Did the Arkansas AG certify a revised initiated act that would lower the wet-dry election petition threshold from 38% of registered voters to 25% of votes cast in the last governor's race?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2015. Ask about yours and see what current Arkansas law means for your facts, with citations you can check.
Plain-English summary
David Couch asked the Arkansas Attorney General to certify the popular name and ballot title of a proposed initiated act about local-option, or wet-dry, elections. An earlier similar measure had been rejected for ambiguity in its text in Opinion 2015-014. This submission revised the proposal, but Attorney General Leslie Rutledge rejected its ballot title for a different reason.
The submitted title said the signatures required to call a local-option election would change from 38% of registered voters in the relevant area to 25% of votes cast for governor in the last preceding general election there. The AG said the title failed to emphasize that the basis for the calculation changed as well as the percentage. A voter scanning it might see only a decrease from 38% to 25% and miss that the denominator also shifted from registered voters to turnout. She considered it likely that the reduction in required signatures would be much larger than that quick reading suggested.
The AG therefore found the title misleading about the scope and significance of the proposed change and instructed the sponsor to redesign it. She did not calculate a particular county's signature requirement or discuss a later submission. Her certification review addressed how fairly the title presented the proposal, not whether the proposal itself was desirable.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 2015 about a proposed act and a rejected ballot title. It does not establish the signature requirement now in force. Check current law and the measure's later history before relying on a threshold.
Common questions
Why was the ballot title rejected when it named both percentages? The AG said many voters might notice “38% to 25%” but miss that the basis also changed from registered voters to votes cast for governor. She concluded the title did not convey the change's likely scope without a significant risk of misinterpretation.
Did the AG say exactly how many fewer signatures would be needed? No. She said the reduction was likely much more significant than a simple comparison of the two percentages suggests, but gave no county-specific calculation.
Could the sponsor submit a revised title?
The AG instructed the sponsor to redesign the title so it would not be misleading. This opinion does not state what happened after that instruction.
Did the AG approve or reject the policy change itself? No. The opinion says certification or rejection of ballot language does not express the AG's view of a measure's merits.
Background and statutory framework
A.C.A. § 7-9-107 required review of an initiated act's popular name and ballot title before petitions circulated. The opinion says the AG may substitute more suitable ballot language when practicable or reject language that is too misleading. It also refers to A.C.A. § 7-9-107(b) and § 7-5-522 when explaining the need for a brief, intelligible title suitable for voters in the booth.
The earlier Opinion 2015-014 is mentioned only as a prior rejection for an ambiguity in the text. This opinion's stated ground for rejection is the ballot title's treatment of the changed basis for computing petition signatures.
Citations
- A.C.A. § 7-9-107 (popular name and ballot title review)
- A.C.A. § 7-9-107(b) (brevity reference)
- A.C.A. § 7-5-522 (voting booth time limit)
- Op. Att'y Gen. 2015-014 (earlier submission)
Source
Original opinion text
STATE OF ARKANSAS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Opinion No. 2015-025
March 12, 2015
David A. Couch
1501 North University, Suite 228
Little Rock, Arkansas 72207
Dear Mr. Couch:
This is in response to your request for certification, pursuant to A.C.A. § 7-9-107 (Repl. 2013), of the following popular name and ballot title for a proposed initiated act. You previously submitted a similar measure, which this office rejected due to an ambiguity in the text of the proposed measure. See Op. Att'y Gen. No. 2015-014. You have changed the text of your proposal and have now submitted the following popular name and ballot title for my certification:
Popular Name
AN ACT CONCERNING LOCAL OPTION (WET-DRY) ELECTIONS
Ballot Title
A proposed act to change the number of signatures required to call a local option (wet-dry) election from 38% of the qualified electors (registered voters) in the county, township, municipality, ward or precinct to 25% of the total number of votes cast by qualified electors for the Office of Governor in the last preceding general election in the county, township, municipality, ward or precinct.
The Attorney General is required, pursuant to A.C.A. § 7-9-107, to certify the popular name and ballot title of all proposed initiative and referendum acts or amendments before the petitions are circulated for signature. The law provides that the Attorney General may, if practicable, substitute and certify a more suitable and correct popular name and ballot title. Or, if the proposed popular name and ballot title are sufficiently misleading, the Attorney General may reject the entire petition. Neither certification nor rejection of a popular name and ballot title reflects my view of the merits of the proposal. This Office has been given no authority to consider the merits of any measure.
In this regard, A.C.A. § 7-9-107 neither requires nor authorizes this office to make legal determinations concerning the merits of the act or amendment, or concerning the likelihood that it will accomplish its stated objective. In addition, consistent with Arkansas Supreme Court precedent, unless the measure is "clearly contrary to law," this office will not require that a measure's proponents acknowledge in the ballot title any possible constitutional infirmities. As part of my review, however, I may address constitutional concerns for consideration by the measure's proponents.
Consequently, this review has been limited primarily to a determination, pursuant to the guidelines that have been set forth by the Arkansas Supreme Court, discussed below, of whether the popular name and ballot title you have submitted accurately and impartially summarize the provisions of your proposed act.
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 or act.
The popular name is primarily a useful legislative device. It need not contain detailed information or include exceptions that might be required of a ballot title, but it must not be misleading or give partisan coloring to the merit of the proposal. The popular name is to be considered together with the ballot title in determining the ballot title's sufficiency.
The ballot title must include an impartial summary of the proposed amendment or act that will give the voter a fair understanding of the issues presented. According to the court, if information omitted from the ballot title is an "essential fact which would give the voter serious ground for reflection, it must be disclosed." At the same time, however, a ballot title must be brief and concise (see A.C.A. § 7-9- 107(b)); otherwise voters could run afoul of A.C.A. § 7-5-522's five minute limit in voting booths when other voters are waiting in line. The ballot title is not required to be perfect, nor is it reasonable to expect the title to cover or anticipate every possible legal argument the proposed measure might evoke. The title, however, must be free from any misleading tendency, whether by amplification, omission, or fallacy; it must not be tinged with partisan coloring. The ballot title must be honest and impartial, and it must convey an intelligible idea of the scope and significance of a proposed change in the law.
Furthermore, the Court has confirmed that a proposed amendment cannot be approved if "[t]he text of the proposed amendment itself contribute[s] to the confusion and disconnect between the language in the popular name and the ballot title and the language in the proposed measure." The Court concluded that "internal inconsistencies would inevitably lead to confusion in drafting a popular name and ballot title and to confusion in the ballot title itself." Where the effects of a proposed measure on current law are unclear or ambiguous, it is impossible for me to perform my statutory duty to the satisfaction of the Arkansas Supreme Court without clarification of the ambiguities.
Applying the above precepts, it is my conclusion that the ballot title you have submitted would be misleading for the reason that it fails to emphasize the change in the basis for computing the number of signatures required to call a local option election. I believe it can reasonably be anticipated that a significant number of voters will quickly scan this proposed ballot title and assume that the signature requirement simply drops from 38% to 25%. Many will not realize that it is likely a much more significant reduction due to the change from registered voters to voter turnout as the basis for determining the requisite number of signatures on a petition. The ballot title is misleading in failing to convey the scope and significance of the proposed change in the petition signature requirement in a manner that is not subject to misinterpretation by a significant number of voters.
I must therefore reject your proposed ballot title and instruct you to redesign it in a manner that will not be misleading.
Sincerely,
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
LR/cyh
Enclosure
What does Arkansas law say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2015. Ezel checks the current Arkansas statutes and case law, applies them to your situation, and cites what it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace