MAY V. DANIELS
ARK.] Cite as 358 Ark. 357 (2004) 357 Ronald A. MAY, Susan E. May, and Gayle Bradford v.
Charlie DANIELS, in his Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the State ofArkansas 04-895 193 S.W3d 238 Supreme Court ofArkansas Opinion delivered August 27,2004 INITIATIVE (SC REFERENDUM — BALLOT TITLE — MOTION FOR EXPEDITED SCHEDULING ORDER. — Where petitioners filed an Original Action Petition for an order directing respondent to remove from the general election ballot a proposed initiated constitutional amendment due to an allegedly inadequate ballot title, and petitioners also filed a Motion for Expedited Scheduling Order, the motion was granted. Motion for Expedited Scheduling Order; granted. N. M. Norton, Blake S. Rutheord,.on behalf of the Arkansas Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Inc.; and Arkansas Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Inc., by: GriffinJ. Stockley, for petitioners. Mike Beebe, Att'y Gen., by: Tim Gauger, Ass't Att'y Gen., for respondent. ER CURIAM. Pursuant to Amendment 7 of the Constitu- p tion of the State of Arkansas, Petitioners Ronald A. May, Susan E. May, and Gayle Bradford, by and through their attorneys,
358 [358 have filed an Original Action Petition with this Court for an order directing Respondent to remove from the general election ballot the proposed initiated constitutional amendment with the popular name "An Amendment Concerning Marriage," ("Proposed Amendment 3"). The Original Action Petition challenges the adequacy of the ballot title of Proposed Amendment 3. Petitioners have also filed a Motion For Expedited Scheduling Order. [1] We hold that pursuant to Amendment 7 of the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, this Original Action Petition should be given preference and the Motion for Expedited Scheduling Order is granted. The parties shall file simultaneous briefs. by September 15, 2004, and Reply Briefs shall be filed by September 20, 2004. The request for oral argument will be granted and oral argument will be set for September 23, 2004. GLAZE, J., not participating.
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.