Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Kurrus Ex Rel. Arkansans to Protect Police, Libraries, Education, & Services (APPLES) v. Priest

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided October 24, 2000No. 00-1071Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRobert L. Brown, Justice

I agree with the majority that the ballot title and the proposed amendment are misleading in the extreme. Nothing less is at stake here than the total restructuring of how all revenue is raised in this state for spending at all levels of government. That point, however, is obfuscated by the drafting of the proposal. The ballot title and the amendment speak throughout in terms of taxes. However, an “increase in taxes” is defined so broadly that any revenue increase falls within that definition. Witness the language from the ballot title: “Providing that...the changing of any law or rule which…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1994
  2. Plugge Ex Rel. Arkansas for Representative Democracy v. McCuenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1992
  3. Roberts v. PriestSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2000
  4. Donovan v. PriestSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1996
  5. Bradley v. HallSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1952

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API