Meredith Oakley, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Sunday, October 19, 2008.
Prospective voters have a little over two weeks to familiarize themselves with the Nov. 4 general election ballot.
In addition to the presidency and a statewide senatorial race, three proposed constitutional amendments, one initiated act and a bond issue are the factors that all ballots have in common this year.
Most of us probably are in the same boat, not having closely examined some (or perhaps all) of the ballot proposals yet. I’ll try to do that here before election day, but considering that early voting is about to begin, here is a not entirely dispassionate summation of the measures that you’ll be asked to vote for or against.
Proposed Amendment No. 1 would strike certain “archaic” language from the Arkansas Constitution, some of which already has been invalidated by constitutional amendment or court decree, and authorize the General Assembly to determine the date and time of general elections and the qualifications of election officers. Currently, the Constitution permits the Legislature to set election times via legislation, and it prohibits most elected officials and public employees from serving as election officers.
So far there hasn’t been any discernible opposition to this proposal. However, when people say that it only strikes words like “idiot,” “insane person” and “poll tax,” they aren’t telling the whole story. The measure’s ratification by voters would expand the Legislature’s authority and influence over elections.
Proposed Amendment No. 2 would establish annual sessions of the General Assembly, which currently meets every two years unless called into emergency session by the governor. By way of justifying that, it would mandate that legislative appropriations cover a period no longer than one year. Lawmakers would have no choice but to meet every year if the state were to continue operating. Currently, appropriation bills, by which every facet of state government functions, cover a two-year period between regular sessions. This measure is opposed by just about everyone who understands how the Arkansas Legislature works, including the Arkansas Farm Bureau.
Proposed Amendment No. 3 would authorize the General Assembly to establish, operate and regulate state lotteries to fund college scholarships and grants for Arkansas citizens after all the expenses of said gaming enterprise have been paid. Opponents say this would open the door to casino gambling. Some proponents say that’s just not true. Other proponents say that casino gambling is already here, we just call electronic games such as blackjack and video poker by different names.
The Arkansas Family Council Action Committee, the proposal’s only organized opposition as far as I can tell, just lost its attempt to have the proposal struck from ballots on the grounds that the explanation of the measure that voters will see on their ballots is both inadequate and misleading. The state Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the council did not make its case.
Proposed Initiated Act No. 1 would prohibit individuals who live and have sex with someone to whom they are not married from adopting or serving as a foster parent to anyone under 18. The prohibition would apply to both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, but it would not apply to guardianships.
Proposed Act 1 is the brainchild of the aforementioned Family Council Action Committee, which in recent years has led the charge against gay people in Arkansas. Its biggest victory came in 2004 when it persuaded voters to amend the Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Referred Question No. 1, the Arkansas Water, Waste Disposal and Pollution Abatement Facilities Financing Act of 2007, would authorize the state to issue up to $300 million worth of general obligation bonds for financing and refinancing a variety of water-related projects. Water and sewer fees would be used to retire the bonds, according to news reports. The bonds would be issued in series “from time to time” in increments of no more than $60 million per two-year period.
The proposal is similar to one approved by voters 10 years ago, and proponents are characterizing this as a reauthorization of bonding authority for the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission. Economics not being my long suit, I dare not comment on the advisability of pledging “the full faith and credit of the state of Arkansas” to the tune of $300 million in these volatile times. The governor seems to think it’s a dandy idea, though, so who am I do contradict him?
At least, not until I’ve talked to a few people who know their way around a bond daddy.
•–––––—Associate Editor Meredith Oakley is editor of
the Voices page.
No comments:
Post a Comment