Judges: WINSTON BRYANT, Attorney General
Filed Date: 10/4/1994
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The Honorable Ron Fields Prosecuting Attorney Twelfth Judicial Circuit Sebastian County Courthouse Fort Smith, AR 72901
Dear Mr. Fields:
This is in response to Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Daniel Shue's request for an opinion regarding an independent candidate petition that was recently filed in Sebastian County. Mr. Shue states that a petition was filed by an individual seeking the office of "Recorder-Treasurer" in Central City, an incorporated town. See A.C.A. §§
1. Is the petition of the independent candidate definite and certain enough for the candidate's name to be placed on the ballot and certified as an independent candidate, pursuant to A.C.A. §§
7-7-401 and7-7-103 ?2. Would Donn v. McCuen,
303 Ark. 415 (1990), be controlling precedent after Act 512 of 1993?3. If not, does the Sebastian County Board of Election Commissioners have the authority to remove this independent candidate's name from the ballot, which seems to be inappropriate in view of State v. Craighead County Board of Election Commissioners,
300 Ark. 405 (1989) and Op. Att'y Gen.94-106 ?
It is my opinion that the answer to the first question is "yes." I believe that the prospective candidate has "mentioned" the office she seeks in a sufficient manner to comply with the filing requirement. Arkansas Code Annotated §
Each elector signing the petition shall be a registered voter, and the petition shall be directed to the official with whom the person is required by law to file nomination certificates to qualify as a candidate, requesting that the name of the person be placed on the ballot for election to the office mentioned in the petition. [Emphasis added.]
As noted in Attorney General Opinion
The prospective candidate is requesting nomination to the office mentioned in the petition. The question . . . is whether the prospective candidate has ``mentioned' the office he seeks in a manner specific enough to satisfy Arkansas law.
Id. at 4-5.
The opinion goes on the note that there is little guidance under Arkansas law with respect to determining the petition's sufficiency insofar as the office designation is concerned. Id. at 5. Case law in other jurisdictions was therefore reviewed, and it was concluded that a finding of sufficiency will be warranted where the office sought is discernible from the face of the petition. Id. at 8-12. The following guiding principle was propounded:
If you can determine from the face of the petition, taking into account each of its parts, and all of the information supplied, which office [the prospective candidate] seeks, and can do so without having to engage in guesswork and speculation to such an extent as to yourself supply the office to which he aspires, then it is my opinion that you may declare the petition prima facie sufficient and accept it for certification.2
Id. at 3.
It seems clear in this instance that the office sought is discernible from the petition. Although the office is more accurately designated as "recorder-treasurer" (see A.C.A. §§
In response to the second question regarding the case of Donn v.McCuen,
A response to the third question, concerning removal of this candidate's name from the ballot, in unnecessary in light of the foregoing.
The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve, was prepared by Assistant Attorney General Elisabeth A. Walker.
Sincerely,
WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General
WB:EAW/cyh
Enclosure
It should be noted in this regard that a previous opinion from this office incorrectly stated that independent candidates for municipal office must also file their petitions with the county clerk. Op. Att'y Gen.