Judges: MARK PRYOR, Attorney General
Filed Date: 12/14/1999
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Mr. Barry Emigh 1720 Arrowhead Road, Apt. O North Little Rock, AR 72118
Dear Mr. Emigh:
This is in response to your request for certification, pursuant to A.C.A. §
BINGO, RAFFLES AND LOTTERIES OPERATED BY NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AS A LOCAL BALLOT OPTION
AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE ANYONE OR GROUP THE RIGHT TO INITIATE AND PETITION THE LEGAL VOTERS OF A COUNTY AND CITIES OF THE FIRST CLASS AND SECOND CLASS WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF AMENDMENT7 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS TO ACCEPT OR REJECT BY THE LEGAL VOTERS AS A LOCAL BALLOT OPTION THE PAY TO PLAY OPERATION OF BINGO, RAFFLES AND LOTTERIES BY NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AS AN INITIATED ACT ON THE REGULAR GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT[.]
The Attorney General is required, pursuant to A.C.A. §
A.C.A. §
The purpose of my review and certification is to ensure that the popular name and ballot title honestly, intelligibly, and fairly set forth the purpose of the proposed amendment. See Arkansas Women's Political Caucusv. Riviere,
The popular name is primarily a useful legislative device. Pafford v.Hall,
The ballot title must include an impartial summary of the proposed amendment that will give the voter a fair understanding of the issues presented. Hoban v. Hall,
Having analyzed your proposed amendment, as well as your proposed popular name and ballot title under the above precepts, it is my conclusion that I must reject your proposed ballot title due to several unresolved ambiguities in the text of your proposed measure. A number of additions or changes to your ballot title are, in my view, necessary in order to more fully and correctly summarize your proposal. I cannot, however, at this time, fairly or completely summarize the effect of your proposed measure to the electorate in a popular name or ballot title without the resolution of these ambiguities. I am therefore unable to substitute and certify a more suitable and correct ballot title pursuant to A.C.A. §
The following ambiguities must be clarified before I can perform my statutory duty:
1. An ambiguity arises, in my judgment, under Subsections (a) through (d) of Section (1) with regard to the effect of a favorable local option vote in the county under your proposal. It is unclear whether, notwithstanding a favorable vote in a county election, there must also be a favorable vote in each first and second class city in order to authorize the operation of bingo, raffles and lotteries by nonprofit organizations. Subsection (a) states that the provisions authorizing the various operations "shall be effective only in cities of the first class and cities of the second class and counties in which bingo, raffles and lotteries are not prohibited . . . and in which the operation of bingo, raffles and lotteries by nonprofit organizations has been approved by a majority vote on the regular general election ballot." The language of subsections (b) through (d) suggests, however, that while the result of a vote held in a city will be determinative and will stand separate from a county vote, a favorable vote in the county will include the cities as long as there is no conflicting city vote. These provisions cannot be reconciled, and in my view this is an essential fact for the voters' consideration. This matter should be clearly stated so that it can be properly summarized in the ballot title.
5. Section 3 of your proposed measure (entitled "Regulations") authorizes counties, cities and towns to pass ordinances and impose various restrictions and requirements" as will promote public health, and safety. . . ." It is difficult to determine the precise effect of this provision as it does not indicate how this regulatory authority of the counties and cities interrelates. It is unclear, for instance, what happens in the event a county ordinance conflicts with an ordinance of a city within the county. I cannot determine the effect of your measure on this point, and I believe this is a matter that may give a voter serious ground for reflection. As such, it should be clearly stated.
My office, in the certification of ballot titles and popular names, does not concern itself with the merits, philosophy, or ideology of proposed measures. I have no constitutional role in the shaping or drafting of such measures. My statutory mandate is embodied only in A.C.A. §
At the same time, however, the Arkansas Supreme Court, through its decisions, has placed a practical duty on the Attorney General, in exercising his statutory duty, to include language in a ballot title about the effects of a proposed measure on current law. See, e.g., Finnv. McCuen,
My statutory duty, under these circumstances, is to reject your proposed ballot title, stating my reasons therefor, and to instruct you to "redesign" the proposed measure and ballot title. See A.C.A. §
Sincerely,
MARK PRYOR Attorney General
Pafford v. Hall , 217 Ark. 734 ( 1950 )
Gaines v. McCuen , 296 Ark. 513 ( 1988 )
Hoban v. Hall , 229 Ark. 416 ( 1958 )
Moore v. Hall , 229 Ark. 411 ( 1958 )
Chaney v. Bryant , 259 Ark. 294 ( 1976 )
Bailey v. McCuen , 318 Ark. 277 ( 1994 )
Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen , 318 Ark. 241 ( 1994 )
Becker v. Riviere , 270 Ark. 219 ( 1980 )
Leigh v. Hall , 232 Ark. 558 ( 1960 )
Plugge Ex Rel. Arkansas for Representative Democracy v. ... , 310 Ark. 654 ( 1992 )
Becker v. McCuen , 303 Ark. 482 ( 1990 )
Finn v. McCuen , 303 Ark. 418 ( 1990 )
Arkansas Women's Political Caucus v. Riviere , 283 Ark. 463 ( 1984 )