The prospects of voters deciding on alcohol sales in Saline County are still alive after a late Friday afternoon ruling by the Arkansas Supreme Court.
In a 4-3 decision, the state's highest court reversed a September ruling in Saline County that struck a ballot initiative that would legalize the sale and distribution of alcohol in the county.
In the majority opinion penned by Justice Courtney Hudson Goodson, justices sided with arguments made by the initiative's sponsors: that hundreds of signatures that went uncounted should not be discounted simply because government officials had failed to promptly review them.
"On review, a circuit court is called upon to determine whether the petition was sufficient, meaning whether 38-percent of the registered voters signed the petition. ... A circuit court must consider the entire petition," Goodson wrote. "To hold otherwise would silence the voices of registered voters who properly affix their names to a petition but whose signatures are deemed unnecessary to count by a county clerk."
Added Goodson: "This we will not allow."
The court ordered Circuit Judge Grisham Phillips -- who overturned the Saline County clerk's certification of the measure and thus struck it from the ballot -- to reconsider the matter and review 720 uncounted signatures that, if validated, would give the initiative enough support to be on the ballot.
A call to Phillips was not returned late Friday afternoon.
The majority opinion was contested by three justices, including Chief Justice Jim Hannah, and in a sharply worded five-page dissent, Justice Donald Corbin called the majority's ruling "untenable," saying the court's order suggests that Phillips, and not the county clerk, be tasked with reviewing the petitions, including the additional 720 signatures.
"In one fell swoop, the majority, without any authority to support itself, is forcing the circuit court to abdicate its judicial function and usurp the authority of the county clerk who is charged with reviewing signatures and determining sufficiency," Corbin wrote. "The absurdity of this is mind-boggling."
Corbin also wrote that Goodson's opinion would "throw the electoral process in Saline County into chaos."
"Even if we assume that the [county] clerk, the circuit court, and the parties act in the most expeditious manner possible upon remand, one side is going to lose before the circuit court and that losing party has the right to bring another appeal before this court," Corbin wrote. "Thus, I simply do not believe ... there can be a final resolution of this case before the election."
On July 18, just 11 days after submitting its first batch of petition signatures to the county clerk, Our Community, Our Dollars was informed that it was below the 25,580 signatures, or 38 percent of registered voters, needed to put the alcohol measure on the county's ballot.
The group was given a 10-day cure period and returned more signatures. The Saline County clerk's office hired additional workers to help count the signatures, and once they found the initiative had 73 more signatures than needed, the clerk stopped the count. On July 31, the clerk certified that the proposal met the threshold, and it was put on the ballot.
On Aug. 8, the initiative was challenged by three Saline County residents, and the case eventually went before Grisham in a trial in late August and early September.
According to court records, 960 signatures went uncounted, and during trial, the clerk said 720 of those signatures were found to be signed by registered county voters.
Grisham, however, did not let those 720 signatures count because he found that once the clerk certified the measure, the clerk's office forfeited the right to count them.
He then struck 159 names for several reasons, including improper dating as well as fraudulent signatures.
He stayed his order to strike the measure from the ballot, but his order to not count or tabulate votes for it is still in place.
The reading of state statutes governing the initiative process does not "preclude a circuit court from considering in its review the entirety of the petition," or all of the signatures submitted, counted or not.
Corbin argued that the high court should have sent the counting and certification back to the county clerk and not the circuit court because the 720 signatures were not properly vetted.
The justice, who is retiring at the end of the year, said Goodson's warning about the "[silencing] the voices of registered voters" was a nice sentiment but it ignores "critical facts."
"First, the majority is assuming, without any evidence to support it, that all 720 of those signatures are valid," he wrote.
Corbin said he sympathized with the ballot initiative's sponsors and appreciates the value the initiative process plays in Arkansas government, but he could not rule in their favor.
"[The sponsors] bore the burden of presenting ample signatures in the first instance, knowing well the likelihood of a large percentage of those signatures being invalidated upon review," he wrote. "Moreover, the predicament caused by the clerk's failure to count and certify all signatures presented is a legislative problem."
Corbin said the problems that led to this case should be addressed by the General Assembly and "not this court."
An attorney for Our Community, Our Dollars did not return a call for comment.
An attorney challenging the proposed measure, Elizabeth Murray, said things were far from settled.
"I guess all I can say is we'll have to wait and see on what Judge Phillips decides and how he'll want to proceed," she said. "We're not sure what the timeline is at this point."
The election is Tuesday.
There is also a statewide vote on a constitutional amendment that, if enacted, would legalize the sale and distribution of alcohol in all of Arkansas' 75 counties.
That amendment was also challenged in the Supreme Court, but the court ruled unanimously that it should remain on the ballot for the election.
A section on 11/01/2014