Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this action involving two initiative petitions proposing constitutional amendments that Petitioners sought to have placed on the November 2020 election ballot the Supreme Court denied in part and dismissed in part Petitioners' petition challenging the Secretary of State's determination that the certification language submitted under Ark. Code Ann. 7-9-601(b)(3) was insufficient, holding that Petitioners did not comply with section 7-9-601(b)(3).The petition here contained three counts. The Supreme Court bifurcated the proceedings, and this opinion addressed counts one and two. The Supreme Court denied count one of the petition regarding the determination that the certification language was insufficient, which rendered moot the remainder of the petition. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Petitioners did not comply with section 7-9-601(b)(3) when they failed to certify that their paid canvassers had passed criminal background checks; and (2) neither initiative petition can qualify for the November 2020 election ballot. View "Miller v. Thurston" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's order finding that Emily White Lengefeld was a certified candidate for the position of Arkansas Court of Appeals District 4, Position 2, holding that the circuit court correctly determined that Lengefeld was a certified candidate for the position.Stephanie Potter Barrett, also a candidate for Position 2, filed a petition in the circuit court requesting a writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment declaring Lengefeld's petition for candidacy and political-practices pledge invalid and seeking removal of Lengefeld from the ballot for the March 3, 2020 election. The trial court found that Lengefeld was a certified candidate for the position. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err. View "Barrett v. Thurston" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's order granting Tyray Carr's petition for writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment declaring James Winfield Wyatt ineligible to file for, be elected to, or hold the office of circuit court judge, holding that the circuit court did not err by removing Wyatt from the March 2020 ballot.Wyatt filed to be placed on the ballot as a candidate for the office of Sixth Judicial District, Division Fourteen circuit court judge in the March 3, 2020 election. Carr, a registered voter, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment alleging that Wyatt was ineligible to run for public office because he had been found guilty of three misdemeanor hot-check violations. The circuit court found that Carr met his burden of proving that Wyatt had been convicted of an infamous crime and a public trust crime, rendering Wyatt ineligible to run for the office of circuit judge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) was correct in its application of the preponderance of the evidence burden of proof in deciding Carr's petition; (2) did not err in granting Carr's petition for writ of mandamus and motion for declaratory judgment; and (3) did not abuse its discretion in failing to award attorney's fees. View "Wyatt v. Carr" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted in part the petition for a writ of mandamus sought by Safe Surgery Arkansas and Laurie Barber (SSA) seeking to compel the Arkansas Secretary of State to count signatures SSA obtained in support of a ballot petition for a referendum on Act 579 of 2019, holding the new requirements of Act 376 of 2019 were not in effect at the time SSA filed its proposed referendum and supporting signatures.Act 376 added additional requirements for getting a referendum on the election ballot. The Secretary of State had refused to count most of the signatures SSA obtained in support of the ballot petition on the grounds that they were obtained in violation of Act 376. In this petition, SSA sought to have the signatures counted pursuant to the pre-Act 376 legal framework, arguing, inter alia, that Act 376's emergency clause was defective, rendering ineffective the changes in Act 376 until after SSA had already filed its ballot petition. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that Act 376's emergency clause was ineffective and that a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary of State to address SSA's filings under the pre-Act 376 framework was the only adequate remedy. View "Safe Surgery Arkansas v. Thurston" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed as moot Petitioner's petition for an order compelling Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge to certify the popular name and ballot title of a proposed amendment to the Arkansas Constitution, holding that Act 387 of 2019 rendered the original action petition moot.The proposed amendment in this case was entitled "The Arkansas Recreational Marijuana Amendment of 2020." Petitioner Arkansas True Grass was a ballot question committee that sponsored the proposed amendment. After the Attorney General rejected the popular name and ballot title of the proposed amendment, Petitioner asked the Supreme Court to require that the Attorney General certify the proposed measure. In response, the Attorney General asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition as moot in light of the passage of Act 387, which eliminated the requirement that sponsors of initiative petitions obtain the Attorney General's certification of the proposed amendment's popular name and ballot title prior to circulation of the initiative petition. The Supreme Court agreed and dismissed the original action petition, holding that Petitioner's request was moot because the Attorney General's certification would have no practical legal effect on the parties. View "Arkansas True Grass v. Rutledge" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order entering a declaratory judgment finding that Senate Joint Resolution 8 was not referred in accord with article 19, section 22 of the Arkansas Constitution and issuing a writ of mandamus ordering Secretary of State Mark Martin to refrain from counting, canvassing, or certifying any votes cast for or against the resolution.Appellee filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the resolution at issue, designated as “Issue No. 1” on the ballot for the November 6, 2018 general election, was unconstitutional, along with a request for either a writ of mandamus or injunctive relief. The circuit court granted Appellee’s request for declaratory relief, finding that Issue No. 1 violates article 19, section 22. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the submission of Issue No. 1 violates article 19, section 22; and (2) therefore, Appellee was entitled to both a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus. View "Martin v. Humphrey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s petition challenging the sufficiency of a statewide-initiative petition entitled “An Act to Increase the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act,” a petition that was on the November 6, 2018 ballot, holding that there was no merit in Petitioner’s claims.The Supreme Court appointed a special master in this matter, who entered his findings that the petition had sufficient signatures to qualify for placement on the November 6, 2018 ballot. Relying on Stephens v. Martin, 491 S.W. 3d 451 (Ark. 2014), the Supreme Court denied this petition, holding that Petitioner’s claims were without merit. View "Zook v. Martin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the petition filed by Petitioners claiming that the popular name and ballot title of Issue Number 4, a proposed constitutional amendment concerning casino gambling, were insufficient, holding that Issue Number 4 was proper for inclusion on the November 6, 2018 ballot.Specifically, the Court held that all of the twenty-seven challenges brought by Petitioners in support of their claims failed, that there was no fatal infirmity with the popular name or ballot title of Issue Number 4, and that the proposed amendment’s popular name and ballot title were sufficient. View "Stiritz v. Honorable Mark Martin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the original action brought by Petitioner, individually and on behalf of Citizens for Local Choice, challenging the sufficiency of the ballot title with regarding to Issue Number 4, which provides for the issuance of four casino licenses in the state, holding that Petitioner did not meet his burden of proving that the ballot title was insufficient.Specifically, the Court held that Issue No. 4 was proper for inclusion on the November 6, 2018 ballot because (1) the popular name and ballot title of the issue gave voters a fair understanding of the issues presented, and (2) the scope and significance of the proposed changes in law were not misleading and allowed voters to reach an informed decision for or against the proposal. View "Knight v. Martin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s order entering a preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiff in his challenge to Act 633 of 2017, which concerns verification of voter registration, holding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits because Act 633 comports with the requirements in Amendment 51 to the Arkansas Constitution for its amendment.The circuit court entered a preliminary injunction order prohibiting and enjoining Appellants from enforcing the requirements of Act 633. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) this action was not subject to the sovereign-immunity defense; (2) Plaintiff had standing to challenge the Act’s constitutionality; but (3) Act 633’s constitutional amendment is germane to Amendment 51 and consistent with its policy and purpose and is therefore constitutional. View "Honorable Mark Martin v. Haas" on Justia Law