131 S.W.2d 635 | Ark. | 1939
A Workmen's Compensation Act, numbered act 319, was enacted by the Fifty-second General Assembly of the State of Arkansas, and approved by the Governor of the State on March 15, 1939, and appears in the Acts of Arkansas, 1939, on pages 777-844, inclusive. The Act is very long, containing fifty sections. On account of the length of the Act we make reference to it rather than embody it in this opinion. See Act 319 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Arkansas, 1939, pages 777-844, inclusive. The Act as published contains no emergency clause and by reference to the indorsements on the original Act filed in the office of the Secretary of State which was approved and signed by the Governor of the State on March 15, 1939, and also by reference to the journals of the Senate of which we take judicial notice and knowledge, the emergency clause attached *816 to the Act in the House of Representatives was finally defeated in the Senate.
Within the time provided by law the required number of legal voters of the State of Arkansas filed their petition with C. G. Hall, Secretary of the State of Arkansas ordering that said Act be referred to the people of Arkansas to the end that the same may be approved or rejected by the vote of the legal voters of the State at the biennial regular general election to be held on the fifth day of November, 1940. In this petition they submitted to the State Board of Election Commissioners as the title to be placed upon the official ballot at the biennial regular general election to be held on the fifth day of November, 1940, the ballot title as set out in full in a footnote of this opinion.* *817
When this petition for referendum of said Act was filed in the office of the Secretary of State, C. G. Hall as Secretary of State approved the ballot title submitted with the petition and certified the sufficiency of the number of qualified electors on said petition to refer said Act and declared said Act inoperative until after its approval by the qualified electors at the next biennial election.
This is a petition by the plaintiff, a tax payer and qualified elector of the state of Arkansas, for the benefit of himself and all others similarly situated in the state against the defendants in their respective capacities as Secretary of State and members of the State Election Board to enjoin them from referring the Act to the people for approval or rejection at the next general biennial election on November 5, 1940, on the ground that the ballot title submitted with the petitions is insufficient. The suit for injunction is an original proceeding in this court under one of the general provisions of Amendment No. 7 to the Constitution of 1874 known as the "Initiative and *818 Referendum." We quote the following language from the Initiative and Referendum Amendment:
"At the time of filing petitions the exact title to be used on the ballot shall by the petitioner be submitted with the petition and on state-wide measures, shall be submitted to the State Board of Elections Commissioners, who shall certify such title to the Secretary of State to be placed upon the ballot; . . . the sufficiency of all state-wide petitions shall be decided in the first instance by the Secretary of State, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the State, which shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all such causes."
The sufficiency of the petition is not challenged on the ground that the signatures thereto are insufficient in number, but on the ground that the ballot title is insufficient. The case recently before us relative to the sufficiency of a ballot title is the case of Newton v. Hall, Secretary of State,
In the declaration just quoted from the Newton Case this court attempted to and did announce an absolute rule or test by which the sufficiency or insufficiency of a ballot title must be determined, with perhaps one exception and the exception is that all ballot titles must necessarily identify the measure sought to be initiated or referred. We have carefully read said Act 319 with a view to ascertain whether the proposed ballot title is free from misleading tendencies, whether of amplication [amplification] or omission or a fallacy and whether it contains any partisan coloring. We find nothing in the ballot title which would mislead a voter either by amplification or omission or by fallacious statements and we find nothing in it showing that it is partisan in coloring. The only thing left then for us to determine in applying the test or rule is whether the ballot title is complete enough to carry an intelligent idea of the scope and import of the proposed law. The scope and import of the proposed law is to provide for the payment of compensation by employers for injuries to, or death of their employees; to prescribe the amount of compensation and to whom it may be paid: to secure the payment of compensation: to establish a Workmen's Compensation Commission to administer the Act and to provide funds for the administration of the *820 Act. The ballot title in, question contains about nine hundred words and sets out the scope and import of the proposed Act in such a way as to be understood by anyone of ordinary intelligence. After a careful reading of the Act and the proposed ballot title we are convinced that the ballot title contains every essential necessary to meet the requirements or test of the rule governing the sufficiency or insufficiency of ballot titles announced by this court.
The petition for an injunction against the defendants is denied.