Revisit ruling, group backing ‘pot’ act urges

Is signature-gathering law constitutional, justices asked

Arkansans for Compassionate Care has asked the Arkansas Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of state signature-gathering laws in the wake of a decision that disqualified the group’s proposed initiated act on medical marijuana.

The high court issued an opinion Thursday that invalidated some of the signatures gathered in support of the Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act, and that left it with too few. The ruling mandated that votes for and against the act — also known as Issue 7 — not be counted. The court’s decision came on the fourth day of early voting. More than 144,000 people had already voted — more than 8 percent of registered voters.

In a petition filed Monday asking the court to reconsider its ruling, Arkansans for Compassionate Care said the court erred when it disqualified Issue 7 because its application of the law stripped nonwealthy Arkansans of their constitutional right to propose laws and amendments to the state constitution.

The group is asking the court to withdraw its mandate, which would allow votes to count.

“For the first time in several days, we have hope,” said Melissa Fults, campaign director for Arkansans for Compassionate Care. “I hope they do the right thing for the people in Arkansas. If not, there’s going to be a lot more outrage, and you can’t blame the people. They’ve been disenfranchised.”

According to the petition, Act 1413 of 2013 is unconstitutional because a “grassroots organization without money to pay for review of the petitions in advance is thus effectively unable to meet the requirements of the Act. Thus, Act 1413 results in an unconstitutional interference with the [initiatives and referenda] power of ‘the people.’”

Act 1413 of 2013 tightened rules regarding the petition procedure.

Sen. Keith Ingram, D-West Memphis, said he sponsored the bill after allegations of fraud in a past ballot-measure campaign. He said the law was intended to deal with paid canvassers, not local volunteers.

“This was a response to try to bring some type of order to something that’s very serious,” he said. “Amending the constitution is a very se-

rious thing, and it should be held at a very high level.”

The petition also cites Article 5 of the Arkansas Constitution, which states in part: “No law shall be passed to prohibit any person or persons from giving or receiving compensation for circulating petitions, nor to prohibit the circulation of petitions, nor in any manner interfering with the freedom of the people in procuring petitions.”

Issue 7 was the only ballot measure approved by Secretary of State Mark Martin’s office in which the majority of signatures were collected by volunteers.

The backers of the competing Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment, or Issue 6, spent more than $500,000 to pay people to circulate petitions and gather the signatures needed to place the amendment on the ballot.

Issue 6 backers supported the lawsuit that disqualified Issue 7.

Both medical marijuana proposals, as well as two other initiated amendments that were invalidated by the court, still appear on ballots because the court’s rulings came after ballots were sent to the printer.

The votes cast on Issue 6 will be counted.

Section 21 of Act 1413 set standards for paid canvassers. Under that section, sponsors cannot provide money or “anything of value” to a canvasser unless he meets the requirements, which include providing his full name, current home address and a photograph.

That section ultimately doomed Arkansans for Compassionate Care.

Justice Karen Baker, who wrote Thursday’s majority opinion, said that because some of the petitioners on the paid list had not met all of their required qualifications, the court had no choice but to throw out 7,580 signatures.

“Today, we have simply interpreted the laws enacted by our General Assembly — ‘shall’ means ‘shall’ and the Sponsor did not comply with the statutes,” Baker wrote.

But Chief Justice Howard Brill wrote in his dissent that while Arkansans for Compassionate Care did make some errors, the “proposed act should remain on the ballot.

“The people should be permitted to vote on the initiative on November 8, and their votes should be counted.” Justice Paul Danielson joined in the dissent of the 5-2 decision.

Act 1413 has been challenged in the past but was ultimately ruled constitutional in a split decision by the state Supreme Court in 2015.

“The State clearly has an interest in ensuring that sponsors are aware of the identity of people who are being paid to solicit signatures from citizens as well as how to locate them should problems arise,” Justice Robin Wynne wrote in the majority opinion at the time. “These requirements aid in the proper use of the rights granted to the people of the state.”

Justice Courtney Goodson concurred with the majority on Thursday but wrote that Act 1413 “impermissibly impinges on the constitutional right of our citizens to propose laws and amendments to the Arkansas Constitution.”

She continued: “The petition here failed to satisfy the onerous demands of the Act, even though there is no allegation that the signatures were invalid in any other way.

“The result is that the wishes of the citizens who signed the petition in good faith are being discarded, and the right of the people to pass judgment on the proposal in the voting booth has been lost.”