556 S.W.3d 523
Ark.2018Background
- Petitioners (Stiritz, Wheeler, Carney, Smith, on behalf of Ensuring Arkansas' Future) sought injunctive relief to block Issue No. 4—a proposed Arkansas constitutional amendment authorizing four casino licenses—from appearing on the Nov. 6, 2018 ballot, arguing the popular name and ballot title were insufficient.
- The Attorney General certified the popular name and ballot title on May 23, 2018; Secretary of State certified sufficiency of the initiative on Sept. 5, 2018; this original action was filed Sept. 12, 2018 in the Arkansas Supreme Court.
- Issue No. 4 (popular name and a 707‑word ballot title) would require the Arkansas Racing Commission to issue four casino licenses (specific locations), define casino gaming and net casino gaming receipts, set tax rates and distributions, and include various regulatory, liquor, and program provisions.
- Petitioners raised 27 challenges (3 to the popular name; 24 to the ballot title); the court considered only those adequately argued.
- The majority concluded the popular name and ballot title were sufficient under Arkansas standards and denied the petition; Justice Hart dissented, arguing the ballot title omitted material information and was misleading.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of popular name | Names of Southland and Oaklawn and wording that four licenses "be issued" are misleading and omit required detail | Popular name need not mirror text; naming is informative because those entities are the only franchise holders that fit description; not misleading | Popular name sufficient; not held to stringent standard and need not list all contingencies |
| Undefined / technical terms in ballot title | Ballot title omits many defined terms from amendment (e.g., franchise holder, intoxicating liquor, wholesaler, sports betting), risking voter confusion | Many terms are common and readily understood; ballot title need not define every term or include every detail | Ballot title need not define nontechnical, commonly understood terms; omission not misleading |
| Omissions of material consequences/impacts | Ballot title omits material facts (compulsive‑gambling programs, limits on oversight, liquor law overrides, transferability of licenses, effects on purses) that would give voters serious ground for reflection | Ballot title conveys purpose and scope sufficiently for an informed vote; need not anticipate every conceivable consequence or include every detail | Ballot title adequately informs voters of scope/significance; omissions were not essential facts requiring disclosure |
| Misleading claim that Commission is “required” to issue 4 licenses | Saying Commission is "required" to issue four licenses is misleading because statutory conditions could prevent issuance | Ballot title explains applicant requirements and contingencies; voters understand licensing is contingent on applicants meeting requirements | Not misleading in context; title explains process and requirements; petition denied |
Key Cases Cited
- May v. Daniels, 359 Ark. 100 (discussing purpose and standards for a popular name)
- City of Greenbrier v. Roberts, 354 Ark. 591 (court will not research or develop litigant arguments)
- Gaines v. McCuen, 296 Ark. 513 (popular name need not be exhaustive)
- Parker v. Priest, 326 Ark. 123 (ballot title must provide impartial summary, fair understanding)
- Rose v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 339 (ballot title need not cover every detail; essential omissions must be disclosed)
- Wilson v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 334 (sufficiency of ballot title decided as a matter of law)
- Cox v. Daniels, 374 Ark. 437 (omission of definition does not render ballot title misleading when term is commonly understood)
- Cox v. Martin, 2012 Ark. 352 (voter must be able to make informed decision based on ballot title)