Report finds errors in Arkansas casino-bid count

Secretary of State Mark Martin's office erred twice regarding a proposed constitutional amendment that would authorize three new casinos -- in July, by granting the proposal's sponsors 30 more days to gather signatures on petitions and, in September, by certifying the proposal for the Nov. 8 ballot, a special master appointed by the state's highest court said in a report Monday.

The errors stemmed from the secretary of state's office improperly counting numerous signatures as valid for the proposed amendment, special master John Jennings said in a 16-page report to the Arkansas Supreme Court. The report was requested by the state's highest court after a lawsuit was filed over the proposal. The final decision rests with the Supreme Court.

The proposed amendment would authorize casinos in Boone, Miller and Washington counties that would be controlled by three limited liability companies owned by two Missouri businessmen, Jim Thompson of Blue Eye, Mo., about 2 miles north of the Arkansas line, and Bob Womack of Branson. The casinos would be operated by the three companies, their respective successors, or whomever they assign their licenses to.

Cherokee Nation Entertainment would be involved in the proposed casino, hotel and entertainment complex in Washington County.

In the lawsuit filed Sept. 6, the Committee to Protect Arkansas Values/Stop Casinos Now and two of its members, Chuck Lange of Baxter County and Bill Walmsley of Independence County, asked the Supreme Court to declare that the sponsors of the proposed amendment failed to submit enough valid signatures of registered voters to place the proposal on the ballot and asked the court to declare the ballot title of the amendment to be insufficient.

Since it will be too late to remove the proposal from ballots, they asked that if their suit is successful, the state not count the votes cast on the proposal.

They challenged the proposed amendment five days after Martin's office determined that the measure's supporters turned in 100,977 valid signatures of registered voters, about 15,000 more than what was needed.

The proposal is promoted by the Arkansas Winning Initiative Inc. and Arkansas Wins in 2016 LLC.

Robert Coon, a spokesman for Arkansas Winning Initiative and Arkansas Wins in 2016, criticized Jennings' report to the Arkansas Supreme Court.

"The responsibility of the special master is to make findings of fact. In this particular case, the special master went beyond his authority and made conclusions of law. We disagree with his findings of fact and conclusions of law, which were clearly wrong," he said in a written statement.

"The Supreme Court still has a number of items yet to consider in this case, including our motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which two other ballot committees have filed similar motions with the Court. We believe the court will examine the record closely and apply the law fairly and accurately," Coon said.

But Lange, chairman of the Committee to Protect Arkansas Values/Stop Casinos Now, praised the special master's report.

"We are very pleased with the findings of the special master," said Lange, whose committee is backed by Oaklawn Racing and Gaming in Hot Springs and Southland Gaming and Racing in West Memphis, racetracks where state law authorizes electronic "games of skill."

"It is clear that the Special Master has recognized, as have we, that these Missouri guys tried to pull a fast one on Arkansans and got caught. The out-of-state opportunists pushing this amendment hired out-of-state operatives who did not understand or follow Arkansas' laws to conduct its signature gathering process," Lange said in a statement.

"We are confident that, as this process plays out, that both the Arkansas Supreme Court and the people of Arkansas will see this amendment for what it is, a scam being perpetrated upon the good people of Arkansas and will reject it," Lange said.

Martin declined to comment Monday on Jennings' report through his spokesman Chris Powell.

"Since this matter is still in litigation, I can't comment at this time," Powell said on Martin's behalf.

Jennings said Martin's office indicated in a July 27 letter that the sponsors of the amendment initially submitted 63,725 valid signatures, which was 80 more than required under the Arkansas Constitution to get 30 more days to attempt to get the 84,859 valid signatures required to get the amendment on the ballot. Amendment 97 allows the sponsor of a proposed ballot measure 30 days to correct or amend its petition if the petition contains at least 75 percent of the number of signatures of registered voters required to qualify for the ballot.

But Jennings said the evidence at his Sept. 26-29 hearing showed that 729 invalid signatures were improperly included in the initial count of valid signatures.

Martin's office concedes that "these signatures ... should not have been counted for any purpose," Jennings wrote in his report. If the 729 invalid signatures had been properly excluded from the sponsors' initial submission, the total valid signatures drop to 62,996, Jennings said. Martin's election coordinator, Josh Bridges, testified that Martin's office wouldn't have granted the sponsors 30 more days to collect signatures if a properly conducted initial count of valid signatures totaled less than the required 63,645, Jennings said.

The 729 signatures include 316 signatures that Martin's office erroneously deemed as valid. They were on petitions collected by paid canvassers before the date the canvasser registered with the secretary of state, Jennings said. Another 235 signatures were on petitions on which the notary date is before the date of the final signature collected, Jennings said.

Bridges identified 153 signatures that "should have not been included in its initial count due to 'verification issues,' meaning that the signature line did not contain sufficient identifying information for [Martin's office] to confirm which, if any, Arkansas registered voter the signature belonged to," Jennings wrote. Martin's office also erroneously deemed valid 25 signatures on petitions without a notary seal, Jennings said.

In addition, the sponsors of the amendment failed to obtain background checks for 15 paid canvassers, and Martin's office counted 1,603 of the signatures they gathered as valid both in its initial count as well as its ultimate verification count, Jennings said.

Martin's office erroneously counted as valid 395 signatures obtained by paid canvassers Tony Davis and Carl Wilkins, which shouldn't have been counted "due to the admitted absence of a timely background check," Jennings said.

The Committee to Protect Arkansas Values/Stop Casinos Now identified 332 signatures for which Martin's office relied on partial identifying information and erroneously matched a petitioner signature to a different name in the Arkansas voter registration database, and Bridges conceded that 153 had "verification issues," according to Jennings.

Martin's office counted as valid 105 signatures in which the voter didn't provide a date of birth, 69 signatures in which the voter provided only a partial date of birth, 168 signatures in which the voter provided an erroneous date of birth, 747 signatures in which the voter did not provide a residence address, and 184 signatures in which the voter listed a post office box as their address, Jennings said.

A Section on 10/04/2016

Upcoming Events