Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Zook v. Martin

Supreme Court of Arkansas

October 19, 2018

RANDY ZOOK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ARKANSANS FOR COMMON SENSE TERM LIMITS, A BALLOT QUESTION COMMITTEE PETITIONER
v.
MARK MARTIN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT ARKANSAS TERM LIMITS, A BALLOT QUESTION COMMITTEE INTERVENOR

          AN ORIGINAL ACTION

          Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, by: Elizabeth Robben Murray, Ellen Owens Smith, Joshua C. Ashley, and Allison C. Pearson, for petitioner.

          AJ Kelly, Deputy Secretary of State and General Counsel; and Michael Fincher, Associate General Counsel, for respondent.

          Graves Garrett LLC, by: Edward D. Greim, Alan T. Simpson, and Garrett W. Hunkins; and Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC, by: Chad W. Pekron and Brittany S. Ford, for intervenor.

          JOHN DAN KEMP, CHIEF JUSTICE.

         In this original action, petitioner Randy Zook, individually and on behalf of Arkansans for Common Sense Term Limits, a ballot-question committee, challenges a proposed initiative constitutional amendment, known as Issue No. 3, with the popular name "The Arkansas Term Limits Amendment" ("proposed amendment").[1] Arkansas Term Limits ("Intervenor"), a ballot-question committee, sponsored the proposed amendment. Zook seeks to enjoin respondent, Mark Martin, in his official capacity as Secretary of State, from placing the proposed amendment on the November 6, 2018 general-election ballot and from counting or certifying any votes cast for the proposed amendment. The petition asserts two bases for relief. Count I is a challenge to the adequacy of the proposed amendment's popular name and ballot title, and count II challenges the petition and signature-gathering process under which Martin certified the proposed amendment. We granted Zook's motion to bifurcate the proceedings and appointed a special master to make findings on count II. See Zook v. Martin, 2018 Ark. 254 (per curiam). This opinion concerns count I, which was submitted directly to this court because a ballot title's sufficiency is decided as a matter of law. Ross v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 362.

         In Zook v. Martin, 2018 Ark. 306, also handed down on this date, we accepted the special master's finding that there was an insufficient number of signatures to qualify the proposed amendment for the November 6, 2018 general-election ballot, and we granted the petition. Our holding in that case renders count I moot. See Lange v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 363 (stating that an issue is moot when a decision by this court would have no practical legal effect on a then existing legal controversy). This court does not decide cases that are moot, render advisory opinions, or answer academic questions. See, e.g., Ark. State Med. Bd. v. Schoen, 338 Ark. 762, 1 S.W.3d 430 (1999). Therefore, we hold that count I is moot, and we grant the petition.

         Petition granted; count I moot.

         Mandate to issue immediately.

          Baker and Hart, JJ., dissent.

          Karen R. Baker, Justice, dissenting.

         Because I dissented in Count II in Zook v. Martin, 2018 Ark. 306, handed down today, and would hold that Arkansas Term Limits submitted a sufficient number of signatures for its proposed amendment to appear on the November 2018 ballot, I dissent from the majority opinion holding Count I moot. Rather than hold the petition moot, I would reach the merits of Count I. Accordingly, I dissent.

          Hart, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.