Ross v. Martin , 2016 Ark. 340 ( 2016 )

Cite as 2016 Ark. 340
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-16-776
COL. MIKE ROSS, RET.; MARION Opinion Delivered: October 13, 2016
HUMPHREY; JAMES BROOKS;
PATRICK ADAM JEGLEY; MARTHA
DEAVER; AND THE COMMITTEE TO
PROTECT AR FAMILIES AN ORIGINAL ACTION
PETITIONERS
V.
MARK MARTIN, ARKANSAS
SECRETARY OF STATE PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
RESPONDENT DENIED; INTERVENORS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS DENIED; PETITION GRANTED.
CHASE DUGGER AND DR. STEPHEN
CANON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF HEALTH CARE ACCESS
FOR ARKANSAS
INTERVENORS
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Associate Justice
This is a companion case to Wilson v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 334. Like Wilson, this case
concerns the proposed amendment to the Arkansas Constitution with the popular name: “An
Amendment to Limit Attorney Contingency Fees and Non-Economic Damages in Medical
Lawsuits.” Petitioners Col. Mike Ross, Marion Humphrey, James Brooks, Patrick Adam
Jegley, Martha Deaver, and the Committee to Protect AR Families filed an original action
in this court pursuant to article 5, section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution, as amended by
amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution, for an order to invalidate a proposed initiated
constitutional amendment (the amendment), either by striking it from the ballot or enjoining
Cite as 2016 Ark. 340
the counting of the votes. The petition asserts three bases for relief: (I) failure to comply with
mandatory canvasser certification laws; (II) failure to submit the requisite number of verified
signatures; (III) the amendment’s ballot title is insufficient. On September 9, 2016, we
granted a motion to bifurcate this case, and appointed a special master to make findings on
counts I and II. We allowed count III, the sufficiency of the ballot title, to be submitted
directly because sufficiency of the ballot title is decided by this court as a matter of law. Cox
v. Daniels, 374 Ark. 437, 288 S.W.3d 591 (2008). This opinion, as does the Wilson opinion,
addresses the sufficiency of the ballot title (count III).
This court has original jurisdiction of this case pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-5(a)
(2014); see Richardson v. Martin, 2014 Ark. 429, 444 S.W.3d 855 . Rule 6–5(a) provides that
this court has original jurisdiction in “extraordinary actions required by law, such as suits
attacking the validity of statewide petitions filed under amendment 7 of the Arkansas
Constitution.” Richardson, supra.
In the case before us, the petitioners argue that the amendment’s ballot title is
insufficient because (a) it contains incorrect statements with respect to altering the jury trial;
(b) it contains “partisan coloring” with respect to attorney fees; (c) it omits mention of
granting the legislature “ability to further define and expand” the reach of the fee and non-
economic damages limitation; (d) it fails to explain the fundamental shift in power; (e) it leaves
“critical” terms undefined; (f) it misleads on the reach of the fee limit; and (g) Section 1 limits
damages without so informing voters.
On April 6, 2016, the sponsers submitted the amendment, the ballot title, and the
2
Cite as 2016 Ark. 340
popular name to the attorney general. Pursuant to her review, the attorney general modified
the popular name to read “An Amendment to Limit Attorney Contingency Fees and
Non-Economic Damages in Medical Lawsuits.” On April 20, 2016, the attorney general
modified the popular name and certified the amendment, the popular name, and the ballot
title. Canvassing commenced. After the requisite number of signatures were gathered, on
August 25, 2016, respondent Mark Martin, Arkansas Secretary of State, certified the
amendment for the November 8 general election. On September 1, 2016, the petitioners
filed this original action in this court challenging the secretary of state’s certification. On
September 30, 2016, the intervenors filed a motion to dismiss. They asserted that the petition
should be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the petitioners have no
right of action and because no justiciable controversy exists. They also argue that the
petitioners lack standing. The petitioners moved to strike the motion to dismiss as untimely.
In Wilson v. Martin, supra, this court rejected the petitioners’ motion to strike and
denied the intervenors’ motion to dismiss in which the intervenors advanced essentially the
same arguments that we have before us in this case. We likewise deny the petitioners’ motion
to strike and the intervenors’ motion to dismiss.
We now turn to the petitioners’ argument. We recently summarized the law regarding
ballot titles in Richardson, supra.
The applicable standard for review of ballot-title cases requires that “[b]allot titles must
include an impartial summary of the proposed amendment that will give voters a fair
understanding of the issues presented and of the scope and significance of the proposed
changes in the law.” Parker v. Priest, 326 Ark. 123, 129, 930 S.W.2d 322, 325 (1996).
The ballot title must be (1) intelligible, (2) honest, and (3) impartial. Ward v. Priest,
350 Ark. 345, 359, 86 S.W.3d 884, 891 (2002). “However, this court is neither to
3
Cite as 2016 Ark. 340
interpret a proposed amendment nor discuss its merits or faults.” Id. at 359, 86 S.W.3d
at 891 (internal citations omitted). The ballot title is sufficient if it “informs the voters
with such clarity that they can cast their ballot with a fair understanding of the issue
presented.” Ferstl v. McCuen, 296 Ark. 504, 509, 758 S.W.2d 398, 400 (1988)
(internal citations omitted). In addition, when reviewing a challenge to the ballot title,
the court recognizes that amendment 7 of article 5, § 1 “places the burden upon the
party challenging the ballot title to prove that it is misleading or insufficient.” Cox v.
Daniels, 374 Ark. 437, 444, 288 S.W.3d 591, 595(2008) (internal citations omitted).
Finally, we liberally construe amendment 7 in determining the sufficiency of ballot
titles. Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. 219, 604 S.W.2d 555 (1980).
Richardson, 2014 Ark. 429, at 8, 444 S.W.3d at 860.
In Wilson, this court found merit in the petitioners’ argument that the ballot title of the
proposed amendment is insufficient because it fails to define the term “non-economic
damages.” In accordance with that finding, we granted the petition to enjoin the secretary of
state from counting or certifying any ballots cast for the proposed amendment at the general
election on November 8, 2016.
The argument that we found dispositive in Wilson is essentially the same as petitioners’
argument in the case before us: the ballot title is deficient because it leaves “critical” terms
undefined. Specifically, the petitioners assert that “non-economic damages” is one of those
critical terms. Accordingly, Wilson controls, and we grant the petition to enjoin the secretary
of state from counting or certifying ballots cast for the amendment. We therefore need not
further address the petitioners’ arguments.
Consistent with our companion case, Wilson, we likewise shorten the time for issuance
of the mandate to five days and direct that any petition for rehearing be filed within five days
from the date that this opinion is issued.
Motion to strike denied; motion to dismiss denied; petition granted.
4
Cite as 2016 Ark. 340
BRILL, C.J., and WOOD, J., concur.
HOWARD W. BRILL, Chief Justice, concurring. I am concurring for the general
policy reason set forth in Wilson v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 334.
RHONDA K. WOOD, Justice, concurring. I am concurring for the same reasons
set out in Wilson v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 334.
Brian G. Brooks, Attorney at Law, PLLC, by: Brian G. Brooks; James, Carter & Priebe,
LLP, by: Jeff Priebe; and Walas Law Firm, PLLC, by: Breean Walas, for petitioners.
AJ Kelly, Deputy Secretary of State & General Counsel, and Andrés Rhodes,
Associate General Counsel, for respondent.
KUTAK ROCK LLP, by: Jess Askew III, David L. Williams, Frederick H. Davis, and
Dale W. Brown (Fayetteville); and
Brett D. Watson, for intervenors.
5