Pritchett v. Spicer
2017 Ark. 82
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Hot Springs Board passed Ordinance No. 6121 (annexation) on January 19, 2016; it was published January 24, 2016.
- On February 23, 2016, a referendum petition opposing Ordinance No. 6121 was delivered to the city clerk; the clerk rejected it as untimely.
- George Pritchett filed for a writ of mandamus in Garland County Circuit Court (seeking certification/acceptance of the petition); the court denied relief, finding Hot Springs Ordinance No. 4533 controlled.
- Ordinance No. 4533 (Hot Springs Code § 1-2-1.2) establishes that a referendum petition must be filed within 30 days after passage of an ordinance.
- Pritchett argued the filing period was 60 days under Act 1093 (A.C.A. §§ 14-47-124, 14-55-304), that the 30-day rule is unconstitutional (strict scrutiny), and that the deadline should run from publication rather than passage.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed: the municipal ordinance governs the filing deadline (30 days after passage); the referenced statutes govern circulation time, not filing; constitutional/challenge issues were unpreserved or meritless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which rule governs filing deadline for municipal referendum? | Pritchett: state statutes (Act 1093) provide 60 days, so petition was timely. | City: Hot Springs Ordinance No. 4533 (30 days after passage) governs under Amendment 7. | Held: Municipal ordinance controls; 30-day filing deadline after passage. |
| Do Ark. statutes (A.C.A. §§ 14-47-124, 14-55-304) override municipal filing deadline? | Pritchett: statutes conflict with ordinance and must govern. | City: statutes address circulation time, not filing; Legislature cannot limit municipal time-setting under Amendment 7. | Held: Statutes govern circulation, not filing; Cobb precedent bars legislative limitation—ordinance stands. |
| Is Ordinance No. 4533 unconstitutional (strict scrutiny)? | Pritchett: ordinance impinges on fundamental rights and is not narrowly tailored. | City: (argument not addressed on merits) | Held: Issue not preserved for appeal (no ruling below); court declined to review. |
| Does filing period run from publication or passage? | Pritchett: period should run from date of publication. | City: ordinance and Amendment 7 specify time runs from passage. | Held: Time runs from passage; publication date does not delay the 30-day period. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cobb v. Burress, 213 Ark. 177 (Ark. 1948) (Legislature cannot limit a municipality's constitutional power to fix referendum filing time)
- Railey v. City of Magnolia, 197 Ark. 1047 (Ark. 1939) (addressed ordinance effective date)
- Phillips v. City of Eureka Springs, 312 Ark. 57 (Ark. 1993) (addressed publication procedure for ordinances)
- City of Eureka Springs v. Brightman, 243 Ark. 836 (Ark. 1968) (distinguished ordinance vs. resolution issues)
- Ark. Power & Light Co. v. Curlin, 187 Ark. 562 (Ark. 1933) (constitutional provisions prevail over conflicting statutes)