Martin v. Humphrey, 558 S.W.3d 370

In 2017 the Arkansas General Assembly passed SJR 8 proposing a constitutional amendment (designated Issue No. 1) to appear on the Nov. 6, 2018 ballot; Secretary Martin labeled it "Issue No. 1."
SJR 8 contains four sections: (1) a 33 1/3% cap on attorney contingency fees and related legislative authority; (2) caps on non-economic and punitive damages and related legislative authority; (3) grants the General Assembly authority over rules of pleading, practice, and procedure; and (4) lowers legislative thresholds to amend or annul certain Supreme Court rules and related adjustments to Amendment 80.
Marion Humphrey sued in Pulaski County Circuit Court seeking a declaratory judgment that Issue No. 1 violates Art. 19 § 22 and a writ of mandamus to prevent counting/certifying votes on Issue No. 1; Randy Zook intervened and Secretary Martin defended the submission.
The circuit court found the four parts were not reasonably germane to each other or to any single general subject and enjoined Secretary Martin from counting, canvassing, or certifying votes on Issue No. 1.
The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding Issue No. 1 violates Article 19, § 22 and upholding the declaratory judgment and mandamus relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Issue No. 1's components are reasonably germane to each other (separate-issue/separate-vote requirement under Art. 19 § 22)	Humphrey: Sections are not reasonably germane and thus cannot be combined into one legislatively referred amendment	Martin/Zook: Sections are germane; the general subject is "courts and the judiciary" or "judicial power" so combined submission is permissible	Held: Not all sections are reasonably germane to each other (esp. §1 vs §§3–4); violation affirmed
Whether all components are reasonably germane to a single general subject so electors may vote separately as required by Art. 19 § 22	Humphrey: No single general subject ties all four sections; ties are attenuated	Martin/Zook: General subject covers judiciary/courts/judicial power; contingency-fee, damages, and rulemaking affect courts	Held: No single general subject exists that reasonably unites all parts; submission violates Art. 19 § 22
Whether declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus were appropriate remedies to prevent counting/certifying ballots for an unconstitutional referred amendment	Humphrey: Court should declare amendment invalid and enjoin certification to protect voting rights	Martin: Enforcement not warranted; submission valid	Held: Declaratory judgment proper under Ark. R. Civ. P. 57; mandamus properly issued to prevent Secretary from counting/certifying votes on an invalid submission

Forrester v. Martin, 383 S.W.3d 375 (Ark. 2011) (adopted a "reasonably germane" test for components of legislatively referred amendments)
Martin v. Haas, 556 S.W.3d 509 (Ark. 2018) (interpreting "germane" elsewhere in the constitution as "relevant; pertinent")
Heathscott v. Raff, 973 S.W.2d 799 (Ark. 1998) (constitutional construction principle: give effect to every part; avoid rendering provisions superfluous)
Christian Civil Action Comm. v. McCuen, 884 S.W.2d 605 (Ark. 1994) (court may enjoin counting/certifying ballots for unconstitutional referred amendments)
Wilson v. Martin, 500 S.W.3d 160 (Ark. 2016) (enjoining Secretary of State from counting/certifying a proposed amendment for insufficient ballot title)
Lange v. Martin, 500 S.W.3d 154 (Ark. 2016) (granting relief to prevent counting/certifying votes for an invalidly referred amendment)