BRENDA BLAGG: Not in the cards?

Casino advocates struggle for attorney general’s approval

Driving Arkansas Forward has stalled again.

The Arkansas Supreme Court has rejected a petition from the organization that is pushing a casino gambling amendment to Arkansas' general election ballot.

The latest denial came on Monday as Driving Arkansas Forward sought to get the high court to compel the state's attorney general to approve the group's ballot proposal.

Attorney General Leslie Rutledge has rejected proposed wording for the amendment four times now.

After the court's quick "no," she's still in the driver's seat on the question.

State law requires anyone attempting to petition for a change in the state Constitution to first get approval of the ballot language from the attorney general. Then they can gather signatures to submit an issue for the ballot.

The attorney general must certify that the proposed wording in the ballot title is neither ambiguous nor misleading.

So far, she's found problems with the wording submitted, which is why Driving Arkansas Forward tried to get the Supreme Court to intervene, albeit unsuccessfully.

There is an obvious time challenge involved here.

Getting the proposal in position to gather signatures is just the first challenge the group faces.

The deadline for submitting petitions to the Arkansas secretary of state to place an initiated measure on the general election ballot is July 6.

That's four months out from the general election, and at least a month earlier, the proposal must be published in some paper of general circulation.

Meanwhile, petitioners must gather the necessary signatures of qualified voters. For a constitutional amendment this year, the magic number is 84,859 valid signatures.

The longer it takes for the attorney general to approve the ballot language, the less time the petitioners will have to collect those signatures.

Assuming petitioners can somehow meet the July 6 deadline to submit signatures, they'll still have to be checked and determined to be valid and in sufficient numbers to qualify for the ballot.

Most likely, sometime thereafter opponents to the measure will mount additional legal challenges either to the language or to the sufficiency of the signatures. At least that's been what has happened in recent years to most controversial ballot issues.

But those problems await. The immediate challenge is getting Rutledge to sign off on the ballot language.

Driving Arkansas Forward's advocates will keep trying to win her approval and will no doubt have a plan to move quickly to gather signatures once she clears a proposal.

Driving Arkansas Forward draws its name from the idea that allowing four casinos in Arkansas would boost the economy and provide revenue for state highways.

It's a gimmicky notion that attempts to use popular support for improving highways to win voter approval for not-so-popular expanded gaming in the state.

Several previous attempts to pass casino gambling amendments have failed ballot tests.

Arkansas currently only allows "electronic games of skill" at existing racetracks at Oaklawn Racing and Gaming in Hot Springs and Southland Park Gaming and Racing in West Memphis.

Two of Driving Arkansas Forward's proposed casinos would be near those racetracks in Garland and Crittenden counties. The other two would be allowed in Jefferson and Pope counties, if voters were to go along with the idea.

For the record, a second group, Arkansas Wins in 2018, is also offering an amendment to authorize up to four casinos, too. They could be located in Benton, Boone, Miller and Pulaski counties.

The attorney general has also rejected the language in that group's proposed amendment.

Whether one or both of the proposals eventually get circulated and placed on the ballot, Arkansas can expect noisy and expensive campaigns over gambling.

The opposition is out there but needn't waste much energy until one or the other, or both, of these proposals get out of the traces.

Commentary on 04/25/2018

Upcoming Events