Title: Donovan v. Priest

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Eugenia T. DONOVAN, Individually, and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Petitioner v. Sharon PRIEST, Secretary of
State of the State of Arkansas, Respondent;
Arkansas Term Limits, Frank Gilbert, and
Spencer G. Plumley, Intervenors

96-1120                                            ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered October 21, 1996


1.   Elections -- initiative & referendum -- supreme court's
     jurisdiction to hear challenge is original and exclusive. --
     The supreme court's jurisdiction to hear an initiative
     challenge is original and exclusive pursuant to Amendment 7 of
     the Arkansas Constitution.

2.   Elections -- initiative & referendum -- burden of proof --
     scope of Amendment 7. -- In legal challenges to initiative
     matters, Ark. Const. amend. 7 places the burden of proof "upon
     the person or persons attacking the validity of the petition";
     regarding the scope of Amendment 7 and its incorporation of
     the reserved rights of the people, the supreme court has
     previously observed that Arkansas voters essentially have,
     within constitutional limits, a right to change any law or any
     provision of the state constitution that they deem appropriate
     through Ark. Const. amend. 7. 

3.   Constitutional law -- Ark. Const. amend. 7 cannot empower
     people to initiate any measure outside reserved powers. -- The
     constitutional limitations on the voters' right to change any
     law or state constitutional provision through Ark. Const.
     amend. 7 derive from both the United States and Arkansas
     Constitutions; on the federal level, the rights reserved to
     the states and to the people of the states originate from the
     Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which
     provides that "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States
     by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
     reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"; thus,
     Amendment 7 cannot empower the people of Arkansas to initiate
     any measure, law, or amendment that falls outside the powers
     reserved to the states and their citizens by the United States
     Constitution. 

4.   Elections -- initiative & referendum -- justiciability --
     factors to be weighed. -- In addition to the consideration of
     whether a proposed measure is clearly contrary to law, the
     supreme court has indicated that in determining whether an
     issue is justiciable, factors to be weighed include whether
     the issue at hand is a matter of significant public interest
     and a matter of constitutional law. 

5.    Elections -- initiative & referendum -- justiciability --
     when case is ripe. -- A case such as this one is ripe for the
     following reasons: (1) the case is concrete, and the record
     will not be improved by waiting until after the election is
     held; (2) the factual controversy (whether procedural and
     subject-matter requirements have been met) exists before the
     election; (3) post-election events will not sharpen the
     issues, as no additional facts are necessary for decision; and
     (4) the issue is not speculative or hypothetical because the
     only constitutional issues involved are those that govern the
     proponents' right to invoke the direct-legislation process.

6.   Actions -- justiciability -- when declaratory relief will lie
     -- requirements satisfied. -- Regarding justiciability in
     general, the supreme court has held that declaratory relief
     will lie where (1) there is a justiciable controversy; (2) it
     exists between parties with adverse interests; (3) those
     seeking relief have a legal interest in the controversy; and
     (4) the issues involved are ripe for decision; here, there was
     clearly a case in controversy over the effect and application
     of proposed Amendment 9 between parties with adverse
     interests; as a citizen, resident, taxpayer, and registered
     voter, petitioner had a legal interest in the controversy; as
     to ripeness, it has been viewed as largely a matter of timing.

7.   Elections -- initiative & referendum -- review of sufficiency
     of proposed measure includes review of whether proponents are
     entitled to invoke direct initiative process. -- The supreme
     court held that its review of the sufficiency of a proposed
     measure, as provided for in Ark. Const. amend. 7, includes a
     review of whether the measure's proponents are entitled to
     invoke the direct initiative process when the issue is
     properly presented; the court distinguished such a procedural
     challenge from a substantive constitutional challenge to a
     proposed measure before an election has been held, noting that
     substantive constitutional challenges necessarily involve
     fact-specific issues and thus are not ripe for review until
     the proposed measure becomes law and a case in controversy
     arises. 

8.   Constitutional law -- act of ratification by state derives its
     authority from United States Constitution -- initiative and
     referendum does not provide same power. -- Although the power
     to legislate in the enactment of the laws of a state is
     derived from the people of the state, the power to ratify a
     proposed amendment to the United States Constitution has its
     source in the United States Constitution; the act of
     ratification by the state derives its authority from the
     federal constitution to which the state and its people have
     alike assented; Article V of the United States Constitution
     only authorized state legislatures (i.e., the law-making
     bodies themselves) to ratify amendments to the United States
     Constitution; the people, through the process of initiative
     and referendum, do not have the same power.

9.   Constitutional law -- any measure that purports to take away
     power from state legislatures to ratify proposed amendments to
     United States Constitution is unconstitutional. -- Any measure
     that purports to place the power to ratify proposed amendments
     to the United States Constitution in the hands of the people
     of the states and that takes such power away from the state
     legislatures is unconstitutional because it conflicts with
     Article V of the United States Constitution; the function of
     a state legislature in ratifying a proposed amendment to the
     United States Constitution, like the function of Congress in
     proposing the amendment, is a federal function derived from
     the United States Constitution, and it transcends any
     limitations sought to be imposed by the people of a state.

10.  Elections -- initiative & referendum -- proposed amendment
     nothing more than coercive attempt to compel state legislature
     to do as alleged majority wished. -- The supreme court held
     that proposed Amendment 9 was nothing more than a coercive
     attempt to compel the Arkansas General Assembly to do as the
     alleged majority of the people wished, without any
     intellectual debate, deliberation, or consideration of whether
     such action would be in the best interest of all the people of
     the state.

11.  Elections -- initiative & referendum -- proposed amendment
     clearly violative of U.S. Const. art. 5. -- The supreme court
     held that proposed Amendment 9 was clearly violative of the
     provision in Article V of the United States Constitution that
     all proposals of amendments to that Constitution must come
     either from Congress or state legislatures and not from the
     people; it was an indirect attempt to propose an amendment to
     the United States Constitution, and as such violated the
     narrow, specific grants of authority provided in Article V;
     proposed Amendment 9 would virtually tie the hands of the
     individual members of the General Assembly so that they would
     no longer be part of a deliberative body acting independently
     in exercising their individual best judgments on every issue;
     consequently, the measure was an impermissible use of the
     initiative power reserved to the people of the state in
     Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution and was clearly
     contrary to law.

12.  Elections -- initiative & referendum -- injunctive relief
     granted. -- The supreme court enjoined respondent from placing
     proposed Amendment 9 on the general-election ballot or,
     alternatively, from declaring the results.  


     Original Action Petition; granted.
     Friday, Eldredge & Clark, by:  Paul B. Benham III, Elizabeth
Robben Marray, and Robert S. Shafer, for petitioner.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Tim Humphries, Deputy Att'y
Gen., and William F. Knight, Ass't Att'y Gen., for respondent.
     Kelly Law Firm, by: A.J. Kelly, for intervenors.

     Donald L. Corbin, Justice.
     Petitioner, Eugenia T. Donovan, citizen and taxpayer, asks
this court to enjoin Respondent, Secretary of State Sharon Priest,
from placing the proposed Amendment 9 to the Arkansas Constitution
on the ballot for the general election on November 5, 1996. 
Petitioner also requests that any votes that may have already been
cast for the proposed Amendment 9 not be counted.  We allowed the
intervention of three additional parties in this original action,
which was filed pursuant to Amendment 7 to the Arkansas
Constitution of 1874:  "Arkansas Term Limits," the unincorporated
sponsor of the proposed Amendment 9; Frank Gilbert, Executive
Director of "Arkansas Term Limits"; and Spencer G. Plumley,
Chairman of "Arkansas Term Limits."
     Petitioner asserts that the proposed Amendment 9 exceeds the
legislative powers reserved to the people of this state by our
Amendment 7 in that it directly contravenes the amendment process
provided for in Article V of the United States Constitution. 
Respondent and Intervenors contend that the proposed Amendment 9
does not exceed the powers of the people reserved in Amendment 7
and that, even if it did, Petitioner's challenge to the proposal is
a question of substantive constitutional law that is not yet ripe
for our review.  Our jurisdiction to hear this case is original and
exclusive pursuant to Amendment 7 of the Arkansas Constitution.
                      I.  Justiciability  
     Respondent and Intervenors urge us to decline review of
Petitioner's constitutional challenge to the proposed Amendment 9
because the issue is not ripe for adjudication and, as such, any
opinion issued by this court on the matter would be purely
advisory.  Petitioner asserts that our review of the sufficiency of
the petition for this proposed amendment, as provided in Amendment
7, necessarily encompasses the issue of whether the proposal is
within the powers reserved to the people in Amendment 7. 
Petitioner argues that the people of this state do not have the
right to propose such a measure as the proposed Amendment 9, which
instructs the legislators of this state, along with the Arkansas
delegation to Congress, to use all the powers of their respective
offices in proposing and securing an amendment to the United States
Constitution limiting the number of terms members of Congress may
serve.  Petitioner asserts that the procedures for proposing
amendments to the United States Constitution are specifically and
exclusively provided for in Article V of that Constitution.
Respondent and Intervenors counter that Petitioner's argument is
nothing more than a substantive constitutional challenge to the
proposal, and as such, our review of the issue is not proper unless
and until the measure has become law.  
     Our reading of the proposed Amendment 9 indicates that it is
procedural in nature, purporting to empower the electorate with an
indirect and prohibited means to propose an amendment to the United
States Constitution.  Hence, we agree that the threshold issue
presented requires an analysis of whether such a procedure is
encompassed within the powers reserved to the people of this state
in Amendment 7.  
     Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution of 1874 provides in
part:
          The legislative power of the people of this State
     shall be vested in a General Assembly, which shall
     consist of the Senate and House of Representatives, but
     the people reserve to themselves the power to propose
     legislative measures, laws and amendments to the
     Constitution, and to enact or reject the same at the
     polls independent of the General Assembly[.]  [Emphasis
     added.]

     Amendment 7 further provides that the sufficiency of statewide
petitions for initiatives shall be decided in the first instance by
the Secretary of State, subject to the review of the supreme court
which has original and exclusive jurisdiction over such causes.  
Upon legal challenges to initiative matters, Amendment 7 places the
burden of proof "upon the person or persons attacking the validity
of the petition."  As to the scope of Amendment 7 and its
incorporation of the reserved rights of the people, this court has
previously observed that "[t]he voters of this state essentially
have, within constitutional limits, a right to change any law or
any provision of our Constitution they deem appropriate through
Amendment 7 to the Constitution."  Dust v. Riviere, 277 Ark. 1, 4,