Special Master Randy Wright says 6,000 signatures should be rejected
A row of slot machines stands at Harrah’s casino in New Orleans. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
LITTLE ROCK – A special master to the Arkansas Supreme Court found nearly 6,000 signatures supporting an anti-casino ballot initiative should be disqualified because of insufficient addresses, according to a report submitted Monday.
Other challenges to the proposed ballot measure — such as potential issues with an agent signing affidavits in place of a sponsor — that were made in an original action petition filed last month were rejected.
Special Master Randy Wright’s (of Hope) report will inform the state’s highest court as it determines whether votes cast on the proposed constitutional amendment in November will be counted. Additional briefs are expected in the coming weeks, and petitioners said a ruling is likely in mid-October.
The proposed amendment aims to repeal a Pope County casino license and require any new casino built in the state to be approved in a countywide special election before a license is issued.
“We’re pleased, but not surprised by the Special Master’s report,” said Hans Stiritz, spokesperson for Local Voters in Charge, a group supporting the measure. “As we’ve said from the beginning, thanks to the support of Arkansas voters signing our petition in unprecedented numbers across the state, we are committed to ensuring that local voters throughout Arkansas have the final say on whether a casino should be built in their communities.”
Local Voters in Charge submitted more than 162,000 signatures on the state’s deadline of July 5, well surpassing the required 90,704. Secretary of State John Thurston’s office validated more than 116,000 signatures on July 31.
The following day, the Arkansas Canvassing Compliance Committee formed and filed a petition against Thurston challenging the anti-casino initiative. The group asked that all signatures be disqualified. A week later, the Arkansas Supreme Court appointed Wright “as special master to resolve factual disputes raised in the petition” as it pertained to petitioners’ claim of insufficient signatures.
Wright’s report addressed allegations against Local Voters in Charge, such as paid canvassers’ insufficient addresses, monetary incentives for signature collection and paperwork technicalities.
While Wright largely found no violations in the ballot question committee’s collection, he took issue with nine addresses of paid canvassers, which resulted in his recommendation to throw out 5,966 signatures.
The attorney general’s office, while representing Thurston, argued all signatures collected by Local Voters in Charge should be disqualified because of a technicality regarding who signed their affidavit documents.
Because an agent signed on behalf of the ballot question committee, and not the group’s sponsor, the signatures should not be counted, the attorney general’s office argued.
Wright says in his report that the secretary of state’s office knew Local Voters in Charge had agents submitting and signing documents, which the office accepted as it had done in the past.
Wright said the ballot question committee “did not know that the respondent [Secretary of State] would later change the interpretation of ‘sponsor’ in Section 601(b)(3) or deem their submissions and certifications non-compliant.”
Wright said Local Voters in Charge relied on the secretary of state’s office “to its detriment.”
In a recent case before the Arkansas Supreme Court, justices ruled 4-3 to keep a proposed constitutional amendment to allow Arkansans limited access to abortion off the November ballot because of paperwork issues. While the “sponsor” signee issue was raised in the case, the court’s majority said supporters to the amendment did not file the correct paperwork at the right time.
When asked about Wright’s report, Attorney General Tim Griffin said, “I thank the special master for his careful review of the factual disputes in this case. But the dispute about how to read 7-9-601 is a question of law — not of fact — that will be determined by the Arkansas Supreme Court.”
Wright found that ACCC did not provide enough evidence to prove Local Voters in Charge had given, or offered, monetary incentives for canvassers who collected more signatures.
“We are currently reviewing the special master’s report in detail and look forward to filing our opening brief with the Arkansas Supreme Court on Sept. 16 as the legal process continues,” said Allison Burum, spokesperson for the ACCC.