Opinion

Finn v. McCuen

  • 303 Ark. 418
  • 798 S.W.2d 34
  • 1990 Ark. LEXIS 491
Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Filed
Oct 26, 1990
Status
Published
Author
Hays
On the bench
Newbern, Price, Dudley, Hays, Glaze
Cited by
419 cases
Authority
More cited than 10.8%

Overruled in part by Stilley v. Priest, 341 Ark. 329 (2000)

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.
    Supreme Court of ArkansasMay 18, 2000in partRead it

The opinion

Steele Hays, Justice, dissenting. I hold no brief for the proposed lottery amendment, but I believe its approval or rejection must rest with the public rather than with this court. I earnestly disagree that the provisions of Act 280 of 1989 are unconstitutional. Amendment 7, quite sensibly, makes express provision that laws may be enacted to facilitate the operation of the initiative and referendum process and that, I believe, is answer enough. We have said it is for the legislature, rather than the courts, to decide how Amendment 7 is to be implemented. Czech v. Munson, 280 Ark. 219 , 656 S.W.2d 696 (1983).

Today’s holding, at the very least, denies to the general public the power to initiate law, provident or otherwise, so plainly reserved under Amendment 7. It is clear this court has departed from the rule of liberal construction in favor of a strict and ad hoc interpretation of Amendment 7 issues. That does not bode well for initiated reform in Arkansas.

I share the views of Justices Dudley and Glaze expressed in their dissenting opinions, in which I join.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.