holding “that the ballot title of proposed amendment 4, considered along with its popular name, is insufficient. It is misleading, both by amplification and omission, and thwarts a fair understanding of the issues presented. It also fails to convey to the voter the scope and import of the proposed measure”
How later courts described this case
- holding “that the ballot title of proposed amendment 4, considered along with its popular name, is insufficient. It is misleading, both by amplification and omission, and thwarts a fair understanding of the issues presented. It also fails to convey to the voter the scope and import of the proposed measure”
- holding “that the ballot title . . . along with its popular name, is insufficient. It is misleading, both by amplification and omission, and thwarts a fair understanding of the issues presented. It also fails to convey to the voter the scope and import of the proposed measure”
- holding that a ballot title was insufficient because it did not sufficiently inform the voter as to what constitutes a “tax increase”
- "[W]here collateral which has been pledged to secure the repayment of bonds is removed, then the obligation of the contract between the bondholder and the bond issuer has been impaired"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Lavenski R. Smith, Justice, dissenting. I join the dissent of Justice IMBER. The majority and concurring opinions state several sound, persuasive reasons for the people not to vote for proposed amendment 4. However, I am unconvinced that either states one compelling reason under our precedents for the people not to be able to vote on the amendment. As the majority points out, the amendment would make substantial changes in the operation of Arkansas’s government. But it does not hide nor misstate those changes. They are evident in the extensive ballot title and in the amendment’s text. A reader of average intelligence can readily discern that amendment 4 does much more than eliminate sales tax on used cars and other used goods. The discretion to accept or reject these changes should lie with the people and not with this court.
Dissent.