Martin v. Haas
556 S.W.3d 509
Ark.2018Background
- Plaintiff Barry Haas (a registered Arkansas voter) challenged Act 633 of 2017, which requires voters to present "compliant identification" (photo ID or specified documents) to verify voter registration or cast a provisional ballot subject to later verification.
- Act 633 was enacted as an amendment to Amendment 51; it received the two-thirds legislative vote required by Amendment 51, §19.
- The statute permits voters without compliant ID to sign a sworn voter-identity affirmation at the polls or provide ID to county officials by the Monday after the election for their provisional ballots to be counted; absentee ballots without ID copies are treated similarly.
- The circuit court entered a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of Act 633 prior to the 2018 elections; the State appealed. This Court stayed the injunction pending appeal and granted expedited review.
- Lower court found Act 633 not germane to Amendment 51 and inconsistent with its purpose (permanent voter registration), concluding the photo-ID verification at voting was outside the registration scheme.
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding Act 633 germane to and consistent with Amendment 51 and therefore constitutional; it reversed the preliminary injunction and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sovereign immunity | Injunctive relief barred because defendants are state actors; declaratory action cannot yield injunction against state duties | Act 633 is challenged as unconstitutional; injunction is proper to enjoin unconstitutional/state-ultra vires acts | Court: sovereign-immunity exception allows injunctions against unconstitutional or ultra vires acts; immunity did not bar relief |
| Standing | Haas lacks injury because he has a valid driver’s license and would not use it / would not sign affirmation (manufactured injury) | Haas is a registered voter affected by Act 633 and thus in the class harmed by the law | Court: Haas has standing as a member of the class affected by the statute (consistent with Martin v. Kohls) |
| Germane and consistent with Amendment 51 | Act 633 is not germane; photo ID at the polls is not part of the registration process and undermines "permanent" registration | Verification at time of voting is relevant to ensuring only legally qualified persons cast ballots and is consistent with Amendment 51’s purpose | Court: Act 633 is germane to Amendment 51 and consistent with its policy/purpose; verification is an enforcement mechanism within the amendment’s scope |
| Likelihood of success for preliminary injunction (merits) | Act 633 imposes an additional voting qualification and impairs voting rights under Art. 3 §§1–2; thus likely to succeed | Act 633 is a valid, germane amendment compliant with Amendment 51; presumption of constitutionality favors statute | Court: Plaintiff failed to show a reasonable probability of success on the merits; preliminary injunction was improper (so court did not reach irreparable-harm analysis) |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Kohls, 444 S.W.3d 844 (Ark. 2014) (addressed constitutionality of photo-ID law and standing of voters to challenge voter-ID statutes)
- Cammack v. Chalmers, 680 S.W.2d 689 (Ark. 1984) (sovereign-immunity exception for unconstitutional or ultra vires acts permitting injunctive relief)
- Gatzke v. Weiss, 289 S.W.3d 455 (Ark. 2008) (constitutional interpretation reviewed de novo and constitution read as a whole)
- Potter v. City of Tontitown, 264 S.W.3d 473 (Ark. 2007) (standards for preliminary injunction: irreparable harm and likelihood of success)
- Manila Sch. Dist. No. 15 v. Wagner, 148 S.W.3d 244 (Ark. 2004) (court may decline to reach remaining injunction factors if likelihood of success lacking)