The Arkansas Supreme Court has simplified the upcoming state ballot somewhat, taking a couple of issues out of the mix.
The court last week tossed two proposed constitutional amendments, finding their respective ballot titles insufficient.
With the general election just weeks away and ballots already printed, voters will still see all seven issues that had been slated for consideration.
However, any votes cast for or against those the court has disqualified (or might yet disqualify) will not be counted.
The measures the court tossed were Issues 4 and 5, both of which were proposed through initiatives supported by the required number of voters.
Issue 4 was a proposed tort reform amendment affecting medical liability lawsuits and related contingency fees for attorneys.
Issue 5 would have allowed casino gambling in three Arkansas counties (Boone, Miller and Washington).
Good riddance to both of them. The state is probably better off because neither will be made a part of the state Constitution -- at least not anytime soon.
Voters still have their work cut out for them.
Five issues are up for consideration, although an unresolved legal challenge remains against one of two proposals that would legalize medical marijuana.
The Supreme Court has ruled the ballot title for Issue 6, a proposed constitutional amendment, is sufficient to allow voters to know what they're considering.
The court is still considering the sufficiency of signatures for Issue 7, a competing proposed initiated act on medical marijuana. A ruling could come as early as this week.
Interestingly, supporters of Issue 6 brought the lawsuit against Issue 7.
Until that gets resolved, it's best to focus on issues that are definitely on the ballot.
Issues 1, 2 and 3 were referred to the people by the Legislature and have not been challenged in court.
All three are proposed constitutional amendments. The first two are simple to understand. The third is more complicated and more controversial.
Issue 1
Issue 1 would extend the length of terms for countywide elected officials from two years to four years, beginning with those elected in 2018.
County judges, sheriffs, circuit clerks, county clerks, assessors, collectors, treasurers, county surveyors and tax collectors would serve the longer terms while quorum court members would continue to serve two-year terms. As now, there would be no constitutional limit on how many terms any of them could serve.
Also included in Issue 1 are sections to prevent county officials from holding civil office, to allow unopposed candidates to be elected without their names appearing on the ballot, and to define "infamous crime" for determining eligibility for office.
Make no mistake. The primary purpose of the amendment is its provision for longer terms. County judges and sheriffs in particular have tried repeatedly to get longer terms. They've passed petitions around and they've asked the Legislature to refer the question.
They finally persuaded the Legislature to refer the issue and might just succeed in securing four-year terms this time around.
The issue can be argued either way, however, and change-averse voters could choose to keep two-year terms in order to hold local officials on a tighter leash.
Issue 2
Issue 2 is the most simple of all the ballot issues this year. The proposed constitutional amendment would allow the governor to retain power and duties when absent from the state.
Currently, when a governor steps beyond Arkansas borders, the power of the office transfers temporarily to the lieutenant governor. In the lieutenant governor's absence, the power goes to the president of the state Senate.
It matters not that modern technology allows the governor to stay connected and do business while out of state. He loses power when out of state.
Issue 2 ought to pass easily, especially since there are some high profile examples when an acting governor's power has been abused by a lieutenant governor and by a Senate president.
Issue 3
Issue 3 is something else again.
Presented by lawmakers as a tool for job creation, job expansion and economic development, this proposed constitutional amendment asks Arkansas voters to take a big gamble.
Some of the more popular provisions would clarify incentives that local governments might employ to spur development.
But the key provision is one that would give the Legislature unlimited authority to approve general obligation bond issues for major economic development projects.
Voters approved Amendment 82 to the state Constitution in 2004 but capped related state-issued bonds at 5 percent of Arkansas' annual general revenue. Issue 3 would remove the limit.
To date, the only project funded through such a bond issue in Arkansas is the Big River Steel project in Osceola. Another was attempted for East Camden, but the project ended up going to another state.
Arguably, removing the cap on bonded indebtedness might help Arkansas compete for more super projects.
Yet, no cap at all could enable the state to risk way too much in search of some big promise.
Commentary on 10/19/2016