The state law would supersede the local antismoking ordinances, which contain stronger bans than the state law does. Health costs associated with smoking cause health insurance premiums to rise for everyone and so affect nonsmokers. There is considerable sentiment among voters in most areas of the state for restriction of smoking. The state law would not affect existing local ordinances banning smoking in places where the fire authorities have determined that smoking would constitute a fire hazard.
In one state, all cities and most towns have antismoking ordinances. A petition entitled "Petition for Statewide Smoking Restriction" is being circulated to voters by campaign workers who ask only, "Do you want to sign a petition for statewide smoking restriction? " The petition advocates a state law banning smoking in most retail establishments and in government offices that are open to the public.
Which of the following circumstances would make the petition as circulated misleading to voters who understand the proposal as extending the local ordinances statewide?