Arkansans for Healthy Eyes, a Ballot Question Committee; And Vicki Farmer, Individually and on Behalf of Arkansans for Healthy Eyes v. John Thurston, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Arkansas; Safe Surgery Arkansas, a Ballot Question Committee; And Laurie Barber, M.D., Individually and on Behalf of Safe Surgery Arkansas, an Original Actionr, 606 S.W.3d 582

Background:

Act 579 (2019) expanded optometrists’ scope of practice; Safe Surgery Arkansas (SSA) filed a referendum petition to refer Act 579 to the 2020 ballot.
SSA submitted >84,000 signatures collected by paid canvassers engaged through National Ballot Access; submissions to the Secretary included two different certification statements (June 12 and June 13) about background checks.
The Secretary initially declared the petition insufficient based on Act 376; this Court earlier held Act 376’s emergency clause defective in Safe Surgery Ark. v. Thurston and ordered the Secretary to reassess under pre-Act 376 law, after which the Secretary certified the petition.
Arkansans for Healthy Eyes sued in this Court challenging the petition’s ballot title, alleged fraud, paid-canvasser compliance, and sufficiency of signatures; a special master was appointed to hear Counts II–IV.
The special master found 51,911 signatures were tied to paid canvasser registrations that did not certify the canvassers had “passed” criminal background checks; deducting those signatures left SSA short of the required number.
The Supreme Court granted the petition in part: it held SSA failed to comply with Ark. Code § 7-9-601(b)(3) (the required certification that paid canvassers passed background checks), rendering the petition insufficient; remaining claims were dismissed as moot.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Compliance with paid-canvasser background-check certification (§ 7-9-601)	SSA failed to certify that paid canvassers had passed background checks; therefore signatures obtained after June 13 are invalid.	SSA/Secretary relied on certification language and prior Secretary counting to treat signatures as valid.	Court held SSA did not certify that canvassers “passed” checks as required; noncertified signatures invalid.
Effect of noncompliance on counted signatures	All signatures gathered by uncertified paid canvassers must be excluded, leaving petition short.	Secretary had certified the petition after reassessment; counting was proper under prior guidance.	Court applied strict statutory language and ordered exclusion of uncertified signatures, making petition insufficient.
Strict compliance vs. substantial compliance with § 7-9-601	Plaintiffs: statute’s mandatory language requires strict compliance; no cure period.	Defendants: certification language as a whole satisfied the statute or substantial compliance should suffice.	Court reaffirmed strict compliance (following Miller) — obtaining checks alone is insufficient; explicit certification that canvassers "passed" is required.
Remaining challenges (ballot title, fraud, other procedural claims)	These claims merit independent review.	Respondent/intervenors argued against relief or relied on sufficiency certification.	Court dismissed remaining claims as moot because decision on certification rendered further review advisory.

Key Cases Cited

Miller v. Thurston, 2020 Ark. 267 (interpreting § 7-9-601 to require both obtaining background checks and certifying that canvassers passed them)
Safe Surgery Ark. v. Thurston, 2019 Ark. 403 (holding Act 376’s emergency clause defective and ordering Secretary to reassess petition under prior law)
Zook v. Martin, 2018 Ark. 306 (requiring strict compliance with paid-canvasser provisions)
Benca v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 359 (holding subsection’s "shall" language mandatory; disallowing substantial-compliance defense)
Ward v. Priest, 350 Ark. 345 (confirming Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to review statewide-petition sufficiency)