Bailey v. Martin

2014 Ark. 213 (2014) · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 14, 2014 · No. CV-14-358

Summary

The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed Valerie Bailey’s appeal as moot after her name had been removed from the ballot and the election ballots had been printed and distributed. The underlying dispute concerned whether administrative suspensions of Bailey’s law license made her ineligible to run for circuit judge under section 16 of Amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the Court
Donald L. Corbin; Raymond R. Abramson, Special Justice; Todd Turner, Special Justice; Woody Bassett, Special Justice
Jurisdiction
Arkansas
Decision date
May 14, 2014
Docket number
CV-14-358
Procedural posture
Bailey appealed from a Pulaski County Circuit Court order granting Kristen Hulse declaratory relief and a writ of mandamus removing Bailey from the ballot as an allegedly ineligible candidate for circuit judge. The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot because the ballots had already been printed, mailed to absentee voters, and presented to early voters, leaving no practical relief available.
Standard of review
The court reviewed whether the appeal presented a live controversy capable of effective relief and whether an exception to mootness warranted review. It did not reach the merits of Bailey's eligibility or constitutional arguments.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Valerie Bailey v. Mark Martin, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State for the State of Arkansas, Rob Hill, Lou Ann Carter, and Jeff Olmsted, in their official capacities as commissioners of the Perry County Election Commission, Leonard A. Boyle, Sr., Chris Burks, and Alex Reed, in their official capacities as commissioners of the Pulaski County Election Commission, Kristen Hulse
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

election contestsmootnessappellate procedureelection lawremedies

Practice areas

election lawappellate procedureconstitutional lawremedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Bailey's appeal from the order removing her from the ballot was moot because the ballots had already been printed and voting had begun.
  2. Whether the public-interest or capable-of-repetition exceptions to mootness required the court to decide Bailey's substantive eligibility to run for circuit judge.
  3. Whether the court should reach Bailey's arguments concerning the availability of mandamus, the effect of administrative attorney-license suspensions under amendment 80, reinstatement through payment of fees, and due process.

Holdings

  1. The appeal was moot because the Supreme Court could not provide Bailey any practical relief after the ballots had been printed, mailed to absentee voters, and presented to early voters.
  2. No exception to mootness required review of the substantive eligibility issue because the case did not present a compelling public interest warranting an advisory opinion.
  3. A voter may challenge a candidate's pre-election eligibility under Arkansas Code Annotated section 7-5-207(b) through an action for a writ of mandamus coupled with declaratory relief.

Key quotations

The court in Ball concluded that it would not review moot issues because to do so would result in the court rendering an advisory opinion. (at 10)
In the instant case, however, there is simply no compelling public interest that requires us to address the issue of whether the circuit court correctly ruled that Bailey was unqualified and ineligible to run as a candidate for circuit judge, because any such decision by us would amount to an advisory opinion. (at 11)

Factual background

Bailey filed to run for circuit judge in a district covering parts of Pulaski and Perry Counties. Her law license had been administratively suspended for nonpayment of annual licensing fees and for CLE noncompliance, including a lengthy suspension from March 2, 2004, until payment of fees and penalties on October 27, 2011. Hulse challenged Bailey's eligibility under section 16(B) of amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution, and the circuit court ordered Bailey's removal from the ballot. By the time of the appeal, ballots for the May 20, 2014 election had been printed, mailed to absentee voters, and used in early voting.

Procedural history

Bailey filed as a candidate for circuit judge on March 3, 2014. Hulse filed a pre-election petition for declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus on March 10, 2014, alleging that Bailey was ineligible because her law license had been administratively suspended for periods between 2002 and 2011. After a March 19 hearing, the circuit court granted the writ and declared Bailey ineligible; it denied Bailey's motions for reconsideration on April 22. Bailey then filed an expedited appeal, but the Supreme Court concluded that the appeal was moot because the ballot-printing deadline had passed and Bailey offered no practical form of relief.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…