Hoban v. Hall

316 S.W.2d 185, 229 Ark. 416, 1958 Ark. LEXIS 774
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedSeptember 29, 1958
Docket5-1736
StatusPublished
Cited by457 cases

This text of 316 S.W.2d 185 (Hoban v. Hall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hoban v. Hall, 316 S.W.2d 185, 229 Ark. 416, 1958 Ark. LEXIS 774 (Ark. 1958).

Opinion

George Rose Smith, J.

By this original action tbe petitioners seek to enjoin tbe Secretary of State from certifying as sufficient a ballot title for a proposed constitutional amendment, to be voted upon at tbe general election in November. In substance tbe petition asserts that tbe ballot title is so incomplete and so abbreviated that it fails to convey sufficient information to enable an elector to vote upon tbe measure with intelligence and understanding.

Tbe proposed amendment carries as its popular name “Tbe States Rights Amendment” and has tbe following paragraph as its ballot title:

“An Amendment Creating a States Rights Commission and Providing For Its Duties, Qualifications and Operation; Defining an Offense of Barratry and Providing Penalty thereof; Providing for tbe Suspension of State Funds to School Districts in Certain Cases, tbe Redistribution of Public School Funds in Certain Districts, tbe Possible Closing of Schools and Creation of Private Schools in Certain Districts, and tbe Recall of School Board Members, all of which to Be Determined by Special Elections of Qualified Voters; Regulating Voter, Candidate and Party Qualifications; Providing for Certain Penalties; Providing for a Severability Clause; and, Providing for a Repealing Clause.”

The amendment itself is- of such extreme length and touches upon so many different subjects that we shall merely summarize the provisions deemed pertinent to this discussion, with the full text being set out as an appendix to the opinion. Even a casual reading of the measure will disclose that it is the most far-reaching proposal ever offered to the state’s electorate.

Returning to the ballot title, one sees at once that its language is cast in generalities. The voter is told that the amendment is to create a States Rights Commission, but he is given no intimation of its powers or duties. He knows that the schools are to be affected “in certain eases” and “in certain districts,” but he is given no inkling of what those contingencies actually amount to. He realizes that he is to vote for or against changes in the election laws, but the ballot title supplies no clue as to the nature of those changes.

The single question is whether this ballot title meets the requirements of the constitution. The governing rules are well settled and perfectly familiar. The ballot title need not be a complete abstract of the act. Coleman v. Sherrill, 189 Ark. 843, 75 S. W. 2d 248. It must, however, provide the elector with information concerning the choice that he is called upon to make. Bradley v. Hall, 220 Ark. 925, 251 S. W. 2d 470. It was pointed out in our leading case, Westbrook v. McDonald, 184 Ark. 740, 43 S. W. 2d 356, 44 S. W. 2d 331, that “the great body of electors, when called upon to vote for or against an act at the general election, will derive their information about it from the ballot title. This is the purpose of the title.”

Especially pertinent here is the decision in Walton v. McDonald, 192 Ark. 1155, 97 S. W. 2d 81, for it dealt with an error of omission. There the ballot title recited that the proposed measure was an act to provide for the assistance of the aged and the blind, but it failed to state that this assistance was to be financed by the levy of a sales tax and by the appropriation of a third of the taxes upon horse and dog racing. In holding the title to be misleading and therefore insufficient we said: “The title carries an appeal to all humane instincts. New would object to some provision being made for the support of the aged and blind; but to levy a general sales tax of two per cent, for that, or any other purpose, is a different question altogether, and would furnish the elector, however generous his impulses might be, serious ground for reflection if that information were imparted to him by the title of the question upon which he exercised his right of suffrage. ’ ’

Our inquiry, then, is whether this ballot title conceals matters which, if disclosed, would furnish the elector with “serious ground for reflection” before yielding to his impulse to vote in favor of an amendment ostensibly furthering the cause of states’ rights. After carefully studying the measure as a whole we are unanimously of the opinion that this ballot title fails to supply the voter with the information that the constitution expects him to have. For brevity we shall discuss only the provisions concerning the proposed commission and the election laws.

With respect to the commission the ballot title merely tells the elector that the measure will create a States Eights Commission and provide for its duties, qualifications, and operation. The cause of states’ rights, like that of the aged and the blind, is deservedly a popular one and undeniably appeals to the great body of the electorate. But are there provisions in the amendment which, if made known, would give the voter serious ground for reflection?

We have no doubt that there are. The Commission, created by Article I of the measure, consists of twelve members. Sections 5 and 6 of this article destroy the system of checks and balances that has characterized our government since its birth. Section 5 provides that no court shall be empowered to enjoin the Commission from performing the duties set out in the amendment. Those duties, however, are not clearly defined. By § 7 the Commission is invested with the duty and the power to “perform any and all things deemed necessary and proper” to protect the sovereignty of the several states and to resist the usurpation of the rights reserved to the states. Within the vague limits of this clause it is difficult to conceive of any power — legislative, executive, or judicial — that the Commission might not lay claim to. The ballot title, it may be observed, does not even mention the powers of the Commission, much less does it give a hint of their unlimited scope.

Having immunized the Commission from the action of the state courts, the amendment next frees it from the control of the state legislature. It has traditionally been the function of the legislative branch to exercise some measure of restraint over the other departments, through its power to enact laws and to control the public purse. But here that restraint is swept away. Since the Commission’s powers would be conferred by the constitution, they could not be affected by any laws that might be passed. And by § 6 the General Assembly is deprived of any financial supervision over the Commission. This section makes an annual appropriation of $250,000, which the Commission is at liberty to spend in any way it chooses. It may be noted that the General Assembly, in creating a State Sovereignty Commission that superficially resembles the proposed States Rights Commission without the latter’s unbridled powers, deemed an annual appropriation of $30,000 to be sufficient. Acts 83 and 170 of 1957. It will also be observed that the ballot title does not suggest to the voters that a quarter of a million dollars is to be appropriated every year, without any effective safeguard over its expenditure.

It is really not enough to say that the proposed Commission would have equal status with the other branches of the state government; the amendment contemplates that every other department shall be subservient to the Commission.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Opinion No.
Arkansas Attorney General Reports, 2003
Page v. McCuen
884 S.W.2d 951 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1994)
Bailey v. McCuen
884 S.W.2d 938 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1994)
Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen
884 S.W.2d 605 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
316 S.W.2d 185, 229 Ark. 416, 1958 Ark. LEXIS 774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoban-v-hall-ark-1958.