Wilson v. Martin
2016 Ark. 334
Ark.2016Background
- Petitioners Nancy Lee Wilson and Paula Jean Casey (directors of a ballot committee) challenged the ballot title for a proposed constitutional amendment titled “An Amendment to Limit Attorney Contingency Fees and Non-Economic Damages in Medical Lawsuits,” which had qualified for the Nov. 8, 2016 ballot as Issue No. 4.
- The proposed amendment would (1) prohibit contingency fees over 33 1/3% in medical-injury actions, (2) require the General Assembly to set a statutory cap on non-economic damages of at least $250,000 per health-care provider, and (3) allow the legislature to implement and enforce those provisions, among other amendments to Ark. Const. art. 5 §32 and Amendment 80 §3.
- The Attorney General certified the popular name and ballot title on April 20, 2016; intervenors thereafter collected signatures and Secretary of State Martin certified the measure for the ballot on Aug. 25, 2016.
- Petitioners filed an original action asking the Arkansas Supreme Court to declare the ballot title insufficient and remove the initiative from the ballot or enjoin canvassing/certifying any votes for it.
- Petitioners argued the ballot title was deficient because it (1) failed to define “non-economic damages,” (2) was materially misleading, and (3) omitted material information necessary for a fair understanding of the amendment’s scope and effects.
- The Court granted the petition, holding the ballot title insufficient because it did not define the technical term “non-economic damages,” and enjoined the Secretary of State from counting or certifying any ballots cast for the amendment. The Court did not address the remaining challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ballot title must define “non-economic damages” | Ballot title omits a necessary definition; term is technical and voters cannot intelligently decide without it | Intervenors/State relied on AG certification and argued voters understand the term sufficiently; technical definitions disfavored | Held: Title insufficient — “non-economic damages” is technical and must be defined; omission prevents informed vote |
| Whether the ballot title is materially misleading or omits other material facts | Title is misleading/omits scope, separation-of-powers and jury-trial impacts | AG certification and sponsors argued title fairly summarizes and should be given deference; liberal construction applies | Not reached on merits (Court resolved case on the single defect regarding definition) |
| Whether AG certification is dispositive of sufficiency | Challengers: AG certification not controlling; Court must independently review | Respondent: AG certification should be given significance | Court: AG certification considered but not dispositive; independent review required |
Key Cases Cited
- Christian Civic Action Comm. v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 241 (1994) (ballot title must give voters a fair understanding and cannot be misleading)
- Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277 (1994) (court may remove proposed amendment from ballot for insufficient title and will address multiple defects)
- Cox v. Daniels, 374 Ark. 437 (2008) (ballot titles get liberal construction but cannot use highly technical terms voters won’t understand)
- May v. Daniels, 359 Ark. 100 (2005) (ballot-title sufficiency standard and voters’ ability to make informed decision)
- Kurrus v. Priest, 342 Ark. 434 (2000) (struck ballot title for misleading omissions and unclear terms)
- Scott v. Priest, 326 Ark. 328 (1996) (struck amendment where title contained multiple misleading omissions)
- Crochet v. Priest, 326 Ark. 338 (1996) (struck amendment for multiple ballot-title infirmities)