609 S.W.3d 357
Ark.2020Background
- In 2019 the Arkansas General Assembly referred three constitutional amendments for the Nov. 3, 2020 general-election ballot; the Secretary of State designated SJR 15 as Issue 2 (term-limits) and HJR 1008 as Issue 3 (process for submission, challenge, approval of initiated acts, constitutional amendments, and referenda).
- Tom Steele filed suit seeking to remove Issue 2 and Issue 3 from the ballot, challenging the sufficiency of their ballot titles and arguing that Act 376 requires applying the initiative-standard (Amendment 7) to legislatively referred amendments.
- The Secretary moved to dismiss; the circuit court granted the motion, denied Steele’s preliminary injunction and mandamus/declaratory-relief requests, and found the ballot titles complied with Article 19, § 22 and that Issue 3 was germane.
- Steele appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court; the majority treated the case under existing precedent distinguishing legislature-referred amendments (Article 19, § 22) from citizen initiatives (Amendment 7).
- The Supreme Court affirmed: it held Act 376 did not change the governing Article 19, § 22 standard; both ballot titles were sufficient (no manifest fraud); and Issue 3’s parts were reasonably germane.
- Two justices dissented: one would have struck Issue 3 as multi-subject; another would have dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Amendment 80.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Does Act 376 require applying Amendment 7 standards to legislature-referred amendments? | Steele: Act 376 shows legislature intended ballot titles and popular names for referred amendments to be reviewed under Amendment 7 standards. | Thurston: Act 376 only creates a private right to challenge wording; it does not alter constitutional standard (Art. 19 § 22). | Held: Article 19, § 22 continues to govern; Act 376 did not overrule precedent or change the standard. |
| 2. Are the ballot titles for Issue 2 and Issue 3 sufficient and not a manifest fraud? | Steele: Titles are misleading and fail to inform voters of specific proposals; therefore insufficient and constituting manifest fraud. | Thurston: Titles distinguish and identify the propositions as required under Art. 19, § 22; they are not misleading. | Held: Titles sufficiently identify/distinguish the amendments and do not meet the heavy manifest-fraud standard; therefore sufficient. |
| 3. Does Issue 3 violate the separate-subject / single-subject requirement (germaneness)? | Steele: Issue 3 packs at least three disparate amendments affecting different constitutional provisions and processes, depriving voters of separate votes. | Thurston: All provisions concern procedures for amending Arkansas law (initiatives, referenda, legislative referrals) and are reasonably germane. | Held: All parts are reasonably germane to the general subject of amendment procedures; Issue 3 survives the germane test. |
| 4. Was the circuit court’s exercise of jurisdiction proper? | Dissent (Steele’s position in part): Under Amendment 80 this Court has original jurisdiction over sufficiency challenges and the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. | Majority: Relied on precedent treating legislatively referred-amendment challenges as appellate in this context and proceeded. | Held: Majority proceeded and affirmed; a justice dissented, arguing the appeal should be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coulter v. Dodge, 197 Ark. 812 (distinguishes procedures for legislature-referred amendments and citizen initiatives)
- Becker v. Riviere, 277 Ark. 252 (legislatively referred amendments require only identification; manifest-fraud standard applies)
- Forrester v. Martin, 2011 Ark. 277 (reaffirmed that Amendment 7 does not govern legislature-referred amendments; ballot titles identify and distinguish)
- Martin v. Humphrey, 2018 Ark. 295 (separate-subject requirement satisfied if parts are reasonably germane to the general subject)
- Thiel v. Priest, 342 Ark. 292 (articulated the heavy manifest-fraud standard applicable to legislative referrals)
- Berry v. Hall, 232 Ark. 648 (discussed this Court’s jurisdictional posture regarding legislatively referred amendments)