Arkansas Hotels & Entertainment, Inc. v. Martin
2012 Ark. 335
Ark.2012Background
- AHE, a for-profit Arkansas corporation, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary of State to accept its initiated constitutional amendment petition as timely and grant 30 days to cure deficiencies.
- AHE registered as a Ballot Question Committee and sought placement of a casino-advancing constitutional amendment on the November 6, 2012 ballot.
- Secretary of State found AHE's petition facially deficient for lacking required county signatures and deemed it a complete failure under Dixon v. Hall, 210 Ark. 891 (1946).
- AHE sought mandamus relief, requesting acceptance of the petition as prima facie sufficient and a 30-day cure period; intervenors Arkansas Racing Alliance (ARA) intervened.
- The trial court granted briefing on standing and facial sufficiency; the Supreme Court denied mandamus and held the petition failed to meet facial requirements, concluding no 30-day cure was permissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AHE had standing to file for mandamus | AHE, as sponsor, has standing under 7-9-111/d; Hillman distinguishes parties. | AHE lacks standing as it is not a local voter and does not represent legal voters. | AHE has standing to invoke the court’s jurisdiction. |
| Whether the Secretary acted in conformity with Amendment 7 and 7-9-111(d) | Petition must meet statewide and county signatures on filing to trigger 30-day cure. | Petition must satisfy prima facie both statewide and county requirements to qualify for cure. | Petition failed to meet facial requirements; no 30-day cure; mandamus denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dixon v. Hall, 210 Ark. 891, 198 S.W.2d 1002 (1946) (Ark. 1946) (petition must be facially valid to trigger cure period; correction thereafter per Dixon)
- Committee to Establish Sherwood Fire Dep’t v. Hillman, 353 Ark. 501, 109 S.W.3d 641 (2003) (Ark. 2003) (standing to intervene in ballot-title challenges; distinctions from sponsor standing)
- Hamilton v. Committee, 290 Ark. 283, 718 S.W.2d 933 (1986) (Ark. 1986) (corporate committees must exist; standing analysis differed for unincorporated committees)
- Manila School Dist. No. 15 v. Wagner, 357 Ark. 20, 159 S.W.3d 285 (2004) (Ark. 2004) (standards for mandamus relief and required clear right to relief)
- Hillman, (see Committee to Establish Sherwood Fire Dep’t v. Hillman) (2003) (discusses standing of committees and voters in ballot initiatives)