Press Release

Coalition Formed: Arkansans Against Amendment 2  

LITTLE ROCK — A broad coalition representing business, community and employee groups have formed Arkansans Against Amendment 2: Vote NO on Annual Sessions to formally oppose Amendment 2 on the November ballot.  

The Arkansas State Chamber and Associated Industries of Arkansas, the Arkansas State Employees Association, Inc., the Arkansas Municipal League and the Arkansas Farm Bureau have come together in opposition to Amendment 2. If passed, proposed Constitutional Amendment 2 would create annual legislative sessions.  

Currently the Legislature meets for a minimum of 60 days every other year, with special sessions as needed. Proposed Constitutional Amendment 2 would limit state appropriations to one year and establish a “fiscal session” every year. It would also allow the consideration of any issue by a two-thirds vote. The amendment would permit the General Assembly to change the meeting date and the year of the fiscal session and allow the Legislature to extend both sessions.

“This is the first step toward a full-time Legislature and the death of a citizen Legislature,” said Don Zimmerman, executive director of the Arkansas Municipal League. “A full-time Legislature requires a lot of time and personal expense. Traditionally, Arkansans have supported a voluntary, citizen Legislature and I believe it’s a system that has worked well for the state.  

“This amendment will reduce the number of men and women in Arkansas who will be willing and able to serve, especially those who live farther from Little Rock.” 

The five organizations forming Arkansans Against Amendment 2 are backed by membership and board policy to oppose the amendment. All five organizations cited a concern about the expense of the additional sessions, from extra days in the Capitol for legislators to extra staffing requirements to the added work of the Department of Finance and Administration to prepare annual budgets. 

“The Legislature has demonstrated the ability to prepare the budget successfully without annual sessions,” said Randy Zook, executive director of the Arkansas State Chamber/Associated Industries of Arkansas. “Our state is one of the few in the nation that has a balanced budget requirement. Our Department of Finance and Administration and the state Legislature, through their predictions and conservative budgeting, have kept Arkansas in good financial shape. This amendment calls for an unnecessary growth of government to do, in essence, what we already do now.”

“The state currently has a safety valve that allows the Governor to call special sessions as needed,” said Stanley Reed, president of the Arkansas Farm Bureau. “If a critical situation arose with the budget or any other matter, the governor can call the General Assembly together. Amendment 2 simply assumes that the Legislature needs to meet every year for an extended length of time. That is just not the case.”

Arkansas Against Amendment 2’s main goal is to encourage other organizations and citizens to examine the issue more closely.  

“We don’t want this amendment to get lost on the ballot without voters understanding the issue,” said Kay Durnett, executive director of the Arkansas State Employees Association, Inc. “Take a close look at this amendment and decide yourself. We don’t believe Arkansas needs annual sessions of the Legislature sessions and believe most Arkansans will agree with us once they take a close look at the amendment.”

"Down the ballot" from Arkansas Democrat Gazette

Don’t forget about these beauts 

   DOES THE world really need more professional politicians? That could be what you’d get, Mr. and Mrs. Arkansas, if Proposed Amendment No. 2 passes November 4th. This proposition would have the Arkansas legislature meet every year instead of every two years. Which would give the Ledge twice as much opportunity to hand out appropriations, distribute patronage, legislate unnecessarily, collect even more per diems, and generally make mischief.
   We have a better idea: Save all that money.
   Why are annual sessions needed? If there’s an emergency, or just a change in the state’s financial outlook, the governor can call a special session. Do lawmakers really need the additional pay that bad?
   Yes, we know the proposed new annual session would be limited to budgetary matters. But can’t you just imagine the non-germane legislation this change would invite, the resulting court cases, and general confusion? In addition to the usual grabbiness now multiplied by two thanks to this additional session. Wheee! Happy Days Are Here Again.
   Besides all that, we have a more profound objection to this constitutional amendment, a philosophical one that goes to the heart of what representative government should be in a republic that is fast morphing into a mass democracy where not the people but the full-time pols rule. Should we accelerate that unwholesome trend by replacing the citizen-legislator with the full-time lawmaker?
   State legislators aren’t, or at least they shouldn’t be, United States senators responsible for representing entire states and focusing on a whole range of great national issues from foreign policy to federal taxation. Now that’s a full-time job. But state legislators should be of the people. They should be full-time farmers, bankers, teachers, lawyers, insurance salesmen and candlestick makers. That is, they need to keep their day jobs.
   A state legislator should be somebody you see at church. Or in the produce section. That way, you can give your legislators a piece of your mind. Or slap ’em on the back and say what a wonderful job they’re doing—if and when they finally repeal that dadburned grocery tax in full.
   Those state senators and reps won’t be at church or in the produce section if they’re away in Little Rock, attending still another annual session of spending-andgetting. Keep them at home. Where the rest of us can keep an eye on ’em. And where they’ll need to fully participate in the life of the community they’re supposed to represent.
   Vote Against Proposed Amendment No. 2.
   BACK IN the 1990s, somebody asked Edwin Edwards, the onceupon-a-time governor of Louisiana, if he was going to play the state’s new lottery. No thanks, he said. Because the odds were terrible. (He was a gambler and is a felon, but he’s no fool.)
   On the ballot this time around, you won’t see just the names of potential presidents, state senators and U.S. congressmen, but a handful of amendments to the state constitution. Thanks to Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter and 91,000 some-odd signatures, you’ll get to vote on whether to have an Arkansas lottery. Should you chance a vote on it? Our considered editorial opinion: No thanks.
   If electronic poker is the crack cocaine of the gambling world, then a lottery is a gateway drug. Once the state constitution allows a lottery, how long before Arkansas must have casinos, too, and riverboat gambling? We can just see the scratch-off tickets littering the roadways, the way they do today down in Louisiana. This isn’t just an economic issue, it’s a cultural one, a quality-of-life issue. Is this the kind of get-something-for-nothing ethos we want to encourage in Arkansas, to raise our kids with, and make part of our daily life and mores?
   Not that there isn’t an economic downside to a lottery, too. These days especially, with the economy slowing, businesses like bowling alleys and miniature golf courses are worried every time they open for the day. Will this day be worse than yesterday? Will anybody show up? Folks’ entertainment dollars are not infinite. Never have been. But nowadays a trip to the roller rink or the pizza joint may have to be put off till (much) later. A lottery would suck those dollars right out of circulation. And not just those dollars. Every buck that goes for lottery tickets isn’t going for food, shelter and clothing. Not to mention books, music lessons and sporting goods. The racing season in Hot Springs is bad enough for local merchants around the state; should we set up a lottery to drain away their business, too?
   Talk about a regressive tax, a lot of the folks who’d pay this one are flat-out desperate. Playing with the rent money. Or worse.
   Those folks who have a ton of money to blow on legal gambling just for the heck of it can go to Vegas or visit the boats in various surrounding states. They’ll go to the places with the cheap buffets and the flashing lights. Not the local convenience store. What a state lottery is, is a voluntary tax on the poor and ignorant. And one more spur to the country’s gambling addiction, which already afflicts entirely too many of us. For a lottery is a public health issue, too. Pass this amendment and get ready to open a whole new slew of Gamblers Anonymous chapters.
   Supposedly the money raised by the lottery would go only to fund college scholarships for Arkansas students. That’s a good intention. But you know what the road to the Other Place is paved with. Louisiana’s lottery was supposed to benefit education, too. We haven’t heard much about that state leading the Union in innovations in education, have you?
   It’s just too easy for a state legislature, even if it reserves lottery money for education, to cut other funds that otherwise would have gone to college scholarships. Arkansas’ legislature hasn’t even been able to do away with all of the grocery tax. Would you trust it with all this lottery money? And don’t get us started on the sizeable new bureaucracy it would take to regulate this new Arkansas industry and addiction—and all those bureaucrats would get their cut of the take before any college students did.
   Vote Against Proposed Amendment No. 3.
   THERE’S A reason supporters of a proposal to ban unmarried couples from being foster parents put that “unmarried couples” language in there. Because just to come out and say “homosexual couples” might have run into a Supreme Court gavel. But that’s what this is all about.
   We’d be tempted to shrug off Initiated Act 1 as just another one of those ballot initiatives to make people feel better about themselves by putting others down. Remember the proposal by Secure Arkansas to keep ILLEGAL ALIENS! from . . . um . . . Well, we’re still not sure what that proposal would have done—and neither are the legal scholars—except clog up the state’s constitution. Thankfully, that petition didn’t get enough signatures to make it onto the ballot. But this Proposed Initiated Act is more than just another exercise in stirring up bad feelings; it could harm children by denying them good foster homes.
   Let the professionals in the state’s Department of Human Services, together with the courts who review their recommendations, decide who’s fit to be a foster parent.
   Vote Against Initiated Act No. 1. 

"The rest of the ballot" Arkansas Democrat Gazette

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. 

Why Should I oppose Amendment 2?

•        Annual Legislative Sessions are an unnecessary growth of government.  The legislature has managed the state’s business in a biennial system for more than 100 years. This is the first step toward a full time legislature. 

•        Annual Legislative Sessions are costly to Arkansas taxpayers.  Many state legislatures meet well into the year each year incurring significant expenses.  The state has many budgetary needs that could be better served with the funds consumed by a fiscal session.  Besides the additional administrative, per diem and regular salary costs that a new session would require, a requested raise for legislators can be expected.  This raise can even be justified considering the additional time commitment we will be asking our elected officials to make. 

•        Annual Legislative Sessions hinder legislators with full time jobs.  Although legislative committees meet frequently between biennial sessions, they are not required to meet consecutively for 30 days in the Capitol.  For those with full time jobs, an additional session could be a burden and further reduce the number of individuals who are willing and able to serve.  The current system gives the state access to a broader range of individuals with a diversity of professions. 

•        Annual Legislative Sessions limit the leadership of legislators in their home districts. Arkansas truly has a citizen legislature.  Legislators can currently manage businesses and serve in leadership roles in their communities because they are only called upon to be in the Capitol every other year and for interim meetings. Requiring legislators to meet annually would drastically cut the amount of local service they currently provide.

•        Annual Legislative Sessions will likely NOT operate as intended. The proposed amendment delegates that additional "fiscal sessions" be held in alternating years with general sessions. However, lawmakers will be given the opportunity to expand the new “fiscal session” to include non-budget items.  Any topic can be added for consideration to the budget session by a two-thirds vote of the legislature.  This creates an optimal environment for special interest groups.  By narrowing the focus of the legislature to select issues, special interest groups could more easily pass excessive legislation which would not normally be considered in the general session.

•        Annual Legislative Sessions breed temptation to raise additional revenues in budget shortfall years.  Meeting annually would allow the legislature to more easily and perhaps more readily isolate revenue streams for increase. In years when the revenues fail to meet projections, the legislature will be pressed to RAISE TAXES to fund the budget.