Martin v. Kohls

• Decision Date: 15 October 2014
• Docket Number: No. CV–14–462.,CV–14–462.
• Citation: 444 S.W.3d 844,2014 Ark. 427
• Parties: Mark MARTIN, In his Official Capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Arkansas and his Official Capacity as Chairman of the Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners; Rhonda Cole; C.S. Walker ; James Harmon Smith III; Stuart Soffer; Barbara McBryde; and Chad Pekron, in their Official Capacities as Commissioners of the Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners, Appellants v. Freedom KOHLS; Toylanda Smith; Joe Flakes; and Barry Haas, Appellees.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

2014 Ark. 427

444 S.W.3d 844

Mark MARTIN, In his Official Capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Arkansas and his Official Capacity as Chairman of the Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners; Rhonda Cole; C.S. Walker ; James Harmon Smith III; Stuart Soffer; Barbara McBryde; and Chad Pekron, in their Official Capacities as Commissioners of the Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners, Appellants

v.Freedom KOHLS; Toylanda Smith; Joe Flakes; and Barry Haas, Appellees.

No. CV–14–462.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Oct. 15, 2014.

AJ Kelly, Deputy Secretary of State, Arkansas Secretary of State, Martha Adcock, General Counsel, and L. Justin Tate, Associate General Counsel, for appellant Mark Martin.

Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., by: David A. Curran, Deputy Att'y Gen., and C. Joseph Cordi Jr., Sr. Assistant Att'y, for separate appellants Mark Martin et al.

James, Carter & Coulter, PLC, by: Jeff R. Priebe ; and Appellate Solutions, PLLC d/b/a Riordan Law Firm, by: Deborah Truby Riordan, for appellees.

Sprinkle Firm, by: Maximilian R.X. Sprinkle; and Christina Swarns, Ryan P. Haygood, Natasha M. Korgonkar, Leah C. Aden, and Deuel Ross, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., amicus curiae for appellees.

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, by: David B. Bird, Kristen M. Murphy, and Cheryl James ; Myrna Perez, Michael C. Li, and Jennifer L. Clark, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law; and Cullen & Co., PLLC, by: Tim Cullen for amici curiae Dr. Thomas DeBlack, Dr. William Schreckhise, Dean John DiPippa, and Nate Coulter in support of appellees.

Opinion

DONALD L. CORBIN, Justice.

Appellants, Mark Martin, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Arkansas and his official capacity as Chairman of the Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners (“Martin”), and Rhonda Cole; C.S. Walker; James Harmon Smith III; Stuart Soffer; Barbara McBryde; and Chad Pekron (“Appellants”), in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners, appeal an order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court declaring Act 595 of 2013 (“Act 595”) unconstitutional, enjoining and restraining from enforcing the proof-of-identity provisions of Act 595 and the rules promulgated as a result of Act 595, and granting a preliminary injunction against Appellants from enforcing Act 595's proof-of-identity requirements in favor of Appellees Freedom Kohls, Toylanda Smith, Joe Flakes, and Barry Haas, who are registered voters in Pulaski County. For reversal, Martin makes five allegations of error, including three arguments that the circuit court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. Appellants also assert that the circuit court's issuance of the preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion. Pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule l–2(a)(l ) (2014), we have jurisdiction of this appeal, as it involves the interpretation and construction of the Arkansas Constitution. We affirm the circuit court's ruling that Act 595 is unconstitutional on its face.

I. Facts

On March 19, 2013, both houses of the Arkansas General Assembly passed Act 595, which required Arkansas residents to provide “proof of identity” when voting at the polls. Act 595 is entitled, “AN ACT TO REQUIRE THAT A VOTER PROVIDE PROOF OF IDENTITY WHEN VOTING; TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A VOTER IDENTIFICATION CARD; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.” Specifically, section 1 of Act 595 requires proof of identity in the form of a voter-identification card or a document or identification card showing the voter's name and photo issued by the United States, the State of Arkansas, or an accredited postsecondary educational institution in Arkansas with an expiration date. Section 1 of Act 595 provides a list of such acceptable documentation.

Governor Beebe, in a letter dated March 25, 2013, questioned the constitutionality of the Act and informed the Arkansas Senate that he had vetoed Act 595 because it was “an expensive solution in search of a problem” and was “an unnecessary measure that would negatively impact one of our most precious rights as citizens.” On March 27, 2013, the Arkansas Senate overrode the governor's veto. The Arkansas House of Representatives later overrode the veto on April 1, 2013.

On April 16, 2014, Appellees filed a complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to the Arkansas Declaratory Judgment Act, specifically Arkansas Code Annotated sections 16–111–102 to –104 (Repl.2006), challenging sections of Act 595 passed by the Arkansas General Assembly that allegedly placed an additional qualification and impairment on Arkansas residents before they could exercise their state constitutional right to vote. In the complaint, Appellees alleged that “unwarranted and unconstitutional provisions of Act 595 violate Article 3, Section 1, and Article 3, Section 2, of the Arkansas Constitution.” Specifically, Appellees claimed that Act 595 (1) added a new and unconstitutional qualification to the right to vote in violation of article 3, section 1, of the Arkansas Constitution and (2) impaired the right to vote in violation of article 3, section 2, of the Arkansas Constitution. In their prayer for relief, Appellees sought a declaration that Act 595's proof-of-identity requirement was unconstitutional and invalid under the Arkansas Constitution; that the circuit court award Appellees all relief allowed by law and equity, including but not limited to declaratory, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief; that the circuit court award attorneys' fees and costs; and any other relief.

On April 22, 2014, Appellees filed a motion for preliminary injunction requesting the court to enjoin Appellants from enforcing Act 595's proof-of-identity requirements in the May 2014 primary election. In response to Appellees' motion for preliminary injunction, Martin argued that Appellees had not demonstrated standing to bring a facial challenge to Act 595; that Appellees failed to cite a statutory basis for injunctive relief; that, to the extent that Appellees sought relief other than declaratory judgment, the suit was barred by sovereign immunity; that Appellees could not prove that failure to issue a preliminary injunction would result in irreparable harm; and that Appellees were unlikely to succeed on the merits of the complaint. Appellants responded, claiming that Appellees did not meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction and that they had sovereign immunity to Appellees' requests for any relief other than a declaratory judgment.

The circuit court held a hearing on Appellees' motion for preliminary injunction on May 2, 2014. There, the parties limited their presentation solely to a facial challenge of the proof-of-identity provisions of Act 595. On May 23, 2014, the circuit court entered its order finding that Appellees were registered voters in Pulaski County who had standing to make the facial challenge. The circuit court overruled and denied Martin's objections that sovereign immunity precluded entry of a preliminary injunction and that necessary parties were missing from the lawsuit on the pleadings. The circuit court specifically ruled on the constitutional arguments as follows:

The “proof of identity” documentation required to be provided by each voter under Act 595 constitutes an additional qualification necessary to vote, in violation of Article 3, Section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution, and [Appellants] are hereby enjoined and restrained from enforcing the “proof of identity” provisions contained in Act 595 for its facial unconstitutionality on that basis. [Appellants] are enjoined from enforcing their rules promulgated as a result of Act 595 that specifically require election officials to require voters to produce “proof of identity” prior to casting a ballot either during early voting or on election day.

The circuit court concluded that Appellees had made a requisite showing of irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits “given the facial unconstitutionality of the ‘proof of identity’ provisions contained in Act 595” and granted preliminary injunctive relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 65. The circuit court temporarily enjoined and restrained Appellants from enforcing any proof-of-identity provisions of Act 595 and from enforcing their rules promulgated as a result of Act 595 either during early voting or on election day in May 2014. Further, the circuit court on its own motion stayed the preliminary injunction pending an action by this court in Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners v. Pulaski County Election Commission, 2014 Ark. 236, 437 S.W.3d 80 (subsequently vacating the circuit court's grant of summary judgment because Act 595's constitutionality was neither raised nor developed by the parties at the circuit-court level and dissolving the temporary stay). Appellants timely filed a notice of appeal of the circuit court's order granting a preliminary injunction.

II. Points on Appeal

On appeal, Martin argues that Appellees lacked standing to bring a facial challenge to the constitutionality of Act 595; that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enter a preliminary injunction, which was barred by sovereign immunity; that the circuit court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction; that the circuit court's order violates Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 65 (2014); and that Appellees failed to join necessary parties. Appellants assert that the circuit court abused its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction because Appellees did not demonstrate that they were likely to succeed on the merits.

At the outset, we emphasize a procedural anomaly in this case. From the bench and in its order, the circuit court granted Appellees' motion for preliminary injunction after analyzing the two factors of irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits, but then proceeded to grant declaratory and injunctive relief based on the...