Martin v. Kohls, 2014 Ark. 427

Act 595 (2013) required proof of identity for in-person voting and defined acceptable documents with photo IDs.
Governor Beebe vetoed Act 595 as costly and unnecessary; the General Assembly overrode the vetoes, enacting Act 595.
Appellees, registered voters in Pulaski County, challenged Act 595 as unconstitutional under Ark. Const. art. 3, §§1–2 and sought injunctive relief.
The circuit court found Act 595 facially unconstitutional, enjoined enforcement of the proof-of-identity provisions and related rules, and granted preliminary injunctive relief.
On appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the facial invalidity of Act 595, and held moot the preliminary-injunction issues, while addressing standing and party-joinder.
Concurrence (Goodson, J.) concluded Act 595 was null and void for lacking a required two-thirds vote under Amendment 51; the majority did not reach constitutional scrutiny under article 3.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Act 595 add a new voting qualification under Ark. Const. art. 3, §1?	Appellees contend yes; it imposes an extra qualification by requiring proof of identity.	Appellants contend no new qualification, just a procedural identification step to verify eligibility.	Act 595 cannot survive facial challenge; it adds a qualification outside Ark. Const. art. 3, §1.
Did Appellees have standing to bring a facial challenge to Act 595?	Appellees, as registered voters in Pulaski County, are within the affected class.	Martin argued lack of standing due to no individual injury proof.	Appellees had standing to challenge Act 595.
Was the preliminary-injunction remedy appropriate given sovereign immunity and mootness concerns?	Appellees sought to enjoin enforcement in the May 2014 election, alleging irreparable harm and likelihood of success on the merits.	Appellants argued sovereign immunity and lack of standing, and later mootness after the May 2014 election.	Because the facial invalidity resolved the issue, mootness concerns foreclosed injunctive relief; the merits were not dispositive.
Did the circuit court correctly address declaratory relief and necessary-party issues?	Appellees argued the State’s chief election official and board were properly named.	Martin argued missing county clerks/election commissioners as necessary parties.	Parties properly named; circuit court did not err in denying missing-necessary-parties objections.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (U.S. 2008) (recognizes photo ID requirements in some contexts; facial challenge standard discussed)
Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724 (U.S. 2008) (facial challenges may be appropriate under appropriate circumstances)
Linder v. Linder, 348 Ark. 322 (Ark. 2002) (imposes strict interpretation of voter qualifications; cautions against extra requirements)
Bailey, Lieutenant-Governor v. Abington, 201 Ark. 1072 (Ark. 1941) (fundamental purpose of constitutional interpretation; adhere to framers’ intent)
Faubus v. Miles, 237 Ark. 957 (Ark. 1964) (cannot substitute a regulation for constitutional requirements)
Rison v. Farr, 24 Ark. 161 (Ark. 1865) (cannot impose additional restrictions on voting contrary to constitutional provisions)
Tsann Kuen Enters. Co. v. Campbell, 355 Ark. 110 (Ark. 2003) (facial-challenge standard in Arkansas constitutional context)
Edwards v. City, 946 F. Supp. 2d 848 (N.D. Ark. 2013) (federal authority cited on facial-challenge standard)