Benca v. Martin
2016 Ark. 359
Ark.2016Background
- Petition to place the Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act on the Nov. 8, 2016 ballot required 67,887 valid signatures under Ark. Const. art. 5, §1 (Amendment 7). Sponsor initially submitted 117,547 signatures; Secretary of State validated 77,516.
- Petitioner Kara L. Benca challenged a subset of signatures; to succeed she had to invalidate more than 9,629 of the validated signatures.
- The Court appointed a special master who heard evidence and found 2,087 signatures disqualified and the remainder valid.
- Benca raised six categories of challenge: (1) paid‑canvasser statutory noncompliance (training, handbook, disclosure, background checks); (2) collection by paid canvassers in violation of hiring rules; (3) missing/incorrect canvasser residence info (including P.O. boxes and business addresses); (4) canvasser verification dated before voter signature; (5) canvasser failed to indicate paid vs. volunteer box or checked wrong box; (6) canvassers did not personally witness signatures.
- The Supreme Court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and accepted the master’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous; it ultimately disallowed ~12,104 signatures, leaving ~65,412—below the constitutional threshold—and granted the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Benca) | Defendant's Argument (Martin/Sponsor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of paid‑canvasser rules (Ark. Code Ann. § 7‑9‑601) to 8,620 signatures | Sponsor failed to comply with §7‑9‑601 (no handbook/training, late/absent background checks, late or missing paid‑canvasser disclosures); signatures must be disqualified | Many canvassers were volunteers or intended-to-be‑paid only contingentally; petitioner failed to prove which canvassers were actually paid, so §7‑9‑601 should not disqualify signatures | Court held statute’s requirements are mandatory for paid canvassers and, on record, disqualified 8,620 signatures for noncompliance (background checks, disclosure timing) |
| Timeliness and validity of criminal background checks | Background checks were missing or dated after certification; thus signatures invalid under §7‑9‑601(b) | Sponsor argued many alleged paid canvassers were volunteers or never actually paid; master found petitioner didn’t identify which were paid | Court found plain statutory language required timely checks and certification; disqualified 7,580 signatures for background‑check defects |
| Failure to provide paid‑canvasser list or disclosure before canvassing | Signatures gathered before sponsor disclosed paid canvassers to SOS must be excluded | Sponsor disputed that listed persons were actually paid and that petitioner proved who was paid | Court disqualified signatures collected by undisclosed or pre‑disclosure paid canvassers (totaling challenged amounts) |
| Canvasser residence/address on petition part (PO box, business address, or missing) | §7‑9‑126(b) mandates petition parts lacking canvasser residence address not be counted; P.O. boxes/business addresses are not residence addresses | Master treated many such defects as clerical/technical and counted some signatures | Court disqualified 3,329 signatures (including P.O. boxes and business addresses); agreed to disqualify business addresses and held P.O. boxes are noncompliant |
| Canvasser verification dated earlier than voter signature | Statute forbids counting when verification predates signature; such entries are invalid | Master characterized these as clerical errors and counted them | Court held statute is mandatory and disqualified 155 signatures where canvasser verification preceded voter signing |
| Canvasser paid/volunteer box unchecked or incorrect | Failure to indicate paid vs. volunteer (or incorrect box) breaches required verification form and may invalidate signatures | Master applied substantial‑compliance/clerical‑error doctrine (§7‑9‑109) and counted challenged signatures | Court upheld master’s counting on this point; majority found substantial compliance and allowed these signatures to stand |
| Canvasser personally witness signature | Some signatures allegedly not witnessed by canvassers | Sponsor/master presented testimony and credibility findings supporting that canvassers witnessed signatures | Court affirmed master’s credibility finding and counted these signatures (petitioner failed to prove lack of witnessing) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mays v. Cole, 374 Ark. 532 (Ark. 2008) (discussing amendment 7 governance of initiatives and referenda)
- Ward v. Priest, 350 Ark. 345 (Ark. 2002) (original jurisdiction to review Secretary of State sufficiency decisions)
- Stephens v. Martin, 2014 Ark. 442 (Ark. 2014) (original and exclusive jurisdiction after SOS certification)
- Roberts v. Priest, 334 Ark. 503 (Ark. 1998) (deference standard to master’s factual findings)
- Cave City Nursing Home, Inc. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 351 Ark. 13 (Ark. 2002) (statutory construction principles—give words ordinary meaning)
- Baker Refrigeration Sys., Inc. v. Weiss, 360 Ark. 388 (Ark. 2005) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)