McDaniel Rejects Amendment For Tax Hike Language

Claiming an anti-tax group needs to “redesign” its proposed amendment language, Attorney General Dustin McDaniel (D) rejected the first attempt of the proposal to qualify for the 2012 ballot.

In late November, a group of conservative activists submitted a proposed amendment that would essentially require any tax increase or tax renewal in Arkansas to seek voter approval. Talk Business’ Jason Tolbert first reported on the effort.

McDaniel told a representative of the “Voter Approval Committee, Inc.” that its “Voter Approval Amendment” was rife with ambiguities and problematic language. McDaniel emphasized that he was not stating a position on the amendment, but clarifying legal issues as the law requires.

“Having analyzed your proposed amendment, popular name, and ballot title under the above precepts, it is my conclusion that I must reject your proposed popular name and ballot title due to ambiguities in the text of your proposed amendment,” McDaniel said. “A number of additions or changes to your popular name and ballot title are, in my view, necessary in order to more fully and correctly summarize your proposal. I cannot, however, at this time, fairly or completely summarize the effect of your proposed measure to the electorate in a popular name or ballot title without the resolution of the ambiguities.”

The Attorney General declared that the ballot title was “inherently misleading.”

“The proposed ballot title evidences little or no effort to summarize the proposal’s material effects on current law and is therefore inherently misleading,” he said. “In failing to convey that voter approval of taxes is already required in many, perhaps even most, cases under Arkansas law, the proposed ballot title might be taken to imply that no such requirements currently exist, and therefore not to be sufficiently impartial. The proposed ballot title also might be taken to imply that ‘all taxes’ are to be subject to periodic approval and re-approval “at regularly scheduled elections,” an implication that appears not to be justified from the proposal’s text  and therefore might be regarded as in inaccurate description of the proposed change in law.”

McDaniel also noted a number of additional concerns. He said:

• “In my view, your proposed popular name is also deficient. ‘Voter Approval Amendment’ gives no hint about what is to be approved and is therefore needlessly vague.”
• “Before addressing the proposal’s ambiguities, however, I must draw your attention to a significant preliminary concern. While the text of your proposal is brief and fairly simple, its adoption would change current law in numerous and complex ways.”
• “It is unclear whether the proposal would apply to new taxes and tax increases approved but not yet in effect before the proposal’s effective date.”
• “Your proposal’s requirement that a tax be approved ‘by a majority vote’ might be deemed ambiguous in failing to specify whether the requirement is for a majority of those voting on the question, a majority of those voting in the election, or some other measure.”

Supporters of the proposal can re-submit a modified amendment for reconsideration by the Attorney General. If approved, the group can collect signatures to try to qualify the measure for the November 2012 ballot.