Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

ARK.] 505 R. Robert BAILEY, and Ed H. Smith, Individually, and on Behalf of the Committee to Save Arkansas Jobs, Inc., and all Others Similarly Situated v. W.J. "Bill" McCUEN, Secretary of State Committee for a Safe Workplace, Intervenor 94-951 886 S.W.2d 592 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered October 31, 1994 APPEAL & ERROR - OPINION DELIVERED ON COUNT II - ISSUES RAISED IN COUNT I MOOT, PETITION WITH RESPECT TO COUNT I DISMISSED. Where the petitioners challenged the sufficiency of the proposal under Amendment 7 to the Constitution based on the initiative petition, specifically, the validity of a number of the signatures thereon ("Count I"), and the ballot title ("Count II"), and on that basis, the case was severed into two parts, corresponding to Count I and Count II, to be separately submitted to this court, and, after submission of Count Il an opinion was delivered on October 14, 1994 granting the petition which thereby rendered the issues presented by Count I moot; the petition with respect to Count I of the case was, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed in part. Robert S. Shafer, for petitioners. Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by: Melissa Rust, Asst. Att'y Gen., for respondent. PER CURIAM. Petitioners, R. Robert Bailey and Ed H. Smith, acting individually and on behalf of The Committee to Save Arkansas Jobs, Inc., and all others similarly situated, filed this original action petition against W.J. "Bill" McCuen, Secretary of State. With respect to the proposed amendment to our state Constitution ("Constitution") known by the popular name "An Amendment to the Arkansas Constitution to Restructure the Workers' Compensation Commission and Revise Workers' Compensation in Law," petitioners sought an order invalidating the proposal, removing it from the November 8, 1994 general election ballot, and directing that any votes cast on the proposal not be counted. Intervenor, Committee For A Safe Workplace, sponsored the initiative petition.
506 [318 [1] Petitioners challenged the sufficiency of the proposal under Amendment 7 to the Constitution based on the initiative petition, specifically, the validity of a number of the signatures thereon ("Count I"), and the ballot title ("Count II"). On that basis, this case was severed into two parts, corresponding to Count I and Count II, to be separately submitted to this court. Bai-ley v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 49, 884 S.W.2d 937 (1994). After submission of Count II of this case, we delivered our opinion on October 14, 1994 granting the petition. Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994). In consequence, the issues presented by Count I of this case are rendered moot, and the petition with respect to Count I of the case is, therefore, dismissed.
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.