Our View

Our View

Voters will get another look at proposed Constitutional amendments

The tipping point for many frustrated protectors of the Arkansas Constitution may just have been the 2016 passage and controversy surrounding the legalization of marijuana for medical reasons, resulting in a proposed constitutional amendment that would make it harder to change the 1874 governing document.

Now, just four months after the 2016 general election, in which three of four voter-sponsored issues were blocked by the Arkansas Supreme Court too late to remove them from ballots comes this proposed amendment making it harder to change the method of proposing and approving constitutional amendments.

For those who remember, voters defied the opinion of legislators, the governor and medical experts by approving the legalization of medical marijuana.

Let’s just say if these proposed new rules had been in place during that election, marijuana use in Arkansas would still be banned regardless of the purpose.

The intent here would require the backers of a statewide ballot measure to submit a petition with the required signatures 180 days before the election, reducing the time canvassers would have to gather signatures by about two months.

Furthermore, to get an amendment on the ballot, backers also would have to get signatures from at least 25 counties rather than the current 15. Then, both chambers of the General Assembly would have to pass a resolution with two-thirds majorities to get an amendment on the ballot, up from the current simple-majority threshold.

To approve the amendment at the polls, whether referred by the voters or the Legislature, would require a 60 percent threshold. The current threshold for passage is a simply majority.

As we pointed out, that would have been enough to sink last year’s Medical Marijuana Amendment, Issue 6, which got 53 percent of the vote.

Lawmakers who support this change are hoping voters support making it tougher for backers of constitutional amendments to get their issues on the ballot during the 2018 elections.

Another aspect to be considered is that this House bill also proposes to change how constitutional amendments can be taken off.

It states that anyone challenging the sufficiency of the signatures submitted on behalf of a petition must do so within 30 days after the signatures are certified by either the secretary of state’s office or a city or county official overseeing a local election.

Bear in mind that this will be one of three constitutional amendments lawmakers are allowed to place on the 2018 ballot. The other two deal with limiting damages and lawyers’ fees in civil cases while the other proposal relates to requiring voter identification.

All three are seriously worth voter consideration, particularly the one dealing with needed changes to constitutional amendments.