Our Community, Our Dollars v. Bullock
2014 Ark. 457
| Ark. | 2014Background
- Our Community, Our Dollars (OCOD) sought to place a Saline County local-option liquor proposal on the November 4, 2014 ballot.
- The county clerk certified that 38% of registered voters signed the petition, totaling 25,653 signatures, exceeding the 25,580 threshold.
- Appellees Bullock, Francis, and Keaton filed suit challenging the clerk’s certification and the clerk’s handling of signatures.
- The circuit court held hearings, concluded the clerk could not count 720 uncounted signatures, and rescinded the clerk’s certification, finding the petition short by 156 signatures and enjoining ballot placement.
- The court then ordered a de novo review on remand, including consideration of the uncounted signatures, and this appeal and cross-appeal followed.
- Dissenting opinions argued mootness and urged remand exhaustion or acknowledgment of time constraints and potential ballot impact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to review the clerk’s certification | OCOD asserts jurisdiction over a petition certification challenge. | OCOD and clerk contend adequate pleading under applicable rules, with timeliness. | The court held in favor of reviewing the certification (jurisdiction acknowledged) and reversed on the de novo review point. |
| Whether the circuit court could count the 720 uncounted signatures | OCOD argues all petition signatures must be considered in review. | Clerk’s jurisdiction ended after certification; post-deadline signatures barred. | The court held the circuit court could consider the 720 signatures and reversed the ruling to remand for full review. |
| Whether section 14-14-915(d) applies to the circuit court’s review | OCOD contends the statute applies to clerks’ screening, not court review. | Statute applies to local-option petitions and governs burden shifting upon forgery evidence. | The court held 14-14-915(d) applies to circuit court review and upheld exclusion of signatures when forged or invalid. |
| Whether the enacting-clause requirement was violated on cross-appeal | Appellees argued lack of enacting clause invalidated petition. | OCOD contends local-option petitions are referendum-like and do not require enacting clause. | The court held no decertification for lack of enacting clause; substantial compliance found. |
| Whether signatures collected after clerk’s deficiency notice could count | OCOD argues additional signatures collected after notification should be counted. | Statute allows ten days to cure after notice, not explicit prohibition on collecting earlier signatures. | Court permitted consideration of post-notice signatures; remand for de novo sufficiency review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Save Energy Reap Taxes v. Shaw, 374 Ark. 428 (Ark. 2008) (applies section 14-14-915(d) to local-option petitions; burden shifting for forged signatures)
- Mays v. Cole, 374 Ark. 532 (Ark. 2008) (reiterates application of section 14-14-915(d) in initiative proceedings; burden shifting)
- Willis v. Crumbly, 371 Ark. 517 (Ark. 2007) (election-contest thresholds and deadlines; jurisdictional considerations)
- Yarbrough v. Beardon, 206 Ark. 553 (Ark. 1944) (local-option/referral context and constitutional considerations)
- Parks v. Taylor, 283 Ark. 486 (Ark. 1984) (presumption of circulator’s verity; burden-shifting framework)