# Arkansas Women's Political Caucus v. Riviere

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · October 24, 1984 · 283 Ark. 463

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9779319

## Case

- **Full name:** ARKANSAS WOMEN’S POLITICAL CAUCUS v. the Honorable Paul RIVIERE, Secretary of State, State of Arkansas; THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS of the State of Arkansas; And THE COUNTY BOARDS OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS the UNBORN CHILD AMENDMENT COMMITTEE, Intervenor
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** October 24, 1984
- **Citations:** 283 Ark. 463; 677 S.W.2d 846; 1984 Ark. LEXIS 1854
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hubbell
- **Judges:** Dudley, Hubbell, Hickman, Purtle
- **Cited by:** 447 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/9779319

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding the popular name was misleading thus the proposed amendment was ineligible for consideration at the election regardless of the effects of the ballot title

## Opinion text

Webb Hubbell, Chief Justice, dissenting. The only issue before us is whether Amendment 65’s ballot title and popular name are (1) intelligible, (2) honest, and (3) impartial. Leigh v. Hall, 232 Ark. 558 , 339 S.W.2d 104 (1960). The petitioner does not raise the constitutionality of the proposed amendment, so that issue cannot be considered.
The ballot title is an almost verbatim reproduction of the amendment and is not misleading. The popular name “Unborn Child Amendment” need not have the same detailed information as is required for the ballot title. Although many people oppose the use of the term “unborn child,” since Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the term is understood and widely used. Several of our surrounding states use “unborn child” in their abortion statutes and define unborn child as the entity from conception to birth. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 188.015 ; Okla. Stat. 6351-730. The popular name, although certainly used to provoke emotion, is intelligible.
We should always heistate to remove any initiated act from the ballot. Our function is to unify, not fracture, to set limits and define boundaries within which the political process can operate. We cannot ordain specific solutions to vexatious, divisive, and perhaps insoluble problems of public policy. Unless the people stray beyond the bounds of reasonable constitutional interpretation, we should not hurl our constitutional thunderbolts.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9779319. Public record. Not legal advice.