Justice: Arkansas ballot-bid troubles law's fault

Challenges to tens of thousands of signatures gathered in support of two proposed constitutional amendments were declared moot Thursday by the Arkansas Supreme Court, which had already blocked the counting of votes on both measures in previous decisions.

RELATED ARTICLE

http://www.arkansas…">Court strikes medical 'pot' initiated act

The separate decisions handed down Thursday came as justices also ruled that petitioners for another ballot proposal -- an act to legalize medical marijuana -- had violated state canvassing laws. To place a public-initiated constitutional amendment or act on an election ballot, supporters must gather signatures on petitions and follow rules set out in state law. A justice and ballot supporters raised questions about the law governing petitions.

The medical marijuana initiated act became the third ballot proposal to be struck down by the court this election cycle, joining the two amendments, which would have authorized more casinos in Arkansas and placed a cap on noneconomic damages and attorneys' fees in lawsuits against medical providers.

In Oct. 13 rulings on the tort-cap and casino amendments -- commonly known as Issues 4 and 5, respectively -- the high court found that the proposals were misleading to voters based on the descriptions of each amendment that appear on ballots for the Nov. 8 general election.

The sponsors of the casino amendment filed a request for the Supreme Court to take another look at its decision to strike Issue 5, but that motion was denied Thursday. The backers of the tort-cap measure did not request a new hearing, but the court had not yet issued a ruling on a question about that proposal's petitions.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court's rulings pertained to the questions about signature gathering.

The justices' decisions have left only one petition-driven ballot measure standing for this year's general election -- Issue 6, a constitutional amendment that would legalize medical marijuana. Three constitutional amendments proposed by lawmakers also will be voted upon: allowing the governor to retain his authority when he leaves the state, economic development projects and lengthening the terms of executive branch county officials.

Robert Coon, a spokesman for the Arkansas Winning Initiative, which sponsored Issue 5, said in a statement Thursday that the court's decisions could affect future attempts at gathering signatures for ballot proposals.

"Today's dismissal of [the signature challenge], though expected, leaves many unanswered questions as to how the Secretary of State should certify petitions in the future, which will further cloud an already cumbersome and highly subjective approval process," Coon wrote.

All three proposals will appear on ballots across the state because the Supreme Court's decisions were handed down after ballots had been printed. Thursday is the fourth day of early voting, which started Monday in Arkansas. The Supreme Court ordered Secretary of State Mark Martin's office not to count any votes on the three proposals.

Voters who have already gone to the polls will not be able to recast their ballots.

Proposed constitutional amendments and laws can be placed on general election ballots in one of two ways: The General Assembly can approve a resolution to place an amendment on the ballot, or supporters of a proposed amendment or act can gather a specific number of signatures on petitions.

The attorney general's office must sign off on the name of any proposed ballot measures, as well as the description known as a ballot title. It is the responsibility of the secretary of state's office to ensure that petitioners, including paid canvassers, follow rules regarding the gathering of signatures.

The deadline to submit signatures to Martin's office was July 8, four months before Election Day. Initiated acts, which included Issue 7, needed 67,887 valid signatures, and amendments required 84,859 valid signatures.

After Martin's office approved the four petition-driven measures for this year's ballot, opposing groups filed a series of lawsuits against each of the measures that disputed the certifications by both the secretary of state and attorney general's office.

The Supreme Court decided to handle the issues of the ballot titles and signatures separately. After striking down Issue 5, the casino amendment, Martin's office filed a request with the Supreme Court to dismiss the remaining signature challenge as moot.

The justices granted Martin's request Thursday. Justice Robin Wynne wrote in his opinion that any decision by the court in the case would be without effect because the justices had already ordered no votes be counted. A similar opinion issued by Justice Josephine Hart on Thursday said the signature challenge to Issue 4 was moot.

But in a concurring opinion to invalidate the signatures for Issue 7, the Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act, Justice Courtney Goodson said the challenges to all three proposals were evidence that the state's canvassing requirements were "unduly difficult" to follow.

"Without question, the Act [1413 of 2013] imposes arduous and burdensome requirements to the procedures for circulating and filing petitions for initiatives and referenda. By erecting such obstacles, the Act imposes a chilling effect on the rights of our citizens to initiate laws," Goodson wrote.

"Further demonstrating the difficulty of passing muster under the Act, the opponents of two other measures mounted signature challenges alleging noncompliance with the requirements," her opinion says. "However, the questions presented in those original actions must be decided another day because the signature aspect of those original actions was rendered moot by this court's holdings that the ballot titles for those measures were deficient."

Act 1413 of 2013 changed the law on initiatives and referendums, the latter of which is when legislative acts are placed on the ballot for approval or rejection.

During the last general election in 2014, two measures received enough signatures to appear on the ballot. Both were the subject of court challenges by opponents who alleged that backers of the proposals had missed the deadline to submit signatures. The Supreme Court allowed both to remain on the ballot.

Lawsuits were successful in blocking a vote on two amendments in 2012.

"I think that [Goodson's] opinion underscored that it is becoming increasingly difficult for petitioners to exercise their First Amendment rights," said Dan Greenberg, a former lawmaker and a lawyer who oversaw the canvassing process for Issue 4, the blocked tort-cap amendment. "There's a pretty strong argument that we've regulated the petitioning process way too much."

Chris Powell, a spokesman for Martin'soffice, declined to address Goodson's concerns about the law.

"We verify the petitions in accordance with the law," Powell said. "As a matter of what that law says, that would be up to the Legislature."

A Section on 10/28/2016

Upcoming Events