Two proposed amendments aren’t needed in Constitution
By Roy Ockert Jr.
Sept. 30, 2014
Among the ballot issues that we will face in the Nov. 4 general election are three constitutional amendments referred from the General Assembly’s regular session of 2013. That’s the maximum number allowed per session, which is probably one of the best restrictions of all in our 1874 Constitution.
In this column I’ll review the first first two, which will be on the ballot as Issue No. 1 and Issue No. 2. Those are fairly simple; Issue No. 3 is quite complex so I’ll deal with that one alone in a later column.
Issue No. 1 is titled “An amendment to the Arkansas Constitution providing that administrative rules promulgated by state agencies shall not become effective until reviewed and approved by a legislative committee of the General Assembly.” That tells you pretty much everything you need to know about what’s in it.
Sponsored by Sen. Jonathan Dismang, R-Beebe, as Senate Joint Resolution 7, it passed the Senate 32-1, with only Sen. Stephanie Flowers, D-Pine Bluff, voting against it. Then it passed the House 88-12, with a mix of Democrats and Republicans voting no. Among them were Rep. Harold Copenhaver, D-Jonesboro; Rep. Mary Broadaway, D-Paragould; and House Speaker Davy Carter, R-Cabot.
The amendment would give the Legislature the authority to pass a law to require that every state agency seek the approval of any new administrative rules from a legislative committee before those rules could become effective. The committee review could come during a session or between sessions.
This proposal is a legislative power play that attempts to usurp authority from the executive branch. The head of almost every state agency reports to the governor, who can certainly put a stop to any onerous regulations. Furthermore, the Legislature already holds a balance of power in its controls over the purse strings of state agencies.
However, for years some legislators have chafed at their inability to wave a magic wand and get rid of some agency rules that they (or their favorite special interests) don’t like. Former Sen. Percy Malone, D-Arkadelphia, was mentioned as an inspiration for the legislation. He told a newspaper reporter last spring that it would “put authority back in the Legislature,” but he also said he hoped the resulting process would allow for emergency rules to be approved quickly.
Also significantly, such a new law would expand the need for more legislative committee meetings, especially between sessions because you’re not going to get any rule reviews done during sessions. That means more trips to Little Rock, more per diem pay, more travel reimbursement and eventually a call for full-time pay.
Issue No. 2 came from Senate Joint Resolution 16, sponsored by Sen. Bill Sample, R-Hot Springs. It’s titled “Proposing an amendment to Article 5, Section 1, of the Arkansas Constitution concerning initiative and referendum; and providing certain requirements for the correction or amendment of insufficient statewide petitions.”
That’s a vague description for a proposal aimed at making it tougher for a citizens’ group to get an initiative or referendum on the ballot. Lawmakers reasoned that the process for gathering signatures on petitions had become a “free-for-all.”
SJR 16 had a somewhat difficult birth. In its original form it failed the Senate 11-13, with nine not voting. Then an amended version was rejected by the Joint Committee on Constitutional Amendments. A second attempt was successful, and the Senate then passed it 29-4. The House later provided a 65-17 endorsement, with 18 other representatives not voting.
As amended, the proposal would prevent groups that are circulating petitions from getting an additional 30 days to get proposals on the ballot, unless the number of valid signatures they had gathered prior to the first deadline had reached 75 percent of the total number of signatures required. The idea is to give a petitioning group time to correct deficiencies, such as duplicate signatures or signatures by voters who aren’t registered.
This is obviously an attempt to make the petition process more difficult, and opponents have charged that special interests, including the gas drilling industry and casinos at Oaklawn and Southland, were behind it. The original proposal would have set the bar even higher — at 90 percent.
At a legislative hearing early in the process Hot Springs lobbyist Julie Mullenix, representing the two industries, said the proposal was designed to cut down on fraudulent signatures that were found on petitions for ballot issues in 2012. She was referring to two petition efforts, one that would have raised the severance tax on natural gas and another that would have authorized more casinos to operate in Arkansas. Neither made the ballot.
“We just saw so much fraud, as you are very well aware, so this is a response to clean that up,” Mullenix told the lawmakers. “Good actors should not have a problem with it at all.”
The initiative and referendum process could use some streamlining, but drawing an arbitrary line is not a good answer. Such a law would present the possibility that one group with a handful more valid signatures than another group could get an additional 30 days to qualify while the second group would be immediately rejected.
Neither proposal is needed in our Constitution.
Roy Ockert is editor emeritus of The Jonesboro Sun. He may be reached by e-mail at royo@suddenlink.net.