Crochet v. Priest

Gerald J. CROCHET, Jr., Petitioner v. Sharon
PRIEST, In Her Official Capacity as Secretary
of State of the State of Arkansas,
Respondent; 
Bill Walmsley, Individually and as President
of the Arkansas Horsemen's Benevolent and
Protective Association, Inc., an Arkansas
Corporation, Petitioners v. Sharon Priest, In
Her Official Capacity as Secretary of State
of the State of Arkansas, Respondent; 
The Committee for Lottery, Charitable Bingo
and Raffles, and Video Games, Intervenor

96-1013, 96-1021                                   ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered October 21, 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 -- determining sufficiency of --
     Ark. Const. amend. 7 liberally construed. -- Amendment 7 to
     the Arkansas Constitution places the burden of proof in legal
     challenges to initiative matters upon those who challenge the
     proposed measure; when determining the sufficiency of ballot
     titles, the supreme court construes the requirements of
     Amendment 7 liberally in order to secure its purposes to
     reserve to the people the right to adopt or reject
     legislation; however, that liberality is not without limits or
     common sense; the question is not how the members of the
     supreme court feel concerning the wisdom of the proposed
     amendment but instead whether Amendment 7's requirements for
     submission of the proposal to the voters have been satisfied.

4.   Elections -- supreme court vested with original and exclusive
     jurisdiction over sufficiency of statewide petitions. -- The
     supreme court, under Ark. Const. amend. 7, is vested with
     original and exclusive jurisdiction over the sufficiency of
     statewide petitions; thus, while the court considered the fact
     that the attorney general had certified the ballot title, the
     court did not defer to the attorney general's opinion or give
     it presumptive effect.

5.   Elections -- practical constraint on length of proposed
     amendment and its ballot title. -- Although length is a
     consideration, it is by no means the determining factor on the
     question of the sufficiency of a ballot title; likewise, there
     is no restriction on the length of a proposed amendment;
     however, there is in effect a practical constraint on the
     length of both a proposed amendment and its ballot title that
     stems from the requirements that a ballot title convey the
     scope and import of the proposal while also imparting a fair
     description of the proposal to allow voters to vote
     intelligently in the limited time allotted them in a voting
     booth.

6.   Elections -- ballot title -- supreme court declined to hold
     insufficient on length alone. -- Although the proposed
     amendment and ballot title were, in relative terms, at least
     as long and detailed as most that the supreme court had
     considered, the court declined to hold the ballot title
     insufficient because of its length alone; rather, the length
     was but one consideration for the court as it determined the
     sufficiency of the ballot title.

7.   Elections -- ballot title -- material information concerning
     powers of lottery commission omitted. -- The proposed
     amendment would have created an Arkansas Lottery Commission
     and would have given the commission the power to amend the
     terms of the amendment as it related to bingo and raffles; the
     supreme court noted that this power of the commission to amend
     a constitutional amendment was not disclosed in the ballot
     title; before casting their votes, citizens no doubt would
     pause for reflection if they were aware that they might be
     giving the commission authority to amend, or even completely
     rewrite, parts of the very amendment upon which they were
     voting; the supreme court concluded that the omission in the
     ballot title of the commission's power to amend the terms of
     the proposed amendment was a material omission that rendered
     the ballot title insufficient.

8.   Elections -- popular name and ballot title -- use of term
     "video terminal games" misleading -- tinged with partisan
     coloring. -- The supreme court held that, as used in the
     ballot title, the term "video terminal games" was misleading
     and tinged with partisan coloring because it did not evoke
     images or thoughts of gambling in any respect; any possible
     enlightenment from the ballot title's definition was diluted
     by the strategic placement of the definition midway through
     the lengthy ballot title; the court concluded that the use of
     the term "video terminal games" created a fatally misleading
     tendency in the popular name and ballot title and tinged them
     with partisan coloring.

9.   Elections -- ballot title -- reference to "twenty-five cent
     video terminal games" misleading. -- The supreme court held
     that the ballot title was misleading in its use of the term
     "twenty-five cent video terminal games" and the appearance of
     numerous references to the amount of twenty-five cents,
     especially when coupled with the omission of the two-dollar
     maximum wager on a single play; it was clear that while the
     "video terminal games" would accept a twenty-five-cent coin,
     twenty-five cents was not a limitation on the amount of the
     total wager; rather, the text of the proposal clearly provided
     a two-dollar limit on the amount of the total wager for a
     single play; voters would no doubt pause for reflection if
     they knew that, by voting for a ballot title that would
     authorize "twenty-five cent video terminal games," they were
     in fact voting for an amendment that would authorize two-
     dollar video terminal games.

10.  Elections -- popular name and ballot title held
     constitutionally insufficient -- request for injunctive relief
     granted. -- The supreme court held the proposed amendment's
     popular name and ballot title insufficient to satisfy the
     requirements of Ark. Const. amend. 7 and granted petitioners'
     request for injunctive relief; the court enjoined respondent
     placing proposed Amendment 5 on the ballot for the general
     election or, alternatively, from canvassing and declaring the
     results.


     Original Action Petition; granted.
     Petitioner Gerald J. Crochet, Jr., pro se.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Melissa K. Rust, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for respondent.
     Tom Thompson, for petitioner Bill Walmsley.
     Arnold, Grobmyer & Haley, by:  Robert R. Ross, for intervenor.

     Donald L. Corbin, Justice.
     Two original action petitions filed pursuant to Amendment 7 to
the Arkansas Constitution of 1874 were consolidated in this case. 
Both petitions seek injunctions restraining Respondent, Secretary
of State Sharon Priest, from placing proposed Amendment 5 to the
Arkansas Constitution, which bears the popular name "AN AMENDMENT
TO AUTHORIZE LOTTERY TICKET GAMES, CHARITABLE BINGO, RAFFLES, AND
VIDEO TERMINAL GAMES" on the ballot for the general election to be
held November 5, 1996.  Alternatively, they request Respondent be
enjoined from canvassing and declaring the results of proposed
Amendment 5.
     Petitioners are Bill Walmsley, individually and on behalf of
the Arkansas Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association,
Incorporated, and Gerald J. Crochet, Jr., a citizen, resident,
taxpayer, and registered voter of this state.  We allowed the
intervention of The Committee For Lottery, Charitable Bingo and
Raffles, and Video Terminal Games, a ballot question committee as
defined in Ark. Code Ann.  7-9-402(2) (Repl. 1993).  Petitioners
challenge both the popular name and ballot title of the proposed
amendment.  The text of the ballot title is appended to this
opinion.  We find merit to their claim that the popular name and
ballot title are insufficient and therefore grant the petition
requesting injunctive relief.  
                       Procedural History
     The following facts are taken from the petitions and responses
filed in this case.  The sponsors of the proposed amendment
submitted a proposed popular name and ballot title to the Attorney
General of this state on February 9, 1996.  Approximately six to
ten days later, the Attorney General expressed concern over the
length of the proposed ballot title and its susceptibility to
challenge, but nevertheless certified the popular name as submitted
and a substituted ballot title.  On August 9, 1996, Respondent
certified the proposed amendment to be placed on the ballot for the
November 5, 1996, general election.
     Petitioners Crochet and Walmsley filed separate original-
action petitions on August 29 and 30, 1996, respectively.  On
September 23, 1998, we granted three motions concerning these
petitions:  Intervenor's motion to intervene in Petitioner
Walmsley's case, Petitioner Crochet's motion to consolidate the two
cases, and Petitioner Crochet's motion to expedite the cases for
our consideration.
                       Standard of Review
          Sufficiency of Popular Name and Ballot Title

     We recently summarized the applicable standard for our review
of ballot-title cases:
          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).

Parker v. Priest, 326 Ark. 123, ___,  ___ S.W.2d ___, ___ (1996).
     Amendment 7 places the burden of proof in legal challenges to
initiative matters upon those who challenge the proposed measure.
Christian Civic Action Comm. v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 241, 884 S.W.2d 605 (1994).  When determining the sufficiency of ballot titles, we
construe the requirements of Amendment 7 liberally  in order to
secure its purposes to reserve to the people the right to adopt or
reject legislation; however, that liberality is not without limits
or common sense.  Id.; Gaines v. McCuen, 296 Ark. 513, 758 S.W.2d 403 (1988).  The question is not how the members of this court feel
concerning the wisdom of the proposed amendment, but rather whether
Amendment 7's requirements for submission of the proposal to the
voters have been satisfied.  Ferstl v. McCuen, 296 Ark. 504, 758 S.W.2d 398 (1988).  Amendment 7 vests original and exclusive
jurisdiction over the sufficiency of statewide petitions to this
court.  Thus, while we consider the fact that the Attorney General
certified this ballot title, we do not defer to the Attorney
General's opinion or give it presumptive effect.  Bailey v. McCuen,
318 Ark. 277, 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994).
              Length and Complexity of Ballot Title
     Petitioners contend that the proposed amendment, with its 11
definitions, 17 sections, and 127 subsections, is so all-
encompassing and expansive that it precludes an acceptable ballot
title.  As a result, argue Petitioners, the approximate 1,000 words
in the ballot title do not adequately inform the voter in
sufficient detail of the content of the proposed amendment.  Both
Respondent and Intervenor view this argument as one coming out of
both sides of Petitioners' mouths, i.e., the ballot title is too
long but also omits material information.
     To the contrary, we view this argument as an attempt to align
the present case with this court's statements in Page v. McCuen,
318 Ark. 342, 347, 884 S.W.2d 951, 954 (1994): 
     The Amendment 5 sponsors' choice or insistence in
     covering the establishment and operation of casino gaming
     in so much detail can be said to have sounded the
     proposal's own death knell.  Here, proposed Amendment 5
     is so all-encompassing that to include every important
     factor of the proposal in the ballot title would cause
     the ballot title to be so complex, detailed and lengthy
     that the Arkansas voter could not intelligently make a
     choice on the title within the five minutes allowed in
     the voting booth.  Cf. Dust v. Riviere, Secretary of
     State, 277 Ark. 1, 638 S.W.2d 663 (1977); see also Gaines
     v. McCuen, 296 Ark. 513, 758 S.W.2d 403 (1988); Ark. Code
     Ann.  7-5-522(d) (Repl. 1993).  Although Amendment 7 to
     the Arkansas Constitution does not specify a limit on the
     length of a proposal, the proposed measure must be of a
     size capable of having a ballot title which will not only
     convey the scope and import of the measure, but also
     impart a description of the proposal so voters can cast
     their votes intelligently and with a fair understanding
     on the issue.  In sum, proposed Amendment 5 is so
     expansive that it precludes the writing of an acceptable
     ballot title.

Indeed, Petitioners cite Page in support of this argument. 
However, they also acknowledge that length alone does not render a
ballot title insufficient and argue that when the length is
combined with the omissions and misleading language, this ballot
title is insufficient.
     Petitioners are correct that while length is a consideration,
it is by no means the determining factor on the question of the
sufficiency of a ballot title.  Parker, 326 Ark. 123, ___ S.W.2d
___.   Likewise, there is no restriction on the length of a
proposed amendment.  Page, 318 Ark. 342, 884 S.W.2d 951 (citing
Amendment 7).  As this court intimated in the foregoing quotation
from Page, however, there is in effect a practical constraint on
the length of both a proposed amendment and its ballot title that
stems from the requirements that a ballot title convey the scope
and import of the proposal while also imparting a fair description
of the proposal to allow voters to vote intelligently in the
limited time allotted them in a voting booth.  In the words of the
Attorney General's opinion certifying the ballot title at issue
here, "with any proposed initiative similar in length to the one
submitted in this instance, the sponsor runs the risk of an
unacceptable ballot title." 
     The present proposed amendment and ballot title are, in
relative terms, at least as long and detailed as most that have
been considered by this court.  See, e.g., Page, 318 Ark. 342, 884 S.W.2d 951.  Nevertheless, we decline to hold the ballot title
insufficient because of its length alone.  Rather, the length is
but one consideration for us as we determine the sufficiency of the
ballot title.
 Omission of Material Information -- Expansive Powers of Commission
     Petitioners contend that the proposed amendment creates an
Arkansas Lottery Commission and grants sweeping and comprehensive
powers to the Commission that will have enormous consequences
without disclosing these powers in the popular name or ballot
title.  We agree.
     We find particularly disturbing the following language from
Section 8(d)(6) of the proposed amendment:

          The Arkansas Lottery Commission shall prescribe such
     other rules and regulations as it deems necessary for the
     conduct and regulation of Bingo and Raffles and shall
     retain full authority to change any and all provisions of
     this amendment pertaining to charitable bingo and raffle
     games at its sole discretion as times and conditions may
     dictate.  [Emphasis added.]

The proposed amendment thus clearly gives the Commission the power
to amend the terms of the amendment as it relates to bingo and
raffles.  This power of the Commission to amend a constitutional
amendment is not disclosed in the ballot title.  Respondent and
Intervenors argue that the ballot title's disclosure of the
Commission's authority to adopt rules and regulations includes a
disclosure that the Commission has authority to amend the proposed
amendment.  We disagree.
     Under present law, the Arkansas Constitution may only be
amended by two methods.  The General Assembly may draft amendments
and submit them to the voters pursuant to Article 19, Section 22,
and the people may propose amendments through the initiative
process pursuant to Amendment 7, as was done in this case.  The
marked departure from existing law created by Section 8(d)(6) of
the proposed amendment should have been disclosed in the ballot
title.  Before casting their votes, citizens no doubt would pause
for reflection if they were aware that they might be giving the
Commission authority to amend, or even completely rewrite, parts of
the very amendment upon which they were voting.  Thus, we conclude
that the omission in the ballot title of the Commission's power to
amend the terms of this amendment is a material omission that
renders this ballot title insufficient.  We note that this is but
one example of material omissions in the ballot title  concerning
the Commission's powers.  The Commission's power to raise the price
of wagers is discussed later herein.  There are others we could
discuss, but find it unnecessary to do so.   
              Use of the Term "Video Terminal Game"
     According to the text of the proposed amendment, ballot title,
and popular name, the proposed amendment authorizes "video terminal
games."  The popular name does not give a definition for the term
"video terminal games."  The ballot title, however, defines "video
terminal gaming" as follows:  "AN ELECTRONIC VIDEO GAME THAT, UPON
INSERTION OF TWENTY-FIVE CENT COINS, PROVIDES CREDITS TO PLAY OR
SIMULATE THE PLAY OF AUTHORIZED GAMES AND THAT ISSUES A PAY SLIP TO
A WINNING PLAYER THAT MAY BE REDEEMED FOR CASH[.]"  Prior to this
definition, the ballot title states that "THE GAMES OF BINGO, KENO
AND POKER ARE INITIALLY AUTHORIZED TO BE PLAYED ON THE VIDEO
TERMINALS[.]"  Petitioners contend that to the extent the term
"video terminal games" refers to what are more commonly known as
slot machines, the language of the term is misleading.  Petitioners
argue that the voters will not realize that "video terminal games"
are slot machines.  
     Respondent and Intervenor neither admit nor deny that the term
"video terminal games" includes slot machines.  Rather, they rely
on the definition in the ballot title to clear up any misleading
tendencies, and Intervenor argues further that Petitioners have not
explained how slot machines differ from bingo, keno, and poker. 
Intervenor thus ignores the problem.  We are not concerned with the
difference here.  Quite to the contrary, we are concerned with the
similarity and whether voters will be able to recognize that
similarity.  Specifically, our concern is whether voters will be
able to determine that the term "video terminal games" describes
what are more commonly known as slot machines.
     Petitioners rely on Christian Civic Action Comm. v. McCuen,
318 Ark. 241, 884 S.W.2d 605, where this court held that the term
"additional racetrack wagering" was a euphemism for "casino-style
gambling" that rendered the ballot title misleading and
insufficient.  Here, Petitioner argues, in essence, that the less-
offensive term "video terminal games" is a euphemism for the more
distasteful term "slot machines."  
     The term "video terminal games" is misleading and tinged with
partisan coloring because it does not evoke images or thoughts of
gambling in any respect.  Any possible enlightenment from the
ballot title's definition is diluted by the strategic placement of
the definition midway through the lengthy ballot title.  Quite
simply, the term "video terminal games" summons absolutely no
connotation of currently illegal gambling, while the term "slot
machine" does.  To include the term "video terminal games" in an
amendment that uses words such as "lottery," "bingo," and
"raffles," the latter three of which connote games of chance or
gambling, while the first does not, is to tinge the term "video
terminal games" with partisan coloring.
     While voters may be able to discern that the term "video
terminal games" means slot machines, they should not be forced to
guess the meaning of a proposed amendment to their state's
constitution.  The very purpose of the ballot title is to convey a
fair and impartial understanding of the proposal.  To call slot
machines "video terminal games," which connotes a present-day video
game such as Nintendo or Sega Genesis, is anything but fair and
impartial.  Consequently, we conclude that the use of the term
"video terminal games" creates a fatally misleading tendency in the
popular name and ballot title and tinges them with partisan
coloring. 
             Minimum Wager on "Video Terminal Games"
     The very first five lines of the ballot title state:  "AN
AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZING LOTTERY TICKET
GAMES, CHARITABLE BINGO, RAFFLES, AND TWENTY-FIVE CENT VIDEO
TERMINAL GAMES" (emphasis added).  Petitioners contend that this
deceptively implies that the "video terminal games" authorized by
the proposed amendment will allow only twenty-five-cent wagers.  
     We agree that the ballot title is misleading on this point
because Section 9(c)(3)(B) of the text of the proposed amendment
provides that "a Video Terminal Game may be played for a minimum 25
cent coin deposit.  The maximum single play that may be placed on
a Video Terminal games is [sic] $2.00 during the first five (5)
years of operation, but thereafter may be increased by the Arkansas
Lottery Commission."  Thus, it is clear that while the "video
terminal games" accept a twenty-five-cent coin, twenty-five cents
is not a limitation on the amount of the total wager.  Rather, the
text of the proposal clearly provides a two-dollar limit on the
amount of the total wager for a single play.  Moreover, in addition
to the authority to raise that initial limit of two dollars on the
maximum wager, Section 4(c)(14) gives the Commission additional
authority, after the expiration of the approximate five-year start-
up period, to "change the amount of money required for a single
play on video terminal games from 25› to an amount higher or lower,
that more accurately reflects the times and conditions at hand." 
     Respondent and Intervenor rely on the following language,
which occurs midway through the ballot title:  "VIDEO TERMINAL
GAMING MEANS AN ELECTRONIC VIDEO GAME THAT, UPON INSERTION OF
TWENTY-FIVE CENT COINS . . . ."  Respondent and Intervenor argue
that the use of the plural "coins" reveals that twenty-five cents
is not the minimum wager.  While we have the utmost confidence in
the voters' abilities to distinguish the plural from the singular
form of a word, we cannot conclude that a single letter "s" cures
the misleading tendency created by the use of the term "twenty-five
cent video terminal games" in the first five lines of the ballot
title, especially when that single letter "s" occurs some seventy
lines later.  In short, the use of the plural "coins" does not
disclose that the proposed amendment actually authorizes a two-
dollar wager.  Voters would no doubt pause for reflection if they
knew that by voting for a ballot title that authorizes "twenty-five
cent video terminal games," they were in fact voting for an
amendment that authorizes two-dollar video terminal games.  We
conclude the appearance of numerous references to the amount of
twenty-five cents is misleading, especially when coupled with the
omission of the two-dollar maximum wager on a single play.
     Other misleading tendencies and omissions could be
illustrated, but the aforementioned examples suffice to demonstrate
that the popular name and ballot title are insufficient.  The
length of this ballot title complicates these insufficiencies. 
Accordingly, we hold the proposed amendment's popular name and
ballot title insufficient to satisfy the requirements of
Amendment 7.  Petitioners' request for injunctive relief is
granted.  Respondent is enjoined from placing proposed Amendment 5
on the ballot for the November 5, 1996, general election. 
Alternatively, Respondent is enjoined from canvassing and declaring
the results on proposed Amendment 5.
     The mandate is ordered issued on Friday, October 25, 1996,
unless a petition for rehearing is filed.  If a petition for
rehearing is filed, briefing will be on an expedited basis to be
set by the clerk.
     Petition granted.
     Special Justice Doddridge M. Daggett joins in this opinion.
     Dudley, J., not participating.
                            ADDENDUM
                         (Ballot Title)
     AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZING
     LOTTERY TICKET GAMES, CHARITABLE BINGO, RAFFLES, AND
     TWENTY-FIVE CENT VIDEO TERMINAL GAMES; CREATING A SEVEN-
     MEMBER ARKANSAS LOTTERY COMMISSION TO BE APPOINTED BY THE
     GOVERNOR, SUBJECT TO CONFIRMATION BY THE SENATE, TO
     ESTABLISH AND CONDUCT THE LOTTERY TICKET GAMES AND TO
     REGULATE CHARITABLE BINGO, RAFFLES AND VIDEO TERMINAL
     GAMES AUTHORIZED BY THE AMENDMENT; PROVIDING THAT THE
     COMMISSION SHALL APPOINT A DIRECTOR TO DIRECT THE
     OPERATIONS OF THE LOTTERY TICKET GAMES; AUTHORIZING THE
     COMMISSION TO SPECIFY WHAT LOTTERY TICKET GAMES MAY BE
     CONDUCTED AND TO REGULATE THE SELECTION OF RETAIL
     ORGANIZATIONS AUTHORIZED TO SELL LOTTERY TICKETS;
     PROHIBITING LOTTERY TICKET SALES TO ANYONE UNDER 21 YEARS
     OF AGE OR THROUGH ANY PURCHASER OPERATED SYSTEM; PROVIDED
     THAT THE REVENUES FROM THE STATE LOTTERY WILL BE
     ALLOCATED AS FOLLOWS:  AN AVERAGE OF 50 PERCENT IN PRIZES
     TO PLAYERS; 32 PERCENT TO FUND THE ARKANSAS LOTTERY
     PHARMACEUTICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR MATURE ARKANSANS TO
     ASSIST WITH THE COST OF PRESCRIPTION MEDICINES FOR THOSE
     WHO MEET THE AGE, INCOME AND HARDSHIP QUALIFICATION; 10
     PERCENT TO THE ARKANSAS LOTTERY COMMISSION TO COVER COSTS
     OF ADMINISTERING THE ARKANSAS LOTTERY AND REPAYMENT OF
     START-UP FINANCING WITH ANY REMAINING BALANCE TO BE
     APPLIED TO THE ARKANSAS LOTTERY PHARMACEUTICAL ASSISTANCE
     PROGRAM FOR MATURE ARKANSANS; AND 8 PERCENT TO ARKANSAS
     LOTTERY RETAILERS IN PROPORTION TO THE RETAILER'S SALE OF
     LOTTERY TICKETS; PROVIDING THAT CHARITABLE BINGO GAMES
     AND RAFFLES MAY BE CONDUCTED BY ANY NON-PROFIT, TAX-
     EXEMPT RELIGIOUS, EDUCATION, VETERANS', FRATERNAL,
     SERVICE, CIVIC, MEDICAL, VOLUNTEER RESCUE SERVICE,
     FIREFIGHTERS', VOLUNTEER POLICE ORGANIZATION OR OTHER
     ORGANIZATION WHICH HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE IN THIS STATE
     FOR NOT LESS THAN THREE (3) YEARS AND WHICH HAS BEEN
     ISSUED A CURRENT LICENSE TO CONDUCT THE GAMES;
     RESTRICTING THE HOURS THAT BINGO GAMES AUTHORIZED BY THIS
     AMENDMENT MAY BE CONDUCTED; REQUIRING ALL NET RECEIPTS
     EXCEEDING THE ACTUAL COST OF CONDUCTING A BINGO GAME OR
     RAFFLES TO BE USED ONLY FOR CHARITABLE, RELIGIOUS OR
     PHILANTHROPIC PURPOSES; PROVIDING THAT THE ARKANSAS
     LOTTERY COMMISSION SHALL PROMULGATE RULES AND REGULATIONS
     FOR LICENSING, MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT FOR THE
     PLACEMENT AND OPERATION OF VIDEO TERMINALS IN ARKANSAS;
     PROVIDING THAT THE GAMES OF BINGO, KENO AND POKER ARE
     INITIALLY AUTHORIZED TO BE PLAYED ON THE VIDEO TERMINALS
     AUTHORIZED BY THE AMENDMENT; PROHIBITING PLAY OF VIDEO
     TERMINAL GAMES BY ANYONE UNDER 21 YEARS OF AGE; PROVIDING
     THAT VIDEO TERMINAL GAMING MEANS AN ELECTRONIC VIDEO GAME
     THAT, UPON INSERTION OF TWENTY-FIVE CENT COINS, PROVIDES
     CREDITS TO PLAY OR SIMULATE THE PLAY OF AUTHORIZED GAMES
     AND THAT ISSUES A PAY SLIP TO A WINNING PLAYER THAT MAY
     BE REDEEMED FOR CASH; RESTRICTING THE PLACEMENT OF SUCH
     VIDEO TERMINALS TO PARI-MUTUEL FRANCHISEES AUTHORIZED TO
     CONDUCT HORSE RACING OR GREYHOUND RACING AND TO CERTAIN
     PREMISES WHICH MEET PERMIT REQUIREMENTS OF THE ARKANSAS
     ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD'S RULES AND REGULATIONS;
     LIMITING THE NUMBER OF VIDEO TERMINALS THAT MAY BE
     LOCATED AT THE AUTHORIZED LOCATIONS; PROVIDING THAT THE
     ARKANSAS LOTTERY COMMISSION AND THE ARKANSAS STATE POLICE
     LOTTERY DIVISION TO BE CREATED WILL ADMINISTER THE
     LICENSING PROGRAM CONNECTED WITH VIDEO TERMINAL GAMES;
     PROVIDING THAT THE ARKANSAS STATE POLICE LOTTERY DIVISION
     WILL MONITOR VIDEO TERMINAL GAMES ACCORDING TO GUIDELINES
     ESTABLISHED BY THE ARKANSAS LOTTERY COMMISSION; PROVIDING
     THAT LOTTERY SYSTEMS, INC., A PRIVATE ARKANSAS
     CORPORATION, SHALL SERVE AS THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE
     OPERATOR FOR ALL VIDEO TERMINAL GAMES IN THE STATE AND AS
     SUCH SHALL OWN, PLACE, INSTALL, SERVICE AND MAINTAIN THE
     VIDEO TERMINALS; PROVIDING THAT LOTTERY SYSTEMS, INC.,
     WILL SUPPLY THE START-UP FINANCING FOR THE ARKANSAS
     LOTTERY COMMISSION, THE ARKANSAS LOTTERY TICKET GAMES,
     THE ARKANSAS STATE POLICE DIVISION, AND THE VIDEO
     TERMINAL GAMES, SUBJECT TO LOTTERY SYSTEMS, INC. BEING
     REPAID, EXCEPT FOR COST OF VIDEO TERMINAL GAMES, WITH
     INTEREST BY THE ARKANSAS LOTTERY COMMISSION WITHIN FIVE
     (5) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF INITIAL FINANCING FROM LOTTERY
     GROSS REVENUES AND LICENSING FEES; REQUIRING THAT LOTTERY
     SYSTEMS, INC. NOT BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE MORE THAN
     $65,000,000 FOR THE COMBINED COSTS OF START-UP FINANCING;
     AND FOR PROCUREMENT, LICENSING AND INSTALLATION OF VIDEO
     TERMINAL MACHINES; REQUIRING LOTTERY SYSTEMS, INC.,
     BETWEEN START-UP AND SIX MONTHS AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF
     THE FIVE-YEAR START-UP PERIOD TO CAUSE ALL OF ITS
     STOCKHOLDERS TO MAKE A PUBLIC OFFERING OF ALL OF THEIR
     OWNERSHIP TO THE PUBLIC THROUGH LICENSED ARKANSAS
     SECURITY DEALERS; PROVIDING THAT IF LOTTERY SYSTEMS, INC.
     FAILS TO PROVIDE THE START-UP FINANCING, THE ARKANSAS
     LOTTERY COMMISSION SHALL DETERMINE A SUBSTITUTE METHOD
     FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS AMENDMENT;
     PROVIDING THAT THE VIDEO TERMINAL LICENSING FEES BE FIRST
     ALLOCATED TO FUND 100 PERCENT (100%) OF THE BUDGET OF THE
     ARKANSAS STATE POLICE LOTTERY DIVISION WITH THE BALANCE
     NEXT APPLIED TO FUNDING ONE-HALF OF THE ARKANSAS LOTTERY
     COMMISSION BUDGET; PROVIDING THAT THE VIDEO TERMINAL
     GROSS REVENUES SHALL BE ALLOCATED AS FOLLOWS:  AN AVERAGE
     OF 88 PERCENT TO PLAYERS; 3 PERCENT THE FIRST YEAR, 3.6
     PERCENT THE SECOND YEAR, AND 4.2 PERCENT THE THIRD YEAR
     AND 4.8 PERCENT THE FOURTH AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS TO LOCAL
     POLICE AND SHERIFFS' DEPARTMENTS, STATE GENERAL EDUCATION
     FUND AND HIGHER EDUCATION FUND AND TO NON-GOVERNMENTAL
     DIRECT SERVICE SHELTER ORGANIZATIONS TO COMBAT DOMESTIC
     VIOLENCE; 4.2 PERCENT THE FIRST YEAR, 3.72 PERCENT THE
     SECOND YEAR, 3.84 PERCENT THE THIRD YEAR AND 3.6 PERCENT
     THE FOURTH AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS TO THOSE ESTABLISHMENTS
     LICENSED AND AUTHORIZED TO PLACE VIDEO TERMINAL GAMES ON
     THEIR PREMISES; AND 4.8 PERCENT THE FIRST YEAR, 4.68
     PERCENT THE SECOND YEAR AND 3.96 PERCENT THE THIRD YEAR
     AND 3.6 PERCENT THE FOURTH AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS TO
     LOTTERY SYSTEMS, INC.; PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF ANY
     STATE OR LOCAL INCOME AND SALES TAX UPON ANY PRIZE
     WINNINGS FROM GAMES AUTHORIZED BY THE AMENDMENT;
     PROHIBITING ANY STATE OR LOCAL TAX OF ANY KIND UPON THE
     FEES OR REVENUES GENERATED PURSUANT TO THIS AMENDMENT OR
     UPON ANY ASPECT OF THE LOTTERY GAMES AUTHORIZED BY THE
     AMENDMENT; MAKING THE AMENDMENT EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE,
     RENDERING ITS PROVISIONS SEVERABLE, AND REPEALING ALL
     EXISTING LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS TO THE EXTENT
     THEY CONFLICT WITH THIS AMENDMENT; PROVIDING THAT THIS
     AMENDMENT IS SELF-EXECUTING; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.