Parker v. Priest

Paul R. PARKER, Petitioner v. Sharon PRIEST,
In Her Official Capacity of Secretary of
State of the State of Arkansas, Respondent;
Gerald J. Crochet, Jr., Intervenor; Craig
Douglass, On Behalf of Arkansans for
Amendment 4, Intervenor; Elizabeth Farris, et
al., On Behalf of Give Hot Springs the Right
to Vote Committee, Intervenors

96-779                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
              Opinion delivered September 30, 1996


1.   Elections -- popular name -- need not contain information
     required of ballot title. -- The popular name of a proposed
     amendment is primarily a useful legislative device that need
     not contain the same detailed information or include
     exceptions that might be required of a ballot title.

2.   Elections -- ballot title -- sufficiency of -- requirements. -
     - Ballot titles must include an impartial summary of the
     proposed amendment that will give voters a fair understanding
     of the issues presented and of the scope and significance of
     the proposed changes in the law; they cannot omit material
     information that would give the voter serious ground for
     reflection; they must be free from misleading tendencies that,
     whether by amplification, omission, or fallacy, thwart a fair
     understanding of the issues presented.

3.   Elections -- ballot title -- sufficiency of -- popular name to
     be considered. -- The popular name is to be considered with
     the ballot title in determining its sufficiency.

4.   Elections -- ballot title -- relied upon by voters -- supreme
     court's duty to ensure voters allowed to make intelligent
     choice. -- It is axiomatic that the majority of voters will
     derive their information about a proposed measure from the
     ballot title immediately before exercising the right of
     suffrage; thus, it is the supreme court's duty and
     responsibility to ensure that when that right of suffrage is
     exercised as to a proposed amendment to the state's
     constitution, the voters are allowed to make an intelligent
     choice, fully aware of the consequences of their vote.

5.   Appeal & error -- bare allegation not addressed. -- Where
     petitioner made no specific allegation of insufficiency of the
     ballot title of proposed Amendment 4 to the Arkansas
     Constitution but merely made a conclusory allegation that the
     ballot title was insufficient, the supreme court would not
     address the bare allegation.

6.   Elections -- ballot title -- length and complexity are
     considerations. -- While neither the length nor the complexity
     of the ballot title should be a controlling factor regarding
     validity, they are considerations in determining whether a
     voter can make an intelligent decision based on the ballot
     title.

7.   Elections -- ballot title -- approved with respect to length,
     complexity, and design. -- The supreme court held that the
     ballot title accurately summarized the text of the proposed
     amendment with respect to each type of gambling authorized and
     the respective distribution of proceeds and tax revenues; the
     language was plain and organized in a coherent manner, with
     the respective provisions relating to proceeds and revenue
     distributions following each type of gambling authorized; no
     material omissions had been made, and the ballot title was not
     misleading so as to thwart a fair understanding of the issues;
     the ballot title was not so complex as to be beyond the
     voter's comprehension; the total length of 482 words was of no
     consequence, especially when considered in light of the
     absence of any misleading tendencies.

8.   Elections -- ballot title -- not misleading simply because it
     presents multiple considerations. -- The supreme court was
     unwilling to hold that the ballot title was misleading simply
     because it presented multiple considerations to the voters;
     the court, emphasizing its duty to ensure that those
     considerations are presented to the voters in an impartial
     ballot title so that voters can make intelligent choices, was
     convinced that such had been done in this case.

9.   Elections -- ballot title -- casino gambling clearly
     disclosed. -- Where petitioner contended, without offering any
     evidence, that the primary purpose in the design of proposed
     Amendment 4's ballot title was to disguise the "true focus" of
     the proposed amendment, casino gambling at Oaklawn Racetrack,
     the supreme court found no merit to the contention because the
     proposal would also establish a state lottery, charitable
     bingo and raffles, and casino gambling at two sites in Hot
     Springs other than a specified racetrack; moreover, the ballot
     title was very clear in its terms that casino gambling would
     be authorized "at or adjacent to Oaklawn Racetrack"; thus,
     even if this had been the "true focus" of the proposal, it was
     clearly disclosed in the ballot title and popular name.

10.  Elections -- initiative process -- purpose of. -- There can be
     no doubt that the power reserved to the people in the
     Initiative and Referendum Amendment, Amendment 7 to the
     Arkansas Constitution of 1874, is a cornerstone of the state's
     democratic government; the voters of this state essentially
     have, within constitutional limits, a right to change any law
     or any provision of our constitution they deem appropriate
     through Amendment 7; that is, indeed, the purpose of the
     initiative process.  

11.  Elections -- initiative process -- supreme court's function. -
     - The supreme court's sole function in the initiative process
     is to ensure that the ballot title represents the proposed
     amendment in an honest, impartial, and intelligible manner; it
     is not the court's function to express its view on, or to
     determine the merits of, a proposed measure; that power is
     expressly reserved to the people. 

12.  Elections -- initiative process -- purpose not undermined by
     presentation of issue that benefits few. -- The purpose of the
     initiative process is not undermined by the presentation to
     the voters of an issue that directly benefits a relative few
     of the people so long as the benefits to the few were not
     concealed from the voters; once the initiated proposal is put
     to a vote, the people may either accept or reject the proposal
     with a majority vote; the initiative process is not undermined
     when the people vote on an issue that was presented to them in
     a fair and intelligible manner.

13.  Elections -- ballot title -- placement of lottery first not
     misleading. -- Where petitioner contended that the ballot
     title was designed so that easily understood concepts would
     appear at the beginning and the more complex concepts near the
     end, but counsel for an intervenor explained that, although
     the proposal was not drafted in any particular order, there
     was a decision to place the lottery first because of the
     current prohibition of lotteries in Ark. Const. art. 19,  14,
     the supreme court found nothing misleading about the decision,
     given Arkansas's historical constitutional prohibition of
     lotteries since statehood.

14.  Elections -- ballot title -- no date certain set for casino
     gambling. -- The ballot title accurately described a two-step
     process under which the commencement dates for any and all
     casino gambling in Hot Springs would be subject to voter
     approval and state licensing requirements; contrary to the
     intervenor's contention, there was no date certain set for
     casino gambling at a specified racetrack.

15.  Elections -- ballot title -- sufficient if it conveys scope
     and import of proposed law. -- Although a ballot title need
     not disclose every detail of the proposed law, it is
     sufficient if it conveys the scope and import of the proposed
     law; the ballot title in question, which clearly disclosed
     that a specified racetrack would immediately be an approved
     site for a casino and that the location of two other sites
     would be subject to local approval, adequately summarized the
     proposed law.

16.  Elections -- ballot title -- pari-mutuel franchisee clearly
     identified. -- The supreme court held that the ballot title's
     definition of "pari-mutuel franchisee" and other language was
     not misleading and left no doubt that the pari-mutuel
     franchisee was indeed the specified racetrack and no other
     entity; one is not entitled to a ballot title that pleases him
     personally, given the impossibility of drafting a ballot title
     that would suit everyone.

17.  Elections -- ballot title -- voter able to understand that
     total of three casinos would be authorized. -- The supreme
     court concluded that the voter would be able to understand
     that the words "two other casino establishments in Hot Springs
     located at sites to be approved by the governing body of Hot
     Springs" in the ballot title meant that a total of only three
     casino locations would be authorized.

18.  Gaming -- pari-mutuel wagering on dog racing allowed by
     statutory law. -- Pari-mutuel wagering on dog racing is
     currently allowed in Arkansas, under Ark. Code Ann.  23-111-
     101 to -515 (Repl. 1992, Supp. 1995), by way of statutory
     rather than constitutional law.

19.  Elections -- ballot title -- language did not expressly
     authorize wagering on dog racing by way of proposed amendment.
     -- While the language of the ballot title and proposed
     amendment did not prohibit pari-mutuel wagering on dog racing,
     it did not expressly authorize it via the proposed
     constitutional amendment, either; the language would not
     change Arkansas law; it would simply preserve the status quo.


     Original Action Petition; denied.
     Wright & Burke, by: William Randal Wright, for petitioner.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Kay J. Jackson DeMailly,
Asst. Att'y Gen., for respondent.
     Intervenor Gerald J. Crochet, Jr., pro se.
     Friday, Eldredge & Clark, by:  James M. Simpson and Walter M.
Ebel III, for intervenor Craig Douglass.
     Richard L. Henry, for intervenors Elizabeth Farris, et al.

     Donald L. Corbin, Justice.
     Petitioner, Paul R. Parker, and Intervenor, Gerald J. Crochet,
Jr., ask us to enjoin Respondent, Secretary of State Sharon Priest,
from placing proposed Amendment 4 to the Arkansas Constitution on
the ballot for the general election to be held November 5, 1996. 
Petitioner requests that if the election ballots are printed before
this court has a chance to rule on the petition, we enjoin
Respondent from counting and canvassing the votes cast with respect
to the proposed Amendment 4.  We allowed the intervention of two
additional parties in this original action, which was filed
pursuant to Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution of 1874: 
Craig Douglass on behalf of "Arkansans For Amendment 4," the
sponsors of the proposed amendment, and Elizabeth Farris and others
on behalf of "Give Hot Springs the Right to Vote Committee." 
Petitioner and Intervenor Crochet challenge both the ballot title
and the popular name of the proposed amendment.  We find no merit
to their challenges and deny the petition and request for
injunctive relief.
     On June 12, 1996, Respondent certified as sufficient the
popular name and ballot title of the proposed Amendment 4.  As
certified by both Respondent and the Arkansas Attorney General, the
popular name of the proposed amendment reads as follows:
     AN AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH A STATE LOTTERY; TO PERMIT
     CHARITABLE BINGO GAMES AND RAFFLES CONDUCTED BY NONPROFIT
     ORGANIZATIONS; AND TO ALLOW VOTERS IN HOT SPRINGS TO
     DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO AUTHORIZE CASINO GAMBLING AT OR
     ADJACENT TO THE OAKLAWN RACETRACK AND AT TWO OTHER CASINO
     ESTABLISHMENTS IN HOT SPRINGS LOCATED AT SITES TO BE
     APPROVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF HOT SPRINGS

The complete text of the ballot title as certified by both
Respondent and the Arkansas Attorney General is appended to this
opinion.  Relevant portions of the ballot title are reproduced as
needed in our discussion below.  Petitioner filed this original
action on July 3, 1996.  We granted Intervenor Douglass's motion to
expedite this case on September 9, 1996, and heard oral argument on
September 23, 1996.
                    ORIGINAL ACTION PETITION
     Petitioner initiated this original action by filing a petition
in this court pursuant to Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution
of 1874 and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-5.  In his petition, Petitioner
raises five points for injunctive relief, arguing that the popular
name and ballot title are insufficient and misleading because: 
(1) there is no definition of "state lottery;" (2) there is no
geographical location for "voters in Hot Springs;" (3) they are
unclear as to whether one or two issues will be decided in the Hot
Springs local election on the location of casino gambling;
(4) voters will not be able to ascertain in the five minutes they
are allotted in the voting booth that the purpose of the proposed
amendment is to give Oaklawn Racetrack a constitutionally
sanctioned monopoly on for-profit gambling; and (5) they are
lengthy, complex, and confusing as they relate to casino gambling. 
In oral argument, Petitioner's counsel abandoned the first two of
these points.  The third point is raised in Intervenor Crochet's
brief and is addressed below.  The last two points are raised in
Petitioner's brief and will be addressed below.  
     In his supporting brief, Petitioner's challenge has four
grounds as to the ballot title only:  (1) the ballot title is not
sufficient to enable a voter to make an intelligent decision as to
whether to vote for or against the proposed law; (2) the length,
design, and complexity of the ballot title will prevent the voter
from comprehending what choice he is being asked to make in the
time allotted a voter; (3) the design of the ballot title does not
enable the voter to comprehend the consequences of voting to
approve the proposal as it applies to casino gambling and pari-
mutuel wagering at Oaklawn Racetrack; and (4) the ballot title does
not uphold the very purpose of the initiative process.
     Intervenor Crochet raises the following four challenges to the
ballot title in his brief:  (1) the ballot title sets a date
certain for commencement of casino gambling at Oaklawn, but does
not disclose whether and when casino gambling will commence at the
other two casinos; (2) the ballot title does not inform voters that
Oaklawn Racetrack is the only pari-mutuel franchisee in Hot
Springs; (3) the ballot title misleads voters into thinking more
than three casinos will be authorized -- an unlimited number at or
adjacent to Oaklawn and two elsewhere; and (4) the ballot title
does not inform voters of a significant change in the law that it
would allegedly achieve -- changing the source of the right to
conduct dog racing from statutory law to constitutional law.  We
consider all arguments separately below.
                       STANDARD OF REVIEW
          SUFFICIENCY OF POPULAR NAME AND BALLOT TITLE

     The popular name is primarily a useful legislative device that
need not contain the same detailed information or include
exceptions that might be required of a ballot title.  Chaney v.
Bryant, 259 Ark. 294, 532 S.W.2d 741 (1976) (citing Pafford v.
Hall, 217 Ark. 734, 233 S.W.2d 72 (1950)).  Ballot titles must
include an impartial summary of the proposed amendment that will
give voters a fair understanding of the issues presented and of the
scope and significance of the proposed changes in the law; they
cannot omit material information that would give the voter serious
ground for reflection; they must be free from misleading tendencies
that, whether by amplification, omission, or fallacy, thwart a fair
understanding of the issues presented.  Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark.
277, 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994); Christian Civic Action Comm. v. McCuen,
318 Ark. 241, 884 S.W.2d 605 (1994).  The popular name is to be
considered with the ballot title in determining its sufficiency. 
Moore v. Hall, 229 Ark. 411, 316 S.W.2d 207 (1958).
     It is axiomatic that the majority of voters will derive their
information about a proposed measure from the ballot title
immediately before exercising the right of suffrage.  Christian
Civic Action Comm., 318 Ark. 241, 884 S.W.2d 605.  Thus, it is this
court's duty and responsibility to ensure that when that right of
suffrage is exercised as to a proposed amendment to our state's
constitution, the voters are allowed to make an intelligent choice,
fully aware of the consequences of their vote.  Id.
                       PETITIONER'S BRIEF
  I.  INSUFFICIENT TO ENABLE VOTER TO MAKE INTELLIGENT DECISION

     Here, Petitioner makes no specific allegation of insufficiency
of the ballot title; he does not identify any specific language as
misleading or omitted.  Rather, Petitioner merely makes a
conclusory allegation that the ballot title is insufficient, cites
the applicable standard for our review, and identifies the issue
before us as whether the voter, while in the voting booth, will be
able to make an intelligent decision as to whether to vote for or
against the proposed amendment based on the ballot title alone. 
Petitioner does not make a legal argument in support of this point,
and we will not address the bare allegation any further.  Williams
v. State, 325 Ark. ___, ___ S.W.2d ___ (September 9, 1996).
              II.  LENGTH, COMPLEXITY, AND DESIGN 
     Petitioner acknowledges that the length of a ballot title
alone is not a sufficient basis to invalidate it, but contends that
length becomes a critical factor when combined with other factors. 
Specifically, Petitioner contends that the length and manner in
which this ballot title is written places before the voter several
considerations such as whether to approve four types of gambling
not currently authorized by Arkansas law and the various taxes and
distribution of revenues associated with each.  Consequently,
Petitioner argues that the length, design, and complexity of this
ballot title cannot be read and comprehended in the five minutes a
voter is permitted to remain in the voting booth pursuant to
Arkansas Code Annotated  7-5-522 (Repl. 1993) and that the ballot
title therefore does not adequately inform the voter of the changes
in the law that he is asked to make.
     When previously considering a proposed amendment with
objectives similar to the current one, this court quoted its
earlier statement to the effect that while neither length nor
complexity of the ballot title should be a controlling factor, they
are considerations in determining whether a voter can make an
intelligent decision based on the ballot title.  Christian Civic
Action Comm., 318 Ark. 241, 247, 884 S.W.2d 605, 608 (quoting Dust
v. Riviere, 277 Ark. 1, 6, 638 S.W.2d 663, 666 (1982)).  This court
concluded in Christian Civic Action Committee that the ballot title
had a fatal misleading tendency due to the combination of its
length of 709 words, its use of specialized terminology that
obscured meaning, and its artful amplifications and omissions that
concealed the proposed amendment's potential effect.  See id. at
250, 884 S.W.2d  at 610.   
     In considering Petitioner's argument, we find it significant
that he does not suggest that the language of the ballot title
misrepresents the text of the proposed amendment or that any
material language is omitted from the ballot title.  Rather, he
contends that the voter will be confused by the presence of
multiple considerations in the ballot title, specifically the
consideration of four types of gambling along with the
considerations that each form of gambling has a different taxation
formula with nonuniform distribution of revenues generated.
     According to Petitioner, the length of the entire ballot title
at issue here is 482 words.  The portions of the ballot title
relevant to this argument are as follows:
     A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO
     ESTABLISH A STATE-OWNED LOTTERY, TO BE REGULATED BY THE
     GENERAL ASSEMBLY; REQUIRING ALL STATE LOTTERY PROCEEDS,
     LESS EXPENSES AND PRIZES, TO BE APPROPRIATED AS FOLLOWS: 
     50% FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND 50% TO LOCAL PUBLIC SCHOOL
     DISTRICTS (ALLOCATED BY AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE); . . .
     PROVIDING BINGO GAMES AND RAFFLES MAY BE CONDUCTED FOR
     CHARITABLE PURPOSES BY NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, AND SHALL
     BE REGULATED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY; PROVIDING IF
     AUTHORIZED BY VOTERS IN THE CITY OF HOT SPRINGS, CASINO
     GAMBLING SHALL BE LAWFUL . . . IN HOT SPRINGS . . . 
     REQUIRING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO LEVY A PRIVILEGE TAX ON
     CASINO OPERATORS OF 14% TO 18% OF NET CASINO GAMBLING
     REVENUES; PROHIBITING OTHER SPECIAL TAXES OR FEES WITH
     RESPECT TO CASINO GAMBLING OR RELATED ACTIVITIES;
     ALLOCATING SUCH PRIVILEGE TAX 85% TO THE STATE, 10% TO
     HOT SPRINGS, AND 5% TO GARLAND COUNTY[.]

     The ballot title accurately summarizes the text of the
proposed amendment with respect to each type of gambling authorized
and the respective distribution of proceeds and tax revenues. 
There is nothing so complex about this ballot title that a voter
could not understand.  The language is plain and organized in a
coherent manner with the respective provisions relating to proceeds
and revenue distributions following each type of gambling
authorized.  We find that no material omissions have been made and
that the ballot title is not misleading so as to thwart a fair
understanding of these issues.  Likewise, we find the ballot title
is not so complex as to be beyond the voter's comprehension. 
Although for purposes of reviewing the particulars of this argument
the foregoing quotation shortens the ballot title considerably, we
find the total length of 482 words to be of no consequence,
especially when considered in light of the absence of any
misleading tendencies.
     We note that some of the specific terminology used in this
ballot title was tacitly approved in Christian Civic Action
Committee, 318 Ark. 241, 248, 884 S.W.2d 605, 609, where this court
stated that most voters could readily understand the use of words
such as "state lottery," "charitable bingo and raffles," and "pari-
mutuel wagering."  It was, among other things, the use of the words
"additional racetrack wagering" to mean casino-style gambling that
created the misleading tendency in that case.  The current ballot
title clearly refers to casino gambling as casino gambling. 
     In short, we are unwilling to hold this ballot title
misleading simply because it presents multiple considerations to
the voters.  Our duty is to ensure that those considerations are
presented to the voters in an impartial ballot title so that voters
can make intelligent choices.  Dust, 277 Ark. 1, 638 S.W.2d 663. 
We are convinced that such has been done in this case.  
   III.  MONOPOLY ON CASINO GAMBLING AND PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING
     Petitioner contends that the primary purpose in the design of
the ballot title is to disguise the true focus of the proposed
amendment -- casino gambling at Oaklawn Racetrack.  While it is not
disputed that Oaklawn Racetrack supports this proposed amendment,
Petitioner offers no evidence that casino gambling at Oaklawn is
the "true focus" of the proposal.  To the contrary, we find no
merit to this contention since the proposal also establishes a
state lottery, charitable bingo and raffles, and casino gambling at
two sites in Hot Springs other than Oaklawn Racetrack.  Moreover,
the ballot title is very clear in its terms that casino gambling
will be authorized "at or adjacent to Oaklawn Racetrack."  Thus,
even if this were the "true focus" of the proposal, it is clearly
disclosed in the ballot title and popular name.
     Petitioner contends further that the effect of the proposed
amendment is to grant the pari-mutuel franchisee at Oaklawn
Racetrack a constitutionally sanctioned monopoly inasmuch as it
will be the only entity to provide both pari-mutuel wagering and
casino gambling in Hot Springs.  Even assuming arguendo that the
proposed amendment will achieve the effect Petitioner alleges it
will, that effect is clearly stated in the ballot title for the
reasons expressed below in addressing Intervenor Crochet's second
point.  Additionally, to call the combination of two types of
gambling a "monopoly" is a stretch of that word's definition when
four types of gambling would actually be legalized if the proposal
passes: state-owned lottery, charitable bingo and raffles, casino
gambling, and pari-mutuel wagering.  
               IV.  PURPOSE OF INITIATIVE PROCESS
      Petitioner contends that, as used by the drafters of the
proposed amendment, the initiative power reserved by the people in
Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution of 1874 will be
manipulated to promote the financial gain of a few.  Petitioner
argues that the proposed amendment will thereby defeat the purpose
of the initiative process, which is, Petitioner contends, to permit
the people to exercise some control over the policies of this
state.  Conversely, the responsive argument is that the initiative
process is undermined when a few persons act to prevent the voters
from receiving the opportunity to exercise their votes.
     Initially, we perceive at least three purposes of the proposed
amendment:  (1) to establish a state-owned lottery; (2) to
establish charitable bingo and raffles; and (3) to establish casino
gambling at three locations in Hot Springs.  Thus, it is
questionable whether the sole benefit of this proposal would be the
financial gain of a few.  
     There can be no doubt that the power reserved to the people in
the Initiative and Referendum Amendment, Amendment 7 to the
Arkansas Constitution of 1874, is a cornerstone of our state's
democratic government.  When considering the Initiative and
Referendum Amendment, this court has said, "the voters of this
state essentially have, within constitutional limits, a right to
change any law or any provision of our Constitution they deem
appropriate through Amendment 7 to the Constitution."  Dust, 277
Ark. at 4, 638 S.W.2d  at 665.  That is indeed the purpose of the
initiative process.  It follows that this court's sole function in
such a process is to ensure that the ballot title represents the
proposed amendment in an honest, impartial, and intelligible
manner.  Bradley v. Hall, 220 Ark. 925, 251 S.W.2d 470 (1952).  It
is not our function to express our view on, or to determine the
merits of, a proposed measure -- that power is expressly reserved
to the people.  The purpose of the initiative process is not
undermined by the presentation to the voters of an issue that
directly benefits a relative few of the people so long as the
benefits to the few were not concealed from the voters.  Once the
initiated proposal is put to a vote, the people then have their say
-- they may either accept or reject the proposal with a majority
vote.  The initiative process is not undermined when the people
vote on an issue that was presented to them in a fair and
intelligible manner.  
     As evidence that the ballot title manipulates the initiative
process, Petitioner contends that it is designed so that easily-
understood concepts appear at the beginning, with the more complex
concepts appearing near the end.  Counsel for Intervenor Douglass
explained during oral argument that, although the proposal was not
drafted in any particular order, there was a decision to place the
lottery first due to the current prohibition of lotteries in our
constitution, art. 19,  14, Ark. Const. of 1874.  We find nothing
misleading about this decision given our state's historical
constitutional prohibition of lotteries since statehood.  See
Christian Civic Action Comm., 318 Ark. at 254, 884 S.W.2d  at 612
(Dudley, J., dissenting).  Finally, we note that this argument is
nothing more than a repeat of Petitioner's Point II, which we have
already rejected.
                   INTERVENOR CROCHET'S BRIEF
              I.  DATES CASINO GAMBLING WILL BEGIN

     Intervenor Crochet contends that the proposed amendment
provides a date certain and immediate upon which casino gambling
will be begin at Oaklawn Racetrack, but does not provide a date
certain upon which casino gambling will begin at the other two
casinos, or if casino gambling will begin there at all.  Intervenor
Crochet argues that the ballot title omits this alleged advantage
to Oaklawn Racetrack and is therefore tainted with partisan
coloring.
     The ballot title does not mention any date upon which casino
gambling may begin in Hot Springs, whether it be at Oaklawn or the
other two sites.  However, neither does the proposed amendment. 
Intervenor Crochet's argument is therefore based upon a false
premise.
     As Respondent points out, the ballot title accurately
describes a two-step process that would determine when gambling at
casinos could begin in Hot Springs.  First, the voters of Hot
Springs must vote to approve the basic issue of whether to allow
casino gambling in their city.  Second, following approval by Hot
Springs voters, casino gambling may not begin at any of the three
locations until a casino operator's license is obtained from the
state.  Thus, the commencement dates for any and all casino
gambling in Hot Springs is subject to voter approval and state
licensing requirements.  Quite simply, there is no date certain set
for casino gambling at Oaklawn Racetrack.
     It is true that, as Intervenor Crochet contends, Oaklawn would
immediately be an approved site for a casino while the location of
the two other sites would be subject to local approval in Hot
Springs.  However, that difference is clearly disclosed in the
ballot title as follows:
     IF AUTHORIZED BY VOTERS IN THE CITY OF HOT SPRINGS,
     CASINO GAMBLING SHALL BE LAWFUL AT OR ADJACENT TO THE
     OAKLAWN RACETRACK, WHEN CONDUCTED BY A PARI-MUTUEL
     FRANCHISEE, AND AT TWO OTHER CASINO ESTABLISHMENTS IN HOT
     SPRINGS LOCATED AT SITES TO BE APPROVED BY THE GOVERNING
     BODY OF HOT SPRINGS . . . PROVIDING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
     SHALL REGULATE SUCH CASINO GAMBLING AND PRESCRIBE
     PROCEDURES FOR ISSUING CASINO OPERATOR LICENSES TO A
     PARI-MUTUEL FRANCHISEE AND TWO OTHER PERSONS OR
     ENTITIES[.]

We do not perceive the difference as being advantageous to Oaklawn
Racetrack because the ultimate authority to determine when casino
gambling will begin at all three locations rests with the state's
licensing agency.  That fact, too, is disclosed in the ballot
title.  Although a ballot title need not disclose every detail of
the proposed law, it is sufficient if it conveys the scope and
import of the proposed law.  Bradley, 220 Ark. 925, 251 S.W.2d 470. 
The ballot title, as quoted in part above, adequately summarizes
the proposed law.
             II.  PARI-MUTUEL FRANCHISEE IS OAKLAWN
     Intervenor Crochet contends that the ballot title is
misleading because it states that casino gambling at Oaklawn
Racetrack will be conducted by a pari-mutuel franchisee but does
not inform the voters that there is only one pari-mutuel franchisee
in Hot Springs, namely the entity that operates Oaklawn Racetrack.
Conversely, Respondent contends that the ballot title contains all
the information necessary for voters to identify the pari-mutuel
franchisee.  We agree with Respondent.
     The current ballot title defines "pari-mutuel franchisee" as
"a person or entity that holds a pari-mutuel franchise and conducts
pari-mutuel wagering on horse racing at Oaklawn Racetrack[.]"  The
current ballot title also defines "Oaklawn Racetrack" as "the
Oaklawn Racetrack site in Hot Springs where pari-mutuel wagering on
horse racing was conducted in 1995[.]"  Thus, when the ballot title
states that "casino gambling shall be lawful at or adjacent to
Oaklawn Racetrack, when conducted by a pari-mutuel franchisee,"
there can be no doubt that the pari-mutuel franchisee is indeed
Oaklawn Racetrack and no other entity.  We find nothing misleading
about this language.  Intervenor Crochet argues that this language
is misleading because it refers to Oaklawn as "a" pari-mutuel
franchisee instead of "the" pari-mutuel franchise.  We are
convinced that voters will understand that "a" pari-mutuel
franchisee refers to Oaklawn Racetrack.  Moreover, Intervenor
Crochet is not entitled to a ballot title that pleases him
personally, as this court has previously recognized the
impossibility of drafting a ballot title that would suit everyone. 
Hogan v. Hall, 198 Ark. 681, 130 S.W.2d 716 (1939), cited with
approval in Bradley, 220 Ark. 925, 251 S.W.2d 470.
                  III.  MORE THAN THREE CASINOS
     Intervenor Crochet contends that, while the proposed amendment
limits the number of locations where casino gambling is authorized
to three, the language of the ballot title will mislead voters into
thinking that more than three casino locations are authorized --
two at sites other than Oaklawn Racetrack and an unlimited number
at or adjacent to Oaklawn Racetrack.  Intervenor Crochet contends
that the proposal will authorize as many casinos as there are
tracts of land adjacent to Oaklawn Racetrack.  
     We find nothing misleading about the following language of the
ballot title:  "If authorized by voters . . . casino gambling shall
be lawful at or adjacent to the Oaklawn Racetrack . . . and at two
other casino establishments in Hot Springs located at sites to be
approved by the governing body of Hot Springs[.]"  We have no
hesitancy in concluding that the voter will be able to understand
that the words "two other casino establishments" mean that a total
of only three casino locations will be authorized.  We are
confident that any potential abuse resulting from the use of the
term "casino establishments" would be remedied through regulation
by the state as provided in the proposed amendment.
             IV.  PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING ON DOG RACING
     Intervenor Crochet contends that the ballot title is
misleading because it does not inform voters of a substantial
change in the law, namely that the proposed amendment will now
constitutionally authorize pari-mutuel wagering on dog races.  This
argument is based upon an entirely false premise and is therefore
wholly without merit.  
     It is true that pari-mutuel wagering on dog racing is
currently allowed in this state not by way of constitutional law
but by way of statutory law.  Ark. Code Ann.  23-111-101 to -515
(Repl. 1992 & Supp. 1995); Scott v. Dunaway, 228 Ark. 943, 311 S.W.2d 305 (1958).  However, it is not true that the proposed
amendment would change the law so that pari-mutuel wagering on dog
races would be constitutionally authorized.
     The ballot title and proposed amendment prohibit wagering
activities, including lotteries, casinos, and gambling activities
other than pari-mutuel wagering on horses and dogs, that are not
authorized in this proposal or other proposals passed in the
November 5, 1996, election.  While this language does not prohibit
pari-mutuel wagering on dog racing, it does not expressly authorize
it via the proposed constitutional amendment either.  Moreover,
this language does not change Arkansas law; it simply preserves the
status quo.  The fact that pari-mutuel wagering on dog racing is
not prohibited by our current constitution or the proposed
amendment simply does not mean that such wagering would be
constitutionally authorized if the proposed amendment passes.
     All arguments presented are without merit.  Accordingly, we
deny the petition for injunction.
                            ADDENDUM
     The following is the complete text of the ballot title of
proposed Amendment 4:
     A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO
     ESTABLISH A STATE-OWNED LOTTERY, TO BE REGULATED BY THE
     GENERAL ASSEMBLY; REQUIRING ALL STATE LOTTERY PROCEEDS,
     LESS EXPENSES AND PRIZES, TO BE APPROPRIATED AS FOLLOWS: 
     50% FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND 50% TO LOCAL PUBLIC SCHOOL
     DISTRICTS (ALLOCATED BY AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE);
     EXPRESSING INTENT THAT SUCH APPROPRIATIONS BE IN ADDITION
     TO AND NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR FUNDS OTHERWISE APPROPRIATED
     FOR SUCH PURPOSES; PROHIBITING SALE OF LOTTERY TICKETS TO
     MINORS OR THROUGH PURCHASER-OPERATED DEVICES; PROVIDING
     BINGO GAMES AND RAFFLES MAY BE CONDUCTED FOR CHARITABLE
     PURPOSES BY NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, AND SHALL BE
     REGULATED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY; PROVIDING IF
     AUTHORIZED BY VOTERS IN THE CITY OF HOT SPRINGS, CASINO
     GAMBLING SHALL BE LAWFUL AT OR ADJACENT TO THE OAKLAWN
     RACETRACK, WHEN CONDUCTED BY A PARI-MUTUEL FRANCHISEE,
     AND AT TWO OTHER CASINO ESTABLISHMENTS IN HOT SPRINGS
     LOCATED AT SITES TO BE APPROVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF
     HOT SPRINGS; DEFINING CASINO GAMBLING AS WAGERING ON
     GAMES PLAYED WITH CARDS, DICE, OR ANY MECHANICAL,
     ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ELECTROMECHANICAL OR COMPUTER
     DEVICE; DEFINING OAKLAWN RACETRACK AS THE OAKLAWN
     RACETRACK SITE IN HOT SPRINGS WHERE PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING
     ON HORSE RACING WAS CONDUCTED IN 1995; DEFINING PARI-
     MUTUEL FRANCHISEE AS A PERSON OR ENTITY THAT HOLDS A
     PARI-MUTUEL FRANCHISE AND CONDUCTS PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING
     ON HORSE RACING AT OAKLAWN RACETRACK; PROVIDING FOR A
     LOCAL ELECTION IN HOT SPRINGS 90 TO 150 DAYS AFTER
     PASSAGE OF THE AMENDMENT AND FOR FUTURE ELECTIONS IN HOT
     SPRINGS REGARDING AUTHORIZATION OF CASINO GAMBLING AT THE
     LOCATIONS SET FORTH ABOVE; PROVIDING THE FORM OF BALLOT
     QUESTION FOR ANY SUCH LOCAL ELECTION; PROVIDING IF CASINO
     GAMBLING IS AUTHORIZED BY HOT SPRINGS VOTERS, SUCH
     AUTHORIZATION MAY NOT BE AMENDED OR REPEALED EXCEPT AT A
     SUBSEQUENT LOCAL ELECTION HELD NO EARLIER THAN FIVE YEARS
     THEREAFTER; PROVIDING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL REGULATE
     SUCH CASINO GAMBLING AND PRESCRIBE PROCEDURES FOR ISSUING
     CASINO OPERATOR LICENSES TO A PARI-MUTUEL FRANCHISEE AND
     TWO OTHER PERSONS OR ENTITIES; PROVIDING CASINO GAMBLING
     AT OR ADJACENT TO OAKLAWN RACETRACK SHALL NOT BE LIMITED
     TO TIMES WHEN PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING IS CONDUCTED;
     REQUIRING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO LEVY A PRIVILEGE TAX ON
     CASINO OPERATORS OF 14% TO 18% OF NET CASINO GAMBLING
     REVENUES; PROHIBITING OTHER SPECIAL TAXES OR FEES WITH
     RESPECT TO CASINO GAMBLING OR RELATED ACTIVITIES;
     ALLOCATING SUCH PRIVILEGE TAX 85% TO THE STATE, 10% TO
     HOT SPRINGS, AND 5% TO GARLAND COUNTY; PROHIBITING
     PERSONS UNDER AGE 21 FROM PARTICIPATING IN CASINO
     GAMBLING; PROHIBITING WAGERING ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN
     PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING ON HORSES AND GREYHOUNDS AND THOSE
     ACTIVITIES AUTHORIZED BY THE AMENDMENT OR ANY OTHER
     AMENDMENT(S) TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION APPROVED BY
     VOTERS AT THE NOVEMBER 5, 1996 GENERAL ELECTION;
     REPEALING ALL CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND LAWS TO THE
     EXTENT THEY CONFLICT WITH THE AMENDMENT; RETAINING THE
     EXISTING CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION MAKING HORSE RACING AND
     PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING THEREON LAWFUL IN HOT SPRINGS;
     RENDERING THE PROVISIONS OF THE AMENDMENT SEVERABLE; AND
     DECLARING THE AMENDMENT OPERATIVE UPON PASSAGE.