THIS IS AN OPINION
We'd also like to hear yours.
Tweet us @ArkBusiness or email us
Despite Arkansas being a pro-gambling state, an anti-casino group defied expectations and gathered enough signatures to qualify a constitutional amendment for the November ballot to prevent the rest of the state from forcing a casino on the people of Pope County.
Unfortunately for this dedicated group, Arkansas’ top election officials scrutinized this petition effort in a way that I don’t think they ever have.
Indeed, the Arkansas secretary of state’s office upended years of practice and precedent — not to mention common agency law — to disqualify thousands of registered voters’ signatures. Essentially, the office determined, petition paperwork must be signed by the initiative’s actual sponsor, not an agent on behalf of the campaign as has been common practice for years.
In effect, this helped block the anti-gambling measure from qualifying for November and endangered the qualification of two separate ballot groups.
It’s hard to conclude anything other than this: Our top election officials were determined to find any excuse to disqualify this measure from the ballot because they personally oppose it.
Please excuse me. I’ve mixed up the ballot initiatives.
It was not the anti-gambling measure that was treated this way; it was the proposed amendment to restore abortion access in Arkansas.
But that shouldn’t matter, should it?
After all, isn’t it critical that our government officials hold everyone to the same standard regardless of their personal feelings on an issue?
I’m not necessarily arguing that the abortion amendment should’ve qualified for the ballot. Its supporters very clearly didn’t follow the letter of the law on a separate part of the process related to paid canvassers.
While some believe that error should not have been disqualifying, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that it was. And in Arkansas, the law is what a majority of the Supreme Court says it is.
Still, I’ll leave you with this quote from Adam Unikowsky, a former law clerk for the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
“The Arkansas Supreme Court’s decision is wrong. Moreover, the proceedings in this case make clear that Arkansas state officials are unapologetically engaging in viewpoint discrimination, interpreting the law in one way for ballot initiatives sponsored by conservative groups and in the opposite way for ballot initiatives sponsored by progressive groups.”
What the Supreme Court didn’t rule on is the issue of whether the sponsor or their agent can sign canvassing paperwork. That has now jeopardized the marijuana and the anti-Pope County casino initiatives.
As of this writing last week, a trial was underway to decide if the casino measure should qualify for the ballot.
It is my hope — and should be the hope of all of us — that each group receives equal treatment under the law.
Sign up for Daily E-news
