## Facts

- Petitioners filed an original action under Arkansas Constitution Amendment 7 seeking to enjoin the Secretary of State from certifying a proposed initiated act for the November general election.
- The initiated act was titled “Standard of Conduct and Disclosure Act For Lobbyists And State Officials.”
- The Attorney General had approved the initiative’s popular name and ballot title before petitions were circulated.
- Petitioners argued the popular name was incomplete because the act also applied to candidates for state elective office, which the name did not mention.
- Petitioners argued the ballot title was incomplete and misleading because it did not explicitly mention candidates and did not include various details about which lobbyists must register and what gifts must be reported.
- The Secretary of State and the initiative’s sponsors contended the popular name functioned as an adequate label and the ballot title fairly summarized the measure’s general purposes.

## Issues

1. Whether the popular name was misleading and invalid because it omitted reference to candidates for state elective office.
2. Whether the ballot title was misleading or legally insufficient because it omitted reference to candidates and failed to include specific coverage and reporting details (including registration requirements for some lobbyists and reporting of certain gifts).

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court denied the requested injunction and allowed certification.
- The court held the popular name was sufficient to identify the initiative.
- The court held the ballot title fairly stated the general purposes of the proposed act and was not rendered insufficient by omission of detailed provisions.

## Legal Principles

- A popular name must be intelligible, honest, and impartial; it serves as a concise label for voter discussion and identification and is not invalid merely because it is incomplete, absent misleading or biased wording.
- A ballot title must give voters an intelligible idea of the scope and import of the proposed law, be free from misleading tendencies, and not omit material information that would give voters serious ground for reflection.
- A ballot title need not recite every detail, exception, or technical consequence of a proposal; inclusion of exhaustive details is not required if the title accurately conveys the measure’s general purposes and fundamental operation.

## Conclusion

The court refused to block certification of the initiative, concluding that the popular name adequately identified the proposal and the ballot title provided a fair, nonmisleading summary even though it did not enumerate every affected group or reporting requirement.


Gaines v. McCuen, 758 S.W.2d 403 (Ark. 1988)