Case Name: Robert WHITE v. Sharon PRIEST, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Arkansas, and Mark Pryor, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of Arkansas
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 2002-05-23
Citations: 348 Ark. 790-A
Docket Number: No. 02-284
Parties: Robert WHITE v. Sharon PRIEST, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Arkansas, and Mark Pryor, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of Arkansas
Judges: 
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 348
Pages: 790-A–790-B

Head Matter:
Robert WHITE v. Sharon PRIEST, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Arkansas, and Mark Pryor, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of Arkansas
No. 02-284
May 23, 2002

Opinion:
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON RECUSAL
Robert L. Brown, Justice.
On Friday, May 17, 2002, I issued an opinion in which I recused from sitting on the proposed constitutional amendment and Ballot Title which would cap the salaries of officers and employees of the state government at $100,000. My reason for doing so was that should the amendment pass, it would have a direct financial impact on me as it would reduce my salary by about twenty percent. I further disagreed with the majority that the Governor of the State has a comparable conflict of interest to mine and is foreclosed from making an appointment for a special justice in this case. My sole reason for recusal was my financial interest in the subject matter of the Ballot Tide.
Mr. White has also proposed a second unrelated constitutional amendment and Ballot Title dealing with the State's penitentiary system under the same case number. It was not my intention to recuse on this discrete matter because it involved an entirely different proposed constitutional amendment.
However, there has been no motion to sever the two proposed constitutional amendments and treat them as different cases. Nor has the court decided that it will do so on its own motion. The net result of this is that because the two proposed constitutional amendments will be considered by the court at one time as one case, I must also recuse from participation in the proposed constitutional amendment that deals with the State's penitentiary system.
As I stated last week, our State Constitution provides that a justice shall not sit in a matter in which he or she is "interested." Ark. Const. amend. 80, § 12. It further provides that in the event of such disqualification, the Chief Justice shall request that the Governor of the State appoint a special justice to sit on the case involved. Ark. Const, amend. 80 § 13.
I therefore request the Chief Justice, pursuant to Amendment 80, section 13, of the State Constitution of Arkansas, to appoint a special justice to sit for me in this case to decide the sufficiency of both the proposed salary-cap amendment and the proposed penitentiary amendment.