Category: Arkansas Supreme Court

Arkansas Business Analyzes Supreme Court Election Spending

~ Andy Taylor

Arkansas Justice Building--Home of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Arkansas Court of Appeals

In its October 25 issue, Arkansas Business published an article detailing the amount of money spent on Supreme Court races in Arkansas.  The articles provides a thorough analysis on the issue of money and judicial elections, both on the state level and from a national perspectives.  Some statistics of note:

Click here for a link to the article.

UPDATE: Arkansas Supreme Court Clarifies Original and Appellate Jurisdiction for Constitutional Amendments: Forrester v. Daniels.

~ Andy Taylor

UPDATE Below the Jump:

The Arkansas Supreme Court handed down its decision today in Forrester v. Daniels, clarifying that it has original jurisdiction over challenges to constitutional amendments that are initiated by the citizens, but appellate jurisdiction over challenges to constitutional amendments referred by the legislature. Forrester v. Daniels, 2010 Ark. 397.  This has been the rule for many years, but had been called into question after amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution became effective on July 1, 2001. See Becker v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 482, 708 S.W.2d 71 (1990).

Because the Court did not reach the merits of the Petitioner’s case, this blog post will not discuss the merits in detail, but will only address them briefly.  The proposed amendment at issue here deals with the maximum interest rate that can be charged by various entities, and also deals with the power of governmental units to issue bonds. Forrester, 2010 Ark. 397, at 2-4.  The gist of the challenge is that the legislature attempted to cover too many issues in a single proposed amendment.  Id. at 3-4.

The importance of this case, however, is more procedural in nature.  Because, as discussed above, the status of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction (original or appellate) was in doubt after the enactment of Amendment 80, the Petitioner filed nearly identical actions in the Pulaski County Circuit Court and the Arkansas Supreme Court, both on the same day.

A proposed constitutional amendment may appear on the ballot by one of two methods.  The first is by referral from the legislature, the requirements of which are provided in at Arkansas Constitution Article 19, § 22.  The second method is through the initiative and referendum power reserved to the people.  This procedure is outlined at Arkansas Constitution Amendment 7.

Amendment 7, dealing with amendments resulting from initiatives of the people, provides that “[t]he sufficiency of all state-wide petitions shall be decided in the first instance by the Secretary of State, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the State, which shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all such causes.” Ark. Const. Amend. 7.  Article Nineteen, Section 22 of the Arkansas Constitution has no such provision, so the Arkansas Supreme Court in Becker held that it did not have original jurisdiction, but had only appellate jurisdiction pursuant to Article 7, § 4 of the Arkansas Constitution. See Becker, 303 Ark at 482, 708 S.w. 2d at 71.

The reason this is an issue in Forrester is that Article 7 was repealed by Amendment 80 of the Constitution.  Amendment 80 provides, in part, that “[t]he Supreme Court shall have . . . [o]riginal jurisdiction to determine sufficiency of state initiative and referendum petitions and proposed constitutional amendments.” Ark. Const. Amend. 80, § 2(D)(4).  Because the provision conferring original jurisdiction on the Arkansas Supreme Court includes the phrase “and proposed constitutional amendments,” the Petitioner argued that the Arkansas Supreme Court now has original jurisdiction over all proposed constitutional amendments, and not just those resulting from initiatives. See Forrester, supra.

In a unanimous opinion, the Arkansas Supreme Court disagreed.  The Court held in Forrester that the phrase “and proposed constitutional amendments” must be read in the context of the phrase “to determine sufficiency of.” Forrester, 2010 Ark. 397, at 8-9.  According to the Court, that phrase only makes sense if “proposed constitutional amendments” refers only to amendments that result from initiatives from the people, as those are the only types of amendments subject to a sufficiency challenge. Id.  For proposed amendments referred from the legislature, the only question is “whether the procedures governing the method for the legislature to propose an amendment have been followed.” Id.

In an interesting paragraph at the end of the opinion, the Court then seemed to look at its own rules to help it interpret the constitutional issue.  The Court noted that it had amended its rules to conform to the changes resulting from Amendment 80.  After the changes, Rule 6-5 read as follows:

(a) Original Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in extraordinary actions as required by law, such as suits attacking the validity of statewide petitions filed under Amendment 7 of the Arkansas Constitution or, where the Supreme Court’s contempt powers are at issue.

Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-5(a) (2010).

In Forrester, the Court held its conclusion was “further bolstered” by the fact that it had amended the rules in response to Amendment 80, but had done so “in a way to indicate that our jurisdiction of the instant challenge is now original.” Id. at 9-10.  Arkansas appellate lawyers should bear this in mind when dealing with procedural issues before the Arkansas Supreme Court, as the Court seems willing to look to its own rules to help it interpret constitutional provisions.

Continue reading “UPDATE: Arkansas Supreme Court Clarifies Original and Appellate Jurisdiction for Constitutional Amendments: Forrester v. Daniels.” →

UPDATE: Arkansas Supreme Court November 2010 Runoff Election Update: Judge Karen Baker v. Judge Tim Fox

~ Andy Taylor ~ 1 Comment

The election to fill the vacancy left by Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Imber’s retirement from the court late last year is less than three weeks away. The election, a runoff election between Arkansas Court of Appeals Judge Karen Baker and Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge Tim Fox, is being held because neither of the three candidates in the May 18 election received a majority of the votes. In the May election, Judge Karen Baker received 48% of the vote, Judge Tim Fox received 37% of the vote, and Evenlyn Moorehead received the remaining 15% of the vote.

This race is the only Appellate Court race that will be on the ballot in the general election on November 2, 2010.  Because of this, the race has garnered quite a bit of attention from the media in the last few weeks.  Below are links to stories that have been published about the race recently.

ArkansasAppeals.com will continue to post articles about the judicial race as they become available.  Also, you can keep an eye on our blog and on our Twitter feed on election night for continuing updates on the election.

 

No Streaming Video Feed of Today’s Arkansas Supreme Court Oral Argument in Texarkana

~ Tasha C. Taylor

The Arkansas Supreme Court is conducting its oral argument this morning in Texarkana, Arkansas, at the Arkansas High School Student Union.  The case to be argued is Brandon Lacy v. State (CR09-1340).  Because this case is not being argued in the Supreme Court’s courtroom (where the video cameras for live streaming online videos are installed), there will be no video feed of today’s oral argument.

Today’s oral argument in Texarkana marks only the eleventh time in modern times that the Arkansas Supreme Court has held court away from Little Rock.  Amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution, which was adopted in 2000, provides that the Supreme Court may meet at such times and places as designated by the Court.  For more information on today’s event, which is open to the public, view the press release issued by the Administrative Office of the Courts.