The Secretary of State's determination of sufficiency includes both the ballot title and the signatures.
How later courts described this case
- The Secretary of State's determination of sufficiency includes both the ballot title and the signatures.
- where proposed amendment authorizing a lottery and bingo was silent as to checks and balances of other branches of government, and Supreme Court interpreted proposed amendment as prohibiting such checks and balances, that fact must be disclosed in ballot title
- Glaze, Hays and Dudley, JJ., dissenting
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled in part by Stilley v. Priest, 341 Ark. 329 (2000)
We overrule Finn v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 418, 798 S.W.2d 34 (1990), and Scott v. McCuen, 289 Ark. 41, 709 S.W.2d 77 (1986), to the extent that they prevent a review of the text of a popular name and ballot title and the validity of the proposed measure prefatory to the gathering of signatures.
The opinion
Dale Price, Justice, concurring. I concur with the majority opinion in all respects except for the issue of the validity of signatures counted after Mr. Ray F. Simmons’ death and the further insufficiency of the ballot title. Simmons died on December 25,1989, and no showing has been made as to how many, if any, of the signatures had been obtained after his death.
On July 6,1990, petitions were presented to the secretary of state for determination of sufficient signatures. On that date, it was determined there were insufficient signatures to place the issue.on the ballot, and the secretary of state gave the proponents an additional 30 days to make up the deficiency. Inasmuch as the petitions circulated after July 6,1990, still contained the name of Simmons, all signers would have of necessity been led to believe that Simmons was to be a commissioner.
The subsequently circulated petitions were defective. Since a dead man is incapable of performing duties as a commissioner, this fatally flawed any signatures obtained after July 6,1990. The signers of the petitions were misled.
The signers were further misled when the proponents of the amendment sought to have themselves elected to a constitutional office without having signed a Political Practices Pledge as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 7-6-102 (b) (1987). The required pledge reads, “I certify that I have never been convicted of a felony in Arkansas or in any other jurisdiction outside Arkansas.” The ballot title did not inform the signers that the pledge was dispensed with or that a convicted felon might be elected commissioner.
I concur.