The Arkansas general election ballot got more complicated last week.
Officials approved two more ballot issues, one to allow casino gambling in three counties and the other to legalize medical marijuana.
Secretary of State Mark Martin's office counted enough valid signatures on petitions for the two issues to qualify them for the ballot. That makes seven ballot issues for voters to consider in November -- three referred by the Legislature and four coming via voter initiatives.
Legal challenges have already been brought against some of the initiatives and all may face court battles before the election. Nevertheless, voters may have a lot of work to do to understand the measures pending before them.
The greatest opportunity for confusion comes with two different ballot proposals to legalize medical marijuana.
The latest measure to win approval for the ballot is a proposed constitutional amendment. Backers turned in more than 97,000 signatures for the proposal, which compares to just more 77,500 signatures submitted for the competing proposal. Fewer signatures were required for the other medical marijuana issue because it is an initiated act, not a constitutional amendment.
The amendment, if approved, would be embedded in the state Constitution and could only be changed by another constitutional amendment.
The initiated act would become state law, which could be changed by the Legislature with an extraordinary two-thirds vote of its members.
The difference between the two measures most often cited isn't about the relative permanence, however. It is provision in the initiated act to allow patients who don't live near an approved dispensary to grow their own limited supplies of marijuana.
Both measures have major opposition, although a similar medical marijuana proposal narrowly failed passage in 2012.
Gov. Asa Hutchinson and a coalition of powerful lobbying groups, including the state Chamber of Commerce, the Arkansas Farm Bureau and others, are against both of this year's proposals. State Surgeon General Greg Bledsoe is the spokesman for the group.
The group has already filed suit to try to stop the initiative and will likely challenge the constitutional amendment in court, too.
Such legal challenges are often the first line of defense against ballot issues. Another of the proposed initiatives, this one a proposed constitutional amendment limiting damages awarded in medical lawsuits, is also under legal challenge.
And the fourth initiative, a constitutional amendment to allow casino gambling in Boone, Miller and Washington counties, will almost certainly draw a similar court challenge.
Regardless of how those court cases resolve, high-dollar campaigns are likely to be waged against them all.
The limits on non-economic damages and on attorney contingency fees in medical lawsuits pit the interests of the medical community against those of lawyers. Both sides on that issue will spend heavily to persuade voters to stand with them.
Meanwhile, the three proposals referred by the Legislature aren't getting much attention. All three are proposed constitutional amendments.
The first, Issue 1, would extend the terms of county judges, sheriffs, assessors, circuit and county clerks, treasurers, collectors surveyors and coroners from two to four years, beginning in 2018. Not all counties have all the offices, but where they exist the officials would get longer terms.
Issue 2, perhaps the least controversial of all the proposals, would allow the governor to retain his or her powers and duties when absent from the state.
Issue 3 is intended to encourage job creation, job expansion and economic development by removing limits on general obligation bonds that may be issued under an earlier amendment to the state constitution.
Amendment 82 was designed to attract large economic development projects to the state. It limited bond issues to no more than 5 percent of state general revenues collected during the most recent fiscal year. Issue 3 would leave it to the Legislature to approve bond issue amounts.
That particular proposal is more complicated than the other referrals.
That particular proposal is more complicated than the other referrals.
It may also prove more controversial. Arkansas voters have previously rejected efforts to increase term limits for county officials, so expect those local officials to lobby strongly for the change.
Otherwise, the referred amendments may or may not get anything like the attention that the initiative proposals will.
Commentary on 09/07/2016