Judges: MARK PRYOR, Attorney General
Filed Date: 2/16/2000
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. §
AMENDMENT TO EXEMPT FOOD ITEMS DEFINED AS ANY ITEM THAT IS EDIBLE TO ENCLUDE [SIC] DRINKABLE FOOD ITEMS AND NON-PRESCRIPTION VITAMIN SUPPLIMENTS [SIC] NOT CONTAINING ALCOHOL FROM THE STATE AND LOCAL GROSS RECEIPT SALES TAX WITH EXCEPTION TO THOSE EXCLUSIONS HEREIN STATED; TO PROVIDE THE EXCLUSION OF THE "ARKANSAS SOFT DRINK TAX ACT" FROM THIS AMENDMENT; TO PROVIDE THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT AFFECT THE STATE AND LOCAL GROSS RECEIPT SALES TAX ON ITEMS ENCLUDED [SIC] IN THE "ARKANSAS SOFT DRINK TAX ACT"; TO PROVIDE THE EXEMPTION OF ITEMS HEREAFTER EXCLUDED FORM THE "ARKANSAS SOFT DRINK TAX ACT" TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE STATE AND LOCAL GROSS RECEIPT SALES TAX; TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXCLUSION OF PREPARED RESTAURANT FOOD FROM THIS AMENDMENT; TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXCLUSION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES TO ENCLUDE [SIC] BEER, WINE, LIQUOR, LIQUEURS, CHAMPAGNE AND OTHER INTOXICATING BEVERAGES FROM THIS AMENDMENT; TO PROVIDE THIS AMENDMENT TO BE SELF EXECUTING; TO PROVIDE FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INCONSISTENT WITH THIS AMENDMENT, 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 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 an ambiguity 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 the ambiguity. I am therefore unable to substitute and certify a more suitable and correct ballot title pursuant to A.C.A. §
I refer to the following ambiguity:
Section 3 of your proposed amendment provides that: "This amendment shall not affect any tax on any prepared restaurant foods, prepared and served by a restaurant, or other businesses similar to restaurants serving prepared foods authorized, and defined as a restaurant, or similar business in A.C.A. §
26-75-601 through 618." An ambiguity exists as to whether prepared restaurant foods included and taxed under the provisions of A.C.A. §26-75-701 are also excluded from the operation of your amendment. The definition in that section is not co-extensive with the one in the subchapter you reference.
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
MP:cyh
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 )