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)