Southland Racing Corp. v. Priest

SOUTHLAND RACING CORPORATION and Darby Henry
v. Sharon PRIEST, In Her Official Capacity as
Secretary of State of the State of Arkansas

96-1016                                            ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
              Opinion delivered September 18, 1996


Elections -- consent order -- Secretary of State directed to remove
     proposed amendment from ballot. -- Where the proponent of
     Proposed Amendment 6 as well as petitioners, the Secretary of
     State, and the Attorney General all concurred that the
     proposed amendment should be removed from the ballot, the
     supreme court directed the Secretary of State to remove
     Proposed Amendment 6 from the November 5, 1996 general
     election ballot and cease all related election activities.


     Consent Order Directing Removal of Proposed Amendment 6 From
the Ballot.
     Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, by:  Alston C. Jennings, John G.
Lile, and Stephen R. Lancaster, for petitioners.
     Ann Purvis, and Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Wendy
Michaels, Asst. Att'y Gen., for respondent.

     Per Curiam.
     On August 2, 1996, respondent Sharon Priest, Secretary of
State for the State of Arkansas, certified Proposed Amendment 6
bearing the popular name "Amendment to Prohibit Gambling on
Contests or Games of Chance or Skill and Specifically Prohibiting
Gambling on Horse Racing and Dog Racing" for the ballot for the
general election on November 5, 1996.  In doing so, the Secretary
of State declared that Proposed Amendment 6 satisfied
constitutional requirements.
     On August 30, 1996, petitioners Southland Racing Corporation
and Darby Henry (Southland) filed an original action petition in
this court under Amendment 7 of the Arkansas Constitution, alleging
(1) that there were various defects in the signatures required to
place Proposed Amendment 6 on the ballot, and (2) that the ballot
title was "insufficient, misleading, and tinged with partisan
coloring."  Southland prayed for the appointment of a special
master to make findings concerning the sufficiency of Proposed
Amendment 6, for a declaration that the ballot title is
insufficient, and for an injunction enjoining the Secretary of
State from placing Proposed Amendment 6 on the ballot.  Southland
filed a companion motion that same date for an expedited scheduling
order, for appointment of a special master, and for leave of the
court to take depositions.
     On September 6, 1996, the Secretary of State filed her
response to the original petition and asserted that she had been
informed that the proponent of Proposed Amendment 6, the Christian
Civic Action Committee, would not offer a defense to Southland's
allegations regarding various defects in the signature process. 
The Secretary of State requested that in the absence of a defense
this court remove Proposed Amendment 6 from the ballot and decline
to appoint a special master.  Attached to the Secretary of State's
response was a Resolution of the Executive Committee of the
Christian Civic Action Committee dated September 4, 1996, which
requested that the Secretary of State and Attorney General enter
into a "Consent Judgment" which "will have the effect of removing
proposed Amendment Six from the November 5, 1996, general election
ballot."  The Secretary of State also responded to Southland's
motion for an expedited scheduling order and stated that it is
moot.
     On September 11, 1996, Southland moved for expedited
consideration of the Secretary of State's consent to an order
removing Proposed Amendment 6 from the ballot or, alternatively,
for an order authorizing it to commence discovery.  Also, on
September 11, 1996, a Stipulation of Parties was filed by the
Secretary of State, Southland, and the Attorney General in which it
was agreed by those entities that Proposed Amendment 6 lacked
sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot and that it should
be struck from the ballot.  The Stipulation also states that the
Christian Civic Action Committee had informed the Secretary of
State that it could not meet its burden of establishing the
authenticity of the necessary signatures.
     It is clear to this court that the proponent of Proposed
Amendment 6 as well as Southland, the Secretary of State, and the
Attorney General all concur that the proposed amendment should be
removed from the ballot.  We, therefore, direct the Secretary of
State to remove Proposed Amendment 6 from the November 5, 1996
general election ballot and cease all election activities relating
thereto.