3 other constitutional measures on ballot

On Election Day, Arkansans will decide the fate of three constitutional amendments that were placed on the ballot by the state Legislature in 2013.

One extends term limits for lawmakers and bars lobbyists from giving them gifts.

Another lets legislators pass a law giving themselves the authority to approve or reject new agency rules.

The third makes it harder for citizens to get initiated acts and amendments on future ballots.

Issue 3 would increase the length of time that lawmakers are allowed to hold office to a maximum of 16 years in the state House of Representatives, the state Senate or a combination of both.

Lawmakers now are limited to six years in the House and eight years in the Senate under Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution, which was approved by voters in 1992. The law allows some senators to serve a total of 10 years, if they happen to draw two-year terms in lots following once-per-decade redistricting.

Issue 3 also would ban gifts from lobbyists to lawmakers and state constitutional officers, prohibit direct political contributions from corporations and unions, and delay lawmakers’ eligibility to register as lobbyists until two years after their legislative terms have ended. The current waiting period is one year.

It also would create a citizens commission to set salaries for lawmakers and other elected officials, and make recommendations for per diem and other reimbursements for lawmakers. The Legislature currently handles those tasks.

The seven-member commission would include two appointees each by the House speaker, Senate president pro tempore and governor, and one by the chief justice of the state Supreme Court.

State Sen. Jon Woods, R-Springdale, and Rep. Warwick Sabin, D-Little Rock, led efforts to get Issue 3 on the ballot.

Woods said the proposed amendment is “a good compromise” combining his interest in extending term limits and creating a salary commission and Sabin’s interest in the ethics measures.

“If it doesn’t pass, the House still would be at a disadvantage compared to the Senate and governor,” Woods said. “The executive branch and Senate run circles around the House. … Freshmen House members are preyed upon by the lobbying community because they don’t know any better.”

That’s because representatives are limited to serving up to six years in the chamber, while the governor and most senators, some of whom also have served in the House, can keep their posts for eight years, Woods said.

“If we are going to have term limits, let’s make them fair,” said Woods, who has been in the Senate since 2013 and served in the House from 2007-13.

But Jerry Cox, president of the Family Council Action Committee that opposes Issue 3, said the proposed amendment is “a veiled attempt to extend term limits.” He said he’s annoyed that lawmakers referred a complex amendment with several issues to voters that a grandmother in Russellville would struggle to understand.

The amendment’s ballot title, which is on the ballot, says it’s “establishing term limits for members of the General Assembly.” But Woods said voters know the state already has the strictest term limits in the nation.

U.S. Term Limits, based in Palm Beach, Fla., reported spending $404,000 last month to design and purchase television advertising opposing Issue 3.

In 2004, Arkansas voters rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would have increased from three to six the number of twoyear terms House members would be allowed to serve, and would have raised from two to three the number of four-year terms senators are allowed to have.

Woods said he proposed allowing the citizens commission to set salaries for the state’s elected officials because lawmakers don’t feel comfortable setting their own salaries, and he wants the salary levels to be reviewed by the commission.

But Cox said legislative leaders would be able to appoint four of the seven members of the citizens commission under the proposed amendment, and “most people would like to be able to appoint their friends to give them a raise.”

Woods said the proposed amendment would allow lobbyists to purchase meals for lawmakers in group settings, but not for them when they are alone so “lawmakers don’t feel in debt to somebody who buys a dinner or meal” for them.

Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe said he’s “predisposed” to vote against Issue 3.

Green Party gubernatorial nominee Joshua Drake said he plans to vote for it, while Democratic nominee Mike Ross, Republican nominee Asa Hutchinson and Libertarian nominee Frank Gilbert said they oppose it.

ISSUE 1

The proposed amendment would allow lawmakers to pass future laws that give legislative committees veto-authority over proposed state agency administrative rules.

The Arkansas Legislative Council currently reviews state agency rules, but the Arkansas Supreme Court has said legislators can review new rules, but can’t block them, according to the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Research and Extension’s Public Policy Center.

Voting to approve or disapprove state agency rules would violate the state constitution’s requirement for separation of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, the courts have previously ruled.

State Sen. Jonathan Dismang, R-Searcy, who proposed Issue 1, said it would give more control to lawmakers to ensure that rules and regulations adopted by state agencies follow the intent of laws approved by the Legislature.

“I think that’s beneficial just to make sure that constituents’ voices are heard on those particular items,” he said.

“If the voters do approve the item, I think we will be very careful that we don’t overstep our boundaries when we are writing that rule-making process for ourselves,” Dismang said.

“We don’t want to be in the middle of trying to govern everything the Game and Fish [Commission] does or the Highway Department or those constitutionally-independent agencies. There is not an intent to go out and try to set or dictate when Game and Fish, for instance, would create seasons for hunting and fishing, and that’s something that we will address, if it does pass and it comes before us to draft the rules for ourselves,” he said.

Beebe said he plans to vote against the proposed amendment because “if the Legislature wants to be the governor, they need to run for governor.

“It’s separation of powers. All three [branches] ought to be equal,” said Beebe, who previously served as attorney general and a state senator.

Gilbert said he intends to vote for the proposal, while Ross, Hutchinson and Drake said they plan to vote against it.

ISSUE 2

This proposed amendment would allow sponsors of ballot measures to collect signatures on petitions during a 30-day “cure period” only if three-quarters of the signatures originally turned in are found to be valid.

The current procedure to get a measure on the ballot requires the sponsor to gather a certain number of signatures by a certain deadline. If he turns in the required number of signatures but not enough of them are determined to be valid, the sponsor now gets an additional 30 days to gather more signatures.

Issue 2 would set a valid-signature threshold in order to get the 30 additional days. It would require that at least 75 percent of the signatures on petitions be valid.

State Sen. Bill Sample, R-Hot Springs, said the constitutional amendment he proposed would help “to stop the fraud” of some paid signature gatherers purposely turning in fraudulent signatures in order to get an additional 30 days to collect valid ones. He said that grass-roots groups, that legitimately gather signatures of registered voters for ballot measures, wouldn’t be hurt by his proposal.

“If 75 percent of the signatures aren’t valid, they don’t get the [30-day] cure period,” if voters adopt Issue 2, he explained.

But Cox, whose Family Council Action Committee opposes Issue 2, said the proposed amendment makes it more difficult for citizens to place measures on the ballot.

“It gives the secretary of state more opportunity to disqualify measures and [allows] lawyers with moneyed interests to jerk the little guy around who may not have deep pockets to fight back,” Cox said.

Beebe said he’s “predisposed” to vote against the proposed amendment.

Ross and Drake said they intend to to vote for the proposal, while Hutchinson and Gilbert said they plan to cast their votes against it.