Arkansans for Healthy Eyes, a Ballot Question Committee; Vicki Farmer, Individually and on Behalf of Arkansans for Healthy Eyes; Matthew E. Jones, O.D.; Belinda R. Starkey, O.D.; Shane Laster, O.D.; Seth Laster, O.D.; Creighton A. Simmons, O.D.; William Yoos, O.D.; John C. Whitley; Seth Holifield; Billy Curl; And Johnny Morgan v. John Thurston, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State; And Safe Surgery Arkansas, a Ballot Question Committee, 2020 Ark. 275

Background

The General Assembly enacted Act 579 (2019) permitting optometrists to perform certain surgeries; it was set to take effect July 24, 2019.
On July 23, 2019, Safe Surgery Arkansas filed a statewide referendum petition to prevent Act 579 from taking effect; Arkansans for Healthy Eyes formed to defend the Act.
Secretary of State Thurston initially declared the petition insufficient under newly enacted Act 376; Safe Surgery sought mandamus relief and this court ordered the Secretary to apply the pre-Act 376 framework (Safe Surgery Ark. v. Thurston).
Healthy Eyes then sued in Pulaski County Circuit Court seeking to enjoin the Secretary from counting signatures and to declare Act 579 effective; the circuit court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and on res judicata grounds.
This Court, in a separate original action, later held Safe Surgery’s referendum petition invalid due to defective criminal-background affidavits, which meant the referendum would not appear on the ballot.
The Supreme Court majority dismissed this appeal as moot because the separate original-action ruling resolved the underlying controversy; Justice Hart dissented, arguing dismissal should be for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and that the court should address the jurisdictional question.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear challenges to the petition and to enjoin the Secretary	Healthy Eyes: Circuit court could enjoin Secretary and adjudicate petition sufficiency	Thurston/Safe Surgery: Original jurisdiction over petition sufficiency lies in the Supreme Court under the Constitution	Majority: Not decided on merits; appeal dismissed as moot. Dissent: case should be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
Whether res judicata barred the complaint	Healthy Eyes: Res judicata does not apply to bar relief	Defendants: Prior Supreme Court action and rulings bar relitigation	Majority: Not addressed due to mootness; circuit court had ruled res judicata but appellate court declined review
Whether Safe Surgery’s petition was invalid for lack of Attorney General approval of ballot title/popular name	Healthy Eyes: Petition invalid because AG did not approve ballot title/popular name	Safe Surgery: AG approval not required or was satisfied	Not decided by majority (moot); underlying petition later invalidated on other grounds in separate original action
Whether the appeal is moot given this Court’s separate original action invalidating the referendum petition	Healthy Eyes: Seeks relief (injunction/declaring Act 579 effective) despite ongoing separate proceedings	Defendants: Separate original-action decision resolving petition makes this appeal moot	Held: Appeal dismissed as moot because separate original-action ruling removed the live controversy

Key Cases Cited

Safe Surgery Ark. v. Thurston, 2019 Ark. 403, 591 S.W.3d 293 (Supreme Court granted writ directing Secretary to apply pre-Act 376 framework)
Gray v. Thomas-Barnes, 2015 Ark. 426, 474 S.W.3d 876 (courts will not issue advisory opinions or decide moot issues)
Clark v. State, 362 Ark. 545, 210 S.W.3d 59 (if a circuit court lacks jurisdiction, the appellate court likewise lacks jurisdiction)
Arkansas Dep’t of Fin. & Admin. v. Naturalis Health, LLC, 2018 Ark. 224, 549 S.W.3d 901 (subject-matter jurisdiction is threshold and determined from the pleadings)
Wilson v. Walther, 2017 Ark. 270, 527 S.W.3d 709 (definition of mootness: no practical legal effect on an existing controversy)
Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs. v. Ledgerwood, 2019 Ark. 100, 571 S.W.3d 1 (exceptions to mootness and the court's discretion on whether to resolve moot issues)