A special election set for next week in Stone County to choose a Democratic candidate for sheriff will go on as planned after a Pulaski County Circuit Court judge on Friday refused to halt the process at the request of the Republican nominee for the position.
But Judge Jay Moody also rejected a motion by state attorneys to throw out Russ Aiken’s lawsuit that claims Gov. Mike Beebe overstepped his authority by ordering the special election. The judge said he’d likely decide the casewithin 10 days.
Moody’s ruling concluded a 90-minute standing-room-only hearing that brought Aiken, who is the Republican candidate; his supporters; Stone County election commissioners; and the two men seeking the Democratic nod, incumbent Sheriff Todd Hudspeth and challenger Lance Bonds, to Little Rock, the venue for lawsuits against state government. The commissioners are defendants, along with the governor, in the suit.
At Friday’s hearing, the judge agreed to allowBonds to challenge Aiken’s lawsuit.
Aiken filed the suit Wednesday, claiming the Democrats haven’t had a candidate for sheriff since a June 8 runoff resulted in a tie between Hudspeth and Bonds, with each getting 1,383 votes.
In late June, Beebe ordered a special second runoff election to be held Tuesday to select a Democratic candidate, while acknowledging the law is not as clear as everyone would like it.
On Friday, Aiken’s attorney, Charles Kester of Fayetteville, said Arkansas Code 7-7-104 allows the governor to convene a special election only in the event a nominee dies, files to run for a different office or withdraws because of serious illness or to move out of the jurisdiction.
“It is undisputed that none of these conditions have been satisfied,” he told the judge.
Halting the election wouldn’t hurt the candidates, Kester said, because they could still run as writeins in November.
Scott Richardson, the assistant attorney general representing Beebe, told Moody the statute specifically addresses election ties, arguing that Aiken’s interpretation of the law would “cut off” the rights of Democratic voters to select a nomineefor sheriff.
“We’ve got a Republican nominee trying to decide the race of the Democratic nominee,” Richardson said.
For the judge to grant Aiken’s motion to halt the election, Little Rock attorney William Almand, representing Bonds, said Aiken must show that he’d be irreparably harmed if the election were allowed to proceed. The courts have generally held that irreparable harm is damage that can’t be fixed by money.
“If there’s any irreparable harm, it’s to the voters,” Almand said. “Mr. Aiken won’t suffer damages because he’s on the ballot. These folks in Stone County, they want to vote.”
Attorneys also told Moody that the runoff is too far along to stop now.
Residents are casting ballots in the early-voting phase of the election, said Daniel Brightwell, the attorney representing the county Election Commission, and halting the election would rob them of their right to vote.
“The bell is already rung on this,” Brightwell said. “You’ve got a candidate saying you’ve got to stop another candidate from running so I can have the office.”
Stone County has already spent the bulk of the $32,000 it budgeted for the election, such as paying for paper ballots that have already been delivered, Brightwell said.
He described the lawsuit as a “backdoor” effort tocircumvent more stringent laws governing election challenges.
His description of the lawsuit as un-American and unfair brought groans from some audience members.
Moody said he’d decide the issue by Aug. 9.
The judge said he likely has heard enough arguments and received enough case law from the parties to reach a decision, but gave the sides until Wednesday to decide whether they wanted to file supplemental arguments in writing.
The judge also appeared amenable to holding a second hearing if necessary.
The case needs to be decided quickly, Moody said, because Arkansas election law requires the Democratic candidate to be certified for the November election by Aug. 24.
The judge’s ruling should come from how he decides to interpret the statute, the attorneys said.
Kester said the law is clearly written and the judge should decide its meaning based on the black-and-white writing of the statute.
The defending attorneys said the measure directly addresses elections that end in ties, but requires some interpretation based on reading other sections of the election code.
They said the judge should also consider the Legislature’s intent in enacting the law, arguing that lawmakers want to enfranchise voters, not restrict them.
Northwest Arkansas, Pages 7 on 07/31/2010