Petition flaws kill ballot try for 7 casinos

1 of 2 signature thresholds not met, state justices rule

— The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled Thursday against an effort to get voter permission to build seven casinos in Arkansas, saying supporters had to meet two thresholds for signatures when they first submitted their petition.

Supporters of the measure argued that Secretary of State Mark Martin’s office gave too much scrutiny in an initial review of whether enough signatures were submitted in support of a proposed constitutional amendment.

Both the secretary of state and the attorney for the amendment’s sponsors told the court that it all came down to how detailed of a look the office should take when it performs a prima facie review of submitted signatures.

In early July, Martin rejected the proposed amendment, which would allow Michael Wasserman of Gainesville, Texas, to open seven casinos under his Arkansas Hotels and Entertainment Inc. It also would limit legislative oversight of the casinos. The casinos would be one each in Sebastian, Pulaski, Garland, Miller, Crittenden, Boone and Jefferson counties.

Arkansas law does not authorize casinos but al- lows wagering on dog racing at Southland Park in West Memphis and on thoroughbred races at Oaklawn Park in Hot Springs. The state also allows gambling at the tracks on electronic devices that mimic casino games but are called games of skill.

Wasserman’s petition fell short on one of the requirements of state law — that it bear the signatures of voters in at least 15 counties in a number equal to 5 percent of the votes cast in the last governor’s race in each of those counties, according to Martha Adcock, elections director for the secretary of state. The petition met that criterion in only 13 counties.

That requirement is in Article 5, Section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution.

But, Wasserman’s attorney argued, Wasserman met a second constitutionally required threshold — also found in Article 5 — of submitting the signatures of Arkansas voters in a number equal to at least 10 percent of the votes cast in the last election for governor. He said that because Wasserman met that statewide threshold, he should have received 30 days to fix any mistakes such as not having enough signatures in the 15 counties, as is allowed under Arkansas Code 7-9-111.

The Supreme Court opinion, written by Justice Karen Baker, stated that because the corporation failed to submit a facially valid petition that met both requirements, it “did not qualify for the additional thirty days to cure deficiencies.”

“In other words, for a petition to amend the constitution, the petition must bear signatures meeting the statewide requirement, ten percent, and the county requirement, five percent,” the opinion states.

Chief Justice Jim Hannah concurred with the majority’s decision but disagreed with their analysis. He wrote that the petition should have been dismissed because Arkansas Hotels and Entertainment Inc. lacks standing to either propose the law or challenge the secretary of state’s opinion.

He pointed to Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution, which gives “the people ... the power to propose legislative measures, laws and amendments to the Constitution.”

Hannah said that while the business is incorporated in Arkansas, there is no evidence that there are any Arkansas directors or shareholders.

“Rather, the evidence we have is that Michael Wasserman, a Texas resident, is the sole director and shareholder of the corporation,” Hannah said. “Therefore, the initiative is proposed by a resident of Texas. ... [T]he use of an Arkansas corporation in this case was a ruse to permit a resident of Texas to propose the law.”

Justice Robert Brown joined Hannah’s opinion.

The majority opinion cites Arkansas Code Annotated 7-9-402(9)(A) which defines a person as “any individual, business, proprietorship, firm, partnership, joint venture ... company, corporation” or any other group of people acting in concert.

“Although [the corporation] did not join a legal voter in this action, as a sponsor of the petition, [it] has a connection to thousands of voters as it represents their interests in filing its initiative,” the opinion states.

Wasserman said the corporation is registered and paying taxes to Arkansas.

“That should be enough,” he said. “I don’t know how we could possibly not have standing to do it.”

Because the issue was pending before the court, the amendment has already been certified to the ballot as Issue 4. Martin’s spokesman Alex Reed said ballots have already been printed.

Reed said any votes cast for the measure will not be counted.

Wasserman has tried for years to get approval to run gambling houses in Arkansas. He said Thursday that he will try again.

“We’re going to keep trying until we’re on the ballot and the voters decide what they want,” Wasserman said. “The people of Arkansas’ voice has not yet been heard. If the people voted ‘no,’ I’d say, ‘all right you all don’t want it, I’ve got it.’”

Arkansas, Pages 9 on 09/21/2012

Upcoming Events