Summary
The Supreme Court of Arkansas denied a petition challenging the sufficiency of the popular name and ballot title for Proposed Amendment 3, an amendment concerning marriage. The court held that the popular name and ballot title were intelligible, honest, and impartial, and that the petitioners had not shown that the title was misleading or insufficient. The court declined to resolve speculative questions about the amendment's future effects on existing laws, civil unions, domestic partnerships, or common-law marriages.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the popular name "An Amendment Concerning Marriage" was misleading or insufficient because it did not expressly identify the amendment's provisions concerning legal status for unmarried persons.
- Whether the ballot title was vague or misleading because the phrase "legal status for unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to marital status" was allegedly unclear.
- Whether the ballot title was insufficient for failing to disclose speculative effects on existing laws protecting married and unmarried persons.
- Whether the ballot title was insufficient for failing to specify whether civil unions or domestic partnerships would be prohibited or unrecognized.
- Whether the ballot title misleadingly suggested that recognition of common-law marriages from other states would require future legislative action.
Holdings
- The popular name "An Amendment Concerning Marriage" was intelligible, honest, and impartial and did not contain inflammatory language, political catchwords, or partisan coloring. It sufficiently identified the subject of Proposed Amendment 3.
- The phrase "legal status for unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to marital status" was not vague or misleading when read in context, and the ballot title sufficiently informed voters of the proposed amendment.
- The ballot title was not insufficient for failing to disclose possible or speculative effects on existing statutes and constitutional provisions.
- The ballot title was not misleading for failing to identify particular forms of relationships, such as civil unions or domestic partnerships, because the amendment itself did not specifically define or prohibit those relationships.
- The ballot title was not insufficient merely because it did not describe the current state of Arkansas law concerning recognition of marriages from other states.
Key quotations
“The fact that a term is capable of more than one possible meaning does not render the term meaningless, so long as its meaning may be fairly gleaned from the context in which it is used.” (778)
“It is not necessary that a ballot title include every possible consequence or impact of a proposed measure.” (780)
“Until such legislation is enacted, we cannot know whether the amendment will prohibit civil unions or domestic partnerships.” (783)
Factual background
Proposed Amendment 3 would provide that marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman, prohibit recognition of legal status for unmarried persons identical or substantially similar to marital status, and authorize the General Assembly to determine the capacity, rights, obligations, privileges, and immunities of marriage. Its popular name was "An Amendment Concerning Marriage," and its ballot title substantially mirrored the amendment's text. Petitioners argued that the name and title failed to disclose the measure's potential effects on unmarried persons, civil unions, domestic partnerships, existing laws, and common-law marriages.
Procedural history
The Attorney General approved the popular name and ballot title on March 12, 2004, and the Secretary of State certified them as sufficient. After sufficient signatures were collected, the Secretary of State certified Proposed Amendment 3 for the November 2, 2004, general election. Petitioners filed this original action on August 26, 2004; the Supreme Court of Arkansas heard oral argument on September 23, 2004, and denied the petition.