LITTLE ROCK — A Phillips County circuit judge on Friday ordered an investigation into how a document purporting to be a Helena-West Helena city ordinance was filed in the county clerk’s office and used in an attempt to change the filing deadline for municipal candidates.
City officials say the document was never authorized by an ordinance and appeared to be a doctored version of the city’s code.
“Someone apparently inserted a new provision, which overrides state law, that says that to qualify as a candidate for municipal office, you have to file the day before the May primary,” City Attorney Chalk Mitchell said.
“There was never an ordinance that made that change. There was never any discussion of it,” he added.
The fake ordinance came to light after three Helena-West Helena residents filed a lawsuit this week asking that a judge declare the true candidate-filing period to clear up confusion in the community over when candidates can file for municipal offices.
The document contained wording that changed the filing period for municipal candidates to 20 days before the preferential primary election up until noon on the day before the primary, which was held May 22.
But under state law, municipal candidates have from July 27 until noon on Aug. 17 to file.
“There exist[s] uncertainty and insecurity for the electors and potential municipal candidates as to their right to elect the candidate of their choice and right to file for election to municipal office in Helena-West Helena,” wrote attorney Eddie Schieffler, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of residents Howard Newsome, the Rev. Cedric Pride and Leon Rinke.
Schieffler argued that there wasn’t any proof the city had changed its candidate-filing period.
Under state law, ordinances that change filing deadlines must be enacted no later than 90 days before the filing deadline, and must be published at least once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper “having a general circulation in the city.”
Neither provision was met, Schieffler said.
“Individuals for the 2012 municipal election” had presented the “purported” ordinance to the Phillips County clerk in an attempt to prove the earlier filing period, he said.
During the late-morning hearing, Mayor Arnell Willis and City Clerk Sandi Ramsey,who were named as defendants in the lawsuit in their official capacities, testified that the city had no evidence the City Council passed such an ordinance changing the filing dates.
Circuit Judge Richard Proctor agreed.
“Neither of them [Willis nor Ramsey] were aware of the passage of any ordinance under the requirements of Ark. Code Ann. 14-42-206 which changed the filing period for municipal elections in the City of Helena-West Helena,” Proctor wrote in his ruling.
“The Court declares and finds that the proper filing period is July 27, 2012.”
Proctor also ordered Willis and Ramsey to notify all “necessary election officials” of the proper filing date and to “see that all citizens have access to filing for any municipal office.”
Proctor declined to comment on the case.
In a phone interview, Mitchell said the judge also ordered him to refer the matter to 1st Judicial District Prosecuting Attorney Fletcher Long to investigate how the document attempting to change the filing date came to be filed.
The document clearly isn’t legitimate, Mitchell said.
“If you look carefully at the number [on the document], there is a new provision. If you look at the [city] code, there was a blank space on that page,” Mitchell said.
A copy of the document filed in Circuit Court includes a section titled Chapter 2.36 that includes headings for four sections that lays out the city attorney’s responsibilities.
The document contains the first three numbered paragraphs regarding the city attorney but is immediately followed by a section titled “Chapter 2.38 Elections.”
That chapter is a single paragraph that outlines the change of the filing date to: “No earlier than twenty (20) days prior to the preferential primary election; and (II) No later than 12:00 noon on the day before the preferential primary election.”
The next page of the document then continues with the fourth paragraph of the city attorney’s responsibilities, according to court filings.
“It somehow got squeezed in, and if you look at the exhibit, it’s obviously inserted. Obviously, the question becomes who inserted it, and that’s the million-dollar question because nobody’s going to own up to it,” Mitchell said.
The document included in the lawsuit includes a file stamp from County Clerk Linda White’s office showing its filing May 21 - a day before the preferential primary. The area for marking the time of the document’s filing is blank.
Reached Friday, White said her office will “go back to the old statute” in accordance with Proctor’s ruling. When asked what else she knew about the doctored document, White referred all questions to Ramsey.
The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette tried to reach Ramsey at the city clerk’s office Friday afternoon, but a staff member said Ramsey already had left for the day.
Late Friday, Schieffler said he didn’t know who presented the document to the county clerk.
Newsome, Pride and Rinke filed the suit as “concerned citizens” because “there was confusion among the citizens of the area about the filing period, and this eliminated any of the hearsay, talk about the town or confusion,” Schieffler said.
Some candidates had already filed in May because of the doctored document, Schieffler said, though he didn’t know the candidates’ names.
“Obviously those people knew something that nobody else did - knew of something that never really existed that somebody told them existed,” he said. “I don’t know who created it or where it came from.” Information for this article was contributed by Cathy Frye of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
Front Section, Pages 1 on 07/14/2012