Alcohol measure heard by justices

Supporters of an alcohol-sales ballot initiative in Saline County argued Thursday that the Supreme Court should reverse a lower court's September ruling that invalidated 159 signatures and struck the local measure from the ballot.

Appearing before the state's high court, attorney Marshall Nye said that by discounting a few challenged signatures, the high court ran the risk of disenfranchising a large part of the county. Our Community, Our Dollars -- the group seeking to change the county's "dry" status -- collected nearly 26,000 valid signatures from registered voters in the county.

But 720 valid signatures were never tallied by the county clerk's office, which stopped counting after the office thought the measure already had enough signatures.

The will of the people should not be thwarted simply because Saline County officials failed to do their job, Nye said.

Elizabeth Murray, an attorney representing the three Saline County residents who challenged the proposal Aug. 8, argued that because 159 signatures were discovered to be either fraudulent or incorrectly counted, the initiative should never have been certified by the county clerk's office and that the sponsors failed to hit the threshold through their own fault.

"There has to be some finality in the certification [process]," Murray said. "It is not a moving target."

On July 31, the Saline County Clerk certified the initiative petition after accepting 25,653 of the 31,528 signatures submitted by Our Community, Our Dollars.

That figure exceeded the 25,580 threshold, or 38 percent of registered voters, needed to put it on the ballot.

Because the necessary number of signatures had been validated, county officials didn't review an additional 960 signatures that were submitted; 720 of those signatures were valid, according to court records.

After a trial in Saline County Circuit Court, Judge Grisham Phillips sided with the challengers on Sept. 5, ruling that 111 signatures counted toward putting the issue on the ballot were forgeries.

He then voided another 40 signatures because they weren't properly signed and sealed by a notary. A handful of others were also discounted, putting the petition beneath the threshold needed, and leading Phillips to rule that the initiative should be struck from the ballot.

He stayed that ruling pending appeal but also ruled that any votes cast in favor of the alcohol initiative should not be counted, a ruling that is still in effect.

With an election nearing, several justices at Thursday's arguments were worried about the long-term effects of a decision.

Throughout the hearing, several justices tried to pin down the effect a decision in the case could have on future ballot initiatives and elections, and Justice Jo Hart asked how not including the 760 signatures toward the ballot measure's total count could affect voters.

"Why is this failure [by the county clerk] not an impediment, a direct violation of a requirement of our constitution?" she asked. "They participated in the [initiative process] ... The failure to count them by the court or the clerk, why is that not a violation of their rights ... to participate?"

Murray said those signatures were excluded by the clerk and that state law prohibited the clerk from going back and adding to them after a 10-day window. She also pointed out that Nye's clients never appealed their initial exclusion.

Since they reached the threshold they needed, Nye said it was illogical to challenge something that went in their favor.

"You don't duck before you're shot at," he said.

Nye argued that the exclusion of verified signatures was exactly why the high court should reverse Phillips ruling and include the signatures and allow the measure to go to a vote in Saline County.

"Are any of those [voters] any less valid because the clerk stopped counting?" He asked. "Who of us are to say that any of those 720 [voters] are less important?"

A Section on 10/24/2014

Upcoming Events