593 S.W.3d 1
Ark.2020Background
- Emily Lengefeld, appointed district judge in March 2018, filed by petition as a candidate for Arkansas Court of Appeals District 4, Position 2 using the ballot name "Judge Emily White." She purchased a Hot Spring County home and transferred voter registration and property assessment there in February 2019; previously she lived in Grant County (2007–2018).
- Stephanie Barrett, a rival candidate in the same race, sued in Pulaski County Circuit Court seeking declaratory relief and mandamus to remove Lengefeld from the ballot, alleging (1) Lengefeld was not a resident/qualified elector of District 4, (2) improper use of the title "Judge," and (3) incorrect surname on filings.
- The circuit court found Barrett failed to prove Lengefeld lacked residency in District 4, ruled Lengefeld a qualified elector of District 4, denied removal for the surname issue, but ordered the title "Judge" stricken from Lengefeld’s ballot name; motions to dismiss were denied.
- Barrett appealed the circuit-court ruling; Lengefeld cross-appealed raising standing, verification, constitutional, and exhaustion arguments.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed both the direct appeal and cross-appeal: it upheld the trial court’s findings on standing, residency/qualified-elector status, the treatment of the political-practices pledge and ballot name, and rejected the procedural and constitutional challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Barrett's Argument | Lengefeld's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue | Barrett asserted she is a certified candidate and registered voter in District 4 and thus has standing to challenge eligibility. | Lengefeld argued Barrett did not prove she was a registered voter in a District 4 county, so no standing. | Court treated standing as admitted by Secretary of State in answer; Lengefeld failed to plead standing as an affirmative defense, so it was waived. |
| Residency / qualified elector under Amendment 80 | Barrett argued Lengefeld remained domiciled in Grant County (no abandonment), so not a qualified elector in District 4. | Lengefeld pointed to physical presence in Hot Spring County (home purchase, voter registration, property assessment) and intent to reside there. | Trial-court credibility finding that Lengefeld is present and registered in Hot Spring was not clearly erroneous; Barrett failed to meet her burden—Lengefeld is a qualified elector. |
| Political-practices pledge, ballot name, and use of "Judge" / surname | Barrett argued the pledge was falsified (used title "Judge" and "White" rather than "Lengefeld") and that inaccuracies should disqualify Lengefeld or invalidate petitions. | Lengefeld argued the statute requires only a surname and filing by petition; maiden/name usage is permissible and mere inaccuracies do not automatically disqualify. | Court held (1) statutes bar use of the title "Judge" by an appointed judge for this office, so title must be stricken; (2) inaccuracies in the pledge (including use of maiden surname) do not automatically disqualify—statute penalizes failure to file, not inclusion of incorrect info. |
| Verification, constitutional challenge, and administrative exhaustion | N/A for Barrett. | Lengefeld argued Barrett's petition lacked the verification affidavit required by §7-5-801, statute is post-election only; she also raised constitutional challenge to statutes and claimed failure to exhaust administrative remedies. | Court held §7-5-801 verification is for post-election contests (Tumey); pre-election challenges governed elsewhere, so petition was compliant. Constitutional challenge was not preserved for lack of AG notice. Administrative exhaustion not required because the State Board cannot adjudicate candidate eligibility (Craighead Cty.). |
Key Cases Cited
- Bomar v. Moser, 369 Ark. 123 (2007) (standing is a threshold issue to address first)
- Womack v. Foster, 340 Ark. 124 (2000) (contestant bears burden to prove candidate not resident when filing)
- State v. Jernigan, 2011 Ark. 487 (2011) (residency can be shown by physical presence or domiciliary intent)
- Tumey v. Daniels, 359 Ark. 256 (2004) (§7-5-801 verification applies to post-election contests, not pre-election challenges)
- State v. Craighead Cty. Bd. of Election Comm’rs, 300 Ark. 405 (1989) (mandamus/declaratory relief is proper vehicle; election board cannot determine candidate eligibility)
- Poff v. Brown, 374 Ark. 453 (2008) (affirmative defenses must be pleaded under Ark. R. Civ. P. 8(c))
- Seth v. St. Edward Mercy Med. Ctr., 375 Ark. 413 (2009) (failure to plead affirmative defense may result in waiver)
- Populist Party of Ark. v. Chesterfield, 359 Ark. 58 (2004) (right to be a candidate is fundamental and laws restricting that right should be construed liberally)
- Clement v. Daniels, 366 Ark. 352 (2006) (one person does not have two domiciles for voter or public-official purposes)
- Forrester v. Daniels, 2010 Ark. 397 (2010) (constitutional provisions must be construed together; give each word effect)