Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Doralee Chandler, a registered voter, filed an amended petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus and for declaratory judgment, alleging that Judge Harrison G. Foster II was not a qualified or eligible candidate for circuit judge because he was not a “licensed attorney” for the constitutionally mandated six-year time period preceding the assumption of the office. The circuit court denied Chandler’s petition and granted Foster’s third-party complaint, determining (1) Foster was not “unlicensed” pursuant to Rule VII(C) of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar despite his failure to timely pay his licensing fee four of the six consecutive years prior to the time for taking office, if elected; (2) the suspension of Foster’s license to practice law due to Foster’s failure to timely renew his licensing fee violated his due process rights; and (3) Rule VII(C) was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in determining that Foster was not “unlicensed” pursuant to Rule VII and in finding that he was qualified to seek the position of circuit judge; and (2) Rule VII(C) is unconstitutional in that it provides for an automatic suspension of a lawyer’s license without procedural due process. View "Chandler v. Martin" on Justia Law

John Kelly petitioned the circuit court for issuance of a writ of mandamus and for declaratory judgment, asserting that Judge Timothy Fox was ineligible to be a candidate for the position of circuit judge in the election for the judgeship scheduled to be conducted on May 20, 2014 because he was delinquent in the payment of his licensing fee in 2013, and therefore, he was not a “licensed attorney” for the six years immediately preceding the date of assuming office, as constitutionally mandated. The circuit court denied relief, finding that although Fox had been suspended for being delinquent on his annual license fee, this did not constitute a revocation or termination of his license, and therefore, Fox was an eligible candidate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) even though Fox failed to pay his annual license fee for forty-five days in 2013, he remained a licensed attorney during the period of delinquency because his license was not terminated and his name was not removed from the list of licensed attorneys; and (2) therefore, the circuit court correctly found that Fox was eligible to be a candidate for the position of circuit judge. View "Kelly v. Martin" on Justia Law

Appellant, a registered voter, petitioned the circuit court for a declaratory judgment that Angela Byrd, a filed candidate for circuit judge, was unqualified and ineligible for that office because she was not a licensed attorney for a six-year time period immediately preceding the assumption of office for circuit judge. Specifically, Appellant alleged that Byrd failed to timely pay her annual bar license fee for the year 2014, and while her license was suspended, she was no longer licensed pursuant to Rule VII of the Arkansas Supreme Court’s Rules Governing Admission to the Bar. In response, Byrd filed a third-party complaint against the Clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, alleging that Rule VII(C) was unconstitutional. The circuit court denied Williams’s petition and granted Byrd’s third-party complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed on the basis of Kelly v. Martin and Chandler v. Martin, concluding that Byrd was an eligible candidate for circuit judge. View "Williams v. Martin" on Justia Law

On March 3, 2014, Valerie Bailey filed as a candidate for the position of circuit judge in the May 20, 2014 election. Kristen Hulse filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a declaration judgment, alleging that Bailey was not qualified and was ineligible to be a candidate for circuit court judge. On March 19, 2014, the circuit court entered an order granting Hulse’s requested relief, declaring that Bailey was not eligible to seek the office of circuit judge. The deadline for printing ballots was March 21, 2014. On April 22, 2014, Bailey filed an amended notice of expedited appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the basis of mootness, concluding that any decision by the Court would amount to an advisory opinion because the ballots had been printed, mailed to absentee voters, and presented to early voters. View "Bailey v. Martin" on Justia Law

The Pulaski County Election Commission and some of its commissioners and the Pulaski County Circuit/County Clerk (collectively, “PCEC”) filed a petition for a declaratory judgment, claiming that certain emergency rules promulgated by the Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners (“ASBEC”) relating to absentee voters were unconstitutional. The circuit court concluded (1) Act 595 of 2013, which amended the State election code to require that voters provide proof of identity when voting, was unconstitutional; and (2) the emergency rules were also unconstitutional because they were derived from the Act. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in finding that the rules relating to absentee voters promulgated by the ASBEC were unconstitutional; but (2) erred in declaring Act 595 unconstitutional because that issue was not pled or developed before the circuit court. View "Ark. State Bd. of Election Comm'rs v. Pulaski County Election Comm'n" on Justia Law

On July 11, 2012, Appellees filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and mandamus in the circuit court requesting that the court enter an order (1) declaring that the filing period for independent candidates for municipal offices for the City of Helena-West Helena starts July 27, 2012, and (2) mandating that city officials notify election officials of the proper filing date. The circuit court granted the complaint. Appellants filed a motion to intervene on August 6, 2012 and August 8, 2012. The circuit court denied the motions in orders entered October 12, 2012 and October 18, 2012, concluding that both motions were untimely. The Supreme Court did not reach the merits of Appellants' arguments on appeal because (1) the filing period at issue concerned the now-past November 6, 2012 election; and (2) both Appellants won their respective races in the election. View "Etherly v. Newsome" on Justia Law

After Appellant submitted a petition for nomination for city director, the city clerk informed Appellant that her petition did not meet the statutory requirement of having fifty qualified electors. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandamus and injunctive relief, requesting that the clerk be compelled to certify her as a candidate for the city director position and that an injunction issue to prevent the election board from taking any action that would affect her right to be considered as a candidate. The circuit court denied Appellant's petition and ordered the election commission to remove her name from the November 2012 election ballot. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal as moot because the election had already been held and the Court was not persuaded that an exception should be made in this case. View "Lott v. Langley" on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate, filed a pro se complaint seeking an injunction to require Arkansas Secretary of State Mark Martin to place Appellant's name as a candidate for President of the United States on the 2012 Democratic primary ballot and to register all convicted felons to vote in that primary election. The circuit court granted Martin's motion to dismiss the complaint. Appellant appealed and filed a motion seeking permission to file a supplemental brief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot and declared the motion moot, holding (1) because the election for which Appellant wanted his name placed on the ballot had already occurred, and the time for registering to vote in that election had passed, the appealed question was moot; and (2) neither exception to the mootness doctrine applied here. View "Judd v. Martin" on Justia Law

The City of West Memphis passed an ordinance providing for a special election to vote for the annexation of 5700 acres to West Memphis. Meanwhile, property owners of 2340 acres within the same 5700 acres petitioned the county court for annexation to the City of Marion. The county court granted the petition for annexation to Marion, and Marion accepted the 2340 acres. Marion subsequently sought a writ of mandamus against West Memphis to remove the 2340 acres from the legal description of the special-election ballot. The circuit court denied the writ but issued a declaratory judgment finding that the 2340 acres belonged to Marion. West Marion held its scheduled election, and the 5700-acre legal description, including the 2340 acres that had been annexed to Marion, appeared on the ballot. The West Memphis voters approved the annexation measure. Litigation followed. Ultimately, the circuit court found (1) West Memphis was not required to amend the 5700-acre legal description, and (2) the Marion annexation frustrated only the 2340 acres annexed by Marion, and the remaining 3360 acres became part of West Memphis. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court reached the right result in finding the 3360 acres became a part of West Memphis. View "City of Marion v. City of West Memphis" on Justia Law

Intervenors were sponsors of a proposed constitutional amendment that would authorize them to own and operate casinos in four specified counties within the state. Respondent was the secretary of state and certified intervenors' proposed amendment for the November 6, 2012 general election. Petitioners were taxpayers, voters, and members of the Arkansas Racing Alliance, a ballot-question committee expressly organized to advocate for the defeat of two proposed constitutional amendments, one of which was intervenors'. In this original action, Petitioners requested that the Supreme Court declare the initiative petition insufficient and the revised ballot title invalid and enjoin Respondent from placing the proposed constitutional amendment on the general election ballot. The Court vacated the certification, holding that the certification of intervenors' revised ballot title was improper because that title was not attached to the petition circulated to, and signed by, the voters. View "Walmsley v. Todd" on Justia Law