Lange v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 302

Petitioners Chuck Lange and Bill Walmsley filed an original action in the Arkansas Supreme Court seeking to invalidate a proposed initiated constitutional amendment certified for the Nov. 8, 2016 ballot that would allow three specific casinos to operate in three counties.
Petitioners sought declarations that (1) the ballot title is insufficient and injunctive relief preventing placement on the ballot, (2) sponsors failed to submit sufficient valid signatures, and (3) any votes cast on the amendment not be counted.
Sponsors Arkansas Wins in 2016, LLC and Arkansas Winning Initiative, Inc. moved to intervene and opposed petitioners’ relief; three signatory voters also moved to intervene to protect their right to vote.
The Court granted expedited consideration, bifurcated the contest: Counts I–II (ballot title and constitutional issues) to be briefed and decided separately from Count III (signature sufficiency, which raises factual issues).
The Court appointed Hon. Bentley Story as master under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-5(c) and Ark. R. Civ. P. 53 to take evidence on signature validity and ordered his report by Sept. 29, 2016; a briefing schedule and bond requirement ($5,000) for petitioners and intervenors were set.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ballot-title sufficiency	Title is misleading/insufficient to inform voters	Title was properly certified by Secretary of State	Court bifurcated and set expedited briefing on this issue (no final decision here)
Placement on ballot	Measure should be enjoined from ballot due to title/constitutional defects	Certification and placement should stand	Court denied oral argument and required written briefing; issue reserved for decision after briefs
Signature sufficiency	Sponsors failed to submit sufficient valid signatures to qualify amendment	Sponsors defend sufficiency and ask to intervene to protect ballot access	Court appointed a master to take evidence and make factual findings on signature validity
Right to vote / intervention	Voter-intervenors seek to protect their right to vote on the amendment	Sponsors and Secretary oppose preventing ballot access; sponsors intervened to defend placement	Court granted intervention to sponsors and voter signatories and allowed participation under expedited schedule

Stephens v. Martin, 2014 Ark. 402 (per curiam) (court practice of requiring bond when a master is appointed in original actions under Amendment 7)
Roberts v. Priest, 334 Ark. 244 (1998) (per curiam) (discussing bond and master appointment practice in original actions)