557 S.W.3d 880
Ark.2018Background
- Sponsor-intervenor Kristin Foster submitted an initiative to raise Arkansas minimum wage (Issue No. 5) to Secretary of State Mark Martin; initial submission on July 6, 2018.
- Secretary of State performed a prima facie review, initially validating enough signatures to trigger a 30-day cure period under Ark. Const. art. 5, § 1 (Amend. 7 & 93). Sponsor submitted cure signatures Aug. 3; final validated total exceeded the threshold to place the measure on the Nov. 6, 2018 ballot.
- Randy Zook filed an original action in the Arkansas Supreme Court challenging the sufficiency of the initial submission, arguing the petition did not qualify for the 30-day cure and later signatures should not be counted.
- A special master held evidentiary hearings and found the petition qualified for the cure and met the overall signature requirement (67,887 required; 75% for cure = 50,915).
- Supreme Court reviewed the special master’s factual findings for clear error and addressed the legal question whether the Secretary’s prima facie count properly entitled the sponsor to the cure period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Zook) | Defendant's Argument (Martin / Sponsor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition qualified for the 30-day cure period | Initial filing lacked the requisite valid signatures; cure was improperly granted, so post-cure signatures should not count | Prima facie review requires only numeric sufficiency on the face of the petition; sponsor met the 75% and county thresholds to earn cure | Court held cure was properly granted; on-face numeric sufficiency governs initial count and sponsor qualified for cure |
| Scope of review for initial count (prima facie vs. final sufficiency) | Court should consider invalidities (e.g., forged notaries, residency, canvasser issues) when deciding cure eligibility | Review for cure eligibility is limited to prima facie, on-face sufficiency; final challenges to signature validity occur later | Court reaffirmed focus on prima facie, on-face signature counts for cure eligibility and declined to reach final-sufficiency challenges |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. Priest, 350 Ark. 345, 86 S.W.3d 884 (addresses exclusive original jurisdiction of the Arkansas Supreme Court over statewide initiative sufficiency)
- Stephens v. Martin, 2014 Ark. 442, 491 S.W.3d 451 (establishes that fraud/forgery is not considered in the initial prima facie count for cure eligibility)
- Arkansas Hotels & Entm't, Inc. v. Martin, 2012 Ark. 335, 423 S.W.3d 49 (interprets requirement that petitions first show sufficient signatures on their face before cure applies)
- Dixon v. Hall, 210 Ark. 891, 198 S.W.2d 1002 (early precedent that a petition must prima facie contain required signatures at filing)
- Ellis v. Hall, 219 Ark. 869, 245 S.W.2d 223 (discusses allowing time for correction/amendment where an initially prima facie valid petition is found insufficient)
- Proctor v. Daniels, 2010 Ark. 206, 392 S.W.3d 360 (principles of constitutional interpretation; plain language controls)