Stephens v. Martin
2014 Ark. 442
Ark.2014Background
- GARN (Give Arkansas A Raise Now) circulated an initiated act to raise the state minimum wage and submitted petition parts and signatures to the Secretary of State on July 7, 2014.
- The Attorney General had earlier certified the popular name and ballot title; the Secretary of State performed an initial count and culled parts missing a legible text copy.
- The Secretary’s initial count showed at least 64,133 signatures, exceeding the 62,507 statewide and 15-county threshold required to trigger the 30-day cure period in Amendment 7.
- Subsequent verification disqualified thousands of signatures (including parts alleged to contain forged notary signatures); Secretary of State granted GARN a 30-day cure period and, after review, certified the measure for the ballot.
- Petitioner Stephens challenged (1) that alleged forged notary signatures made the petition not facially valid at filing (so no 30-day cure period), and (2) that the July 7 filing was untimely.
- The Supreme Court appointed a master, accepted his factual findings unless clearly erroneous, and denied Stephens’s petition, allowing Issue No. 5 to remain on the ballot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition was facially sufficient at filing to qualify for Amendment 7’s 30-day cure period | Stephens: many petition parts relied on forged notary signatures; thus petition lacked the required number on its face and was not entitled to cure period | Secretary/GARN: initial count is a facial inquiry; signatures and notary acknowledgments on their face met requirements, so cure period was proper | Held: Initial count showed a prima facie sufficient petition; fraud/forgery are for later verification and do not defeat entitlement to the 30-day cure period |
| Whether the petition was timely filed under Amendment 7’s four-month-before-election rule | Stephens: deadline counts backward, so a July 3 cutoff applied and July 7 filing was late | Secretary/GARN: controlling precedent (Richardson v. Martin) set the applicable deadline as July 7, 2014 | Held: Petition was timely filed (Richardson controls); timeliness challenge fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. Priest, 334 Ark. 503, 975 S.W.2d 850 (1998) (standard for accepting master’s factual findings)
- Ward v. Priest, 350 Ark. 345, 86 S.W.3d 884 (2002) (Supreme Court has original, exclusive jurisdiction to review Secretary of State on statewide petitions)
- Arkansas Hotels & Entm’t, Inc. v. Martin, 423 S.W.3d 49 (Ark. 2012) (petition must be prima facie sufficient on its face to qualify for 30-day cure period)
- Ellis v. Hall, 219 Ark. 869, 245 S.W.2d 223 (1952) (30-day extension may be used to add signatures after an initial prima facie sufficient filing)
- Dixon v. Hall, 210 Ark. 891, 198 S.W.2d 1002 (1946) (petition must prima facie contain required signatures at time of filing)
- Leigh v. Hall, 232 Ark. 558, 339 S.W.2d 104 (1960) (purpose of initiative/referendum provisions)