Forrester v. Martin
2011 Ark. 277
| Ark. | 2011Background
- Forrester, on behalf of herself and others, sought injunctive relief and a writ of mandamus against the Secretary of State over Amendment 89 (Issue No. 2) in the November 2, 2010 general election.
- Forrester alleged Amendment 89 violated Ark. Const. art. 19, §22 by including three amendments in one measure, rather than separately.
- She also argued the ballot title amounted to manifest fraud under Ark. Code 7-9-204, as applied to the proposed amendment.
- The circuit court held the ballot title was not a manifest fraud and that 7-9-204 conflicted with the constitution, effectively challenging the title statute.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed de novo the constitutional and statutory questions and affirmed the circuit court on both issues in favor of validity of the amendment as presented.
- The court also addressed whether Amendment 89's multiple provisions complied with the separate-vote requirement and found sections 1–4 reasonably germane to a single general subject of economic development and debt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amendment 89 violates Art. 19, §22 by including multiple amendments. | Forrester | Forrest er | Amendment 89 complies; all parts are reasonably germane |
| Whether the ballot title constitutes manifest fraud on the electors. | Forrester | Forrester | Not manifest fraud; ballot title sufficient |
| Whether Ark. Code § 7-9-204 is constitutional or conflicts with Art. 19, §22 | Forrester | Forrester | § 7-9-204 violates the Arkansas Constitution |
| Whether Amendment 89's sections 1–4 form a valid, single subject under Article 19, §22 | Forrester | Forrest er | Affirmed that sections are reasonably germane and within a single general subject |
Key Cases Cited
- Chaney v. Bryant, 259 Ark. 294 (1976) (presumptions in favor of validity after ratification; appellate review)
- Becker v. Riviere, 277 Ark. 252 (1982) (ballot-title sufficiency and manifest-fraud standard)
- Thiel v. Priest, 342 Ark. 292 (2000) (manifest-fraud standard; omissions not fatal)
- Brockelhurst v. State, 195 Ark. 67 (1937) (separate-vote principle for amendments; early articulation of concern)
- Handy Dan Improvement Ctr., Inc. v. Adams, 276 Ark. 268 (1982) (single-subject/contextual interpretive principle applied to amendments)