"Let it be remembered that the purpose of a ballot title is not to `interpret' the amendment, but only to summarize adequately the provisions of such amendment; nor is it our function in the present litigation to interpret the amendment itself"
How later courts described this case
- "Let it be remembered that the purpose of a ballot title is not to `interpret' the amendment, but only to summarize adequately the provisions of such amendment; nor is it our function in the present litigation to interpret the amendment itself"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Rehearing denied.
Carleton Harris, Chief Justice. In their petition for rehearing, petitioners contend that this Court’s decision is based on a sentence appearing in the opinion, taken from the holding in Fletcher v. Bryant, 243 Ark. 864 , 422 S.W. 2d 698 , viz., “and that where reasonable minds might differ as to the sufficiency of the title, same should be held sufficient.”
The petitioners are in error as to the basis of our holding in the present litigation. In fact, the quoted language might even be considered dictum 1 and, at any rate, means so little to the decision that we herewith amend the opinion by striking said language from same.
The crux of our holding, emphasized throughout the opinion, is that the summation in the ballot title is adequate and sufficient to summarize the changes proposed, is not misleading, and is not tinged with partisan coloring. As stated in Hoban v. Hall, 229 Ark. 416 , 316 S.W. 2d 185 , it is our duty to approve the ballot title where it “represents an impartial summalion of the measure.” See also Moore v. Hall, 229 Ark. 411 , 316 S.W. 2d 207 , and Bradley v. Hall, 220 Ark. 925 , 251 S.W. 2d 470 . That is our finding in this litigation.
Rehearing denied.
Petitioners state that this sentence, in Fletcher, was dictum.