The 2018 general election ballot promises a strong clash of wills in Arkansas.
This is a clash beyond the partisan races expected among pro-Trump and anti-Trump factions. Or the clash stirred by the continuing debate over national health-care policy.
There will be plenty of that, too. Take, for example, the emergence of two different challengers to U.S. Rep. Steve Womack in the 3rd Congressional District. He will apparently face opposition from both a Republican and a Democrat.
Like so many others in the Congress, Womack has had some rough outings with constituents here at home, but he has money in the bank for a new campaign and a four-term history in the U.S. House.
Nevertheless, Fayetteville Democrat Joshua Mahony and Republican Robb Ryerse of Springdale have both said they'll take the veteran on. Ryerse is a pastor, Mahony the head of a scholarship fund.
Don't be surprised to see the field get larger. This could be the year Womack might have some vulnerability.
What may stir the most controversy on the 2018 ballot, however, will be a couple of competing ballot issues.
One is already slated for the ballot, referred to voters by the Legislature. It would limit damages in civil lawsuits, cap attorneys' fees and grant the Legislature power to write rules for the state Supreme Court.
The Arkansas Bar Association fought the measure in the Legislature and, having failed there, is preparing to fight it on the ballot.
Bar Association leaders are working on language for an alternative proposal that would address several issues -- new rules for disclosure of campaign finances, blocking the Legislature from changing tort laws and making it harder for the Legislature to override a gubernatorial veto.
The Bar Association's house of delegates will meet in June to consider whether to pursue the necessary constitutional amendment by petitioning for a place on the ballot.
The lawyers obviously like what they've cobbled together, but the proposal has so many elements it may be a little hard to sell.
Plus, there is that multi-faceted proposal from the Legislature. There is bound to be confusion.
If all this sounds a bit familiar, Arkansans were supposed to consider a related proposal in 2016. It would have capped punitive damages in medical lawsuits, but the Supreme Court knocked the question off the ballot.
Lawmakers breathed new life into the proposal in the recent regular session. They're sending the new version to voters in 2018.
Scott Trotter, who wrote the competing proposal for the Bar Association, expects "one heck of a debate" if both the Legislature's referral and the bar's proposal ultimately make it to the ballot.
Add the Arkansas Highway Commission's planned initiated act to raise funds for highways to the mix and the ballot will be busy.
There's still a lot of work in the journey to the ballot for both the bar's proposal and the commission's money-raising plan.
But they're more likely than not to be there right along with what the Legislature referred and possibly even more ballot questions.
Commentary on 05/24/2017