Jewell v. Miller County Election Com'n, 95-1322
| Citation | 936 S.W.2d 754,327 Ark. 153 |
| Decision Date | 03 February 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-1322,95-1322 |
| Parties | Daniel J. JEWELL and Bryan Rodgers, Appellants, v. MILLER COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., Appellees, Gary Bailey, et al., Intervenors. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
Stephen T. Arnold, Texarkana, TX, for Appellants.
Thomas H. Johnson, Texarkana, TX, for Appellees.
J. Dennis Chambers, Texarkana, TX, for Appellees/Intervenors.
This appeal has arisen from the tortured recent history of city government in Texarkana. The issue presented is whether the General Assembly's attempt to remedy the situation by passage of Act 8 of the First Extraordinary Session of 1995 violates the constitutional prohibition against special or local legislation. Ark. Const. amend. 14. The Circuit Court held Act 8 was not unconstitutional. We affirm the decision because the appellants' abstract is flagrantly deficient.
Texarkana has a city-manager form of government. Prior to and during the six-year duration of the dispute over the manner of electing the City's directors, four directors were elected from discrete districts, and three were elected at large. That system was held to violate the federal Voting Rights Act because it deprived African-American citizens of an equal opportunity to participate in the political process. Williams v. City of Texarkana, 861 F.Supp. 756 (W.D.Ark.1992), supp. op., 861 F.Supp. 771 (W.D.Ark.1993). At a subsequent election, the voters of Texarkana approved a system by which six directors would be elected from districts and one at large, i.e., a "6-1 plan." For some time thereafter, incumbent officials declined to hold an election under the 6-1 plan as they claimed they interpreted the order of the United States District Court to require that all seven directors be elected from districts. The argument on the other side was that the District Court order contained no provision suggesting the system approved by the voters would be considered illegal.
On appeal, the District Court's order was affirmed, and the argument that the 6-1 plan would violate the Voting Rights Act was rejected. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit declined to rule on that issue as it had not been decided by the District Court. Williams v. City of Texarkana, 32 F.3d 1265 (8th Cir.1994). The parties appeared again before the District Court which accepted a settlement on attorney's fees but declined to rule further in the matter as it involved interpretations of state law on the manner of calling special elections. The parties continued to wrangle.
Act 8 is the second of two attempts by the General Assembly to deal with the situation. The first, Act 750 of 1995, was opined by the Attorney General to be ineffective in prescribing a means of electing officials under a system of government already adopted. Act 8 purports to accomplish that purpose.
The contention that Act 8 is unconstitutional is based on its opening provision that it applies
only to a city with the city manager form of government in which the Arkansas city is divided by a street state line from an incorporated city or town in an adjoining state and the city or town in the adjoining state is of greater population than the Arkansas city or town....
As mentioned...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...years' imprisonment for that offense. We are aware that in other cases, such as the recent decision in Jewell v. Miller County Election Comm'n., 327 Ark. 153, 936 S.W.2d 754 (1997), we have declined to look to other parts of a brief or abstract to find information that should have been incl......
-
Cannon v. State
...years' imprisonment for that offense. We are aware that in other cases, such as the recent decision in Jewell v. Miller County Election Comm'n, 327 Ark. 153, 936 S.W.2d 754 (1997), we have declined to look to other parts of a brief or abstract to find information that should have been inclu......
-
City of West Memphis v. City of Marion
...was nine pages and left out relevant information and was hard to understand, this court has refused review. Jewell v. Miller Co. Elec. Comm., 327 Ark. 153, 936 S.W.2d 754 (1997). Rule 4-2(a)(6) of the Arkansas Supreme Court clearly requires that the abstract should contain "pleadings, proce......
-
Harris v. City of Clinton
...six directors would be elected from wards and one director, the mayor, would be elected at large. Jewell v. Miller Cnty. Election Comm'n, 327 Ark. 153, 154, 936 S.W.2d 754, 754 (Ark. 1997). This structure is still in place today. At trial, Plaintiff Laney Harris did not argue that the curre......