Justices rule alcohol bid fit for ballot

Measure on statewide sales within the law, court decides

Arkansans will decide whether to allow the statewide sale and distribution of alcohol after the state Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that the measure belongs on the Nov. 4 ballot.

The justices rejected arguments that “Issue 4’s” language is misleading and that its supporters had missed the deadline for submitting signatures.

Citizens for Local Rights, a group opposing the constitutional amendment, filed the suit.

If adopted, it would permit alcohol sales and distribution in all 75 counties in the state.

The language of the ballot, as well as the process that put it there, followed state law and the Arkansas Constitution, according to the court.

Amendment 7 to Article 5, Section 1 requires that signatures for a proposed amendment be submitted at least four months before Election Day

This year’s election is Nov. 4, so the due date normally would be July 4. But because the deadline fell on a holiday, the secretary of state’s office extended it to July 7.

Alcohol-amendment supporters and backers of an act

raising the minimum wage both submitted their signatures July 7.

Opponents argued that Secretary of State Mark Martin lacked the authority to extend a deadline established by the state constitution.

But in Thursday’s opinion, Justice Karen Baker said Amendment 51 of the Arkansas Constitution, which spells out voter-registration requirements and election laws, says election deadlines falling on a weekend or holiday shall be pushed to the next business day.

“It is clear that the election deadline at issue occurred on a legal holiday, July 4, 2014. Therefore, the election-law deadline must be the next day which is not [a weekend or holiday],” she wrote. “Here, the deadline was July 7th, 2014. To compute otherwise would restrict [the proposals’ supporters’] rights which is prohibited by our Constitution.”

In a concurring opinion joined by Justice Donald Corbin, Justice Paul Danielson reached the same conclusion, but by a slightly different path.

He pointed to Amendment 7, which authorizes initiatives and referendums, noting that it stated that “laws may be enacted to facilitate [the amendment’s] operation.”

The second challenge made

Opponents argued that Secretary of State Mark Martin lacked the authority to extend a deadline established by the state constitution.

by Citizens for Local Rights, that the ballot title language was misleading, also was rebuked by the court.

Brian Richardson, who challenged the ballot on behalf of the group, said the title needed to explain to voters that Issue 4 would prevent cities and municipalities from outlawing alcohol.

He also argued that voters should have been informed that prohibition on liquor stores being located within 1,000 feet of a school or church would be repealed if Issue 4 is adopted. (Issue 4 supporters denied that claim, saying the Legislature would still have the authority to regulate alcohol sales.)

Baker cited old case law to determine the ballot title was sufficient.

“The [ballot] title is not required to be perfect, nor is it reasonable to expect the title to cover or anticipate every possible legal argument the proposed measure might evoke,” Baker wrote. “We conclude that while inside the voting booth, the voters will be able to reach an intelligent and informed decision for or against [the amendment] and understand the consequences of his or her vote.”

David Couch, who represented the sponsors of the proposal, Let Arkansas Decide, said he was pleased by the ruling. The measure isn’t confusing or misleading, he added.

“It’s clear and apparent. The [ballot title] says what it says, and the General Assembly can [continue] to regulate alcohol,” he said. “People can vote for it and know the General Assembly can have the ability to regulate the sale of alcohol.”

Richardson said he was disappointed by the ruling but that the finding has no bearing on Citizens for Local Rights’ campaign against the amendment.

“The court ruling didn’t say it was a good idea,” he said. “They simply ruled on the legalities of it and not the impact it will have in the state.”