Coleman v. Sherrill
| Decision Date | 22 October 1934 |
| Docket Number | 4-3706 |
| Parties | COLEMAN v. SHERRILL |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Independence Chancery Court; Alvin S. Irby, Chancellor affirmed.
Case affirmed.
Dene H Coleman and W. K. Ruddell, for appellants.
W. M Thompson and L. B. Poindexter, for appellees.
Neil C Marsh, Henry Moore, Jr., Fred S. Armstrong, Tom W. Hardy, Wilbur D. Mills, Brundidge & Neelly, Miller & Yingling and Culbert L. Pearce, amici curiae.
By petition filed on the 5th day of September, 1934, E. C. Parsons et al. being more than 15 per cent. of the legal voters of Independence County, Arkansas, invoked the aid of Amendment No. 7 to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas to initiate the Independence County Salary Act, which was designated as "Initiative Act No. 1 of Independence County, Arkansas," with the title: "An act to fix the salaries and expenses of county officers and to fix the manner in which such compensations and salaries shall be paid and to reduce the cost of county government, and for other purposes."
On the 18th day of September, 1934, the county clerk decided the petitions were insufficient and defective, and on that day notified W. M. Thompson, one of the attorneys, representing the petitioners, that he had so found, and gave as his reasons therefor: "(1) That the petitions were filed with the county clerk and not with the county judge; (2) That the exact title to be placed upon the ballot was not submitted with the petition; (3) That the exact title to be placed upon the ballot was not submitted to the election commissioners; (4) That the title of said act as contained in said petition was insufficient and defective and not complete enough to convey an intelligible idea, and scope and import of the proposed law and not free from misleading tendencies." These findings were not signed by the clerk. On the 22d day of September the county judge of Independence County considered the matter and found that there were thirteen petitions containing 573 names, praying that there be submitted to the people at the next general election, to be held November 6, 1934, the question of the adoption of the proposed Initiative Act No. 1 for Independence County, and upon this hearing ordered that the clerk certify to the county board of election commissioners of Independence County said Initiative Act No. 1, using as a ballot title the title of the act.
Attacking this order, the appellants herein filed a complaint in the chancery court against J. Ed. Sherrill, county judge, and Edgar Baker, the county clerk, and against the three members of the board of county election commissioners, and pleaded the facts as have been herein set out, alleging that said order was made after the county clerk had declared the petitions to be insufficient and defective, and had notified the sponsors of that fact, and alleging that the act of the county court was contrary to, or, at least, not authorized by Amendment No. 7, and prayed that the order made by the county court be declared void; and that the court enjoin and restrain the county clerk from giving notice by publication, and from certifying to the election commissioners any copy of said petition, and to enjoin the election commissioners from placing said Initiative Act No. 1 upon the ballot.
Several of the petitioners made themselves parties, filed answer to this complaint, and also filed a cross-complaint against the county clerk and the election commissioners for Independence County. In this they stated that the plaintiffs were taxpayers and legal voters; that the petitions were filed with the defendant, Edgar Baker, as county clerk; admitted that the county judge, J. Ed. Sherrill, had made the order which was made part of the complaint; denied that this order was contrary to Amendment No. 7; denied that it was made after the county clerk had found the petitions insufficient and defective. They alleged that the petitions were sufficient, and that they contained in themselves a valid ballot title, and that petitioners were entitled to have the matter placed upon the ballot to be voted upon at the next general election. They alleged also that they were entitled to have the actions of the county clerk reviewed by the chancery court, and that the county clerk should be required to certify the proposed act to the election commissioners; prayed that the election commissioners and the county clerk be required to do all and singular the duties required of them under the Constitution of the State and the laws thereof, and to certify the results of the election upon said Initiative Act No. 1, and for all other proper relief.
Upon the trial of the matter in chancery court, the court found: (1) That the filing of the petitions with the county clerk was a substantial and sufficient compliance with the provisions of Amendment No. 7; (2) That the title of the act contained in the petition filed with the county clerk is a substantial compliance with the provisions of Amendment No. 7 of the Constitution, with reference to the filing of a ballot title; (3) That it was not necessary that the ballot title be filed with the board of election commissioners at the time of filing the petition; (4) That the ballot title contained in the petition is sufficient and complete; (5) That said petitions contain the signature of more than 15 per cent. of the legal voters of Independence County; (6) That the order of the county court approving said petitions and ordering the election thereon was not null and void.
The court dismissed the complaint for want of equity, and ordered and decreed that the county clerk certify the proposed act as being sufficient, and that defendants in the cross-complaint do and perform all duties as required of them by law to the end that said initiative act be placed upon the ballot for the purpose of allowing the same to be voted upon by the legal voters, as to its adoption or rejection at the next general election. It is from this order that the appeal is prayed.
The appeal brings up for our decision the following questions: First, was the title of the act, if it be treated as a ballot title, sufficient? Second, if sufficient, shall the title of the act be treated as the ballot title?
Both questions should be answered in the affirmative.
On the question of the sufficiency of the ballot title, it is argued that § 3 of the act provides for the creation of a new office, a custodian of the county buildings, offices and grounds, at a salary of $ 50 per month. Section 6 of the act provides that the offices of sheriff and tax collector be severed, and provides for the appointment of a tax collector by the Governor to serve until his successor is elected and qualifies. Section 7 provides that, instead of the sheriff receiving a salary, he shall remain on a fee basis, and the same section provides that the county should furnish bedding, clothing, medicine and medical treatment for prisoners. Section 8 of the act, in addition to fixing the salary of the tax collector, provides that all penalties and fees attaching upon nonpayment of delinquent personal property taxes shall go to the collecting officer who enforces payment. Section 15 provides that all contracts and purchases for supplies and equipment for the several county offices and institutions, amounting to $ 30 or more, shall be made by the county court, upon invited bids and to the lowest bidder; that most or all of these provisions of the measure are not mentioned or suggested by the ballot title, which should, on account thereof, be declared invalid.
Amendment No. 7 contemplates a liberal construction and, if substantially complied with, the proposition should be submitted to the vote of the electors. It provides "that the sufficiency of local petitions shall be decided in the first instance by the county clerk * * * subject to a review by the chancery court," and also "that, if the sufficiency of the petition is challenged such cause shall be a preference cause and shall be tried at once, but the failure of the courts to decide prior to the election as to the sufficiency of any such petition shall not prevent the question from being placed upon the ballot at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Hill
...189 Ark. 29, 70 S.W.2d 566 (1934). We have mandated that ballot titles fairly assess the general purpose of the act. Coleman v. Sherrill, 189 Ark. 843, 75 S.W.2d 248 (1934). We have held they must not be misleading. Westbrook v. McDonald, 184 Ark. 740, 43 S.W.2d 356 The troubling aspect of ......
-
Ward v. Priest
...if it identifies the proposed Act and fairly alleges the general purpose thereof. Porter v. McCuen, supra; Coleman v. Sherrill, 189 Ark. 843, 75 S.W.2d 248 (1934). More importantly, "it is not our function in the present litigation to interpret the amendment or explain how it is be implemen......
-
Kurrus et al v Priest et al
...position he might oppose." Gaines v. McCuen, 296 Ark. 513, 519, 758 S.W.2d 403, 406 (1988) (emphasis added) (citing Coleman v. Sherrill, 189 Ark. 843, 75 S.W.2d 248 (1934)). Similarly, the ballot title does not sufficiently inform the voter as to what constitutes a "tax increase" and thus t......
-
Phillips v. Rothrock
... ... lack of jurisdiction on the part of the chancery court, or ... that the suit was one to contest an election. See also ... Coleman v. Sherrill, 189 Ark. 843, 75 ... S.W.2d 248 ... [110 S.W.2d 29] ... We ... conclude, therefore, that the instant case ... ...