Case Title: Doty v. Bettis

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-06-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
Garry DOTY and Patricia Doty 
v. Ida J. BETTIS, et al.

97-109                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered June 16, 1997



1.   Elections -- challenge to initiative -- preelection and postelection
     remedies. -- Prior to an election, the provisions of the
     election laws are mandatory, and the supreme court will strike
     an initiative from the ballot if does not strictly adhere to
     the statutory requirements; in contrast, if the appeal reaches
     the supreme court after the election has occurred, the only
     remedy the appellate court can provide is to set aside the
     election results, and thus the statutory requirements are
     merely directory; once the votes have been cast, the supreme
     court will not set aside the election unless the procedural
     errors rendered the result doubtful or prevented the
     electorate from casting free and intelligent votes.

2.   Elections -- challenge to initiative -- election results unknown --
     appellants failed to show how outcome would have been different absent
     alleged irregularities -- merits not reached. -- Where appellants'
     appeal was not submitted to the supreme court for
     consideration until more than seven months after the election
     in question occurred, the only available remedy was to set
     aside the election results, which would be done only when it
     has been demonstrated that the outcome of the election would
     have been different but for the procedural irregularities;
     where the results of the election were unknown, it was
     impossible for the court to make a determination; furthermore,
     appellants failed to demonstrate in their briefs how the
     outcome of the election would have been different had the
     three alleged procedural irregularities not occurred; the
     supreme court affirmed without reaching the merits of the
     arguments on appeal.


     Appeal from Poinsett Circuit Court; John Fogleman, Judge;
affirmed.
     Lyons, Emerson & Cone, by: Jim Lyons, for appellants.
     Bill W. Bristow, for appellees.

     Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice.
     This appeal concerns the validity of a local-option election
whereby the voters of Willis Township in Poinsett County were asked
to decide whether Precinct 41 should become dry.  The appellants,
Garry and Patricia Doty, raise three arguments on appeal in support
of their contention that the election results should be set aside. 
We affirm.
     The underlying facts of this case are undisputed.  In 1996,
certain voters decided to circulate a petition that would place on
the ballot an initiative to convert Precinct 41 of Willis Township
in Poinsett County into a dry precinct.  Accordingly, the
proponents prepared and circulated a petition that read as follows:


                           PETITION  
     We the undersigned being qualified electors in Precinct
     41 of Willis Township in Poinsett County do hereby
     petition for an election to be held to determine whether
     or not licenses shall be granted for the manufacture or
     sale, or the bartering, loaning or the giving away of
     intoxicating liquor, beer or wine within the designated
     territory of Precinct 41 of Willis Township in Poinsett
     County, Arkansas. 
     After obtaining the necessary signatures, the promoters
submitted their initiative petition to the county clerk of Poinsett
County.  Twelve of the submitted signature pages contained the
above language while the remaining thirteen pages contained only
signatures.  In contrast to the above language contained on some of
the signature pages, the initiative petition submitted to the
county clerk said:
                      "INITIATIVE PETITION"

     We, the undersigned legal voters of the State of
     Arkansas, Poinsett County, Precinct 41 of Willis
     Township, respectfully propose the following amendment of
     the law, to wit:

     TITLE:  To prohibit the manufacture or sale of
     intoxicating liquors in Precinct 41 of Willis Township of
     Poinsett County:

          and by this, our petition, order that the same be
     submitted to the people of Precinct 41, Willis Township
     of Poinsett County to the end that the same may be
     adopted, enacted, or rejected by the vote of legal voters
     of said Precinct 41, Willis Township of Poinsett County
     at the regular general election to [be] held in said
     Willis Township on the 5th day of November, 1996, . . .
     .
     The county clerk verified the signatures and certified the
petition to the county court and the election commissioners. 
Likewise, the County Court of Poinsett County found that the
signatures were sufficient and ordered the Election Commissioners
of Poinsett County to place the following on the ballot:
     FOR THE MANUFACTURE OR SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS
     AGAINST THE MANUFACTURE OR SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS
     Gary and Patricia Dotty appealed the county court's order to
the Circuit Court of Poinsett County alleging that the promoters of
the initiative violated several statutory requirements.  The
circuit court rejected the Dotys' arguments and ordered the matter
to be placed on the November 5, 1996, ballot.  
     The Dotys filed a notice of appeal of this ruling on November
4, 1996, just one day prior to the scheduled election. We must
presume that the initiative was in fact placed on the November 5,
1996, ballot, and that the election was held because courts are
without authority to enjoin the holding of a regularly scheduled
election, regularly called.  Brown v. McDaniel, 244 Ark. 362,