Ross v. Martin

Cite as 2016 Ark. 300
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-16-776
COL. MIKE ROSS, RET.; MARION Opinion Delivered September 9, 2016
HUMPHREY; JAMES BROOKS; ADAM
JEGLEY; MARTHA DEAVER; AND THE
COMMITTEE TO PROTECT AR
FAMILIES
PETITIONERS AN ORIGINAL ACTION
V.
MARK MARTIN, ARKANSAS
SECRETARY OF STATE
RESPONDENT SPECIAL MASTER APPOINTED;
MOTION FOR BIFURCATED
CHASE DUGGER AND DR. STEPHEN CONSIDERATION, CONSECUTIVE
CANON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BRIEFING, AND EXPEDITED
BEHALF OF HEALTH CARE ACCESS CONSIDERATION GRANTED;
FOR ARKANSANS MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
INTERVENORS DENIED; AND MOTION TO
INTERVENE GRANTED.
PER CURIAM
On September 1, 2016, petitioners Colonel Mike Ross, Retired; Marion Humphrey;
James Brooks; 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. On August 25, 2016, respondent Mark Martin,
Arkansas Secretary of State, certified a proposed initiated constitutional amendment with the
Cite as 2016 Ark. 300
popular name “An Amendment to Limit Attorney Contingency Fees and Non-Economic
Damages in Medical Lawsuits” to be placed on the November 8, 2016 general election ballot.
Petitioners now seek to strike the certification of the ballot measure and to enjoin respondent
from placing the measure on the ballot or, in the alternative, to enjoin respondent from
counting, canvassing, or certifying any votes cast for the measure. Specifically, petitioners
assert that the sponsors of the proposed initiated constitutional amendment failed to comply
with mandatory canvasser certification laws and mandatory filing requirements and failed to
submit the requisite number of verified signatures; in addition, petitioners contend that the
ballot title is insufficient. The sponsors of the proposed initiated constitutional amendment,
Chase Dugger and Dr. Stephen Canon, individually and on behalf of Health Care Access for
Arkansans, a ballot-question committee, have filed a motion to intervene in this action.
As an initial matter, we grant the motion to intervene. Further, this original action
raises issues of fact with regard to canvasser certification, filing requirements, and validity of
signatures. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6-5(c) (2015) provides that evidence on issues of
fact will be taken by a master to be appointed by this court. Therefore, we appoint the
Honorable J.W. Looney as master and direct him to conduct such proceedings and hearings
subject to, and in accordance with, Rule 6-5(b) and Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 53
(2015), as are necessary to determine whether the allegations contained in the petition are
true. We further direct him to file his report with this court by September 28, 2016. In the
discharge of his duties, the master has the authority to address the parties’ discovery motions.
2
Cite as 2016 Ark. 300
This court has routinely required parties to post a bond in original actions 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). Respondent
is not subject to the payment of costs because of sovereign immunity. See Stephens, 2014 Ark.
402. Therefore, petitioners and intervenors are both directed to file a bond to be approved
by our clerk in the amount of $5,000 to secure payment of any costs adjudged against them
for the taking and transcribing of proof, including the master’s fee.
We grant petitioners’ motion to bifurcate the proceedings and to separately brief the
issues of fact and the issues of law raised in the petition. The request for oral argument is
denied. We grant petitioners’ motions for expedited consideration and for consecutive
briefing, and we set two expedited briefing schedules as follows:
Counts I and II: Petitioners’ brief due on October 5, 2016; respondent’s and
intervenors’ briefs due on October 12, 2016; petitioners’ reply brief due on
October 13, 2016.
Count III: Petitioners’ brief due on September 16, 2016; respondent’s and
intervenors’ briefs due on September 23, 2016; petitioners’ reply brief due on
September 26, 2016.
It is so ordered.
3