Opponents of a state constitutional amendment to allow the sale, manufacture and transportation of alcohol across Arkansas are asking for the "impossible" in their efforts to get the measure off the ballot, according to Secretary of State Mark Martin.
On Tuesday afternoon, Martin's office filed a response to a lawsuit seeking to block a statewide vote on the proposal.
The ballot opposition group, Citizens for Local Rights, argued that the initiative's supporters did not file their petitions in a timely manner and that the ballot title could be misleading.
According to their complaint, the Seventh Amendment of the state's Constitution requires petitions for constitutional amendments to be submitted no later than four months before Election Day.
That deadline fell on the Fourth of July, a Friday, and Martin's office extended the deadline until Monday, July 7, a move that opponents say Martin had no constitutional justification to do.
In his response Tuesday, Martin said the office has traditionally given ballot sponsors more flexibility if the deadline falls on a holiday. Election officials have interpreted the law to allow for these extensions, he said.
Martin's response further argued that the opponents' request to get the issue off the Nov. 4 ballot constitutes an "impossibility and illegality of performance" since the ballots are already being printed.
A call to Martin's spokesman, Laura Labay, was not returned late Tuesday night.
Supporters of the measure were given a 30-day extension on July 18 to gather more valid signatures, and the measure was certified as "Issue No. 4" by Martin's office on Aug. 29.
The initiative received 91,831 valid signatures to reach the ballot, more than the 78,133 required by Arkansas law. It was certified by the County Boards of Election Commissioners on Aug. 21.
State law gives the commission until Sept. 18 to deliver all absentee ballots to county clerks to accommodate voters overseas and until Sept. 19 for other absentee ballots, according to Martin's office.
Plaintiffs Brian Richardson and Mary Dillard, on behalf of the alcohol initiative's opposition, filed the legal challenge Friday and asked the Supreme Court to enjoin Martin from allowing the issue to go forward.
Arguing that the amendment's supporters missed the deadline, they said the language used to describe the amendment was "dangerous" and that it does not clearly reflect the effect of the proposal.
Reached by phone Tuesday night, Richardson declined to comment on an ongoing legal matter but said he stands behind his opposition to the amendment.
Attorney David Couch, a proponent of the ballot measure, said the state has a long-standing practice, one going back as far as 1925, of allowing more time for ballot initiatives if the deadlines fall on holidays.
In its response, Martin's office argued that the lawsuit by Richardson and Dillard came too late to block the measure.
"[The complainants'] request is impossible to perform since [Martin's office] certified the proposed initiative amendment to the various county boards of election commissioners," the response stated. "To meet those deadlines required by federal and state law, ballots have been prepared and are being printed."
The opposition's Friday filing, citing language from the Seventh Amendment that compels a challenge to such an initiative to "be tried at once," requested an expedited scheduling order as well as oral arguments.
Martin's office did not oppose the expedited scheduling order. But the secretary of state objected to oral arguments that he said might be "premature."
One of the justices, Paul Danielson, has notified interested parties that his son has an ownership in a Benton County liquor store.
In a letter filed with the clerk of courts Tuesday, Danielson wrote that he did "not believe" his son's ownership would affect his objectivity, and he does not plan to recuse himself from the case.
A section on 09/10/2014