Mason v. Jernigan

• Decision Date: 20 September 1976
• Docket Number: AFL-CI,No. 76--197,I,76--197
• Citation: 260 Ark. 385,540 S.W.2d 851
• Parties: James L. MASON and Bob Lamb, Petitioners, v. George O. JERNIGAN, Jr., Secretary of State of the State of Arkansas, Respondent, Arkansas Statentervenor.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 851

540 S.W.2d 851

260 Ark. 385

James L. MASON and Bob Lamb, Petitioners, v. George O. JERNIGAN, Jr., Secretary of State of the State of

Arkansas, Respondent, Arkansas State AFL-CIO, Intervenor.

No. 76--197.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Sept. 20, 1976.

Supplemental Opinion on Denial of Rehearing Oct. 11, 1976.

Smith, Williams, Friday, Eldredge & Clark by William J. Smith, James W. Moore and Robert V. Light, Little Rock, for petitioners.

Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen. by Lonnie A. Powers, Deputy Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for respondent.

James E. Youngdahl, of Youngdahl, Larrison & Agee, Little Rock, for intervenor.

HARRIS, Chief Justice.

This is an original action. Petitioners, pursuant to Amendment No. 7 to the Arkansas Constitution, on July 9, 1976, filed their petition in this court, seeking to enjoin the Secretary of State from certifying to the State and County Boards of Election Commissioners the ballot title and popular name of a proposed amendment to the Constitution, known as Proposed Amendment No. 59, specifically, a proposed amendment to Amendment No. 34 of our Constitution. It is the contention of petitioners that the popular name given to the proposed amendment is misleading, deceptive, partisan, and obscures the true nature of the content of the amendment. It is also asserted that the ballot title is inadequate and insufficient and is not an impartial nor intelligible description of particular provisions, inasmuch as it distorts or withholds pertinent and vital information concerning the scope and effect of the proposed measure.

The entire amendment ¹ is not of great length. The popular name given the proposal is 'Amendment to the 'Rights of Labor' Amendment' and it is contended that the name given is deficient in that it has a tendency to mislead the voter. Petitioners point out that the present constitutional provision (Amendment No. 34), when adopted at the General Election of 1944, bore the popular name 'Freedom to Work;' that this is the name that has been generally used in identifying this particular constitutional provision in legal periodicals and press articles, and that the public is familiar with that title. While this is true, the fact remains that the phrase 'Right to Work' is only what might be termed a commonplace, or informal identification of the Act. Actually, the official compilation of the laws of Arkansas characterizes Amendment No. 34 as 'Rights of Labor,' this designation being approved by the Arkansas Statute Revision Commission, ² which is charged with the duties necessary to the publication of our statutes, and such designation has been used from 1947 to the present time, appearing in like manner in the last (1975) Supplement to the Digest.

The ballot title in question provides as follows:

'An Amendment to Amendment No. 34, 'Rights of Labor.' To the Constitution of Arkansas: To continue those provisions of Amendment No. 34 which prohibit denial of employment because of membership in, affiliation with, resignation from, or refusal to join a labor union, prohibit any contract which denies employment because of membership in, refusal to join, or resignation from a labor union, and prohibit compelling of the payment of labor organization dues as a condition of employment; but to provide that the foregoing provisions shall not apply if three conditions are met: (a) Employees in an existing bargaining unit vote by secret ballot majority vote to remove them in an election conducted by an Arkansas State Agency, (b) The affected employer agrees to contract for labor union membership as a condition of employment, and (c) all employees may participate or not participate in labor union meetings and similar activities; to continue the enforcement power of the General Assembly; but to give the Arkansas Department of Labor (or department designated by the Governor) the power to establish rules and regulations for employee elections and to conduct such elections; and for other purposes.'

Before discussing the particular points involved, perhaps it would be well to mention the general principles of law applicable to this type of case. In Fletcher v. Bryant, 243 Ark. 864, 422 S.W.2d 698, we pointed out that some significance must be given to the fact that the Arkansas Attorney General approved the ballot title, pursuant to Ark.Stat.Ann. § 2--208 (Repl.1956); in fact, we quoted from a Colorado case ³ (which quoted the language of a California case), ⁴ to the effect that only in a clear case, should a title so prepared be held insufficient. In Fletcher, citing earlier Arkansas cases, ⁵ this court said:

'In determining the sufficiency of this ballot title, we will keep in mind that we give a liberal construction and interpretation of the requirements of Amendment 7 in order to secure its purposes to reserve to the people the right to adopt, reject, approve or disapprove legislation.' (Our emphasis)

We added that:

'Actions of electors in seeking to exercise this right must not be thwarted by strict or technical construction.' Reeves v. Smith, 190 Ark. 213, 78 S.W.2d 72.

Also, in McDonald v. Byrant, 238 Ark. 338, 381 S.W.2d 736, it was pointed out that the question is not how court members may individually feel about a measure, but rather whether legal requirements for submission of a measure to the voters have been complied with.

We have said that a popular name [as well as a ballot title] must be free from 'catch phrases and slogans which tend to mislead and color the merit of the proposal.' Moore v. Hall, 229 Ark. 411, 316 S.W.2d 207. We cannot see that the present popular name violates those requirements. There is nothing in the name that suggests approval or disapproval of the subject matter that follows; in fact, it would appear that the name 'Rights of Labor' is perhaps more non-partisan than the name 'Right to Work,' since offhand it can certainly be considered that members of the general public favor the right of persons to work. In Johnson v. Hall, 239 Ark. 400, 316 S.W.2d 194, we commented that the popular name there involved, 'Trainmen Crew Amendment,' would appear to have no effect upon the voters' thinking, one way or the other, i.e., it was completely non-partisan.

This brings us to the ballot title itself. We have said that a ballot title must be 'free from 'any misleading tendency, whether of amplification, of omission, or of fallacy,' and it must not be tinged with partisan coloring.' Bradley v. Hall, 220 Ark. 925, 251 S.W.2d 470. In the litigation before us, it somewhat appears that the attack of the petitioners on the ballot title is really an attack on the amendment itself, as being deceptive and misleading as to the purpose to be accomplished. Petitioners state:

'While masquerading as an amendment to Amendment No. 34, the proposal in fact is much more drastic than an outright repeal such as advanced in the aborted 1950 attempt. A repeal would leave the General Assembly with authority to occupy, to the extent its legislative judgment prompted, the area of State sovereignty preserved by Sec. 14(b). The proposed measure would enshrine in our Constitution a rigid formula, beyond the competence of the General Assembly to revise, for the imposition of labor union membership and support on the unwilling workers of Arkansas. * * *

'The elector is first beguiled with the assurance that the very provisions of the Constitution that the proposed Amendment is designed to emasculate will be 'continue(d)', and then reference is made to certain seemingly narrow and unimportant situations in which they 'shall not apply.' The sole purpose of the ballot title is to inform the elector how the proposal would change existing law--change or retention of that law is the choice left to him at the polls. The 'shall not apply' clause is hardly calculated to apprise the voter that adoption of the proposal would repeal existing constitutional prohibitions * * *.'

As to the elector being deceived by the fact that there is duplication of the language appearing in the original amendment, it, of course, is true that the original amendment is copied; however, approximately half way through Section 1, the amendment provides that the foregoing restrictions 'shall not apply if all of the following free choices have been made.' In other words, exceptions are created to the original amendment. In amending statutes, this is generally the procedure followed. Most often, when a statute is amended by the General Assembly, it reiterates all the language of the statute that is retained and simply inserts the changes that are made. Actually, if the original language of Amendment No. 34 is to be retained as a part of the proposed constitutional amendment, such language, of course, must necessarily be placed in the amendment. We do not understand the argument relative to 'shall not apply' referring to 'certain seemingly narrow and unimportant situations' for the exceptions are certainly the 'meat' of the proposal; no language is pointed out by petitioners wherein the amendment indicates that these changes are only 'minor.' Of course, the fact that the provisions of Amendment No. 34, presently in effect, would not be applicable to every situation that might arise if proposed Amendment No. 59 is adopted could not, we think, be more clearly made known, than by using the language that under certain conditions, those provisions 'shall not apply.' There is complaint that the ballot title does not mention 'union shop' and 'agency shop,' but those particular terms do not appear in proposed Amendment No. 59. ⁶ Let it be remembered that the purpose of a ballot title is not to 'interpret' the amendment, but only to summarize adequately the provisions of such amendment; nor is it our function in the present litigation to interpret the amendment itself.

The defects which have invalidated some ballot titles in the past as inadequate, partisan, and misleading are illustrated by several cases. In Johnson v....