Through hard work and determination, Arkansans have the ability to get issues in front of voters through initiated acts. Issue 3 would virtually eliminate that ability, making it nigh impossible for anyone to undertake the process except for the most wealthy. We see that as a way for politicians to take power away from the people. Consequently, we are against it and recommend a “no” vote.
One of the best arguments against Issue 3 is the minimum wage increase. If Arkansans had not been able to put that measure on the ballot, the minimum would likely still be $8.50 an hour. The Legislature could have instigated that, but they didn’t have the political backbone to make it happen. So it was then up to the voters to act — and act they did, voting to approve the issue in 2018 by a whopping 68 percent of the vote.
Same story with medical marijuana. The voting public was way ahead of the Legislature on this one too. A measure put before voters in 2012 was defeated, but four years later, it was approved — all thanks to the initiated acts process.
And closer to home, consider the newly opened Saracen Casino Resort. That initiated act was passed two years ago, and we have a first-class casino operating in our midst today. That would never have happened if left up to the Legislature.
Actually, none of the aforementioned would have been put forth by politicians, and yet, those measures are the law of the land today.
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
So how would Issue 3 change the landscape? The answer is considerably.
Currently, signatures for such acts have to be gathered from 15 counties. Issue 3 would require signatures to be gathered from 45 counties.
As the state Cooperative Extension Service said in its explainer of ballot measures, with this particular passage reserved for what opponents of Issue 3 are saying: “More signatures required means more money would have to be spent to collect signatures. So only the biggest, best-financed campaigns could succeed in moving their measure forward.”
Currently, signatures have to be turned in in early July in the year the initiative would go to voters. Under Issue 3, the signatures would have to go in much earlier — by Jan. 15. Again, with a hurried-up deadline, more money would have to be poured into gathering the signatures, thereby “adding yet another barrier to signature collection,” the Extension Service noted in the same “those opposed” area.
And if the supporters gathering the signatures find that they are short the required number of names because too many of the them are invalid, those supporters are currently given time to collect additional signatures. But under Issue 3, supporters can’t, meaning they would have to acquire more and more signatures from the start, which, again, could be expensive and unnecessary.
Had the Legislature, where Issue 3 emanated, wanted to limit the number of initiatives put before voters, it could have limited its own ability to do that because 80% of such measures come from them. But of course they didn’t do that. They didn’t want to limit their own ability to shove laws at voters, just the ability of voters to work life out for themselves.
And, apparently, lawmakers don’t want the public to see what is being put before them. Issue 3 would eliminate the requirement to publish such initiatives in newspapers in all counties of Arkansas. That’s despite the fact that many people do not have access to the internet and, consequently, would not learn that such initiatives are being considered.
Taken as a whole, Issue 3 is bad for Arkansans. If it passes, the ability to put ballot measures in front of the public will be reserved for the wealthy, and to us, that smacks of telling the average person to sit down and shut up. It also pats the average person on the head as being too ignorant to make informed decisions at the polls. Again, not good.
Let your voice be heard on Nov. 3 and thereby let your voice continue to be heard afterward. Vote “no” on Issue 3.