About that Ordinance

An open letter/email.

Dear Honorable Justices,

I had planned to present most of this on Thursday during the public comments at the beginning of the meeting.  However, with the Omicron COVID surge, I’ve decided to not risk a crowded quorum court meeting room.

Perception is everything – your proposed farce of an ordinance.

One of the items on the agenda for the January 6 quorum court meeting was first proposed eleven months ago.  The agenda item says:

Third and final reading of an ordinance requiring a vote of the people in either a general election or special election to either approve or deny the elected official(s)’ support of a casino applicant applying for a casino.

What’s the point?

The application process was declared closed over 18 months ago.

The Pope County casino license has been issued to CNB/Legends.

There will be no new resolutions or letters of support.

Your proposed ordinance serves no legal or practical purpose.

While the proposed ordinance looks legal and sounds legal, it’s not legal.

It’s unconstitutional.  You may think it’s constitutional, but it’s not.

    • “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is, in reality, no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose;
    •   “Such an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.
    • “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” 

Sixteenth AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE. Second Section; § 177

The proposed ordinance requires that Quorum Court refer “the question” to the voters in a local election before the County Judge or the Quorum Court may issue a letter or resolution of support for a casino license as provided under Amendment 100. 

The proposed ordinance is in direct conflict with Amendment 100. Amendment 100 specifies that the authority and discretion to issue letters or resolutions of support lie with the County Judge and the Quorum Court. Amendment 100 does not place that authority or discretion in the electorate of Pope County.

The proposed ordinance states, “The County Judge shall propose a resolution to the Quorum Court to refer to the voters in a local election, either a general election or a special election, the question as to the issuance of a Letter of Support…”

How exactly would that work? “A resolution may be used whenever the quorum court wishes merely to express an opinion as to some matter of county affairs.” (AR Code § 14-14-904)

Perception is everything – it’s a dead horse.

You first proposed this ordinance nearly a year ago.  It’s a dead horse.  Quit beating it!

I’ve never gotten an answer to these questions. I’m pretty sure I know the answer, but I’ll ask them again.

  1. Have you asked the Secretary of State’s office whether a vote on authorizing county officials to provide support documents is even feasible under state election laws?
  2. Have you asked the Arkansas Election Commission?
  3. Did you confer with the county attorney on the legalities of this ordinance?
  4. Have you conferred with the prosecuting attorney’s office on the legalities and constitutionality of the ordinance?

I’m pretty sure the answer is “no” to all four questions. 

For 2018-O-42 back in 2019, the answers would have been 1) yes, 2) yes, and 3) yes – I don’t know about # 4. 

The then County Attorney, Clay McCall, was involved with trying to figure out a way to implement 2018-O-42.  Efforts by him and others involved contacting the Secretary of State, Arkansas Election Commission, legal experts, and others.  Through those efforts, they learned there was no way that such an election could be legally conducted.

Your dead horse ordinance would meet the same fate should conditions ever occur where the county would try to implement it in the future.

Perception is everything – This dead horse ordinance is obviously based not-so-loosely on old Ordinance 2018-O-42.

Who was the author?  Was it someone with a legal background? Were any attorneys involved?

From what I understand, the author of 2018-O-42 was Fayetteville attorney Travis Story.  (I haven’t seen his name on filings related to Citizen for a Better Pope County lawsuits for quite a while.  I guess he’s had his hands full with allegations related to his former position on the medical marijuana commission and with defending Josh Dugger.  But that’s probably not germane to this ordinance.)

The license is already issued. 

This ordinance is DOA.

Vote it down.

Please don’t table it again.

Mike Goad
(Dover out voting precinct)