Zook v. Martin
557 S.W.3d 880 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When determining if an initiative petition qualifies for a 30-day cure period under the Arkansas Constitution, the Secretary of State's initial review is a prima facie inquiry limited to whether the petition facially contains the required number of signatures. This initial review does not extend to a substantive evaluation of the validity of each signature, which is reserved for a final sufficiency challenge.
Facts:
- Kristin Foster, representing Arkansans for A Fair Wage, sponsored a statewide initiative petition to increase the Arkansas minimum wage.
- The total number of signatures required to place the initiative on the ballot was 67,887.
- To qualify for a 30-day "cure period" to gather more signatures, the petition needed to initially contain at least 75% of the required signatures, which amounted to 50,915 valid signatures.
- On July 6, 2018, Foster submitted an initial batch of 69,413 signatures to the Secretary of State, Mark Martin.
- Martin's office performed an initial prima facie review and determined that the petition had enough valid signatures (52,124) to qualify for the 30-day cure period.
- During the cure period, Foster's group submitted additional signatures, bringing the total number of submitted signatures to 113,160.
- After a final verification, Martin's office found there were 85,526 valid signatures, exceeding the total required.
- As a result, Martin certified the initiative, known as "Issue No. 5," for inclusion on the November 6, 2018 general election ballot.
Procedural Posture:
- Randy Zook filed a petition in the Arkansas Supreme Court, which has original and exclusive jurisdiction over such matters, challenging the Secretary of State's certification of the initiative.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court appointed a special master to hold a hearing and make findings of fact.
- The special master held a three-day hearing and subsequently entered findings that the petition had sufficient signatures to qualify for the cure period and for placement on the ballot.
- Following the special master's report, the parties filed briefs with the Arkansas Supreme Court for its final review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Arkansas Constitution limit the Secretary of State's initial review for granting an initiative petition a 30-day cure period to a prima facie count of the number of signatures submitted, rather than a substantive evaluation of their individual validity?
Opinions:
Majority - Baker, J.
Yes. The initial review for cure-period eligibility is limited to a prima facie count of signatures. The court's precedent makes clear that the only concern when examining the propriety of granting a cure period is whether, on the face of the petition, the signatures were of a sufficient number. The court relies heavily on Stephens v. Martin, which held that challenges regarding fraud or other invalidities are not appropriate considerations for the initial count, but are reserved for a final sufficiency challenge. The court rejects the argument that Amendment 93 changed this standard, holding that the purpose of Amendment 7 is to liberally construe the initiative power to effectuate its purpose. Therefore, because the petition, on its face, contained the requisite number of signatures to meet the 75% threshold, the Secretary of State properly granted the cure period.
Concurring - Wood, J.
Yes, the petition should be denied, but the majority's reasoning is flawed. The majority's reliance on Stephens v. Martin is erroneous because that case interpreted a prior version of the state constitution. The newer Amendment 93 added the language "valid signatures of legal voters," which opens the door for a more substantive review than just a numerical count. However, the specific challenges raised by the petitioner—regarding canvasser residency and notary issues—are not related to the validity of the voters' signatures themselves and thus are still not appropriate considerations for a cure-period determination. Therefore, while the majority's legal analysis is outdated, the outcome is correct.
Analysis:
This case solidifies a two-tiered approach to challenging initiative petitions in Arkansas, creating a clear distinction between the initial qualification for a cure period and the final determination of a petition's sufficiency. By affirming that the initial review is merely a facial head-count, the court protects the initiative process from being easily derailed by complex, early-stage litigation. The concurrence, however, signals future legal battles by highlighting that Amendment 93 may require a more substantive initial review than the majority acknowledges, leaving the exact standard for determining "valid signatures" at the cure stage open to future interpretation.
