Wilson v. Martin

2016 Ark. 334 (2016) · Supreme Court of Arkansas · October 13, 2016 · No. CV-16-763

Summary

The Arkansas Supreme Court granted a petition challenging the ballot title for a proposed constitutional amendment concerning medical-injury contingency fees and non-economic damages. The court held that the ballot title was insufficient because it failed to define the technical term “non-economic damages,” and enjoined the Secretary of State from counting or certifying ballots cast for the amendment. The opinion was delivered per curiam, with concurring opinions addressing additional alleged defects.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the Court
Paul E. Danielson; Howard W. Brill; Rhonda K. Wood
Jurisdiction
Arkansas
Decision date
October 13, 2016
Docket number
CV-16-763
Procedural posture
Original action challenging the sufficiency of the ballot title for a proposed constitutional amendment and seeking removal of the initiative from the ballot or an injunction against counting or certifying votes for it.
Standard of review
The sufficiency of a ballot title is a matter of law decided by the Supreme Court of Arkansas. The court gives the title a liberal construction to protect the people's initiative power, considers the Attorney General's certification for some significance but gives it no deference or presumptive effect, and places the burden on the challenger to prove that the title is misleading or insufficient.
Precedential value
Published Arkansas Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Nancy Lee Wilson, Paula Jean Casey, Fairness for Arkansans v. Mark Martin, Secretary of State, in his official capacity
Disposition
other

Topics

ballot accesselection lawelection administrationappellate jurisdiction

Practice areas

election lawconstitutional lawappellate procedurehealth law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the ballot title for the proposed constitutional amendment was insufficient because it failed to define the technical term "non-economic damages."

Holdings

  1. The ballot title was insufficient because it used the technical term "non-economic damages" without defining it, leaving voters unable to understand the proposal's consequences and make an intelligent and informed decision.

Key quotations

The ballot title must be an impartial summary of the proposed amendment, and it must give voters a fair understanding of the issues presented and the scope and significance of the proposed changes in the law. (at 7)
The term “non-economic damages” is a “technical term” that is not readily understood by voters. (at 8)
Accordingly, we conclude that the ballot title of the proposed amendment is insufficient because it fails to define the term “non-economic damages.” (at 9)

Factual background

Petitioners were Arkansas residents, registered voters, and directors of a ballot-question committee. The challenged proposed constitutional amendment would limit medical-injury contingency fees and require legislation establishing caps on non-economic damages in medical-injury actions. The amendment and its ballot title used the term "non-economic damages" without defining it.

Procedural history

The Attorney General certified the proposed amendment's popular name and ballot title on April 20, 2016. Intervenors thereafter collected sufficient signatures, and the Secretary of State certified the measure for placement on the November 8, 2016 general-election ballot as Issue No. 4. Petitioners filed this original action on August 29, 2016. The Supreme Court of Arkansas granted the petition, denied the intervenors' motion to dismiss, and enjoined the Secretary of State from counting or certifying ballots cast for the amendment.

Remand instructions

No remand. The petition was granted, the Secretary of State was enjoined from counting or certifying ballots cast for the proposed amendment, the intervenors' motion to dismiss was denied, and the petitioners' motion to strike the amended answer was declared moot. The mandate was shortened to five days, and any rehearing petition was required within five days of issuance.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…