USS Arkansas (BB-33), a dreadnought battleship, was launched in 1911 and commissioned in 1912. She was attached to the British Grand Fleet in WWI but saw no action. In WWII she conducted neutrality patrols prior to America’s entry into the war. Thereafter, she escorted convoys to Europe through 1944; in June, she supported the invasion of Normandy and in August provided support for the invasion of southern France. In 1945, she was transferred to the Pacific, where she supported the invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. After the war, she ferried troops back to the US as part of Operation Magic Carpet. Along with other obsolete surplus post-war vessels, she was used as a target during atomic bomb testing used to investigate the effects of nuclear weapons. She was sunk at Bikini Atoll by an underwater nuclear test, Baker, by a bomb named Helen of Bikini on July 25, 1946.

There have been 4 USS Arkansas,

(1) a Civil War ironclad,
(2) a late 19th-century monitor that was renamed Ozark because they wanted to use Arkansas as the name of a new battleship
(3) BB-33, which now rests in the Pacific at Bikini Atoll
(4) CGN-41, one of four Virginia-class nuclear-powered guided missile cruisers, commissioned in 1980 and decommissioned in 1998.

The next USS Arkansas will be the SSN-800, a future Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine, announced in June 2016.

Miss Mary L. Macon launching USS Arkansas

On October 17, 2019, the Russellville City Council passed Resolution 1777; a resolution declaring the city’s intent to annex certain unincorporated lands in the county. The only real discussion came from City Attorney, William F. Smith III, who advised them that if they passed the resolution they have to proceed with the annexation within five years.  If the city doesn’t, the city will be prohibited from exercising its current planning jurisdiction for the next five years after that and possibly its zoning jurisdiction if that is extended into the lands covered by this resolution. Mayor Richard Harris asked Smith if taking the annexation to a vote that subsequently failed would count as “proceeding.”  Smith answered that it would.

The resolution includes a map identifying the specific areas proposed for annexation.  The areas include all of the known properties outside the city limits that had purchase options by the casino vendors.

The casino part of the Legend Resort & Casino facility will be built on property that is now outside of the city limits.  Otherwise, a letter of support would have had to have been obtained from Mayor Harris.

At some point, Cherokee Nation Businesses will petition the Russellville city council to annex the property under A.C.A. § 14–40–609 (Act 567 of 2017). “Annexation by one hundred percent (100%) petition.”  Since CNB will be the owner of 100% of the property, they can petition the city for annexation of their property without going through any annexation vote.

With the casino property annexed into the city, Russellville will receive 19.5% of the net casino gaming receipts tax and the county will receive 8%.  They will also receive revenue from all of the taxes and fees that any other for-profit business would be subject to.

Some people will resent and/or oppose the idea that Russellville will “benefit” like this from the annexation of the casino.  After all, haven’t they opposed the casino all along the way?

That thought is understandable.  However, it’s not totally accurate.  It’s true that some of the people living in Russellville have opposed the casino, but that’s also true of people living in the county.  Many of the previous Russellville politicians have actively opposed the casino, but they are not Russellville and Russellville should not be penalized for the actions—or lack of action—of its politicians.

Most of the impact of the casino—emergency response (such as fire department, ambulance services, law enforcement), infrastructure, traffic, etc.—will be upon the city of Russellville and the immediate area.  Eventually, most of that immediate area will also be annexed, in all likelihood.

Like it or not, Legends Resort & Casino | Arkansas will be inside the city of Russellville.

More importantly…

Legends Resort & Casino | Arkansas
will be built
and
it will be built here.

Annexation has been discussed numerous times before on Pope County Majority. Here are a few:

• August 10, 2019
• August 21, 2019
• August 24, 2019
• September 3, 2019
• September 4, 2019
• September 5, 2019
• September 7, 2019
• September 8, 2019
• November 22, 2019
• November 3, 2021

Some current Pope County Quorum Court justices claim that a vote on the casino issue was taken away from Pope County voters in August 2019.  The same is claimed by an anti-casino group that is trying to take Pope County out of Amendment 100 of the Arkansas Constitution.

They are wrong.

While the issues are from 2019, they persist in the ballot initiative drive of Fair Play for Arkansas—2022 and may affect the 2022 county elections.  This blog post is provided for background purposes.

In 2019, the Quorum Court, County Judge, County Attorney, and others tried to find a way to meet the requirements of a county ordinance, 2018-O-42,  that required a vote but were unable to.  In June, the author of the ordinance, Travis Story, spoke to a special called meeting of the quorum court. A transcription of what Mr. Story said is provided below:

Travis Story

Good afternoon, your honor. My name is Travis Story. I actually drafted the local option and, I wanted to come tonight just to, hopefully, answer some questions, and, and at least, state what the goal and the purpose was.

The goal,  the purpose wasn’t to cost extra money, to require $30,000 to be spent on a special election.

I’ve had my hand in a fair number of things that honestly, people shouldn’t have to pay for that general election. You’re already spending the money. You’ve already got to have a general election.

I think that’s one of those, one of those things that the citizens of Pope County, when  looking at this issue and ultimately signing their name to a ballot… to a petition… that says, “we want to have control.”

What they were saying was not, “Hey, we want to have a second do over vote,” which is, I think kind of where the court may have… may be drifting. I think what they’re saying is, “we want to know what you’re doing” and what they’re asking is not in my opinion, in conflict with the constitution, but it is one in which we can come and say, “we would like for you to make the decision if you want a casino here.”

If the Quorum Court or you yourself are going to issue a letter or desire to issue a letter, tell us who you’re going to issue the letter to. You’ve got a number of applicants. Put one on the table. Theoretically, you could issue one, your honor, and the Quorum Court could issue one. I know that’s not how it’s going, but you could have multiple letters out there.

At that point, submit it to the people and say, “I would desire to issue a letter for” name your favorite casino, whichever one you think is better.

At that point, it allows the people to come in and have that final say. And not have the state shove Amendment 100 down on them to get whoever… whoever’s going to be the popular choice. It allows them to have some say so.

I think this is a clear, a clear reason why people in Pope County overwhelmingly decided they needed this. They want to have this in place, the ordinance. And I’ve heard lots of stories. Everybody says there shall be issued four licenses. Well, there shall only if they’re qualified.

I agree with you. In the constitutional amendment, (it) says you or the Quorum Court, one of you, had, there is local control as well.

There’s two stages in Pope County, and we want that. We don’t want the Racing Commission to say, “we’ve got to issue one,” cause there’s no time difference for shall. There is no “shall be issued in so many days” or “so many months” and, 50 years from now, if somebody decides to put a casino in Pope County, Amendment 100 is fulfilled.

There’s no time emergency.

I think it’s a simple, a simple choice for the, for the quorum court and for yourself. How do we go, working with the people, to say, “Here’s what, here’s what we desire. We have done our due diligence. We have figured out what we think is the best.” and put that before the citizens of Pope County.

And at that point—hopefully in the general election, which doesn’t cost anybody extra money—they can come out and say, “Here’s what we wish to do.”

That informs everybody. That informs the state, it informs this body, and ultimately it gives a great way for some of this divisiveness, which has occurred, to ultimately be brought back to unity.

And so as, as one who was involved in, in what was the goal, which sometimes gets lost in all the articles and paper and whatnot, the goal was for the people who, as I have, as I have come to respect, the people of Pope County are independent people. They have a voice and they want it to be heard. And so instead of calling this a “do over” election, I think what they’re asking for is for this body and your honor to decide what you want to do and then to submit it out to them, to refer it out to them—which is within your power—to give them the option to figure out what to do with that. At that point, then, hopefully, we’ve got a decision that everybody will, will have sorted out in a, in a very, very rational and calm-headed fashion.

And simply speaking as, as the drafter of this, that’s, that’s what this was intended to do. This wasn’t a pure proxy vote on have it or don’t have it. It was asking, it was asking you [Judge Cross] to come forward or the [Quorum] Court to come forward and give us what they wanted and say, “Here’s who we think is the best,” if there is even such a candidate and that’s, that’s again, your decision, it could be that, “We’re not, we don’t want to put anybody forward. We don’t feel that this is appropriate.”

There’s lots of options. But at that point we simply ask you to do that. Submit that to a vote. I don’t think we’re in a hurry around here. Um, there’s no, there’s no requirement for or standards for that. And to simply allow Pope County to be Pope County and decide what they want to do.

And, uh, that’s simply what we would ask this body to consider. And hopefully that… hope it clarifies some of what we’ve been talking about. And if there’s any questions or anything, I’m happy to answer them. But otherwise, thank you all so much. Thank you for your time.

Judge Cross

Mr. Story, first, let me thank you as the author of the ordinance. I think some justices may have some questions.

Caleb Moore

Mr. Story, thank you for coming. And to be quite honest, I’ve never heard that explanation before. And it was, I think, good for all of us to hear, because as long as we’ve been hearing on both sides of this issue, if that was the intent all along then, there has been some miscommunication on that, for sure, on exactly what the intent of that was and how that was supposed to be [inaudible]. Let me ask you a question here. You said that the people, the intent of it was to have a final say, correct? So, so in, in essence, you would want the court and the county judge to do a vetting process, choose the operator who, whoever that would be, and then put that back up in a general election, which I think if the judge, correct me, if I’m wrong, that does cost us some money to do that.

But that is the intent of what you have laid out tonight.

Travis Story

The intent was simply to inform the people of Pope County as to what would be, what would be finally voted on because when Amendment 100 was on the ballot, it doesn’t say who’s coming where, who’s was doing what.  It does multiple things that I believe Pope County had a problem with.

And, in this, I’m not saying it has to be one operator. Like I said, the court… the court and the judge can both, could both put somebody forward. I think that would be allowable.

[A justice says something about it not being something “we’d do.”]

I don’t think, I don’t know that that’s what you’d do. I’m just saying, I think it’d be [inaudible due to someone in the audience coughing]

Something you have to remember, at the time when all this is happening, we’ve gone a long way, A lot of water under the bridge, since when, when all this was initially started, but the issue is, I believe Pope… Pope county can come in…, could make a final, uh, final choice on who they would want to come operate in their backyard.

Caleb Moore

So it’s not if it’s a casino. It’s which operator?

Travis Story

I think it could be, or no operators. I believe that’s a firm possibility.

Doug Sketon

Mr. Story, Could this special election that we’re talking about could take place in the preferential primary?

Travis Story

I don’t know that I, I can give you a, you’ve got an attorney to give you that advice. I believe the special elections, especially a called election. Um, I’m not sure that this act could actually be done at a, at a primary, and my only comment to the general election is you’re already going to have a general election. So we’re not talking about an additional amount of funds. Yes, it will cost… it’ll cost the county something every time we have a general election. So we’re not talking a large increase in costs about 25… I believe it’s $25,000 plus dollars to do that because you’re already going to have the general election versus calling this election…

Doug Slelton

But we’re already gonna have the preferential primary of March, 2020 and that, that is actually covered by the state of Arkansas. And that does not cost the taxpayers of Pope County anything.

Travis Story

I would leave that up, if that’s something,

Doug Skelton

You don’t know that?

Travis Story

I don’t know the answer to that.. The ordinance specifically asks for special election or the general election. If there’s, if there’s a statute that says a primary is also a special election, I don’t foresee that, but that’s beyond my pay grade at the moment.

Doug Skelton

That’s not what I said. I said, you can have a special election during a preferential primary.

Travis Story

If that’s the case, then, standing here today, I can’t answer that question for you. I apologize.

Thank you all so much. I appreciate the time .

The video

Encyclopedia of Arkansas

1. Born in Montreal, Quebec, Canada New, France on 26 Aug 1718. He passed away in 1799 in Arkansas Post, Arkansas, Lousiana Territory.

by Emmet Starr, 1917 ^{1, 2}

In July 1820, Reverends Cephas Washburn and Alfred Finney, accompanied by James Orr and Jacob Hitchcock, arrived in the “Western” Cherokee Nation, Arkansas Territory. Shortly afterwards they established Dwight Mission, on the west bank of Illinois Creek, four miles from Arkansas River. It was named in honor of Reverend Timothy Dwight, president of Yale College and the first signatory member of the American Board.

By the 1st of October, 1820, they had erected two ” comfortable cabins,” and soon afterwards Washburn and Finney returned to Elliott Mission, in Mississippi, for their families. They returned to Dwight on May 10, 1821.

They immediately commenced the erection of the school building, but before they finished it they ran out of nails and had to go to Union Mission ( now in Mayes County, Oklahoma, over two hundred miles distance ) to borrow enough to complete the building. The building was completed and school commenced on January 1, 1822.

In January, 1826, the following missionaries were at Dwight: Reverends Cephas Washburn and Alfred Finney, missionaries; Dr. George L. Weed, who afterwards moved to Cincinnati, Ohio, physician and teacher; Jacob Hitchcock, steward; Miss Cynthia Thrall, charge of school; Miss Ellen Stetson, teacher; James Orr, farmer; Samuel Wisner and Asa Hitchcock, mechanics.

Reverend and Mrs. Worcester Willey arrived at Dwight on January 31, 1826.

The “ Western Cherokees ” exchanged their land in Arkansas for land west of that territory, on May 6, 1828, and by the succeeding spring practically the entire Nation had moved to their new possession.

For that reason it became incumbent on the missionaries to also remove to the western territory. The entire missionary establishment of Dwight Mission was moved to and located on the site of Nicksville, the late county seat of Lovely County, Arkansas, in 1828 ( on the west side of Sallisaw Creek, section 34, township 13, range 23, in the present county of Sequoyah, Oklahoma).

Reverend Daniel Sabin Buttrick arrived at Dwight in March, 1839.

Reverend William Potter, Dr. Elizur Butler and Miss Ermina Nash arrived at Dwight on June 10, 1839. Miss Nash was married at this mission on April 3, 1841, to Reverend Samuel A. Worcester.

Mrs. Alfred Finney, nee Susannah Washburn, a native of Randolph, Vermont, died at Dwight in January 1833.

Dwight Mission has survived, with varying fortunes, to the present time.

1. Starr, Emmet. Early History of the Cherokees Embracing Aboriginal Customs, Religion, Laws, Folk Lore, and Civilization. Emmet Starr, 1917. Accessed December 31, 2021.
2. Cherokee historian, genealogist, and physician, Emmet Starr was born on December 12, 1870, in present Adair County, Oklahoma, the former Going Snake District, Cherokee Nation, Indian Territory. He was one of five children born to mixed-blood Cherokees Walter Adair and Ruth A. Thornton Starr—Oklahoma Historical Society

William Lovely, an Irish immigrant, had arrived in America just before the Revolutionary War and had lived for a time at Montpelier, the home of James Madison’s family, before moving on.¹

(excerpt)

1. William Lewis Lovely (1750–1817), a native of Dublin, Ireland, arrived in Virginia shortly before the Revolutionary War and lived briefly with JM’s family at Montpelier. Thereafter, he settled in Tennessee, where he attained the rank of major in the militia. In 1801 he became subagent to the Cherokee Indians under Return Jonathan Meigs Sr., and in 1813 he moved to the Arkansas River, near present-day Russellville, Arkansas, to serve the Cherokees who were migrating west. He there attempted with little success to mitigate the conflict between the Cherokee and Osage tribes, going so far in 1816 as to obtain what subsequently became known as “Lovely’s Purchase,” a cession of millions of acres of Osage land for Cherokee use, in exchange for the unauthorized promise that the U.S. government would pay all claims against the Osage. The government did not honor the agreement but renegotiated it in 1818 (Arkansas Biography: A Collection of Notable Lives, s.v. “Lovely, William Lewis”; Ina Gabler, “Lovely’s Purchase and Lovely County,” Arkansas Historical Quarterly 19 [1960]: 31).
   • “Founders Online: To James Madison from William L. Lovely, September 1815.” National Archives and Records Administration.Accessed January 7, 2022. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/03-09-02-0564.

In June 1813 William L. Lovely had established an Indian agency on Illinois Bayou in present-day Pope County, Arkansas about three miles upstream from the Arkansas River in what was then territory granted to the Cherokee.  In this letter, he writes of the destruction of the “Buffaloes Race” long before many recognized that the American bison would be brought to the brink of destruction.

1. Creolian Grimaces?—Possibly something to do with the French Creole trappers and hunters?

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)

Dear Honorable Justices,

Since the results of the 2018 Pope County vote in 2018 keep being used for justification, this is the text of what the voters saw on the ballot in November 2018.

Notice that it isn’t a vote against a casino or casino gaming.  It’s a vote to restrict an authority specifically assigned by the Constitution of the State of Arkansas to the County Judge and the Quorum Court.

Notice also that what was on the ballot is different than what was actually in the ordinance.  The ballot called for an election by popular vote while the ordinance specified that “a majority of the registered voters of the registered voters of Pope County, Arkansas must approve and authorize….”

The ordinance required approval by a majority of registered county voters – not a majority of votes cast. Since there were 34,792 registered voters in Pope County at the time, 17,397 would have to vote to authorize County Judge and the Quorum Court to submit documents. Since only 18,051 people voted in 2018, that was clearly an impossible goal.

The ballot was confusing.

In public comments in early 2019 on the proposed casino gaming rules,

•  One Pope County voter wrote: “Now that all of this has come to light and much more public, I am learning in my ignorance I was misled on the local ordinance vote. It has been brought to my attention it reads…”majority of registered voters”. I have to ask, has there even ever been “the majority of registered voters” vote in an election? If there was a vote today between God and the devil I don’t think you would get the majority of the registered voters. Was this tactic used in the wording of the ordinance because they believed it was the only way to accomplish their goals?”
• Jim Knight, Allan George, Anna Stiritz and many others stated in boilerplate/copied messages via e-mail or snail mail:
  •  “I request that the Arkansas Racing Commission take note of the Pope County Ordinance, passed by 68% of county voters in the November election, which states that voters of Pope County shall vote by an election in support of a casino applicant before any letter of support can be written by a currently elected County Judge or Quorum Court.” (Was it to be a yes or no vote on allowing the document to be issued or a for or against vote for a casino applicant?)
  •  A number of people sent the same message in by regular mail without a return address, not wanting their email address or snail mail address to be available through FOIA request.
  • There is even 2 handwritten version of this exact statement by other  Pope County residents.
•  Another wrote: I’m a registered voter from Pope Co, I did sign the petition for the people of Pope Co. to have the right to vote on whether we got a casino or not. I did not realize at the time they had made it impossible for it ever to pass because they said a majority of the registered voters! I didn’t think it mattered because I thought when it passed state wide that superseded the county vote.
•  One said, “I would also like to ask that you uphold our local ordinance in that we as a county can hold an election to decide if we would like to have a casino in our county, or not.”
• From another:

 I do not support a Casino because I have lived in a city with Casinos, however, if the majority of Pope County citizens supported it, I believe that the Judge and Mayor should also.
I feel like the way the exiting Mayor and Judge crammed their choice down the citizen’s throats at the twelfth hour, made the Racing Commission look dirty and as though there were “backroom payoffs” going on.
Regardless of the past, if Gulfside thinks that a Casino would be so wonderful in Pope County, why are those so intimidated to present their wonderful deal to the current Mayor, judge and citizens of Pope County. The Mayor and Judge of Pope County have given their word to support what the people support.

What does “local control” mean?”

From the ordinance: “§1.1 Short Title. This Amendment shall be known as the “Pope County Local Control for Casino Gaming Amendment of 2018.”

That title did not appear in the ballot title or the ballot text.

Yet, the ballot options were to vote for or against “Local Control for Casino Gaming Ordinance” – though, in the ordinance, it’s called “this amendment.”

That still doesn’t define what local control means.

Local control, as defined by the authors of Issue 4, the initiative that resulted in Amendment 100, is the requirement in Amendment 100 for documents of support from local officials elected to represent their constituents.

“If the people in the affected counties want to encourage their elected leaders through ordinances or resolutions, that is their prerogative. That is the kind of local discussion that the amendment is intended to inspire,” said Nate Steel in August 2018.  They didn’t anticipate that local organizations would attempt to illegally restrict the authority of the elected leaders.

A news release in December 2018 by Quapaw leader John Berrey said that the amendment protected local control and provided that local leaders may select, through a letter of support, who applied for a casino license in their community.

Judge Cross, in a letter to the Racing Commission dated February 1, 2019, wrote, “In conversations with the very authors of Issue 4 (Amendment 200), it was concisely conveyed to me, the “local option” written into the amendment’s wording was purposely placed there to empower the office of county judge, and/or mayor if so required, to have representation in the application process.

Local control doesn’t mean that the electorate of Pope County gets to give their elected representatives permission – or authorize – them to carry out their lawful duties, responsibilities, and authorities.

They gave them that permission when they elected them.

Thank you for your consideration of this

Mike Goad
(Dover Out Voting Precinct)