denying placement of proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot where the popular name misleadingly referred only to "sales taxes" and the text of the measure referred more generally to "any taxes"
How later courts described this case
- denying placement of proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot where the popular name misleadingly referred only to "sales taxes" and the text of the measure referred more generally to "any taxes"
- there is “no authority whereby this court could rewrite or change the text of a proposed amendment”
- where court held that Act 877, by its terms, applies to all petitions approved by the Attorney General and filed with the Secretary of State pursuant to § 7-9-107, as of March 25, 1999
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LAVENSKI R. SMITH, Justice, concurring. I concur in the result because of the patent inconsistencies between the ballot title, the popular name, and the text of the amendment. Its proponents concede the inconsistencies. If the drafters of the proposed amendment intend for it to mean differently than it reads, it is up to them to correct it. Neither precedent nor prudence authorize this court to edit a proposed constitutional amendment. Judges should not “edit” constitutional provisions either before or after they are made the law of the land. It is nevertheless unfortunate that any initiative of the people is not able to be voted upon by the people.