The state attorney general's office fired back Wednesday against claims that it caused undue delays for an effort to get a proposed ethics amendment on the November ballot.
State attorneys on Wednesday urged the Arkansas Supreme Court to dismiss the case, which they said could set a bad precedent for future ballot initiatives.
In filings with the high court, they argued that the suit filed with the court Friday by constitutional amendment proponent David Couch lacked merit and amounted to a desperate effort for a proposal facing a looming deadline.
The first step in getting an initiative on the November ballot is approval of the popular name and ballot title by the attorney general. Then the proposal has to be advertised in a statewide paper by June 8, followed by the submission of 84,859 valid signatures by July 8.
Couch's proposal would strengthen rules on lawmakers accepting food or drinks from lobbyists, prohibit corporate contributions to political action committees, and lower the maximum state campaign contribution from $2,700 to $1,500.
Multiple failed attempts by Couch to get the name and ballot title for his proposal OK'd by Attorney General Leslie Rutledge were the result of "misleading" language and not a departure from Rutledge's responsibilities as set by state law, her office said in the filing.
"Couch repeatedly chose to ignore this [misleading language] problem. To the extent there is an emergency, it is one of his own making," state attorneys wrote. "If this Court allows Mr. Couch to ignore the deficiencies highlighted by the foregoing Attorney General Opinions, then future sponsors will go straight to this Court with their proposals after the first rejection, end-running the state and clogging this Court's docket."
Couch argued that Rutledge should have substituted language in his proposal that was to her liking. He also said she took too long to reply to his proposals by taking 14 days when the law requires a 10-day response.
The filing by Ryan Owsley and Colin Jorgensen of the attorney general's office argued that Couch misread the law, and Rutledge is not required to substitute language.
In an interview Wednesday, Couch said that in the 31 ballot measures he has pushed, he has never encountered an attorney general who refused to substitute a title or name. He said he thinks Rutledge is refusing to OK his ballot name and title because she doesn't agree with what it would do.
The state attorneys also argued that decades of precedent have allowed for "business days" to be used, not calendar days, when working under a legal deadline.
Couch said that even though he hasn't challenged Rutledge's use of a "business day" instead of calendar day standard, the law is pretty clear and that she is in violation of it.
"It's my risk. ... Ultimately I'm going to be challenged in [the Supreme Court]," Couch said. "Somebody will file suit and say it's not a fair and accurate ballot title. I am more interested in writing a fair and accurate ballot title than she would be. ... I'm going to spend a lot of money to get this on the ballot."
Metro on 05/19/2016