LITTLE ROCK — The state Supreme Court ruled Friday that it does not yet have jurisdiction over a lawsuit aimed at striking a proposed constitutional amendment from the Nov. 2 ballot.
In a nine-page ruling, the court said the lawsuit contesting the measure, which would loosen interest-rate limits in Arkansas, must start in circuit court and then wend its way back to the high court through the appeals process.
The suit was filed against Secretary of State Charlie Daniels in his capacity as the official who certifies issuesfor the ballot.
The decision leaves unsettled whether votes on the measure, identified on the ballot as Issue 2, will be counted or disallowed, perhaps after the election is over, depending on how long the rerouted litigation takes. Early voting began Monday, and so far more than 106,000 early and absentee votes have been cast, election officials said.
Attorney Eugene Sayre of Little Rock filed the lawsuit at the Supreme Court on the theory that it has original jurisdiction in such cases.
As a backup plan, Sayre also filed a lawsuit in Pulaski County Circuit Court in theevent that the Supreme Court decided against taking original jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court ordered the Circuit Court case to halt pending the higher court’s decision on jurisdiction.
Original jurisdiction is the authority to hear a case at its beginning instead of reviewing a decision made by lower courts.
Sayre filed a request with the Circuit Court on Friday for an emergency hearing and an expedited schedule.
He said he will appeal the case back up to the Supreme Court if he loses.
Through the years, the Supreme Court has exercised original jurisdiction in lawsuits against constitutional amendments proposed by voters through the petitionprocess but not constitutional amendments referred from the Legislature, which arrive at the court through appeals. Issue 2 was referred from the Legislature.
However, the state constitution’s Amendment 80, which took effect in 2001, says the high court has original jurisdiction in challenges of ballot issues, raising the question of whether this expanded the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to include constitutional amendments proposed by the Legislature. The high court’s unanimous decision said it did not.
Justice Donald L. Corbin wrote the high court order dismissing the case. “It is only necessary for this court to make a sufficiency determination in those cases involving voter initiated acts, referendums, and proposed constitutional amendments,” he wrote.
Challenges to a legislatively referred amendment need “appellate review of whether the procedures governing the method for the Legislature to propose an amendment have been followed,” the high court said.
Article 19, Section 22 lays out how the Legislature refers amendments to voters.
The court itself had raised the issue of whether it had original jurisdiction.
Elizabeth Robben Murray, who represented an intervening interest group, the Committee for Arkansas’ Future, said sending a case directly to the Supreme Court should be reserved for situations short on time.
Murray said the courtshould have original jurisdiction over cases such as challenges to initiative petitions that are brought to the ballot by citizens, which have to be filed with the secretary of state’s office four month before the election.
The Legislature referred the amendment to voters in April 2009.
The proposed amendment would raise the interest limit on retail lending; abolish the interest limit on government bonds and let the Legislature decide the rate; and provide a means of financing energyefficiency projects through local governments.
Sayre’s case contends that the title that appears on the ballot is unclear and also questions whether the ballot title complies with state law.
The Supreme Court’s dismissal “did not touch on any of those substantive issues,” Sayre said. “So those are still all live grenades.”
Front Section, Pages 1 on 10/23/2010