LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — The Arkansas Supreme Court has ruled that votes for a proposal to expand medical marijuana will not count because the ballot title and popular name are "misleading" and does not satisfy state law.
The 4-3 majority ruling was issued by Associate Justice Shawn Womack on Oct. 21, the same day early voting began in the state. That means that although people will see Issue 3 on their ballots, any votes cast for or against will not be counted.
Womack in the ruling said that while the Arkansas Constitution allows for people to propose and vote on amendments, "proposed amendments must be clear––not misleading."
"In this case, the Intervenors have met their burden of showing that the proposed amendment’s popular name and ballot title are misleading and therefore insufficient to satisfy the requirements of amendment 7, as codified in article 5, section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution," Womack said.
In the decision, Womack stated that since the popular name "indicates that the proposed amendment is limited to medical marijuana," the actual proposal has what he called a "broader" reach when it comes to federal laws on marijuana.
The proposal does have a provision that if the federal government ever decriminalizes marijuana that would allow adults to possess up to one ounce for personal use. The decriminalization of marijuana would also allow for the drug to be used recreationally, under the proposed changes to state law.
"The word medical incorrectly suggests to voters that the proposed amendment is limited to medical marijuana. It is not," Womack said. "The language used is deceptive and misleading and renders the proposal insufficient."
Womack also noted that the proposed law would bars legislators from changing constitutional amendments. If approved, Issue 3 would have made it so any changes to amendments must be approved by voters.
Womack was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justice Barbara Webb and Special Justices Don Curdie and Bilenda Harris-Ritter, who were appointed by Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders to hear the case. Chief Justice John Dan Kemp and Associate Justice Courtney Hudson did not participate in the ruling.
In his dissent, Justice Cody Hiland disagree that the popular name and ballot title were misleading and suggested that the majority ruling expanded the standard for popular names "by weaving in a new scope requirement."
"The majority again references what seems to be a new requirement while employing a misinterpretation of Roberts and Crochet," Hiland said. "When read in concert with the ballot title, the APA’s popular name is not misleading."
Hiland was joined in his dissent by Associated Justices Karen Baker and Rhonda Wood.
Arkansans for Patient Access, the group behind the measure, called the ruling "deeply disappointing" and promised to continue fighting to "eliminate hurdles to [marijuana] access and lower costs."
"Patients across Arkansas have made it clear they want to build on the existing foundation; unfortunately, the anti-marijuana politicians have ignored their call," the group said. "The people rule, our state motto, does not ring true today."
You can read the entire opinion by clicking here.