Supreme Court nixes pair of ballot measures

Supreme Court nixes pair of ballot measures

Lawsuits caps, casino expansion amendments struck down

ralphhardin@gmail.com The voters’ voice will not be heard on a pair of proposed amendments to the Arkansas State Constitution after the Arkansas Supreme Court struck down two of seven ballot measures for the upcoming election.

Ballot issues on medical lawsuits and casinos were challenged by opposition groups and the court sided against the measures The court came down on the side of groups challenging Issue 4, which would have amended the state constitution to direct the Legislature to set a cap no lower than $250,000 on non-economic damages, such as damages for pain and suffering, in medical suits and would cap lawyers’ contingency fees in medical-injury suits at onethird of the amount recovered.

Opponents argued that the proposal was misleading and incomplete, and as the court pointed out, “without a definition” of this term “non-economic damages.” The court also sided with challengers to Issue 5, which would have amended the state constitution to allow one casino each to operate in Washington, Boone and Miller counties.

Opposing arguments that alleged that the ballot title for the issue was “misleading and incomplete,” and the proposal would technically be a violation of federal law.

“One of the group’s allegations was that the ballot title states that the types of gambling allowed at the casinos would include any type of gambling allowed in Nevada,” explained John Lyon of the Arkansas Press Association. “But in fact sports gambling, which is legal in Nevada, is prohibited in Arkansas under the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act.”

The Supreme Court agreed. No votes cast for Issue 4 or Issue 5 will be counted, the court said.

The Supreme Court did, however rejected a suit aimed at striking one other amendment off the ballot. Issue 6, which would legalize medical marijuana through a constitutional amendment, was upheld.

The court ruled, as it did on an earlier challenge to the similar Issue 7, that, “it is not necessary that a ballot title include every possible consequence or impact of a proposed measure,” which was the primary focus of the challenge to Issue 6.

By Ralph Hardin