Opinion No. 2018-072

May 24, 2018

Alex T. Gray, Esq.
Steel, Wright, Gray & Hutchinson, PLLC
400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2910
Little Rock, AR 72201

Dear Mr. Gray:

I am writing in response to your request for recertification of the initiated measure you initially submitted on May 14, 2018. This office certified the popular name and ballot title as submitted on May 23, 2018, in Op. Att’y Gen. 2018-068. On May 24, 2018, we received your request for recertification to correct a typographical error and other scrivener’s errors that were contained in your May 14 submission. You have neither noted nor requested any substantive changes to the language of your popular name or ballot title.

At the outset, I wish to make clear to you that the decision to certify or reject a popular name and ballot title is in no way a reflection of my view of the merits of a particular proposal. I am not authorized to, and I do not, consider the merits of the measure when making a decision to certify or reject.

Arkansas Code Annotated § 7-9-107 authorizes my office to 1) certify the popular name and ballot title of a proposed measure, 2) substitute and certify the popular name and ballot title, if practicable, or 3) reject the entire submission if “the ballot title, or the nature of the issue, is presented in such manner that the ballot title would be misleading” to voters.[1] The purpose of my review under section 7-9-107 is to ensure that the popular name and ballot title honestly, intelligibly, and fairly set forth the purpose of the proposed amendment or act.[2] In this way, voters will have a fair understanding of the issues presented by reference to the ballot title alone.[3]

Section 7-9-107 neither requires nor authorizes this office to make legal determinations concerning the merits of the proposed 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,”[4] this office will not require that a measure’s proponents acknowledge in the ballot title any possible constitutional infirmities.[5] 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 proposal.


You have revised your popular name and ballot title and, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-107, have submitted the following proposed popular name and ballot title, as revised, for my certification:

Popular Name

An Amendment to Require Four Licenses to be Issued for Casino Gaming at Casinos, One Each in Crittenden (to Southland Racing Corporation), Garland (to Oaklawn Jockey Club, Inc.), Pope, and Jefferson Counties

Ballot Title

An amendment to the Arkansas Constitution to require that the Arkansas Racing Commission issue licenses for casino gaming to be conducted at four casinos in Arkansas, being subject to laws enacted by the General Assembly in accord with this amendment and regulations issued by the Arkansas Racing Commission (“Commission”); defining “casino gaming” as dealing, operating, carrying on, conducting, maintaining, or exposing for play any game played with cards, dice, equipment, or any mechanical, electromechanical, or electronic device or machine for money, property, checks, credit, or any representative value, as well as accepting wagers on sporting events; providing that individuals under 21 are prohibited from engaging in casino gaming; providing that the Commission shall issue four casino licenses, one to Southland Racing Corporation (“Southland”) for casino gaming at a casino to be located at or adjacent to Southland’s greyhound track and gaming facility in Crittenden County, one to Oaklawn Jockey Club, Inc. (“Oaklawn”) to require casino gaming at a casino to be located at or adjacent to Oaklawn’s horse track and gaming facility in Garland County, one to an applicant to require casino gaming at a casino to be located in Pope County within two miles of Russellville, and one to an applicant to require casino gaming at a casino to be located in Jefferson County within two miles of Pine Bluff; providing that upon receiving a casino license, licensees will be required to conduct casino gaming for as long as they have a casino license providing that Southland and Oaklawn do not have to apply for a license and will automatically receive a casino license upon the Commission adopting rules and regulations to govern casino gaming; providing that the Commission shall require all applicants for the two remaining casino licensees, one in Pope County and one in Jefferson County to pay an application fee, demonstrate experience in conducting casino gaming, and submit either a letter of support from the county judge or a resolution from the county quorum court in the county where the casino would be located and, if the proposed casino is to be located within a city, a letter of support from the mayor of that city; providing that the Commission shall regulate all casino licensees; defining “net casino gaming receipts” as casino gaming receipts less amounts paid out or reserved as winnings to casino patrons; providing that for each fiscal year, a casino licensee’s net casino gaming receipts are subject to a net casino gaming receipts tax of 13% on the first $150,000,000 of net casino gaming receipts or any part thereof, and 20% on net casino gaming receipts exceeding $150,000,001 or any part thereof; providing that no other tax, other than the net casino gaming receipts tax, may be imposed on gaming receipts or net casino gaming receipts; providing that the net casino gaming receipts tax shall be distributed 55% to the State of Arkansas General Revenue Fund, 17.5% to the Commission for deposit into the Arkansas Racing Commission Purse and Awards Fund to be used only for purses for live horse racing and greyhound racing by Oaklawn and Southland, as the case may be, 8% to the county in which the casino is located, and 19.5% to the city in which the casino is located, provided that if the casino is not located within a city, then the county in which the casino is located shall receive the 19.5%; permitting casino licensees to conduct casino gaming on any day for any portion of all of any day; permitting casino licensees to sell liquor or provide complimentary servings of liquor during all hours in which the casino licensees conduct casino gaming only for on-premises consumption at the casinos and permitting casino licensees to sell liquor or provide complimentary servings of liquor without allowing the residents of a dry county or city to vote to approve the sale of liquor; providing that casino licensees shall purchase liquor from a licensed Arkansas wholesaler; permitting shipments of gambling devices that are duly registered, recorded, and labeled in accordance with federal law into any county in which casino gaming is authorized; declaring that all constitutional provisions, statutes, and common law of the state that conflict with this amendment are not to be applied to this Amendment.


The popular name is primarily a useful legislative device.[6] 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.[7] The popular name is to be considered together with the ballot title in determining the ballot title’s sufficiency.[8]

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.[9] According to the Court, a ballot title will not be legally sufficient unless it “adequately inform[s]” the voters of the contents of a proposed amendment or act so that they can make a “reasoned decision in the voting booth.”[10] A ballot title’s failure to “honestly and accurately reflect what is contained in the proposed [act or] Amendment” may lead the Court to conclude that the “omission is significant.”[11] The Court has also disapproved the use of terms that are “technical and not readily understood by voters.”[12] Without a definition of such terms in the ballot title, the title may be deemed insufficient.[13]

Additionally, if information omitted from the ballot title is an “essential fact which would give the voter serious ground for reflection, it must be disclosed.”[14] At the same time, however, a ballot title must be brief and concise;[15] otherwise voters could run afoul of the statutory five-minute limit in voting booths[16] when other voters are waiting in line.[17] 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.[18] The title, however, must be “free of any misleading tendency whether by amplification, omission, or fallacy, and it must not be tinged with partisan coloring.”[19] The ballot title must be honest and impartial,[20] and it must convey an intelligible idea of the scope and significance of a proposed change in the law.[21]

Furthermore, the Court has confirmed that a ballot title cannot be approved if the text of the proposed measure itself contributes to confusion and disconnect between the language in the popular name and the ballot title and the language in the measure.[22] 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.”[23] 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 (1) clarification or removal of the ambiguities in the proposal itself, and (2) conformance of the popular name and ballot title to the newly worded proposal.


As I previously noted, this is a recertification of your proposed popular name and ballot title that I certified in Op. Att’y Gen. 2018-068. You have not requested any substantive changes be made. Instead, you have only corrected a typographical error and other scrivener’s errors that were a part of your initial submission. Accordingly, your proposed popular name and ballot title are certified as resubmitted.

As stated in Op. Att’y Gen. 2018-068, a cautionary note is warranted in light of the significance of the subject matter undertaken—a constitutional amendment requiring casino gaming and taxation thereof—and the complexity and far-reaching effects of this proposal. You should be aware that experience has shown a correlation between the length and complexity of initiated measures and their susceptibility to a successful ballot title challenge. Any ambiguity in the text of a measure could lead to a successful challenge.

Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-108, instructions to canvassers and signers must precede every petition, informing them of the privileges granted by the Arkansas Constitution and of the associated penalties for violations. Enclosed herewith are instructions that should be incorporated in your petition prior to circulation.


Leslie Rutledge
Attorney General


[1]Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-107(c) (Supp. 2017).
[2]See Arkansas Women’s Political Caucus v. Riviere, 283 Ark. 463, 466, 677 S.W.2d 846, 848 (1948).
[3]Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. 219, 226, 604 S.W.2d 555, 558 (1980) (internal citations omitted).
[4]See Kurrus v. Priest, 342 Ark. 434, 445, 29 S.W.3d 669, 675 (2000); Donovan v. Priest, 326 Ark. 353, 359, 931 S.W.2d 119, 121 (1996); Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654, 841 S.W.2d 139 (1992).
[5]As part of my review, however, I may address constitutional concerns for consideration by the measure’s proponents.
[6]Pafford v. Hall, 217 Ark. 734, 739, 233 S.W.2d 72, 75 (1950).
[7]See, e.g., Chaney v. Bryant, 259 Ark. 294, 297, 532 S.W.2d 741, 743 (1976); Moore v. Hall, 229 Ark. 411, 316 S.W.2d 207 (1958). For a better understanding of the term “partisan coloring,” see infra note 19.
[8]May v. Daniels, 359 Ark. 100, 105, 194 S.W.3d 771, 776 (2004).
[9]Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. 219, 226, 604 S.W.2d 555, 558 (1980) (internal citations omitted).
[10]Lange v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 337, 500 S.W.3d 154, at n. 2.
[11]Id. at *9, 500 S.W.3d at 159.
[12]Wilson v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 334, *9, 500 S.W.3d 160, 167 (stating that “voters [should not] be placed in a position of either having to be an expert in the subject or having to guess as to the effect his or her vote would have”).
[13]Id., 500 S.W.3d at 167.
[14]Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 285, 884 S.W.2d 938, 942 (1994).
[15]See Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-107(b).
[16]Ark Code Ann. § 7-5-309 (Supp. 2017).
[17]Bailey, 318 Ark. at 284, 884 S.W.2d at 944.
[18]Id. at 293, 884 S.W.2d at 946-47.
[19]Id. at 284, 884 S.W.2d at 942. Language “tinged with partisan coloring” has been identified by the Arkansas Supreme Court as language that “creates a fatally misleading tendency” (Crochet v. Priest, 326 Ark. 338, 347, 931 S.W.2d 128, 133 (1996)) or that “gives the voter only the impression that the proponents of the proposed amendment wish to convey of the activity represented by the words.” Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 241, 249, 884 S.W.2d 605, 610 (1994).
[20]Becker v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 482, 489, 798 S.W.2d 71, 74 (1990).
[21]Christian Civic Action Committee, 318 Ark. at 245, 884 S.W.2d at 607 (internal quotations omitted).
[22]Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 825, 20 S.W.3d 376, 382 (2000).