
| Requirement to prove misleadingness (burden of proof) | Petitioners must show the title is misleading or insufficient; they argue they met that burden re undefined terms. | Respondent relies on principles that ballot titles need only be intelligible, honest, impartial and that court should not interpret merits. | Court applied the standard and found petitioners carried their burden as to the undefined term. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cox v. Daniels, 374 Ark. 437 (ballot‑title challenger bears burden to prove misleading or insufficient)
- Richardson v. Martin, 2014 Ark. 429 (summary of ballot‑title standards under Amendment 7)
- Wilson v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 334 (companion decision; ballot title invalidated for failing to define "non‑economic damages")
- Parker v. Priest, 326 Ark. 123 (ballot titles must give voters a fair understanding of issues and scope)
- Ward v. Priest, 350 Ark. 345 (ballot title must be intelligible, honest, and impartial)
- Ferstl v. McCuen, 296 Ark. 504 (ballot title sufficiency standard: voters must be informed to cast a fair vote)
- Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. 219 (liberal construction of amendment 7 in reviewing ballot titles)