Sign Up for Vincent AI
Arkansans for Healthy Eyes v. Thurston
Kutak Rock LLP, by: Jess Askew III, Frederick H. Davis, and McKenzie L. Raub (Little Rock); and Dale W. Brown (Fayetteville), for petitioners Arkansans for Healthy Eyes and Vicki Farmer.
Gary L. Sullivan, Managing Attorney, Arkansas Secretary of State's Office, for respondent.
Steel, Wright, Gray, PLLC, by: Ryan Owsley, Nate Steel, Little Rock, and Alex T. Gray, for intervenors.
Brian G. Brooks, Attorney at Law, PLLC, by: Brian G. Brooks, amici curiae for League of Women Voters of Arkansas and Arkansas Voters First.
Petitioners Arkansans for Healthy Eyes ("AHE"), a ballot-question committee, and Vicki Farmer, individually and on behalf of AHE, have filed an original action pursuant to Article 5, section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 7 of the Arkansas Constitution, and Rule 6-5 of the Arkansas Supreme Court Rules against Respondent John Thurston ("the Secretary"), in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Arkansas. Petitioners challenge the sufficiency of a statewide-initiative petition ("the petition") filed by Intervenor Safe Surgery Arkansas ("SSA"), a ballot-question committee, to refer Act 579 of 2019 ("Act 579") to the people of Arkansas on the November 3, 2020 general-election ballot. Our jurisdiction is proper pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 1-2(a)(3). We grant the petition in part and dismiss the remainder of the petition as moot.
In March 2019, the Arkansas General Assembly passed Act 579, and the Governor signed it into law. Act 579 expanded the scope of the practice of optometry in Arkansas to permit licensed optometrists to perform the following procedures: (1) "[i]njections, excluding intravenous or intraocular injections"; (2) "[i]ncision and curettage of a chalazion"; (3) "[r]emoval and biopsy of skin lesions with low risk of malignancy, excluding lesions involving the lid margin or nasal to the puncta"; (4) "[l]aser capsulotomy"; and (5) "[l]aser trabeculoplasty." See Ark. Code Ann. § 17-90-101(a)(3)(D)(i)–(v) (Supp. 2019).
On July 23, 2019, SSA timely filed with the Secretary its petition containing more than 84,000 signatures with the popular name, "An Act to Amend the Definition of ‘Practice of Optometry.’ " SSA had paid National Ballot Access ("NBA"), a canvasser firm, to solicit signatures for its petition. On June 12, 2019, NBA had submitted a list of paid canvassers with the following language: "I certify that the canvassers listed below have each passed a criminal background check from the Arkansas State Police within 30 days of canvassing." Those canvassers had collected 12,116 signatures that the Secretary counted as valid. Then, on June 13, a list of paid canvassers was submitted with the following certification language:
In compliance with Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-601, please find the list of paid canvassers that will be gathering signatures on the Safe Surgery Referendum. On behalf of the sponsor, this statement and submission of names serves as certification that the statewide Arkansas State Police background check, as well as a 50-state criminal background check, have been timely acquired in the 30 days before the first day the paid canvasser begins to collect signatures as required by Act 1104 of 2017.
The canvassers certified under this language had collected 51,911 signatures that the Secretary counted as valid. The Secretary later declared the petition insufficient because it contained less than half the required number of signatures and failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Act 376 of 2019 ("Act 376").
In August 2019, SSA filed an original action in this court and sought mandamus to require the Secretary to count additional signatures on the grounds that Act 376 was not in effect on July 23, 2019, or that Act 376 was unconstitutional. We granted SSA's petition in part and held that Act 376 was not in effect on July 23, 2019, because it had a defective emergency clause. See Safe Surgery Ark. v. Thurston , 2019 Ark. 403, at 6–7, 591 S.W.3d 293, 297–98. We directed the Secretary to review the sufficiency of the petition, pursuant to the law as it existed before Act 376 took effect, and to proceed with reviewing the signatures. Id. at 7–8, 591 S.W.3d at 297–98. Afterward, the Secretary certified that the petition met the signature requirements as required by Article 5, section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution.
On February 28, 2020, petitioners filed the instant original action in this court. Specifically, they averred that the ballot title and popular name are invalid (Count I); SSA's alleged fraud invalidates the petition (Count II); SSA failed to comply with mandatory paid-canvasser and petition requirements (Count III); and SSA failed to submit the requisite number of valid signatures (Count IV). In their prayer for relief, petitioners requested that we grant their petition in full, declare the petition on Act 579 as insufficient, order respondent not to include the referendum on the general-election ballot in November 2020, and award costs and other just and proper relief. We granted an unopposed motion to intervene filed on behalf of SSA and Laurie Barber, M.D., individually and on behalf of SSA; bifurcated the issues; and set a briefing schedule.
(Transcript references omitted.)
The special master also denied petitioners' allegations of fraud.
Petitioners first contend that the special master correctly found that SSA did not register its paid canvassers as required by law. Specifically, they assert that the Secretary erroneously included 51,911 signatures as valid because "[f]rom June 13 forward, every time [SSA] registered paid canvassers with the Secretary, SSA made no certification that any paid canvasser had passed any criminal background check."
Under our well-established standard of review, we will accept the special master's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. See 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 master has made a mistake. See id. , 975 S.W.2d 850.
Article 5, section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution, incorporating Amendment 7, governs both statewide and local initiatives and referendums. See Ark. Const. art. 5, § 1, amended by Ark. Const. amend. 7 ; Mays v. Cole , 374 Ark. 532, 289 S.W.3d 1 (2008). Jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of statewide initiative petitions is conferred upon this court by way of Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution. See Ward v. Priest , 350 Ark. 345, 86 S.W.3d 884 (2002). Amendment 7 states that "[t]he sufficiency of...
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialExperience vLex's unparalleled legal AI
Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting