GREG HARTON: Arkansans held hostage? Just say "no"

Mary Poppins was right: A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down.

That probably wouldn't earn Mary any awards for Nanny of the Year.

But her theory applies pretty handily to politics. If you've got something you want, one of the best ways to reduce the resistance to it is to find out what opponents want and give them a little bit of that, too.

Let's take the casino amendment, Issue 4 on the Nov. 6 ballot. There have been efforts to legalize casinos in the past that were opposed by businesses such as Oaklawn Racing and Gaming or Southland Greyhound Park. These legal gambling establishments didn't see the need for competition. But Issue 4 advocates recognized the need to neutralize those organizations, so what did they do? They made sure that out of the four casinos Issue 4 would legalize, two of them will go to Southland and Oaklawn. Southland now actively supports Issue 4; Oaklawn has remained neutral, which is a victory for casino supporters.

Perhaps the best thing to come of Issue 4's approval is the state will no longer have to maintain the fallacy that what's played in the gaming areas of Oaklawn and Southland is not considered gambling, but "electronic games of skill." That smells like something commonly found around horse tracks and always has.

Issue 1 on Arkansans' ballots is a complex amendment to the state Constitution proposed by the Arkansas General Assembly. If you want to learn more -- and I highly recommend you do -- check out the Arkansas Ballot Issues information from the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture's Public Policy Center at www.uaex.edu/ballot.

It's the amendment most people refer to as tort reform, a reference to the limitations it includes on the amount of money juries can award to plaintiffs against the state's businesses. Proponents say the limits are needed to improve the state's business climate and help bolster the economy. Critics say the measure puts a price on human lives.

Voters may not get a chance to consider Issue 1. It faces an appeal in the Arkansas Supreme Court. A Pulaski County circuit judge ruled our Legislature engaged in "logrolling" when it crafted the amendment. That's the practice of combining several actions that are not "reasonably germane" to each other or whatever the subject of the amendment is supposed to be.

In addition to the limits on plaintiff awards, Issue 1 would cap attorneys fees in contingency cases -- cases in which the attorney doesn't get paid unless he wins or negotiates a settlement -- and it also empowers the General Assembly to start writing, repealing or modifying the rules of "pleading, practice and procedure" for the courts. That's something the Arkansas Supreme Court now oversees, and its inclusion raises serious separation of powers issues.

There is a lot in Issue 1. Too much. Perhaps lawmakers believed there was strong support in the state for its version of tort reform. Why add language giving the Legislature more control over the courts? Mary Poppins knows.

An Arkansan should be able to vote "for" or "against" a proposed amendment to our Constitution without having to swallow something he doesn't want in order to get something he does want.

Some have argued amid these criticisms that the overall theme of the amendment is "judicial power." I had one GOP lawmaker tell me we need the amendment to reign in "rogue judges." Reigning in judges has nothing to do with tort reform or attorneys fees.

It will irk the lawmakers who are mad at the courts even more, but I hope Issue 1 is tossed off the ballot. It doesn't matter whether one is "for" or "against" any of its provisions. Our lawmakers, rather, should be held to account for packing too much into one amendment.

If they want Arkansans to vote for specific proposals, each one should be its own amendment. Logrolling forces Arkansans to accept changes they don't want to get ones they do. We shouldn't have to negotiate with hostage takers.

Commentary on 10/14/2018

Upcoming Events