Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Petitioners, individually and on behalf of Coalition to Preserve Arkansas Values (CPAV), brought this original action requesting the Supreme Court to review the legal sufficiency of the popular name and ballot title of the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Act. CPAV requested the Court to declare the popular name and ballot legally insufficient and hold that, if enacted, the Act would conflict with the state and federal constitutions and would violate state and federal law. CPAV further asked the Court to remove the Act from the November 6, 2012 ballot. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the Act's popular name and ballot title were legally sufficient, and therefore, the Act was proper for the inclusion on the ballot at the general election on November 6, 2012. View "Cox v. Martin" on Justia Law

Petitioner brought an original action seeking a writ of mandamus requiring the Secretary of State to accept its petitions for an initiated constitutional amendment to be placed on the November 6, 2012 ballot. Petitioner sought the writ of mandamus against the Secretary, requiring him to accept Petitioner's petition as timely filed containing, prima facie, the required number of signatures for an initiated constitutional amendment, and further ordering the Secretary to permit Petitioner thirty days to cure any shortcomings in its petition. The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition, holding (1) Petitioner had standing to invoke the Court's jurisdiction; but (2) Petitioner failed to submit a facially valid petition and did not qualify for the additional thirty days to cure deficiencies. View "Ark. Hotels & Entm't Inc. v. Martin" on Justia Law

Appellants filed a complaint against Appellees, the public school district, members of the district's board of directors, and others, alleging (1) subsequent to the federal decennial census, the district was required to adopt new district lines and the district had failed to do so in violation of Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-631; and (2) the voters were entitled to a new school board pursuant to section 6-13-631. The circuit court found in favor of Appellants. Appellants subsequently filed a motion for payment of prevailing-party attorneys' fees, which was denied. Appellants appealed, arguing that the circuit court' findings were equivalent to a finding that there had been a violation of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act and that, because the circuit court could have awarded attorneys' fees pursuant to the Act, Appellants were entitled to attorneys fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellants did not prevail on anything other than the claim made pursuant to section 6-13-631, and because that statute does not provide for an award of attorneys' fees, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the same. View "Fluker v. Helena-West Helena Pub. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

In a run-off election, Steve Jernigan was elected major of the City of Lepanto. A month later, the State filed a petition for writ of quo warranto, seeking to prevent the usurpation of the office of mayor of the City on the grounds that Jernigan did not reside within the City as required by Ark. Code Ann. 14-42-201(c)(1). After a hearing, the circuit court denied the State's petition. The State appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that the State failed to meet its burden of proving that Jernigan did not reside within the City limits.

Appellant Keith Hamaker filed an amendment complaint in the circuit court challenging the Pulaski County Election Commission procedures. After the circuit court entered an order making specific findings and rulings, Hamaker appealed, contending (1) the Commission had no right to allow a voting area undefined by election law, (2) the Commission should be required to force a voter to vote within the confines of a voting booth, (3) a voter does not have the right to vote outside the immediate voting area pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 7-5-309(a)(4), and (4) section 7-5-309 as amended should be declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under section 7-5-309 the Commission is not required to force a voter to prepare his or her ballot in a voting booth, (2) section 7-5-309(a)(4) does not state that a voter may not mark a ballot outside of the immediate voting area, and (3) Appellant's remaining arguments were either inappropriate for appellate review or not preserved for appellate review.

Appellant Larry Wilson and seventeen other citizens of Philips County challenged the November 2, 2010 election results for several positions on the Helena-West City Council. The Supreme Court found that the complaint contesting the election results was not filed within twenty days of the election as required by statute. Therefore, the Court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Appellee Michael Grulkey sought to have Appellant Thomas Fite disqualified to run as an electoral candidate to the General Assembly. In July, 2010, the Arkansas Republican Party certified Fite as its candidate for the eighty-third district for the November 2, 2010 election. Grulkey, a registered voter in that district, petitioned the circuit court for a writ of mandamus or declaratory judgment, alleging that Fite was ineligible to hold office because of a prior conviction in 1984 for Medicaid bribery. The court ruled that Fiteâs conviction rendered him ineligible to run for office, and entered the order on October 27, 2010. Appellant appealed the order on November 4, 2010 - two days after the election - and filed a motion to the Supreme Court to expedite review on November 23, 2010. Seeing no need to proceed, the Court dismissed the case citing that any review of a candidateâs eligibility becomes moot once an election has taken place.