Oscar Stilley v. John Thurston, in His Official Capacity as Arkansas Secretary of State And Arkansans for Limited Government ( 2024 )

Cite as 2024 Ark. 124SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-24-453
Opinion Delivered: September 5, 2024
OSCAR STILLEY
PETITIONER
AN ORIGINAL ACTION
V.
MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED.
JOHN THURSTON, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS ARKANSAS
SECRETARY OF STATE; AND
ARKANSANS FOR LIMITED
GOVERNMENT
RESPONDENTS
PER CURIAM
Oscar Stilley filed this original action under article 5, section 1 of the Arkansas
Constitution and Arkansas Code Annotated section 7-9-112 (Supp. 2023). At issue is
Arkansas Secretary of State John Thurston’s (Secretary’s) decision rejecting certification of
the Arkansas Abortion Amendment of 2024 to the November ballot. Stilley’s complaint
contains four counts: (1) the Secretary is obligated to count all signatures submitted by
Arkansans for Limited Government (AFLG) in support of the abortion amendment and
determine whether a cure period is required; (2) Act 236 of 2023 is unconstitutional, and
the Secretary should be enjoined from enforcing it; (3) Act 1413 of 2013 is unconstitutional,
and the Secretary should be enjoined from enforcing it; and (4) AFLG complied with the
provisions of Act 1413 of 2013.
In response, the State moved to dismiss on the basis of Stilley’s lack of standing to
bring this action because he was not lawfully registered to vote and jurisdiction. We agree
and dismiss the petition.1
I. Background
Following the Secretary’s rejection of the initiated ballot petition on the amendment,
Stilley filed his original action with this court on July 16, 2024, challenging the Secretary’s
decision. He asserted that the Secretary failed to count all signatures submitted by AFLG,
that certain acts of the General Assembly relating to the initiative and referendum process
are unconstitutional and, alternatively, that AFLG complied with Arkansas law when
submitting its petition. The State moved to dismiss Stilley’s petition, asserting that this court
lacked jurisdiction over the matter and that Stilley was not entitled to relief on the merits.
In addition, the State alleged that Stilley lacked standing to bring this action because he was
not lawfully registered to vote.
Because the State’s allegation required findings of fact, we appointed the Honorable
Gary Arnold as special master to conduct a hearing and make findings of fact regarding the
validity of Stilley’s voter registration. On August 26, 2024, we received the special master’s
report. The special master found that in 2009, Stilley was found guilty of one count of
conspiracy to defraud the United States and two counts of tax evasion, each count a felony
offense. Stilley was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment and, upon release, a term of
1
Stilley moved to dismiss respondent AFLG as a party to this action. Our decision
today renders that motion moot.
2
three years’ supervision. In 2022, Stilley was found to be in violation of the conditions of his
supervised release and committed for a term of three months’ imprisonment and a term of
thirty-three months’ supervision. The term of supervised release commenced August 10,
2022. The special master found that, at all times since April 23, 2010, Stilley has either been
imprisoned or subject to supervised release, has not been pardoned, and currently remains
on supervised release. On his July 2024 Arkansas Voter Registration Application, Stilley
attested that he had never been convicted of a felony without the sentence being discharged
or pardoned.2 The Crawford County Clerk accepted the application, and a voter registration
card was prepared for Stilley. The special master found that Stilley’s appeals have been denied
and that all judgments are final.
Under our standard of review, we will accept the special master’s findings of fact
unless they are clearly erroneous. Roberts v. Priest, 334 Ark. 503, 975 S.W.2d 850 (1998). A
finding of fact is clearly erroneous, even if there is evidence to support it, when, based on
the entire evidence, the court is left with the definite and firm conviction that the special
master has made a mistake. Id. Finding no error in the special master’s report, we hereby
adopt his findings of fact.3
II. Counts I and IV
2
Stilley wrote the following statement on his application: “I have not been lawfully
convicted of a felony by a lawful court.”
3
Stilley filed an objection to the special master’s report; however, we are unpersuaded
by his assertions therein.
3
We have jurisdiction over Counts I and IV as they relate to the Secretary’s actions
and decisions in his sufficiency determination of the initiated ballot petitions. See Ark.
Const. art. 5, § 1. Because Counts I and IV pertain to the Secretary’s sufficiency
determination, we address them together. Under Arkansas law, either the sponsor of the
statewide initiative petition or a registered voter may challenge the Secretary’s decision
finding a petition insufficient. Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-112(a). In his petition, Stilley claimed
standing to bring this action as a registered voter. However, as the special master found,
Stilley was convicted of a felony in 2009, which should have resulted in the cancellation of
his voter registration. See Ark. Const. amend. 51, § 11(a)(4) (requiring permanent registrar
of the county to cancel the voter registration of a convicted felon). And because Stilley has
not completed his term of supervised release, he remains ineligible to register to vote. See
Ark. Const. amend. 51, § 11(d) (requiring that a convicted felon be discharged from
probation or parole and that he satisfy all terms of imprisonment before becoming eligible
to vote). We therefore find that Stilley was ineligible to vote and that he was dishonest on
his Arkansas Voter Registration Application when he attested that he had never been
convicted of a felony. As Stilley is not a lawfully registered voter, he lacks standing under
section 7-9-112 to challenge the Secretary’s sufficiency determination. We dismiss Counts I
and IV.
III. Counts II and III
We address Counts II and III together as they are both constitutional challenges to
acts of the General Assembly. Article 5, section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution provides this
4
court with original jurisdiction over initiative petitions, whereas circuit courts were
established under Amendment 80 as “trial courts of original jurisdiction of all justiciable
matters not otherwise assigned pursuant to this Constitution.” Ark. Const. amend. 80, §
6(A). In his petition, Stilley asks this court to declare Act 236 of 2023 and Act 1413 of 2013
unconstitutional and enjoin its further application. However, in Reynolds v. Thurston, we
noted that actions for declaratory judgment originate in the circuit court, including
challenges similar to the ones Stilley now asserts. 2024 Ark. 97, at 10–12, 689 S.W.3d 48,
53–55. Accordingly, Counts II and III fall outside our original jurisdiction, and we dismiss.
IV. Conclusion
In conclusion, we grant the State’s motion to dismiss. Counts I and IV are dismissed
because Stilley lacked standing to file this petition. Counts II and III are dismissed because
we lack original jurisdiction to declare Act 236 of 2023 and Act 1413 of 2013
unconstitutional. Additionally, we refer the special master’s report to the Crawford County
Clerk and the prosecuting attorney for the Twenty-First Judicial District.
Motion to dismiss granted.
Mandate to issue immediately.
Oscar Stilley, pro se petitioner.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Nicholas J. Bronni, Solicitor Gen.; Dylan L. Jacobs, Dep.
Solicitor Gen.; Asher Steinberg, Sr. Ass’t Solicitor Gen.; Christine A. Cryer, Sr. Ass’t Att’y Gen.;
and Justin Brascher, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for respondent John Thurston.
5
Shults Law Firm, by: Peter Shults, Amanda Orcutt, and Steven Shults for respondent
Arkansans for Limited Government.
6