Arkansas Hotels & Entertainment, Inc. v. Martin

423 S.W.3d 49 (Ark. 2012) · Supreme Court of Arkansas · September 20, 2012

Summary

The Arkansas Supreme Court denied Arkansas Hotels & Entertainment, Inc.’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to require the Secretary of State to accept its initiated constitutional-amendment petitions for placement on the November 6, 2012 ballot. The court held that the corporate sponsor had standing, but that the petition failed to satisfy the prima facie statewide and fifteen-county signature requirements necessary to obtain an additional thirty days to cure deficiencies. The court dismissed the motion to appoint a special master as moot.

Holdings

  1. An incorporated sponsor of a ballot initiative that is registered as a Ballot Question Committee has standing to invoke the Arkansas Supreme Court's jurisdiction and seek relief concerning deficiencies in its own initiative petition, even without joining a legal voter.
  2. To qualify for the additional thirty-day period to correct deficiencies, a petition for a constitutional amendment must, when filed, prima facie contain both the statewide signature requirement and signatures from at least fifteen counties. A petition lacking either requirement is a complete failure and is not eligible for the cure period.
  3. Appointment of a special master was unnecessary because AHE failed to provide evidence establishing the validity of its petition, and the motion was dismissed as moot after the writ was denied.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether an incorporated sponsor of a failed ballot initiative has standing to invoke the Arkansas Supreme Court's original jurisdiction and seek a writ of mandamus.
  2. Whether Amendment 7 to article 5, section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution and Arkansas Code Annotated section 7-9-111 require an initiative petition for a constitutional amendment to contain, prima facie, both the statewide signature requirement and the fifteen-county signature requirement before the sponsor receives thirty days to cure deficiencies.
  3. Whether appointment of a special master was necessary to determine the number of signatures required and submitted.

Disposition

writ_denied

Cases Cited (8)

  • Farm Bureau v. Running M Farms, Inc., 366 Ark. 480, 237 S.W.3d 32 (2006)(followed)
  • Committee to Establish Sherwood Fire Dep't v. Hillman, 353 Ark. 501, 109 S.W.3d 641 (2003)(distinguished)
  • Committee for Utility Trimming, Inc. v. Hamilton, 290 Ark. 283, 718 S.W.2d 933 (1986)(distinguished)
  • Fitton v. Bank of Little Rock, 2010 Ark. 280, 365 S.W.3d 888 (2010)(followed)
  • DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Smelser, 375 Ark. 216, 289 S.W.3d 466 (2009)(followed)
  • Smith v. Sidney Moncrief Pontiac, Buick, GMC Co., 353 Ark. 701, 120 S.W.3d 525 (2003)(followed)
  • Dixon v. Hall, 210 Ark. 891, 198 S.W.2d 1002 (1946)(followed)
  • Manila School Dist. No. 15 v. Wagner, 357 Ark. 20, 159 S.W.3d 285 (2004)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…