Issue 1 is the most un-American constitutional amendment referred to Arkansas citizens by the Legislature during my lifetime. Voters should see Issue 1 for what it is: A proposal by special interests which, if enacted, would provide great benefits to a select few while partially depriving the entirety of Arkansas citizens of one of their fundamental constitutional rights.
Issue 1 would deprive, in many cases, the right of an Arkansan to get the complete and unfettered benefit of a trial decision made by 12 impartial, dispassionate citizens. Our founding forefathers, in drafting the Declaration of Independence, complained that King George was "depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury."
The benefits of trial by jury as opposed to having the state (or a king) decide cases should be obvious. A jury trial puts people who might have disparate financial resources or political influence or other disparate power on a more equal footing. Where else in the world other than America could an average citizen sue the leader of her country and have that case proceed toward a jury trial? Put another way, if one were a commoner in England in 1776, what chance might he have had in court against a duke or an earl that had caused him damage?
Our forefathers were wise enough to recognize this and included the right to a jury trial within the Bill of Rights. Our ancestors fought in many wars and conflicts and many died to preserve this right, as well as others such as free speech, freedom of the press, and the right to bear arms.
Now we have a new King George in the form of a group of people who for mostly personal financial reasons want to put limits on a right that has been protected many times. We are told that passage of this amendment would lead to reduced medical costs and an increase in the number of doctors willing to practice in this state, but are provided with no empirical evidence to back up this claim. We are expected to merely accept it on faith.
One might argue that limiting the amount of damages a jury can award does not infringe upon the right to a jury trial, but anything that takes away the freedom of a jury to decide what is appropriate in a given case is an infringement upon the right to trial by jury. Would anyone argue that limiting the number of words a newspaper article can contain is not an infringement on the right to a free press? Would anyone argue that limiting the number of firearms a person can own is not an infringement on the right to bear arms? Would any rational mind argue that there should be a limit on the number of patients a physician might see in the unproven hope of reducing the number of malpractice suits?
Our country is founded upon the very freedoms of which King George sought to deprive us. Our jury system is the best and fairest in the world for resolving conflicts. Why would anyone want to return us in any area in which we have enjoyed freedoms for over 200 years to any aspect of the tyranny, however slight, that existed prior to 1776? Why should we barter any part of our nation's birthright for a bowl of porridge, especially if we might just be getting an empty bowl?
In an editorial in this paper on Sept. 5 and titled "Just do it," the writer penned these words: "Certainly some people today don't even realize that when our founders set forth the ideal of 'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,' that America was the first county to do this. Ever. In the history of mankind. And that men and now women have been willing to fight and die for this ideal, beginning with the Revolutionary War, then the Civil War, and many wars thereafter."
I hope the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette remembers its words when it decides whether or not to endorse Issue 1 in the event it is restored to the ballot.
------------v------------
Grisham Phillips is a circuit judge in Saline County.
Editorial on 10/08/2018