Last week's decision clearing a casino gaming amendment for the Arkansas ballot should complicate voters' plans between now and the Nov. 6 general election.
It will take longer than you might imagine to understand just what voters are being asked to write into the state Constitution.
The proposal is Issue 4 on the upcoming ballot.
Two different lawsuits challenged the ballot wording as misleading to voters. Last week, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled, however, that the popular name and ballot title give voters "a fair understanding" of the issues, the scope and significance of the proposed changes in law and "are free of any misleading tendency or partisan coloring."
That unanimous opinion in one of the lawsuits pointed out that it is not the court's purpose "to examine the relative merit or fault" of the proposed measure. The justices were looking at how the issue is presented to voters.
In the other lawsuit, one of the seven justices dissented, finding the ballot title misleading rather than clearly informing the voter. But the majority ruled it met the court's standard for how ballot issues must be presented.
Nevertheless, the last thing voters should do is expect to run into the polling place, glance at the 707 words in the lengthy ballot title and believe they understand it.
It takes a while just to read that much.
What's worse, the full amendment is a monstrous 3,104 words long. Few voters will ever see the full text, although it is available and has been formally published.
Here are the barest of facts about the proposal:
Issue 4 would require the Arkansas Racing Commission to issue four licenses for casino gaming in the state.
One each would automatically go to existing corporations in Crittenden and Garland counties (for casinos at or adjacent to the race tracks of Southland Racing Corp. in West Memphis and Oaklawn Jockey Club, Inc. in Hot Springs, respectively).
The other two casino licenses would go to corporations that can "demonstrate experience in conducting casino gaming" and meet other requirements.
The second two corporations are unnamed, but millions of dollars for the campaign for Issue 4 have come from two Native American tribes (Quapaw and Cherokee) that operate casinos in Oklahoma.
One of the allowable casinos would be located in Jefferson County within two miles of Pine Bluff, the other in Pope County within two miles of Russellville. The Quapaw are interested in the Jefferson County license, the Cherokee in the Pope County license.
The recipients of the latter two licenses must pay an application fee and submit either a letter of support from the local county judge or a resolution from the county quorum court to secure the license. If a casino is located inside one of the cities, a letter of support from that city's mayor would also be required of the applicant.
Those letters of support or quorum court resolutions supposedly represent local buy-in for the casinos.
The proposed amendment also sets out how -- and how much -- the casinos may be taxed and where the receipts from those taxes would go.
The numbers would be locked into the Constitution and any conflicting state laws could not apply under provisions in the proposed amendment.
Numerous aspects of the proposal should give voters pause. Not the least of them is the provision to allow casinos to sell or give away intoxicating liquor, even in a "dry" county like Pope.
Then there is the gimmicky sales job that backers of this amendment pushed, at least in the early going, asserting that it would somehow improve state roads.
Don't count on that.
It was a clever ploy to gain support from voters who desperately want better roads but don't want to pay higher taxes for them. Sure, the state could put expected gaming-related revenue toward roads, but that tax money will likely be needed to deal with the impact of the casinos on the state and localities. Supporters more recently have backed off claims that the money would necessarily be used for roads or highways.
Yes, the casinos would offer new jobs and economic benefits, mostly to those favored corporations that get the licenses to run them. But Arkansas voters best be wary that there will be significant costs, too.
Arkansas voters should reject Issue 4.
Commentary on 10/17/2018