In 2018, Arkansas voters approved a constitutional amendment to allow casino gambling in the state and authorized four casino locations, three of which are already operational, while the fourth has been held up by legal disputes.

On Monday, the Arkansas Supreme Court rejected a challenge to a ballot initiative that, if passed, would revoke the license granted for that fourth casino that is planned for a location in Pope County, the Associated Press reported.

However, that ruling only pertained to one part of the challenge that was focused on the petition signature-gathering process, and the court is expected to rule again later this week on a related question of whether the initiative's ballot title and description is misleading or confusing for voters.

Challenge to petition signatures rejected

A group known as Local Voters in Charge submitted earlier this year more than the required number of signatures needed to get their initiative on November's ballot to revoke the planned Pope County casino's license, only for a group known as the Arkansas Canvassing Compliance Committee, backed by the licensee, Cherokee Nation Entertainment, to file a lawsuit challenging the validity of the gathered signatures.

The Arkansas Supreme Court appointed a special master to review the evidence -- particularly claims that canvassers violated pay-per-signature laws -- and the special master ultimately determined that there was insufficient proof of any wrongdoing.

As such, in a unanimous 12-page decision on Monday, the state's high court rejected the part of the challenge that sought to bar the initiative from appearing on the ballot.

Winners "grateful" for ruling, losing side looks forward to remaining challenge

The Fort Smith Southwest Times Record reported that Local Voters in Charge said in a statement, "We’re grateful for today’s Arkansas Supreme Court ruling. It’s no small thing for the Supreme Court to unanimously rule that we got it right on the canvassing process, with over 110,000 signatures ultimately affirmed."

"Issue 2’s message of local voter control -- that communities should have the final say on a casino in their own hometown -- is resonating across the state," the group opposed to the casino added. "We look forward to the court’s final decision on the ballot language challenge, with hope that the vote of the people will be counted on Issue 2 in November."

On the other side of the dispute, Little Rock's local CBS affiliate THV11 reported that Arkansas Canvassing Compliance Committee spokesperson Allison Burum said, "While disappointing, we still await the Court's decision on the ballot title challenge. Issue 2 is misleading, and its sole purpose is to undo the will of Arkansas voters by eliminating the fourth casino license they approved in 2018."

"Voters will see this as a bad deal -- out-of-state billionaires trying to manipulate Arkansans into changing the constitution to benefit their own self-interest," she added. "If passed, Issue 2 would cost Arkansans thousands of jobs and much-needed tax revenue, including funding for our roads."

Dispute is part of a rivalry between Native tribes in Oklahoma

According to the Arkansas Times, the dispute over the anti-casino ballot initiative has been revealing of the various interests at play here and could also have a consequential impact on other ballot initiatives that have been challenged, including one to expand the state's medical marijuana program.

Interestingly enough, the casino dispute is part of a rivalry between two Oklahoma-based Native American tribes, with the "local voters" opposition being funded and backed by the Choctaw Nation, which stands to lose business at its casinos on the Oklahoma side of the border if the Pope County location operated by the Cherokee Nation is allowed to open.

As for the Supreme Court's rejection of the challenge against how the petition signatures for the initiative were collected, that same technicality was used to dispute the validity of the signatures for Issue 3, the medical marijuana expansion initiative, and likewise was a sidestepped part of the dispute earlier this year over a proposed amendment to weaken the state's strict anti-abortion laws.

As for whether the casino initiative's ballot title and description is misleading, the Times Record reported that the high court is expected to render its decision on that argument by Thursday, which will determine once and for all whether votes for and against Issue 2 will be counted or not.