Roberts v. Priest
| Decision Date | 11 September 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-1052,98-1052 |
| Citation | 973 S.W.2d 797,334 Ark. 244 |
| Parties | Bobby ROBERTS, Individually, and on Behalf of Arkansans to Protect Police, Libraries, Education & Services (Apples), Petitioners, v. Sharon PRIEST, Secretary of State, Respondent, John Hoyle, Individually, and on Behalf of Arkansas Taxpayers' Rights Association, Intervenors. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
On August 26, 1998, an original action was filed in this court for an order to invalidate a proposed initiated constitutional amendment offered under Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution; to enjoin placement of the proposed initiated constitutional amendment on the November 3, 1998, General Election ballot; and to direct that any votes cast thereon not be counted or certified because the petition contained invalid signatures and other irregularities and because the ballot title is defective.
This original action filed by the parties raises issues of fact. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6-5(b) provides that evidence on issues of fact will be taken by a master to be appointed by this court. Therefore, we appoint the Honorable Jack Lessenberry as master and direct him to conduct such proceedings and hearings subject to and in accordance with our Rule 6-5(a) and Rule 53, Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, as are necessary to determine whether the allegations contained in the petition are true, and to file his report with this court by September 22, 1998.
We also direct the master to attend to the parties' additional motions for the taking of depositions and such other matters as are necessary to discharge his duties.
Intervenors raise an objection to any requirement of a bond, but cite no authority for dispensing with one in these circumstances. On this point, Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6-5(c) provides in pertinent part:
Evidence upon issues of fact will be taken by a master to be appointed by the court. As a condition to the appointment of a master, the court may require both parties to file a bond for costs to be approved by the clerk. Upon the filing of the master's findings, the parties shall file briefs as in other cases.
This court has routinely required parties to file a bond in Amendment 7 original actions where a master has been appointed, and we do so in this action, as well. See Holt v. Priest, 326 Ark. 277, 930 S.W.2d 359 (1996); Scott v. Priest, 326 Ark. 69, 928 S.W.2d 337 (1996); and Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 49, 884 S.W.2d 937 (1994). All costs may be assessed against the complainants or the intervenors, or both. The respondent, Sharon Priest, Secretary of State, is not subject to payment of costs because of sovereign immunity. See Bailey v. McCuen, 319 Ark. 369, 891 S.W.2d 797 (1995) (per curiam). Complainants and intervenors are each directed to file a bond in the amount of $1,000, to be approved by the clerk, to secure payment of costs adjudged against them incurred in taking and transcribing the proof, including the master's fee.
We next address the complainants' motion seeking to disqualify Mr. Oscar Stilley as the intervenors' counsel. Complainants assert that Mr. Stilley might be a witness regarding the validity of the initiative petitions that are in issue in this cause of action. At a hearing before this court on September 10, 1998, complainants announced that they do not intend to call Mr. Stilley as a witness, and Mr. Stilley asserted he did not anticipate any reason that would require him to testify. Consequently, the court considers the complainants' motion to be resolved and now moot.
In their motion, at the September 10 hearing, intervenors requested this court to decide the ballot title issue immediately so that, if the court's decision rules the ballot title to be deficient, the ballot title can be corrected by the court before the printing of the ballots for the November 3, 1998, General Election. Intervenors refer to this remedy as a request for "ballot title reformation" but cite no citation of authority and make only general reference to the United States Constitution. Our case law is contrary to the intervenors' request. See Finn v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 418, 798 S.W.2d 34 (1990), and Washburn v. Hall, 225 Ark. 868, 286 S.W.2d 494 (1956). Because this court has no authority under Amendment 7 to rule on or reform the ballot title at this stage, we deny their motion.
Intervenors further move that this court issue an immediate order declaring that they, as the initiative petitioners of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benca v. Martin
...the constitutional requirement of 67,887.This original action filed by Benca raises issues of fact. See, e.g. , Roberts v. Priest , 334 Ark. 244, 973 S.W.2d 797 (1998) (per curiam). Following this court's directive in Benca v. Martin , 2016 Ark. 301, 2016 WL 4717936 (per curiam), the Honora......
-
Roberts et al v Priest
...of an adverse action on the part of the Secretary of State and has no application to original actions in this court. Roberts v. Priest, 334 Ark. 244, 973 S.W.2d 797 (1998). Finally, Mr. Hoyle seeks to characterize the errors in the popular name and ballot title as mere typographical omissio......
-
Roberts v. Priest, 98-1052
...of an adverse action on the part of the Secretary of State and has no application to original actions in this court. Roberts v. Priest, 334 Ark. 244, 973 S.W.2d 797 (1998); see Walton v. McDonald, 192 Ark. 1155, 97 S.W.2d 81 I. Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 7 Turning to the merits of the......
-
Lange ex rel. Comm. to Protect Ark. Values/Stop Casinos Now v. Martin
...brought under amendment 7 when a master is appointed. See Stephens v. Martin, 2014 Ark. 402 (per curiam); Roberts v. Priest, 334 Ark. 244, 973 S.W.2d 797 (1998) (per curiam). Respondentis not subject to the payment of costs because of sovereign immunity. See Stephens, 2014 Ark. 402. Therefo......