A Pulaski County Circuit Court judge has no constitutional means to remove a ballot measure referred by the Legislature, Arkansas Secretary of State Mark Martin wrote in response to a lawsuit by its opponents.
He asked Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza to dismiss the complaint.
Three Arkansas residents filed the lawsuit in August asking a judge to strip from the ballot Issue No. 3, a constitutional amendment seeking new ethics laws and a change in legislative term limits. The residents argued that the proposed amendment, one of three referred by the Legislature for the Nov. 4 ballot, "constituted fraud" because its ballot title misleads voters about the substance of the proposal.
In a response filed earlier this month, Martin argued that he had fulfilled his duties in a timely manner and a Pulaski County circuit judge could not grant the request because he lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter.
"Plaintiffs' requested relief violates the separation of powers in part. The Court is without authority to strike a portion of the proposed amendment," the response said.
Martin also noted that under Article 19, Section 22 of the Arkansas Constitution, the Arkansas Supreme Court can only review proposed constitutional amendments to determine if the ballot title is sufficient to identify the measure and does not result in a "manifest fraud upon the public."
"Defendant Secretary's actions have not and will not result in manifest fraud being imposed upon the general public by Defendant because Defendant Secretary did nothing more than complete his statutory responsibilities in a timely manner," the response said.
Reached by phone Wednesday, Kathleen Wikstrom, one of the three plaintiffs, said they had received the response and are discussing how to proceed. Laura Labay, a spokesman for Martin's office, said staff attorneys do not comment on ongoing litigation.
The proposed amendment's popular name is: "An amendment regulating contributions to candidates for state or local office, barring gifts from lobbyists to certain state officials, and setting term limits for members of the General Assembly."
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue that the title of the amendment fails to inform voters that voting "yes" would lengthen term limits for state Senate and House members.
The title of the measure states it would "set" term limits, and language later in the measure states it would "establish" term limits. The lawsuit alleges those terms are misleading to voters who might think that no limits are currently set or established.
The ballot measure would change the state's ethics rules to provide certain limits on contributions and would allow for a term limit of 16 years to be served in either chamber of the Legislature. Current rules allow for three two-year terms in the House and two four-year terms in the Senate. Beyond their two four-year terms, some senators are also allowed to serve a two-year term due to reapportionment of Senate districts every decade.
The lawsuit also alleges that mingling the two issues of ethics reform and term limits violates state law, which allows only three amendments proposed by the Legislature to appear on the ballot, because the proposal in question is actually two amendments.
The suit was brought by three Arkansans -- Yvonne Rich of Mountain Home, Frederick Scott of Maumelle and Wikstrom of Benton.
As of Wednesday, no hearing date had been set and no orders responding to the request for injunctions had been filed by Piazza.
Metro on 09/12/2014