A Review of the 2014 Arkansas Ballot Initiatives

We live in a democratic society where voting is a right of citizenship. History shows that democracy works bests when informed citizens exercise their voting right. In an attempt to help inform Arkansas voters about what they will see on the November 4^th ballot, the Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service offers the following review of the five ballot initiatives. Please vote.

In Arkansas, there are two ways for a proposed law or constitutional amendment to make it on the ballot. They can be placed on the ballot by the legislature or by petition of the public. The legislature is limited to three ballot issues per election cycle and the public may propose more ballot initiatives through signed petitions. This year there are five initiatives on the ballot – two from the public and three from the legislature.

Ballot Issue #1: The Arkansas Legislative Approval of State Agency Rules Amendment

Currently Arkansas law requires state agencies to submit changes to their administrative rules to the legislature, but it does not grant the legislature the power to approve or disapprove of those changes.[1] If approved by voters, this measure would amend Article 5 of the Arkansas Constitution by adding a new section to read as follows:

42. Review and approval of administrative rules.
The General Assembly may provide by law:
For the review by a legislative committee of administrative rules promulgated by a state agency before the administrative rules become effective; and
That administrative rules promulgated by a state agency shall not become effective until reviewed and approved by the legislative committee charged by law with the review of administrative rules under subdivision (a)(1) of this section.
The review and approval by a legislative committee under subsection (a) if this section may occur during the interim or during a regular, special, or fiscal session of the General Assembly.[2]

In other words, approval of this amendment would allow the Legislature to require by law that state agencies submit all proposed rules to legislative review before they take effect and would not allow the rules to take effect until legislative review and approval of all changes to state agencies’ administrative rules.[3]

Arguments in support of Ballot Issue #1:

Senators Jonathan Dismang and Uvalde Lindsey along with Representatives Gary Deffenbaugh and Debra Hobbs are all on record as being in support of this proposed amendment. Rep. Deffenbaugh has been quoted as believing this amendment is good for the State of Arkansas because “it keeps agencies from making their own rules.”[4] He also believes the approval of this amendment would give more legislative oversight. Rep. Hobbs understands the need to explain the importance of this issue to voters and has attempted to do so by explaining what she encountered when first serving on the Arkansas Legislative Council.[5] She was surprised to learn that legislators reviewed agency rule changes but did not have the authority to approve or disapprove them.[6] Further to this point, Sen. Lindsey believes this amendment “is a good thing, for it provides a check and balance between the executive and legislative branches of government.”[7]

Arguments in opposition of Ballot Issue #1:

Opponents rely on the separation of powers to make their strongest point as well. It is argued that the amendment will disrupt the separation of powers between legislators and day-to-day administrators who are charged with carrying out state law and serve the needs of Arkansans.[8] Additionally, it is feared that approval by the General Assembly would make the process to establish rules or change rules more difficult and time consuming due to the need of legislators to educate themselves about complicated legal or technical issues in order to approve or disapprove of a new rule.[9] Finally, it is argued that a few legislators could block implementation of a new law approved by the General Assembly by refusing to accept rules guiding how the law would be implemented.[10]

Ballot Issue #2: The Arkansas Ballot Measure Signature Requirements Amendment

Issue #2 is another legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. If approved by voters, this issue would amend Section 1 of Article 5 of the Arkansas Constitution as follows (underline text is being added and the struck through text is being removed):

(a)(1) If the Secretary of State, county clerk or city clerk, as the case may be, shall decide any petition to be insufficient, he or she shall without delay notify the sponsers sponsors of such petition, and permit at least thirty (30) days from the date of such notification, in the instance of a state-wide petition, or ten (10) days in the instance of a municipal or county petition, for correction or amendment.

(2) For a state-wide petition, correction or amendment of an insufficient petition shall be permitted only if the petition contains valid signatures of legal voters equal to:

(A) At least seventy-five percent (75%) of the number of state-wide signatures of legal voters required; and

(B) At least seventy-five percent (75%) of the required number of signatures of legal voters from each of at least fifteen (15) counties of the state.

(b) In the event of legal proceedings to prevent giving legal effect to any petition upon any grounds, the burden of proof shall be upon the person or persons attacking the validity of the petition.[11]

The amendment would require ballot issue groups to collect at 75% of the valid signatures required in order to receive additional time to gather extra signatures once the petition has been turned in to the Secretary of State. To be placed on the ballot, proposed constitutional amendments need at least 78,133 valid signatures, and proposed initiated measures require at least 62,507.[12]

Currently there is no threshold requirement to receive additional time to gather more signatures. Within 30 days of receiving petition signatures, the Arkansas Secretary of State verifies each signature up to 110% of the required number. Prior to counting, the Secretary removes any individual petitions that are formally deficient. If any individual petition appears, beyond a reasonable doubt, to contain 20% or more dubious signatures, initiative sponsors are then responsible for proving which of the signatures are valid. If the petition fails to meet the signature requirement, petitioners have 30 days to collect additional signatures or demonstrate that rejected signatures are valid.[13]

Arguments in support of Issue #2:

Supporters claim this measure is necessary to prevent ballot measure campaigns from false signatures so as to buy time in their attempt to bring their issue before voters. A large number of invalid signatures were submitted by supporters of casino and severance tax proposals.[14] It is argued the proposed amendment would set the bar high enough to avoid worrying about fraud and deception.[15]

Arguments in opposition of Issue #2:

Various groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, the Arkansas AFL-CIO and the Family Council, are opposed to this measure. Generally, the groups in opposition to this measure believe it will be difficult for citizens to bring issues before voters. Many believe the proposed amendment does nothing to address fraud but severely hampers the ability of the people to place an initiated measure on the ballot.[16] Rep. Bob Ballinger, also in opposition to Issue #2, believes “[t]his is one area where people can touch government and can affect government and the only reason for this is to make it harder for them to do that.”[17]

Ballot Issue #3: Arkansas Elected Officials Ethics, Transparency and Financial Reform Amendment

If approved, this ballot initiative will significantly alter sections of the Arkansas Constitution concerning campaign contributions, lobbying, salary setting for government officials, and term limits for members of the Arkansas Legislature.[18]

Campaign Contributions:

Currently, the Arkansas Constitution does not limit financial contributions to political campaigns. The major substantive change to Arkansas campaign finance law posed by Ballot Issue # 3 is that only the following entities could contribute to political campaigns: individuals, political parties, county political party committees, legislative caucus committees, and approved political action committees (“PACs”).[19] Corporations, businesses, and other entities excluded from this list could not directly contribute to political campaigns, but would instead have to contribute through PACs. If an individual violates these campaign finance rules, he or she is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.[20] Additionally, the Arkansas Ethics Commission may discipline him or her.[21]

Limitations on Lobbying:

Currently, members of the Arkansas Legislature must wait one year after their terms expire to register as lobbyists.[22] If approved, this initiative would expand that waiting period to two years.[23] Additionally, an individual who knowingly violates this provision is guilty of a class D felony.[24]

Members of the General Assembly may currently receive gifts valued up to $100 per day from lobbyists. If approved, this initiative would completely bar not only lobbying gifts to members of the General Assembly, but also to the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer of State, Auditor of State, Attorney General, Commissioner of State Lands, Member of the General Assembly, and members of the commission that will set government salaries created by the initiative.[25]

Salary Setting for Government Officials:

Currently, the Arkansas General Assembly may set the salaries of Arkansas justices, judges, constitutional officers, and even its own members.[26] If approved, an independent commission would set those salaries.[27] Lobbyists, elected officials, state employees, and their immediate family members may not be on the commission.[28] The commission could not adjust any salary by more than fifteen percent at once.[29]

Term Limits:

Since Arkansas voters amended the Arkansas Constitution in 1992, State House Representatives have been limited to three two-year terms or a total of six years, and State Senators have been limited two four-year terms or a total of eight years.[30] If approved, this measure would expand term limits for members of the General Assembly to sixteen years. This section of the bill is the most contentious, and special interest groups and local media sources have spilled a lot of ink over it.

Arguments in support of Ballot Issue # 3:

Representative Warwick Sabin, a Democrat who represents District 33 of Little Rock, Arkansas, sponsored the amendment commonly known as “Ballot Issue #3.”[31] There is widespread support for ethics reforms such as reforms to campaign contributions, lobbying, and the ability of members of the General Assembly to set their own salaries contained within Ballot Issue # 3.[32] However, this support does not extend to the provisions of the amendment that would expand term limits for members of the General Assembly.[33]

If approved, the campaign finance provisions would bring the rules that govern Arkansas elections to those that govern federal elections. Since 1907, the United States has banned direct corporate donations to candidates.[34] In 2010, widespread public outcry about the role of corporations in the political process followed the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United that expanded protections for political speech by corporations.[35] Ballot Issue # 3 would compromise the ability of corporations and other business entities to sway Arkansas elections.

Similarly, the limitations on lobbying could discourage corruption by limiting the influence of gifts and recent political retirees on the legislative process. The provisions of the amendment creating an independent commission to set salaries for government officials could discourage corruption by forbidding members of the General Assembly from setting their own salaries. Representative Sabin maintains that his intent in sponsoring the bill was to push ethics reforms, but that he included the terms limits provisions as a tactical decision to persuade other lawmakers.[36]

Arguments in opposition of Ballot Issue # 3:

According to a survey conducted by Talk Business and Hendrix College in April 2014, over half of Arkansas voters oppose Ballot Issue # 3.[37] This disapproval appears to be nonpartisan: The only significant difference across party lines is that only 49% of Democrats opposed the amendment, versus 57% of the general population.[38]

Public opposition to Ballot Issue # 3 does not seem to stem from substantive objections to ethics reforms or even term limits, but from the allegedly misleading manner in which Ballot Issue # 3 appears on the ballot. Opponents to Ballot Issue # 3 call it a “Trojan horse” because it both hides a change to term limits within a broader ethics reform measure, and because the ballot title claims to “establish” term limits rather than expand them.[39]

The official ballot title for Ballot Issue # 3 is as follows:

To amend the Arkansas Constitution concerning elected state officials; prohibiting members of the General Assembly and elected constitutional officers of the executive department from accepting gifts from lobbyists, and defining key terms relating to that prohibition; prohibiting members of the General Assembly from setting their own salaries and the salaries of elected constitutional officers of the executive department, justices, and judges; establishing a seven-member independent citizens commission to set salaries for members of the general assembly, elected constitutional officers of the executive department, justices, and judges; establishing the appointment process for members of the independent citizens commission, and prohibiting members of the independent citizens commission from accepting gifts from lobbyists; prohibiting certain contributions, including contributions by corporations, to candidates for public office; prohibiting a member of the General Assembly from registering as a lobbyist until two (2) years after the expiration of his or her term; and establishing term limits for members of the General Assembly.[40]

Ballot Issue #4: The Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Initiative

Issue #4 is an initiated constitutional amendment – meaning it was placed on the ballot by public petition. If approved, the Arkansas Constitution would be changed to make the sale, manufacture, distribution and transportation of alcohol legal statewide. It would end the practice of local elections on alcohol sales and the General Assembly would continue to have the ability to regulate the sale, distribution and transportation of alcohol, but could not prohibit it.[41] Al

Currently, Arkansas allows for county control over the prohibition of alcohol. The state is practically evenly split on a county basis with 27 counties being dry and 38 being wet or mixed.[42] Arkansas is one of ten states who currently allow dry counties.[43]

The map above shows dry counties in red, wet counties in blue and mixed counties in yellow.

Arguments in favor of Issue #4:

The initiative is primarily being supported by Let Arkansas Decide.[44] They argue the amendment would make alcohol regulations the same for all 75 Arkansas counties.[45] Additionally, allowing sales in previously dry counties would result in new jobs and additional revenue for those cities and counties.[46] Furthermore, they argue that the risk of drunk-driving accidents would be reduced because people would not have to drive as far to buy alcohol.[47]

Arguments in opposition of Issue #4:

The campaign in opposition to the initiative is being led by Let Local Communities Decide for Themselves.[48] They argue the amendment would take away a community’s ability to decide the issue of alcohol sales.[49] They fear that if passed, the amendment would create a dangerous situation of liquor sales being legal within 1,000 feet of a school, day care center or church.[50] Furthermore, opponents express concern over the numerous negative health and social effects of alcohol and how alcohol sales might impacts the rates of such effects in currently dry counties.[51]

Ballot Issue #5: The Arkansas Minimum Wage Initiative

This is the second initiated state issue included on the November 4th ballot.[52] The passage of this issue means the state minimum wage will increase incrementally over the next three years to a final amount of $8.50 per hour.[53] Currently Arkansas’ minimum wage ($6.50/ hr) is lower than the national minimum wage (at $7.25/ hr.) – effectively causing the national wage to prevail.[54] It is one of three states whose minimum wage is below the national minimum wage.[55] The first raise in the minimum wage will come on January 1, 2015, causing the state minimum to surpass the national minimum wage at $7.50/hr; a year later the wage would rise to $8.00/hr; finally, on January 1, 2017 the wage raise will rise to $8.50/hr. As Arkansas is one of four states with minimum wage increases on the ballot and the final amount of $8.50/ hr is less than any other state’s initiative, this is an issue that both businesses and workers in Arkansas feel strongly about and the whole nation is watching closely.

Arguments in Support of Issue #5:

This initiative is strongly supported by multiple groups, Give Arkansas a Raise Now (GARN), Arkansas Interfaith Alliance, the Arkansas chapter of the NAACP, the AFL-CIO and the Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance. This is an issue that Senator Mark Pryor[56], Representative Tom Cotton[57], and the Democratic[58] and Republican[59] gubernatorial candidates all support this initiative. Generally, supporters of the initiative claim (i) working Arkansans deserve a living wage to support their families, (ii) raising the minimum wage would benefit businesses by lowering employee turnover and improving productivity, and (iii) raising the minimum wage would bring families out of poverty.[60]

Arguments in Opposition of Issue #5:

This initiative has opponents in the Arkansas Hospitality Association[61], Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce[62], and Representative Bruce Westerman.[63] Opponents to the initiative claim that (i) increasing the minimum wage will result in fewer jobs, (ii) businesses would have two choices – raise prices or lay off workers, and (iii) raising the minimum wage will hurt the hospitality industry and first-time employees.[64]

A number of reports and analyses are available on this issue. The findings range from support, neutral, and opposition. A broader overview of the studies is available to help you determine where you stand on this issue.[65]

[1] The City Wire, “Area legislators comment on amendment ideas,” April 17, 2013, accessed Oct. 15, 2014.

[2] Arkansas Secretary of State, “SJR 7 As Engrossed: S3/6/13,” accessed Oct. 18, 2014.

[3] Times Record Online Edition, “Arkansas Legislature: Two Proposed Constitutional Amendments Clear Senate,” April 18, 2013, accessed Oct. 15, 2014.

[4] The City Wire, “Area legislators comment on amendment ideas,” April 17, 2013, accessed Oct. 15, 2014.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] http://www.uaex.edu/business-communities/voter-education/FSPPC312%20LegReview.pdf, accessed Oct. 7, 2014.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Arkansas Legislature, “SJR 16, 2013 Regular Session,” accessed Oct. 7, 2014.

[12] The Republic, “Arkansas lawmakers send proposed amendments on ethics and petition rules to voters,” April 19, 2013, accessed Oct. 7, 2014.