# Kurrus Ex Rel. Arkansans to Protect Police, Libraries, Education, & Services (APPLES) v. Priest

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · October 24, 2000 · 342 Ark. 434

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9635240

## Case

- **Full name:** H. Baker KURRUS, Individually, and on Behalf of Arkansans to Protect Police, Libraries, Education, and Services (APPLES), Petitioner v. Sharon PRIEST, Secretary of State, Respondent; Oscar Stilley, Individually, and on Behalf of Arkansas Taxpayers Rights Committee, Intervenor
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** October 24, 2000
- **Citations:** 342 Ark. 434; 29 S.W.3d 669; 2000 Ark. LEXIS 504
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Smith
- **Judges:** Corbin, Imber, Smith, Brown, Point
- **Cited by:** 81 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9635240

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 i…
- 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”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9635240. Public record. Not legal advice.