A Faulkner County judge decided what he called a chicken-before-the-egg style controversy Friday by ruling that a state Parole Board member could also hold county elected office.
Circuit Judge Chris Carnahan presided over the case, which stemmed from a Feb. 28 complaint made to the Faulkner County Election Commission.
Johnny Brady, a Republican from Vilonia, is the incumbent Faulkner County Quorum Court member for District 10. His daughter, Shelly Carpenter, complained to the commission that the only challenger to her father's seat, Republican Andy Shock of Conway, is not legally allowed to serve on the Quorum Court and on the state Parole Board.
Shock, who previously served as the Faulkner County sheriff, was first appointed to the Parole Board in 2015. Gov. Asa Hutchinson recently re-upped Shock to a seven-year term, ending in January 2025.
He is paid $83,078 annually. Faulkner County Quorum Court members are given a stipend of $391 per monthly meeting they attend, plus $50 for every committee meeting.
The election commission stayed neutral and voted to seek a court ruling. County Attorney David Hogue filed a petition asking for a timely hearing, since the May 22 election is approaching and ballots are ready to be printed.
The dispute hinged on Carnahan's reading of Amendment 95 to Article 7 of the Arkansas Constitution, approved by voters in 2016.
Before those arguments unfolded, Carnahan dealt with a motion asking him to recuse himself from the case.
Christopher Burks, who represented Carpenter and Brady, filed the motion. He told the judge that recusal "is not a bad word." And "it's not a question of this court's integrity," he added.
Rather, Burks asked Carnahan to consider how the judge's presiding over this case would appear to an "average citizen."
In the footnotes of court filings, and in a statement issued after the hearing, Burks said that Shock, along with U.S. Attorney Cody Hiland, were "key reasons" Carnahan was appointed to his position by Hutchinson.
In the courtroom, Carnahan said he had a "passing familiarity" with the people involved in the case.
"None of these people have ever been in my home," the judge said. He also disagreed with Burks' point that he should recuse in part because the case is "hotly contested."
"Alleging a hot contest does not make it so," Carnahan said. The judge refused to recuse.
During a tense exchange, Burks lodged two objections, including an objection that Carnahan has just a "passing familiarity" with the parties involved.
Then, Burks and Russell Wood, who represented Shock, laid out their arguments. Both lawyers insisted their interpretations of Article 7 Section 53 of the Arkansas Constitution were the "plainest" reading.
The section says, "A person elected or appointed to any of the following county offices shall not, during the term for which he or she has been elected, be appointed or elected to any civil office in this state."
The section lists justice of the peace among such county offices.
It was not disputed that a state Parole Board member is a "civil office."
That section prohibits dual service in county and civil offices, Burks said.
"You can pick, but you can't do both," he said.
Burks maintained that the section mimics Article 5 Section 10 of the constitution that bans Arkansas legislators from being appointed or elected to other civil offices while serving in the General Assembly.
That's misguided, Wood told the judge.
Wood argued that for Article 7's restriction to apply to Shock, he would need to already hold elected office, which he does not.
"If someone is a justice of the peace, he can't be appointed to the Parole Board," Wood later said. "But it does not prohibit him from running for justice of the peace if he's already a state Parole Board member."
Both lawyers also quibbled over the meaning of a 1963 Arkansas Supreme Court case, Starnes v. Sadler.
In that ruling, the state Supreme Court said a member of the General Assembly could not serve on the state Parole Board at the same time.
What was unclear, Carnahan said, is which role came first. Was the appellant in question a state legislator before becoming a board member, or was it the other way around?
"I can't tell that, from reading the case," the judge said.
Carnahan noted that he needed to make a ruling because the matter was "ripe."
He sided with Wood and Shock. The former sheriff would need to already hold a county office for this restriction to apply, Carnahan said.
Shock, who did not attend the hearing, said the judge's ruling was what he expected.
Brady, who also was absent, said he was not able to comment until Monday.
Burks said he will appeal.
Metro on 03/17/2018