Magnus v. Carr

350 Ark. 388 (2002) · Supreme Court of Arkansas · October 24, 2002

Summary

The Arkansas Supreme Court held that a circuit court lacked authority to enjoin an Arkansas House member from voting based on an alleged change in residence and abandonment of office. The court concluded that the House has exclusive authority to judge the qualifications of its members, subject to a limited judicial review concerning the validity of legislation adopted by a decisive vote of a legislative stranger. The court also held that a private citizen was not the proper party to bring a quo warranto action concerning a non-county office, and it reversed and dismissed the case.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the Court
Ray Thornton, Justice; Robert L. Brown, Chief Justice; Glaze, Justice; Corbin, Justice; Imber, Justice
Jurisdiction
Arkansas
Decision date
October 24, 2002
Procedural posture
Appeal from a Pulaski County Circuit Court order granting and making permanent a temporary restraining order that prohibited an Arkansas House member from exercising the powers of his office, including voting during an extraordinary legislative session; the Arkansas Supreme Court also considered the appellant's request for extraordinary relief.
Standard of review
De novo review of questions concerning subject-matter jurisdiction, constitutional separation of powers, and standing to bring quo warranto.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Jim Magnus v. Valerie Carr
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

separation of powerselection lawstandingappellate procedureconstitutional law

Practice areas

constitutional lawelection lawcivil procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to determine the qualifications of an Arkansas House member and enjoin him from exercising his legislative voting powers.
  2. Whether Valerie Carr, a private citizen, had standing or was otherwise a proper party to initiate a quo warranto proceeding concerning usurpation of a noncounty public office.
  3. Whether the limited exception recognized in Matthews v. Bailey permitted judicial intervention before legislation was enacted where no legislation depended on Magnus's vote.

Holdings

  1. The circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin Magnus from casting a legislative vote. Under the Arkansas Constitution's separation-of-powers provisions, each house is the sole judge of the qualifications, returns, and elections of its members, and the judiciary generally may not determine those matters or expel legislative members.
  2. Carr was not the proper party to bring the quo warranto proceeding because, for usurpation of a noncounty office, the action by the State must be instituted and prosecuted by the Attorney General.

Key quotations

We hold that under the particular facts of this case, the circuit court had no authority to enjoin Mr. Magnus’s vote and, thus, we reverse and dismiss.
Each House shall appoint its own officers, and shall be sole judge of the qualifications, returns and elections of its own members.
We hold that Ms. Carr was not the proper party to bring a writ of quo warranto.

Factual background

Jim Magnus was elected and reelected to the Arkansas House of Representatives from House District 55. In October 2001, he moved from District 55 to District 53, both in Little Rock. Valerie Carr, a resident of District 55, sought to have him expelled, and the circuit court later enjoined Magnus from voting during an extraordinary legislative session based on the undisputed fact that he no longer lived in District 55.

Procedural history

Valerie Carr filed a petition for writ of quo warranto and a temporary restraining order in the Pulaski County Circuit Court after Magnus moved from the House district from which he had been elected. The circuit court, without receiving evidence and based on the undisputed change of residence, found that Magnus had abandoned his office and enjoined him from voting. Magnus appealed, sought a writ of certiorari or prohibition, and requested a stay; the Supreme Court denied the stay, expedited the appeal, reversed the circuit court, and dismissed the proceeding.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…