Today's Paper Latest stories Obits John Brummett Wally Hall Traffic Newsletters Weather Puzzles
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
story.lead_photo.caption Attorney General Leslie Rutledge is shown in this 2016 file photo.

Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge must submit to questioning under oath about her ballot-initiative review process, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Wendell Griffen ruled Tuesday.

But will Rutledge have to answer any of those questions?

Griffen stated he can't answer that question until he hears for himself what the lawyers suing Rutledge will ask her at a hearing at 10 a.m. Friday.

The lawyers filed suit earlier this month, accusing the first-term Republican of deliberately thwarting their efforts to get proposed constitutional amendments on casino gambling and sovereign immunity before the voters. Rutledge this year has refused to certify two casino proposals and five involving sovereign immunity.

Rutledge, now seeking re-election, has not certified a ballot initiative in the past 18 months even though 62 have been put before her, according to the suit. None of the proposals met the standards set by the state Supreme Court for being clear and concise, Rutledge says.

Her attorneys tried to resist the effort to compel her to testify, arguing that there's no real need for the state's chief lawyer to submit to questioning since her rationale for refusing to certify the casino and immunity proposals is laid out in the seven opinions she's released over the past five months.

Rutledge has no unique information about the process that could not come from a member of her staff, they asserted.

The Rutledge lawyers also argued that the attorney general is protected from questioning by the "deliberative process privilege," a federal doctrine also known as executive privilege.

The privilege shields "high-ranking" government officials from being forced to answer questions about how they decided to use their authority in specific instances.

Griffen stated that none of Rutledge's objections to being questioned under oath had any legal merit. The judge noted that he had only been called on to compel Rutledge to testify because she had rejected efforts by the plaintiffs to resolve evidentiary issues without having to involve him.

"The Court finds that conduct inconsistent with the spirit of discovery and unsupported by any rule of law cited by the Attorney General or otherwise known to the court," Griffen wrote.

Her lawyers' claims that she has no unique information about the review process cannot be resolved until the questions are actually asked, he wrote.

"The Court does not know -- and the attorney general does not assert -- any knowledge as to what question or questions are to be directed to her," the judge added. "As such, the court has no factual basis upon which to rule that any question is not relevant. That is a decision that the court must make after the witness is sworn and questions are propounded."

The plaintiffs are partners Alex Gray and Nate Steel with Little Rock law firm Steel, Wright, Gray & Hutchinson, who represent two groups seeking to change the Arkansas Constitution. Steel, running as a Democrat, lost the 2014 attorney general race to Rutledge.

The Committee to Restore Arkansans' Rights, pushing for the immunity amendment, sued Rutledge on May 1, asserting the provision of Arkansas Code 7-9-107 that gives her the authority to certify ballot initiatives is unconstitutional and that she has misused that authority by refusing to certify the proposed amendments the group has presented.

It's joined by Driving Arkansas Forward, which is advocating for a constitutional amendment on casino gambling. The groups want the judge to allow them to move forward with the ballot-initiative process.

Passing the attorney general review is only the first step in getting a ballot proposal before the voters. The next step would be to get 84,859 eligible voters, from at least 15 counties, to sign a petition by the July Fourth holiday to put the proposal on the November ballot, according to the lawsuit.

Rutledge is being represented by Deputy Solicitor General Nicholas Bronni, Deputy Attorney General Monty Baugh, Assistant Solicitor General Dylan Jacobs and Assistant Attorney General KaTina Hodge.

Photo by Staton Breidenthal
Judge Wendell Griffen is shown in this file photo.

A Section on 05/16/2018

Print Headline: Judge rules AG must face queries in ballot-bid lawsuit

Sponsor Content

Comments

You must be signed in to post comments
  • Inquirer51
    May 16, 2018 at 5:44 a.m.

    Ms. Rutledge, you wouldn't let your personal beliefs or feelings affect your judgment about whether you should approve those 62 ballot initiatives, would you?

  • smmlv3
    May 16, 2018 at 7:45 a.m.

    Judge Griffin needs to retire before his decision-making ability gets worse. Who in their right mind would pull the attention-grabbing antics this man has? Judge Griffin, please retire before you embarrass yourself any more.

  • YOUNGT104
    May 16, 2018 at 8:18 a.m.

    The Wanna Be AG needs to go....!!!! She is a disgrace to the office.

  • TimberTopper
    May 16, 2018 at 8:33 a.m.

    Under Oath no less!

  • Whippersnapper
    May 16, 2018 at 8:48 a.m.

    Yeah, no. You can't haul an Attorney General (or Governor, or Secretary of State, or legislator) into court and require them to tell you why they made the decisions they made. Agree or disagree as you may with the decisions, this is not how a government functions. The exception is if you have proof beforehand that they were bribed.

  • mrcharles
    May 16, 2018 at 9:18 a.m.

    Wish the ADG would for once use a photo of her not looking like she just set on a frog.

    As an agenda and biased driven AG some day perhaps when the joy of motherhood is upon her she may serve the people instead of her overlords.

  • Arkie2017
    May 16, 2018 at 11:08 a.m.

    How convenient that these people do NOT have to answer to those they are supposed to be serving about how they conduct their business and/or make decisions that affect those you swore an oath to serve. In my humble opinion, certain government positions should NOT be political period and the Attorney General is one of them as well as Secretary of State because they have such a far reaching impact on the citizens of their States. When one Party has such dominant control, it is unhealthy for a democracy, not that we have much of one left in this country. If the powerful elites don't want us to have something, they use our AG or SOS to prevent the people from getting what we want and that's what's happening on the Federal level as well. One Party ruling everything is destroying this country yet that's exactly what the Republican's agenda has been for over 40 years and what one of their Speaker's of the House was kicked out of office for doing, name of Tom DeLay. All the things that used to be illegal in this country have now been made legal so it's easier to corrupt "legally" from Supreme Court on down. So, Rutledge needs to own up to why she's finding fault with ballot initiatives that apparently some special interests don't like. Well tough, if we can't get them to do something legislatively, then damn it, it's the will of the people which is what a democracy is.

  • RBear
    May 16, 2018 at 12:22 p.m.

    I read through AG Rutledge's rejection of Couch's minimum wage ballot measure and quite frankly, there is no way he'll ever get past her minutiae in dealing with the measure. The state supreme court gave Rutledge the power to essentially reject anything she wants and then use trivial points to justify the rejection. What we have is a no-win situation for Arkansas voters who must get past a political entities to put forth ballot measures.
    ...
    I agree with Judge Griffen in seeking to understand what process Rutledge uses and determine if it is consistent and fair when approving or rejecting ballot measures. Quite frankly, the only ballot measures that will ever pass her desk are ones that are so simplistic that they really don't accomplish anything. In 18 months, she has rejected so many ballot measures that there does not seem to be any standard for approval.

  • gagewatcher
    May 16, 2018 at 8:53 p.m.

    mrcharles in polite company it is not good manners to comment negatively on someone's appearance

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT