Judges: MARK PRYOR, Attorney General
Filed Date: 10/1/1999
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Mr. Barry Emigh 1720 Arrowhead, Apt. O North Little Rock, AR 72118
Dear Mr. Emigh:
This is in response to your request for certification, pursuant to A.C.A. §
PROVIDE FOR THE DECRIMINALIZED POSSESSION OF HALF AN OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA TO BE PUNISHABLE AS A MISDEMEANOR AND EXEMPTED FROM CRIMINALIZATION FOR MEDICAL USE
ACT TO DECRIMINALIZE THE POSSESSION OF HALF AN OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA TO BE PUNISHABLE AS A MISDEMEANOR; TO PROVIDE FOR THE CRIMINAL EXEMPTION OF MARIJUANA FOR MEDICAL USE; TO LIMIT THE STATE REGULATION OF FINES, AND EXEMPTION OF MARIJUANA FOR MEDICAL USE; TO PROVIDE FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INCONSISTENT WITH THIS ACT AND TO PROVIDE SEVERABILITY
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 measure. See Arkansas Women's Political Caucus v.Riviere,
The popular name is primarily a useful legislative device. Pafford v.Hall,
The ballot title must include an impartial summary of the proposed measure that will give the voter a fair understanding of the issues presented. Hoban v. Hall,
Having analyzed your proposed measure, as well as your proposed popular name and ballot title under the above precepts, it is my conclusion that I must reject both your proposed popular name and ballot title due to certain unresolved ambiguities in the both the title and text of your proposed measure. There are a number of additions or clarifications to your popular name and ballot title which in my view are necessary in order to more fully and correctly summarize your proposal. I cannot fairly or completely summarize the effect of your proposed measure to the electorate in a popular name or ballot title, however, without the resolution of these ambiguities. I am therefore unable at this time to substitute and certify a more suitable and correct ballot title under A.C.A. §
The ambiguities to which I refer occur throughout the proposed measure. They are pervasive and primarily take the form of grammatical, syntax, and usage problems, as well as internal inconsistencies. These problems make it impossible to determine the intended meaning and effect of the proposed measure. I will give examples of some specific areas of concern; however, it must be understood that my discussion of these areas of concern is not exhaustive. Among the problems in the text of your proposed measure are the following:
(1) The introductory paragraph refers to the proposed measure as an "act to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas." Both the title of the measure and text refer to the measure as an "act." The provisions of your proposed measure also provide for the repeal of all laws and constitutional provisions in conflict with "this act." "Acts," whether adopted by the General Assembly, or through initiated action of the people, are entirely distinct from amendments to the Arkansas Constitution. An "act" cannot repeal a constitutional provision. There is to my knowledge, in this sense, no such thing as a "Constitutional Act." I cannot determine from your submission, therefore, whether you are proposing an initiated "act," or an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution.
(2) Because of a mismatch between the subject and the predicate in Section 1 of the proposed measure, the language of the measure does not make clear exactly who is to "provide" as described in Section 1. In this regard, it is unclear whether Section 1 is merely a summary of what is to be provided by subsequent sections of the measure, or whether it is independent.
(3) Section 1 refers to "marijuana by whatever name," whereas Section 2 refers to "marijuana." This discrepancy gives rise to a question as to exactly what substance is the subject of the proposed measure.
(4) Sections 2(c) and (d) refer to persons who are "found" to have a terminal illness, as well as to persons who have a "medically diagnosed chronic pain." The fact that the reference to persons with terminal illnesses does not mention medical diagnosis gives rise to a question as to whether such persons must be "found" by a physician to have the illness. Moreover, the term" medically diagnosed" is vague, thus giving rise to questions as to who is qualified to make the referenced medical diagnosis.
As previously indicated, the foregoing list is not intended to be exhaustive. The referenced grammatical, syntax, usage, and inconsistency problems occur throughout the proposed amendment. Consultation with legal counsel of your choice, or a person skilled in the drafting of legislation is recommended.
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. §
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
Finn v. McCuen , 303 Ark. 418 ( 1990 )
Bailey v. McCuen , 318 Ark. 277 ( 1994 )
Pafford v. Hall , 217 Ark. 734 ( 1950 )
Gaines v. McCuen , 296 Ark. 513 ( 1988 )
Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen , 318 Ark. 241 ( 1994 )
Becker v. McCuen , 303 Ark. 482 ( 1990 )
Hoban v. Hall , 1958 Ark. LEXIS 774 ( 1958 )
Moore v. Hall , 229 Ark. 411 ( 1958 )
Chaney v. Bryant , 259 Ark. 294 ( 1976 )
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 )
Arkansas Women's Political Caucus v. Riviere , 283 Ark. 463 ( 1984 )