The Arkansas Supreme Court will allow an amendment regarding casinos to go on the ballot in November.

If passed, Issue 2 will do away with a Pope County casino license, and prevent a casino from being built in a county that did not vote for it.

A lawsuit was filed opposing the amendment on two grounds; that the signatures collected were partly invalid, and that the popular name of the amendment was unclear and improper. The first claim was thrown out when the Supreme Court appointed a special master to look into the allegation. On Thursday, the high court threw out the second claim in a 6-5 decision.

Issue 2 is a response to Amendment 100, approved by voters in 2018, which awarded four casino licenses in Arkansas to Crittenden, Garland, Jefferson, and Pope counties. Unlike the other three counties, the majority of voters in Pope County did not support the amendment.

After years of legal turmoil, the Pope County casino has still not been built. The Choctaw Nation applied for the license, but the Arkansas Racing Commission decided to go with the bid from Cherokee Nation Businesses. In turn, the Choctaw Nation spent $5.3 million to fund the amendment to block the casino. The group backing Issue 2, Local Voters in Charge, argues they want to give Pope County a say in whether to build the casino.

The group collected enough signatures to put the amendment on the ballot for November, prompting a group supporting the Pope County casino to file suit against the amendment. They made two arguments: that the signatures were invalid, and the proposal’s popular name and ballot title were insufficient.

The Supreme Court appointed a special master who previously threw out the first allegation. Writing for the majority Thursday, Associate Justice Karen Baker addressed the lawsuit’s second claim.

The opinion breaks down claims in the lawsuit, like that the amendment’s text and ballot title do not match. Baker says Attorney General Tim Griffin actually changed the wording in the ballot title to fit with the language in the amendment.

The suit also claims the popular name on the ballot title needs to contain more information. Baker disagreed.

“The popular name is an identification tool and simply cannot explain every eventuality of the actual amendment.”

Associate Justice Shawn Womack wrote the dissenting opinion, saying the amendment is not clear about what would happen to existing casino licenses. As it stands, the amendment does clarify that it applies to future casino licenses, but Womack says it often uses the past tense in an unclear and incorrect way.

“Words have meaning,” the dissent reads. “The text within the popular name and ballot title is supposed to say what it means and mean what it says.”

Hans Stiritz with Local Voters in Charge agreed with the Court’s opinion.

“The Supreme Court was unequivocal in stating that [Issue 2] couldn’t be more simple and more straightforward and directly presented to the voters of Arkansas, and that the votes should count,” he said.

Natalie Ghidotti is with the group Investing in Arkansas, which opposes Issue 2. She says Pope County is losing millions in revenue while they hold off on building the casino.

“We want those jobs, those 1,000-plus jobs and all that tax revenue to stay in Arkansas,” she said.

Ghidotti says she is disappointed, but has “faith” Arkansans will vote against the proposal.

If you vote yes on Issue 2, you are voting to block the Pope County casino and require local approval for new casinos in the state. If you vote no, you are voting to keep current plans for the casino in place.