History
  • No items yet
midpage
2016 Ark. 362
Ark.
2016
Read the full case

Background

  • Petitioners sought to invalidate an initiated constitutional amendment titled "An Amendment to Limit Attorney Contingency Fees and Non-Economic Damages in Medical Lawsuits," challenging canvasser certification, signature sufficiency, and ballot-title sufficiency.
  • Sponsors submitted 131,687 raw signatures; Secretary of State validated 93,102; 84,859 valid signatures were needed to qualify for the ballot.
  • The court bifurcated the case: counts I and II (factual challenges to canvasser compliance and signature counts) were referred to Special Master Judge J.W. Looney; count III (ballot-title sufficiency) remained for direct decision by the court.
  • The special master found several potential defects: failures in criminal-background-check certification, early canvasser solicitation (1,825 signatures), missing canvasser eligibility statements (47 signatures), and possible improper use of third-party background reports (potentially 10,764 signatures). The master also identified signatures improperly excluded by the Secretary that might be counted (several hundred).
  • While the court received the master’s report, it decided count III in companion opinions, holding the ballot title insufficient because it left the term “non-economic damages” undefined and enjoined counting/certifying votes; that holding rendered counts I and II moot.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
1. Sponsor compliance with canvasser-certification statutes (criminal-background-check certification) Sponsors failed to certify criminal-background checks for paid canvassers as required, which could be a material defect disallowing signatures under A.C.A. § 7-9-601(b)(5) Secretary accepted sponsor submissions and validated signatures; dispute over materiality and effect of any omission The special master found certification failures could be material; but the court deemed the issue moot after it invalidated the ballot title and enjoined counting votes
2. Solicitation and eligibility formalities for paid canvassers (timing and statements of eligibility) Paid canvassers solicited signatures before being submitted and some canvassers lacked required eligibility statements, resulting in thousands/ dozens of disallowed signatures Secretary’s validation process led to 93,102 valid signatures; some exclusions challenged by intervenors as improper Special master quantified problematic signatures (e.g., 1,825 for early solicitation; 47 for missing eligibility statements); court found these factual issues moot given ballot-title ruling
3. Use of third-party criminal-background reports by sponsor/agent Use of third-party reports violated A.C.A. § 7-9-601(b)(1) and could disallow up to 10,764 signatures Sponsor argued its procedures sufficed; factual dispute whether use violated statute Special master identified potential disallowance if violation; court did not decide on merits because counts I and II were moot
4. Intervenors’ claim that Secretary improperly excluded certain signatures Intervenors showed several categories of signatures (e.g., incorrect canvasser addresses, mistakenly added to duplicate list) that should be counted Secretary maintained exclusions based on validation rules and duplicate elimination Master found several hundred signatures that may have been improperly excluded; resolution remained factual and was mooted by ballot-title ruling

Key Cases Cited

  • Ross v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 340 (Ark. 2016) (companion opinion addressing initiative challenges)
  • Wilson v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 334 (Ark. 2016) (held ballot title insufficient for leaving “non-economic damages” undefined)
  • Cox v. Daniels, 374 Ark. 437 (Ark. 2008) (ballot-title sufficiency is decided by the court as a matter of law)
  • Richardson v. Martin, 2014 Ark. 429 (Ark. 2014) (original jurisdiction over challenges to statewide petitions under Amendment 7)
  • Our Cmty., Our Dollars v. Bullock, 2014 Ark. 457 (Ark. 2014) (court generally will not issue moot or advisory opinions)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Ross v. Martin
Court Name: Supreme Court of Arkansas
Date Published: Oct 27, 2016
Citations: 2016 Ark. 362; CV-16-776
Docket Number: CV-16-776
Court Abbreviation: Ark.
Log In
    Ross v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 362