Bailey v. Martin
433 S.W.3d 904
Ark.2014Background
- Bailey filed March 3, 2014 as a candidate for circuit judge, District 06, in Pulaski/Perry Counties, opposing incumbent Tim Fox.
- Hulse filed March 10, 2014 for writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment claiming Bailey was not qualified due to Bailey’s administrative suspensions of her license.
- The circuit court granted the writ and declared Bailey not eligible, citing that suspensions equate to license suspension under Amendment 80, §16.
- Bailey moved for new trial and reconsideration; the court denied or amended rulings, maintaining that due process and mandamus were proper.
- Bailey appealed, but ballots had been printed and potential relief to restore her name on the ballot seemed unavailable; the court treated the appeal as moot and dismissed it.
- The opinion discusses whether pre-election challenges to candidate eligibility can be resolved after ballots are printed, concluding mootness prevents relief in this case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Bailey's appeal moot due to ballot printing and the election occurring? | Bailey remained a licensed attorney and seeks relief to restore ballot status. | No relief can be granted since ballots were printed and the election proceeded. | Moot; appeal dismissed. |
| Should the court decide whether administrative suspensions revoke license for Amendment 80 purposes? | Administrative suspensions do not extinguish the license for Amendment 80. | Suspensions effectively suspend the license. | Not reached; mootness controls. |
| Was the writ of mandamus appropriate to determine Bailey's eligibility pre-election? | Writ appropriate to resolve eligibility before election. | Relief unavailable after ballot printing. | Moot; relief not possible. |
| Did Bailey have an adequate expedited path to relief under Rule 6-1? | Expedited appeal should be allowed to address eligibility. | Prize relief unavailable after ballots printed. | Moot; no viable remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ball v. Phillips County Election Commission, 364 Ark. 574, 222 S.W.3d 205 (2006) (mootness when ballot already certified; advisory opinions avoided)
- Oliver v. Phillips, 290 S.W.3d 11 (2008) (pre-election challenge to eligibility; rights before election are statutory)
- Pederson v. Stracener, 354 Ark. 716, 128 S.W.3d 818 (2003) (pre-election challenge authority under §7-5-207(b))
- Clement v. Daniels, 366 Ark. 352, 235 S.W.3d 521 (2006) (pre-election eligibility; mootness considerations)
- Tumey v. Daniels, 359 Ark. 256, 196 S.W.3d 479 (2004) (proper scope for mandamus/declaratory action to challenge eligibility)
- Helton v. Jacobs, 346 Ark. 344, 57 S.W.3d 180 (2001) (pre-election eligibility procedures)