Alabama Advisory Opinions August 13, 2004: AGO 2004-202 (August 13, 2004)

AGO 2004-202.

Dear Ms. Worley:

This opinion of the Attorney General is issued in response to your request.

Must a ballot include the language from the act calling for a vote on a constitutional amendment verbatim, or can the language be corrected on the ballot to properly reflect the purpose and intent of the legislation?

Recently, the Alabama Legislature passed Act 2004-542 proposing a constitutional amendment to appear on the November 2, 2004, general election ballot. The act provides the following ballot language for this proposed amendment:

Relating to Hale County, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to levy an additional 30 mill ad valorem tax on certain classes of property; to increase the homestead exemption from $2,000 and $5,000 for tax levies subject to the homestead exemption; and to provide that the increase in the countywide tax shall be distributed by local act.

2004 Ala. Acts No. 2004-542 (emphasis added).

You state that in conversations your office has had with the sponsor of the bill, Representative Bobby Singleton, it was determined that the ballot language contained a typographical error in the phrase "from $2,000 and $5,000." 2004 Ala. Acts No. 2004-542 (emphasis added). Language found in two other places in the act indicates that the phrase should read "from $2,000 to $5,000," and this conclusion was confirmed by Representative Singleton.

Sections 284 through 287 of the Alabama Constitution provide the exclusive means by which the Alabama Constitution may be changed. State v. Manley , 441 So. 2d 864 (Ala. 1983). The Legislature can propose a constitutional amendment, but cannot enact one. Gafford v. Pemberton , 409 So. 2d 1367 (Ala. 1982). Section 285 of the Alabama Constitution provides, in pertinent part, that "[u]pon the ballots used at all elections provided for in section 284 of this Constitution the substance or subject matter of each proposed amendment shall be so printed that the nature thereof shall be clearly indicated . "

Ala. Const. art. XVIII, § 285 (emphasis added). In Swaim v. Tuscaloosa County, 267 Ala. 509, 103 So. 2d 769 (1958), the Alabama Supreme Court stated the following:

Section 285 of the Constitution . . . does not require that all provisions of a proposed amendment be set forth in extenso on the ballot . Those provisions do not require that the language printed on the ballot be a compendium of all such provisions. In fact, § 285 does not even require that the entire 'substance or subject matter' of the proposed amendment be printed on the ballot. It only requires that so much thereof as may be necessary to indicate clearly the nature of the proposed amendment be so printed.

Swaim, 267 Ala. at 515, 103 So. 2d at 774. See also , Jones v. McDade, 200 Ala. 230, 75 So. 988 (1917); Chappell v. State , 810 So. 2d 639 (Ala. 2001).

The only requirement relating to ballot language found in the constitutional provisions regulating the exclusive manner in which the Alabama Constitution may be amended provides merely that the ballot contain necessary language to indicate clearly the nature of the proposed amendment. It is therefore permissible for the typographical error found in the act proposing the constitutional amendment to be corrected to reflect the nature and purpose of the proposed amendment.

A typographical error contained in the language of an act proposing a constitutional amendment may be corrected on the ballot to properly reflect the purpose and intent of the legislation.

I hope this opinion answers your question. If this Office can be of further assistance, please contact Ben Albritton of my staff.

Sincerely,

TROY KING

Attorney General

By: BRENDA F. SMITH

Chief, Opinions Division

BFS/BHA

161738v1/69736