Page:Arkansas Women's Political Caucus v. Riviere.pdf/3

Rh .—The Arkansas Constitution plainly places the responsibility on the Arkansas Supreme Court to see that the result of an election represents the objective judgment of the voters, and, when, as here, the popular ballot title of a proposed constitutional amendment conveys a biased view of the merits of the proposal, it is the Court's duty to declare it misleading.

Petition to have Popular Name and Ballot Title of Amendment No. 65 declared invalid; petition granted.

Mays & Crutcher Law Firm, by: Richard L. Mays and Tara Levy, for petitioner.

Steve Clark, Att'y Gen., by: Curtis Nebben, Dep. Att'y Gen., for respondent.

Robert S. Shafer and Leon Holmes, for intervenor/respondent.  

R H. D, Justice. In this original action the petitioner, the Arkansas Womens Political Caucus, asks this court to declare invalid proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 65, "The Unborn Child Amendment." We hold that the popular name of the proposed amendment constitutes a partisan coloring of the ballot and declare the measure ineligible for consideration at the November 6, 1984, election.

In two historic cases, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the Constitution protects a woman's right to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy and that a state may not unduly burden the exercise of a woman's fundamental right to obtain an abortion. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973). These two 1973 cases did not resolve all of the complex issues involved in the abortion controversy. In 1977, in a trilogy of cases, the Court ruled that neither the Constitution nor federal statutes required public funding of elective abortions for poverty stricken women. Beal v. Doe, 432 U.S. 438 (1977); Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977); and Poelker v. Doe, 432 U.S. 519 (1977). The 1977 trilogy did not address the