Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 1995, Josh Johnston pled guilty to a Class A misdemeanor hot-check violation. In 2014, Johnston filed to run as a candidate for Celburne County Sheriff. Brian Haile, a registered voter in Cleburne County, filed a petition for declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus requesting that the circuit court find the misdemeanor hot-check violation an infamous crime that rendered Johnston ineligible to run for or hold public office. The circuit court ruled that Johnston's previous conviction rendered him eligible to run for or hold public office. Later in 2014, the circuit court entered an order sealing Johnston’s misdemeanor conviction. In 2015, Johnson filed as a candidate for Cleburne County Sheriff. Haile again filed a petition for declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus alleging that Johnston was ineligible to serve and that the court’s 2014 order controlled. The circuit court dismissed Haile’s petition, concluding that Johnston’s record was sealed and expunged, and Johnston was therefore eligible to run for and hold public office. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the plain language of Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-1417 dictates that it is as if Johnston never had the misdemeanor conviction, and therefore, Johnston is eligible to run for and hold office. View "Haile v. Johnston" on Justia Law

Appellant, Floyd Gray, filed a complaint for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment seeking to challenge the eligibility of Appellee, Mary Thomas-Barnes, as a candidate in the mayoral election in Dermott, Arkansas. Appellant alleged that Appellee was a convicted felon and therefore asked for a declaration that Appellee was unqualified to seek election. The circuit court dismissed Appellant’s complaint based on lack of jurisdiction, concluding that Appellant’s pleading, which was filed the day before the election, was an attempt to bring a pre-election challenge by post-election means. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal as moot because the election had already been held. View "Gray v. Thomas-Barnes" on Justia Law

In 2013, the General Assembly passed Act 1413 of 2013, which made numerous changes to the portions of the Arkansas Code pertaining to initiatives and referenda. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a complaint against Mark Martin, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State, alleging that certain sections of the Act violated the Seventh Amendment of the state Constitution. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Secretary Martin from enforcing the Act. Dustin McDaniel, acting in his official capacity as Attorney General, intervened in the action. The circuit court concluded that certain provisions of Act 1413 violated the Constitution because the provisions would cause citizens to lose their ability to propose legislative measures and laws directly to the people. The court then permanently enjoined Secretary Martin from enforcing those portions of the Act. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that some of the sections of the Act declared unconstitutional by the circuit court were, in fact, constitutional. View "McDaniel v. Spencer" on Justia Law

Prior to March 2014, Appellant filed for re-election as a candidate for Justice of the Peace and subsequently filed for re-election as a candidate for the office of Helena-West Helena City Treasurer. Appellee filed a petition for writ of mandamus and for declaratory judgment seeking to remove Appellant’s name from the ballot, arguing that Appellant’s actions violated Ark. Code Ann. 7-5-111, which states that a person shall not run for election for more than one state, county, or municipal office if the elections are to be held on the same date. Thereafter, Appellant filed a motion to withdraw from the Justice of the Peace election. The circuit court denied Appellant’s motion and disqualified Appellant from the city-treasurer position. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part, holding (1) the circuit court properly interpreted section 7-5-111 and disqualified Appellant from the city-treasurer race; (2) the circuit court did not err by denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss; and (3) Appellant’s argument that the circuit court erred in denying his request for alternative relief to withdraw from the Justice of the Peace ballot was moot. View "Roberson v. Phillips County Election Comm'n" on Justia Law

Our Community, Our Dollars filed a local-option petition with the county clerk, who certified that the proposal attained the requisite number of signatures required for the proposal to be placed on the ballot for the upcoming general election on November 4, 2014. The circuit court entered an order rescinding the county clerk’s certification of the local-option petition, concluding that the petition did not attain the required number of signatures. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court clearly erred by refusing to consider in its review a number of signatures that the county clerk failed to count prior to certifying the local-option petition. View "Our Cmty., Our Dollars v. Bullock" on Justia Law

On August 21, 2014, the Secretary of State certified a proposed initiated act known as “An Act to Increase the Arkansas Minimum Wage” to the county boards of election commissioners and advised the county boards that the proposed initiated act would be Issue No. 5 on the November 4, 2014 general-election ballot. Petitioner brought this original action challenging the sufficiency of the petition, contending that the petition had not been timely filed and that the proposed initiated act was not facially valid because it relied on forged notaries to reach the signature threshold. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the petition was timely filed and that the petition, on its face, contained the requisite signatures of a sufficient number. View "Stephens v. Martin" on Justia Law

Appellee, the current Pine Bluff mayor, filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that she held the office of mayor through 2016 and a writ of mandamus to prohibit Appellants - the Jefferson County Election Commission and Commissioners - from taking any actions with regard to municipal elections in either the May 2014 primary election or the November 2014 general election. The circuit court found in Appellee’s favor and prohibited Appellants from holding any elections for the Pine Bluff municipal offices of mayor, treasurer, and city clerk and directing them to not count votes or certify winners in such races. After Appellants appealed, the May 2014 primary election was held, and no candidate was certified as the winner of any of those three municipal offices. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding (1) any review of this appeal as it related to the May 2014 primary election was necessarily moot; and (2) because a decision by this Court could not have any practical legal effect with regard to the impending November 2014 election, review of the circuit court’s order prohibiting Appellants from holding elections in November 2014 was also moot. View "Jefferson Cnty. Election Comm'n v. Hollingsworth" on Justia Law

Petitioners, acting individually and on behalf of a ballot-question committee, filed this original action challenging the timeliness and sufficiency for an initiative petition for a proposed constitutional amendment with the popular name of “The Arkansas Alcohol Beverage Amendment” that was certified by Respondent in his official capacity as Arkansas Secretary of State for the November 4, 2014 general election ballot. Intervenors were members of a ballot-question committee and the sponsor of the proposed constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding (1) the petition was timely filed; and (2) the ballot title was legally sufficient. View "Richardson v. Martin" on Justia Law

After the General Assembly passed Act 595 of 2013, Appellees, registered voters in Pulaski County, filed a complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief, arguing that sections of the Act that allegedly placed an additional qualification and impairment on Arkansas residents before they could exercise their right to vote violated the Arkansas Constitution. The circuit court concluded that Act 595 was unconstitutional, enjoined and restrained Appellants, the Secretary of State and the Commissioners of the State Board of Election Commissioners, from enforcing any proof-of-identity provisions of the Act and from enforcing their rules promulgated as a result of the Act, and granted a preliminary injunction against Appellants from enforcing Act 595’s proof-of-identity requirements in favor of Appellants. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s ruling that Act 595 was unconstitutional on its face, holding that the Act’s requiring proof of identity was unconstitutional on its face and imposed a requirement that fell outside the ambit of Ark. Const. art. III, 1. View "Martin v. Kohls" on Justia Law

The Pulaski County Election Commission (PCEC) filed a petition for declaratory judgment in the circuit court challenging the constitutionality of certain emergency rules promulgated by the Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners (ASBEC) relating to absentee voters. The circuit court declared (1) the emergency rules were derivative of Act 595 of 2013, which amended the Arkansas election code to require that voters provide proof of identity when voting; (2) the Act was unconstitutional; and (3) the emergency rules were also unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the circuit court correctly ruled that the rules relating to absentee voters promulgated by the ASBEC were unconstitutional; but (2) the circuit court erred in declaring the Act unconstitutional, as that issue was not pled or developed before the court.View "State Bd. of Election Comm'rs v. Pulaski County Election Comm’n" on Justia Law