Arkansas' High Court Rejects Bids to Disqualify Casino Amendment

Submitted by Guest on

Written by :

Guest

Published on :

(Associated Press) - Arkansas' Supreme Court has rejected efforts to disqualify a proposed casino legalization initiative, dismissing two lawsuits which claimed the ballot's wording was misleading and ambiguous on several issues.

In two rulings Thursday, Arkansas' highest court said the ballot's text was clear and did not mislead voters.

The proposed amendment would issue casino licenses at a Hot Springs horse track and at a West Memphis dog track, both of which currently offer electronic gambling. It also would legalize casinos in Jefferson and Pope counties.

One ruling was unanimous, but Justice Jo Hart disagreed in part with the other, saying the language was misleading enough to strike the issue from the ballot.

Last month, the secretary of state's office certified that the amendment had garnered enough signatures to appear on the ballot.

Related Content

Live Gambling News, Top Trending: Updates 24/7 - Wednesday July 1, 2026

Live Gambling News, Top Trending: Updates 24/7 - Wednesday July 1, 2026

Lebron James Leaving Lakers - Warriors Next Team Odds - FIFA World Cup - Wimbledon Championships
People gambling at a casino

HighRollersUK Explained: UK VIP Casino Reviews Backed by Real Testing

Most casino review sites are built around welcome bonuses, free spins and quick sign-up offers. That works for casual players, but it does not fully answer the questions high-stakes players usually care about.
Online casino

Same Owner, Different Payout Speed: Why Sister Casinos Don't Cash Out Alike

Players who bounce between online casino brands tend to assume that sites sharing an owner behave the same way — and for the most part, they are right. The games overlap, the layouts feel familiar, and the support replies read off the same script.
Slots with stop as the word

Network-Wide Self-Exclusion Across Sister Sites: How It Should Work and How BetBond Tests It

BetBond describes one check as completely non-negotiable: if an operator fails to enforce self-exclusion across its network of sister sites, the review ends, and the site is not recommended. Because that single rule carries so much weight, it deserves a fuller explanation.