{ "id": 12022589, "name": "Paul R. PARKER, Petitioner v. Sharon PRIEST, In Her Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Arkansas, Respondent; Mike Wilson, Individually and On Behalf of The Committee to Promote Arkansas, Intervenors", "name_abbreviation": "Parker v. Priest", "decision_date": "1996-10-21", "docket_number": "96-995", "first_page": "386", "last_page": "396", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "326 Ark. 386" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "931 S.W.2d 108" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "277 Ark. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1750184 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/277/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "303 Ark. 418", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1882790 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/303/0418-01" ] }, { "cite": "318 Ark. 342", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1455717 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/318/0342-01" ] }, { "cite": "318 Ark. 277", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1455774 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/318/0277-01" ] }, { "cite": "318 Ark 241", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1455767 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/318/0241-01" ] }, { "cite": "277 Ark. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1750184 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/277/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "303 Ark. 418", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1882790 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/303/0418-01" ] }, { "cite": "318 Ark. 277", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1455774 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/318/0277-01" ] }, { "cite": "318 Ark. 342", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1455717 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 2, "case_paths": [ "/ark/318/0342-01" ] }, { "cite": "318 Ark. 277", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1455774 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 2, "case_paths": [ "/ark/318/0277-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 685, "char_count": 19304, "ocr_confidence": 0.823, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.000114919033502e-08, "percentile": 0.5031349318049044 }, "sha256": "2ca16262d853aa226ad6124ec626edf5d1086471f5f3b4a20f996c9ac9b5eec6", "simhash": "1:e0e87e2bb9c47aec", "word_count": 3202 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:12:03.555215+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Special Justice Sandra Smith Hochstetter joins this opinion. Dudley, Glaze, and Corbin, JJ., dissent.", "BROWN, J., not participating.", "Corbin, J., joins in this dissent.", "Corbin, J., joins this dissent." ], "parties": [ "Paul R. PARKER, Petitioner v. Sharon PRIEST, In Her Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Arkansas, Respondent; Mike Wilson, Individually and On Behalf of The Committee to Promote Arkansas, Intervenors" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ANDREE LAYTON Roaf, Justice.\nThis is an original action by the petitioner, Paul Parker, to enjoin the Respondent, Secretary of State, Sharon Priest, from placing on the ballot proposed Amendment 7, which would authorize a state lottery and legalize bingo, raffles, and casino gaming. This court has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Ark. Const, amend. 7 and Ark. S. Ct. R. 6-5. The original action petition is opposed by the respondent, and by the intervenors, Mike Wilson, individually and on behalf of the Committee to Promote Arkansas, who are the sponsors of proposed Amendment 7.\nThe petition challenges the sufficiency of the ballot tide of the proposed amendment and asserts that it is defective because: 1) it does not disclose that Oaklawn and Southland racetracks are two of the three sites designated in the amendment where casino gaming is authorized; 2) it does not state how four additional sites for casinos will be selected by the General Assembly; 3) it does not inform the voters that the primary purpose of the proposed amendment is to legalize casino gaming at Oaklawn and Southland racetracks or that its passage would grant a monopoly on the combination of parimutuel wagering and casino gaming to these two entities; and 4) the initiative petition filed with the Secretary of State omitted a portion of the ballot title. We hold that the failure to disclose that two of the three designated sites for casino gaming are Oaklawn and Southland racetracks causes the ballot tide to be fatally deficient.\nCertain general principles of law for ballot tide cases have been set forth in recent cases decided by this court and are pertinent to this case. See Parker v. Priest et al., No. 96-779 (Ark. S. Ct., Sept. 30, 1996); Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen, 318 Ark 241, 884 S.W.2d 605 (1994); Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994); Page v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 342, 884 S.W.2d 951 (1994).\nWe have said that the majority of voters will read a proposed amendment for the first, and only, time when they read it on the ballot. Christian, supra. Thus, it is crucial that the ballot title not be misleading, and that it disclose enough information so that voters can make \u201can intelligent choice and be fully aware of the consequences of their vote.\u201d Id. However, it is not this court\u2019s function to \u201cexpress our view on, or to determine the merits of, a proposed measure \u2014 that power is expressly reserved to the people.\u201d Parker, supra. Furthermore, the purpose of the initiative process is not undermined by an initiative \u201cthat directly benefits a relative few of the people so long as the benefits to the few are not concealed from the voters.\u201d Id.\nThe party challenging the ballot title has the burden of proving that it is misleading or insufficient. Christian, supra. The petitioner is not entitled to a \u201cballot tide that pleases him personally, as we have previously recognized the impossibility of drafting a ballot tide that would suit everyone.\u201d Parker, supra.\nWe will further be \u201cliberal\u201d when construing the sufficiency of the ballot tide. Bailey, supra. While the ballot title is not required to summarize every aspect of the initiative, it must give the voter \u201can intelligible idea of the scope and import of the proposed law.\u201d Christian, supra. In other words, the ballot tide must enable the voter to \u201creach an intelligent and informed decision for or against the proposal and to understand the consequences of his or her vote.\u201d Id.\nFinally, although the ballot title need not summarize every aspect of the initiative, if the information is \u201can essential fact which would give the voter serious grounds for reflection, it must be disclosed.\u201d Bailey, supra. Moreover, \u201c[t]he ballot must be free from any misleading tendency, whether of amplification, or omission, or of fallacy, and it must not be tinged with partisan coloring.\u201d Id.\nProposed Amendment 7 has the following popular name:\nAN AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH A STATEWIDE STATE-RUN LOTTERY, TO PERMIT THE GAME OF BINGO AND RAFFLES TO BE CONDUCTED BY CHARITABLE, NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, TO AUTHORIZE CASINO GAMING AT TWO SITES IN GARLAND COUNTY AND AT TWO SITES IN CRITTENDEN COUNTY, TO PERMIT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO AUTHORIZE CASINO GAMING AT UP TO FOUR ADDITIONAL SITES; TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS EDUCATION TRUST FUND AND THE ARKANSAS CASINO GAMING COMMISSION.\nAs to the four sites where casinos will be located in Garland and Crittenden Counties, the ballot title states:\nTO AUTHORIZE CASINO GAMING IN GARLAND COUNTY AT TWO SITES, ONE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED IN THE AMENDMENT AND ONE TO BE CHOSEN BY THE QUORUM COURT OF GARLAND COUNTY, TO AUTHORIZE CASINO GAMING IN CRITTENDEN COUNTY AT TWO SITES BOTH OF WHICH ARE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED IN THE AMENDMENT.\n(Emphasis added.) However, Section 3 of the amendment provides that the four chosen sites are: Oaklawn Racetrack in Hot Springs, a site to be selected by the Garland County quorum court, Southland Racetrack in West Memphis, and a specific parcel of land in Crit-tenden county which is legally described. There is no hint in the ballot title that Oaklawn and Southland are two of the three predetermined sites for casino gaming. Certainly, most voters are probably familiar with Oaklawn and Southland and know that these are the only locations in Arkansas where gambling is presently allowed. Furthermore, although some voters will know that these two racetracks are located in Crittenden and Garland Counties, it is clear that the voter will not know from the ballot title that Southland and Oaklawn are two of the three sites specifically designated in the amendment for casino gaming, and that they will therefore benefit greatly from the passage of this measure. The issue is thus whether such information is \u201can essential fact that would give the voter serious grounds for reflection.\u201d Bailey, supra.\nThe petitioner relies on Page in support of his argument that the failure to disclose this information causes the amendment to be fatally flawed. In Page, this court rejected a casino amendment because the ballot tide stated only that a casino would be authorized \u201cat a designated site\u201d which would lead the voter to believe that no site had yet been chosen. We explained that this was a fatal defect because:\nBefore casting their ballots, voters no doubt would pause for reflection if they were aware \u201cthe\u201d designated site had already been established in the proposed constitutional measure itself, thereby guaranteeing the site\u2019s owner whatever benefits that would result from the measure\u2019s passage.\nId. (Emphasis added.) However, in this instance the ballot tide clearly tells the voter that three of the four sites have already been chosen. The intervenors, who also sponsored the amendment which was removed from the ballot in 1994 in Page, submit that they have satisfied the standard set forth in Page by disclosing that the three sites have in fact been predetermined.\nAlthough the facts of Page are not direcdy analogous, we find the underlying principle to be relevant. In Page, this court expressed a distaste for hiding from the voter that private interests will direcdy benefit from a measure\u2019s passage. Id. This concern was recendy restated in Parker.\nThe purpose of the initiative process is not undermined by the presentation to the voters of an issue that direcdy benefits a relative few of the people so long as the benefits to the few were not concealed from the voters.\nParker, supra (Emphasis added.) In this instance, the ballot title for Amendment 7 clearly conceals from the voters the direct benefit to Oakland and Southland, which are significant and important Arkansas gambling interests.\nIn Finn v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 418, 798 S.W.2d 34 (1990), this court rejected an amendment that would have allowed state lotteries because the ballot tide failed to mention that the amendment designated three people to serve on the State Lottery Commission. We explained:\nThe electors are being asked to elect at least three people to important positions without being informed in the ballot tide of the names or interests of these prospective board members, they are not even being told that named persons will be on the board.\nId.\nSimilarly, in Dust v. Rivieria, 277 Ark. 1, 638 S.W.2d 663 (1982), this court rejected an initiative that would have benefited a few private interests but did not disclose this matter to the voting public. In Dust, the ballot tide stated that the amendment would create a Ratepayers Utility Board whose seven members would be appointed by various people in the Executive Department. Id. However, the ballot tide did not mention that board members would be selected to represent specific, private interests, including environmental groups and labor organizations. Id. This court held that:\nThe voter, who is a residential or small business customer, has a right to know that these interests can direct and control the Board which is supposed to represent and advocate the interests of residential and small business consumers.\nId. Accordingly, this court rejected an initiative that failed to disclose in the ballot tide the direct benefits to a \u201crelatively few\u201d special interests. It is clear that the benefit to specific private interests can indeed be a matter which would give the voter \u201cserious grounds for reflection.\u201d We think that Oaklawn and Southland are such interests and that their identities constitute an essential fact which should have been disclosed, and indeed could have been disclosed, with fewer words than actually utilized in the ballot tide.\nIn sum, it is clear that the voters are not made aware that, by voting for Amendment 7, they are not simply voting to authorize \u201ctwo sites\u201d in Garland County and \u201ctwo sites\u201d in Crittenden County, three of which are \u201cspecifically designated in the amendment.\u201d Instead, they are voting to authorize casino gaming \u201cat Oaklawn Race Track in Hot Springs\u201d and at \u201cSouthland Race Track in West Memphis.\u201d The failure to disclose this information is a material omission that renders the ballot tide fatally defective. Consequently, we need not consider the remaining issues raised by Parker in his petition.\nThe petition is granted, and the Secretary of State is enjoined from placing proposed Amendment 7 on the November 5, 1996, general election, or in the alternative, from counting the votes cast on this issue. The mandate shall issue on October 25, 1996, unless a petition for rehearing is filed on or before that date.\nPetition granted.\nSpecial Justice Sandra Smith Hochstetter joins this opinion. Dudley, Glaze, and Corbin, JJ., dissent.\nBROWN, J., not participating.", "type": "majority", "author": "ANDREE LAYTON Roaf, Justice." }, { "text": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice,\ndissenting. The ballot title informs the voter that casino gambling would be permitted at four sites, two in Crittenden County and two in Garland County. It informs the voter that the two sites in Crittenden County have already been selected and that the descriptions of those sites are set out in the body of the amendment. It informs the voter that one of the two sites in Garland County has already been selected, and that site is described in the body of the amendment, and that the other remains to be selected by the quorum court of Garland County.\nThe majority opinion strikes the proposed amendment from the November 5, 1996, general election on the ground that the ballot tide does not notify the voter that the selected site in Garland County is the location of the Oaklawn race track and that one of the selected sites in Crittenden County is the location of the South-land dog race track. The question for this court to weigh is whether those omissions are of essential facts, Finn v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 418, 798 S.W.2d 34 (1990), and whether they would mislead a voter or would give the voter \u201cserious grounds for reflection.\u201d Dust v. Riviere, 277 Ark. 1, 638 S.W.2d 663 (1982). It is not required that the ballot tide contain a synopsis of the proposed amendment, but it should be complete enough to convey an intelligible idea of the scope and import of the proposal. Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994).\nA majority of members of this court, after weighing both sides of the argument, have concluded that the omissions are essential and would mislead a voter because the voter would not know that he or she were voting for a casino at the Oaklawn race track and the Southland race track. Granted, it would have been better if the ballot tide disclosed the exact location that would benefit private interests, but what might have been better is not the test for determining whether a ballot tide is misleading. The test is whether the omissions are of essential facts and would mislead a voter, and whether the ballot tide is sufficient to convey an intelligible idea of the import of the proposal.\nIt is undisputed that the ballot tide fairly discloses that casino gaming would be authorized at four locations, two in Crittenden County and two in Garland County. It is also undisputed that the ballot tide clearly discloses that three of the four proposed locations have already been selected, and, consequendy, a reasonable voter would understand that private, or special, interests would stand to obtain casino locations at three previously selected sites. There simply is no failure to disclose the essential facts that private or special interests stand to obtain casino locations at four locations and that three of those four have already been determined. The essence of the voters concern is whether he or she wants to give private interests the constitutional right to build casinos at two predetermined locations in Crittenden County and two locations in Garland County, with one already determined and one to be determined by the Garland County Quorum Court.\nThe majority opinion holds that the core of the issue before us involves the specific location of the three predetermined sites and concludes that the failure to give the specific locations of the three sites is something that would mislead the voter. I respectfully suggest that this weighing is not a weighing of the essential issue. It is only when the ballot title fails to disclose an essential fact that we strike the proposal from the ballot. Finn v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 418, 798 S.W.2d 34 (1990). The essential issues that should be weighed in this case are whether a voter would be given sufficient information by the ballot title to decide whether constitutional licenses should be given to build casinos at four locations, with three of those locations having already been selected, and whether the voter would be informed by the ballot tide that private interests stand to obtain these licenses from passage of the proposed amendment. Whether the site is specifically described is not of real consequence to the voter. However, even if the majority should be correct that the specific site should be the issue weighed by this court, the ballot tide provides that the three predetermined tracts are specified in the amendment itself. The ballot title notifies a voter that if he or she wishes to know about the specific location of the three sites upon which casinos would be located, he or she can look in the amendment to find them. The material part of the tide is as follows:\nTO AUTHORIZE CASINO GAMING IN GARLAND COUNTY AT TWO SITES, ONE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED IN THE AMENDMENT AND ONE TO BE CHOSEN BY THE QUORUM COURT OF GARLAND COUNTY, TO AUTHORIZE CASINO GAMING IN CRITTENDEN COUNTY AT TWO SITES BOTH OF WHICH ARE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED IN THE AMENDMENT.\nThe amendment then provides that one of the locations in Garland County is the Oaklawn race track and that one of the locations in Crittenden County is the Southland race track.\nIn summary, there is no material omission of an essential issue from the ballot title; it conveys an intelligible idea of the scope and import of the proposed amendment. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.\nCorbin, J., joins in this dissent.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice," }, { "text": "TOM GLAZE, Justice,\ndissenting. I dissent. Proposed Amendment 7 is only eight (8) pages long and its ballot title comprises 393 words and provides for lottery, bingo, raffles, and casino gambling. There is nothing complex or lengthy about this proposal. In fact, this court finds only one problem with the ballot title of this proposal: It does not specifically mention \u201cOaklawn\u201d or \u201cSouth-land\u201d as being the two predesignated sites in Garland and Crit-tenden counties where casino gambling would occur if the proposal is adopted by the people at the November 5 General Election.\nI find it incredibly naive on this court\u2019s part to think Arkansas voters would not know Oaklawn and Southland were the designated sites for casino gambling under proposed Amendment 7. I find it even more farfetched for the court to suggest Arkansas voters\u2019 decisions would be affected because Oaklawn\u2019s and South-land\u2019s actual names do not appear in the ballot title.\nThe ballot tide clearly apprises the voters that two sites, one in Garland County and another in Crittenden County, have already been selected where casino gambling will be authorized. In sum, the voters know by reading the ballot tide that two owners or enterprises \u2014 one in Garland County and the other in Crittenden County \u2014 will benefit by the passage of proposed Amendment 7. This is not the situation found in Page v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 342, 884 S.W.2d 951 (1994), where we held the ballot-tide reference to \u201ca designated site\u201d misled voters to believe a site for casino gambling was yet to be selected when, in fact, the site and landowner had already been established in the proposed amendment.\nAgain, the ballot tide here informs all voters that a site in Garland County and in Crittenden County have already been selected, and if it were the intention of the sponsors of proposed Amendment 7 to mislead or hide from Arkansas voters the entities who own those two preselected sites, it has to be the worst-guarded secret in Arkansas. The Oaklawn and Southland names are found not only in other initiative gambling proposals intended to be placed on the General Election ballot, but also their names saturate the advertisements seeking passage of those proposals.\nIn my view, this court should not remove an initiative measure from the ballot unless it is clear the proposal\u2019s ballot tide will mislead the voters from making an intelligent choice. Our constitution and case law requires this court to be liberal when construing a ballot title\u2019s sufficiency. Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994).\nThe ballot title here fully discloses that two predesignated sites have been chosen for casino gambling, and to suggest Arkansas voters cannot cast an intelligent vote in these circumstances is insulting, in my view.\nCorbin, J., joins this dissent.", "type": "dissent", "author": "TOM GLAZE, Justice," } ], "attorneys": [ "Wright & Burke, by: William Randal Wright, for petitioner.", "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Kay J. Jackson DeMailly, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for respondent.", "Dover & Dixon, P.A., by: David A. Couch, for intervenors." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Paul R. PARKER, Petitioner v. Sharon PRIEST, In Her Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Arkansas, Respondent; Mike Wilson, Individually and On Behalf of The Committee to Promote Arkansas, Intervenors\n96-995\n931 S.W.2d 108\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered October 21, 1996\nWright & Burke, by: William Randal Wright, for petitioner.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Kay J. Jackson DeMailly, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for respondent.\nDover & Dixon, P.A., by: David A. Couch, for intervenors." }, "file_name": "0386-01", "first_page_order": 420, "last_page_order": 430 }