Ditto for the No on Amendment 1 signs–1) you’d already driven past the sign before you finished reading the first line and 2) the No in red was not easily visible. The Yes signs were overly wordy too but the YES was easy to read. (And of course there was also that thing about massive infusion of campaign funds from outside the state. But that’s not something I can affect. I know how to change font size, color, and style in basic software programs.)

In Donaldson v. Dep’t of Transp., 262 Ga. 49 (Ga. 1992), Justice Weltner’s dissent points out how affirmatively deceptive the ballot was. In his typical concise prose:

(b) It is difficult to imagine a plainer case of affirmative misstatement than this case. Consider:
(i) The voters were asked whether they wanted the right to sue the state.
(ii) The voters answered “yes.”
(iii) Because they answered “yes,” their existing rights to sue the state have been terminated!

The majority did not disagree; they stated the rule for framing amendment ballots thus:

The only limitation on the General Assembly in drafting ballot language is that the language be adequate to enable the voters to ascertain which amendment they are voting on.

So, as long as the voters can determine that they are voting on something having to do with competition, and not with highways or public office, it doesn’t matter what the Yes-No question says. A concurring Justice put the matter very clearly:

The proper focus of this court’s inquiry is whether the ballot language, even if deceptive as to the purpose of the amendment, prevented the voter from knowing which amendment he was voting for or against.

There it is. If the legislature wants to commit fraud on the public, this is how they can do it. Legally.