Opinion ID: 2742707
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Facial Challenge to Act 595

Text: We now consider the parties’ facial-challenge arguments presented to this court. On appeal, Martin argues that Act 595 is presumed to be constitutional. Relying on Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), Martin asserts that checking a photoidentification card is not a new qualification to vote, but a method of “identifying eligible voters at the polls.” Crawford, 553 U.S. at 197. Appellants assert that the circuit court erred because Appellees did not demonstrate that the proof-of-identity requirements add an additional qualification for becoming a registered voter. Appellants maintain that the proofof-identity requirement is not a qualification but rather a procedural requirement that ensures that people who cast their votes are qualified to do so. Appellants claim that this requirement assures the public that the person is “[l]awfully registered to vote in the election.” Ark. Const. art. 3, § 1(4) (Supp. 2013). Appellees respond that the circuit court properly determined that Act 595 was unconstitutional, as this court’s case law is clear that the Arkansas Constitution “fiercely protects against the [Arkansas] General Assembly’s interference with Article 3 of the Arkansas Constitution.” Appellees further emphasize that a proof of identity is required in an Arkansas resident’s voter-registration process, which is governed by Amendment 51 of the Arkansas Constitution, and is not required for an individual’s vote in an Arkansas election. Four amicus briefs support Appellees’ argument. Our standard of review of a circuit court’s ruling on the constitutionality of an act is clear. This court reviews a circuit court’s interpretation of the constitution de novo because 10 Cite as 2014 Ark. 427 it is for this court to determine what a constitutional provision means. Chandler v. Martin ex rel. State, 2014 Ark. 219, 433 S.W.3d 884. Although this court is not bound by the circuit court’s decision, its interpretation will be accepted as correct on appeal in the absence of a showing that the circuit court erred. Miller v. Ark. Dep’t of Finance & Admin., 2012 Ark. 165, 401 S.W.3d 466. Appellees challenged Act 595 as unconstitutional on its face, not as-applied to a specific party or circumstance. Acts of the legislature are presumed constitutional and the party challenging the statute has the burden to prove otherwise. Archer v. Sigma Tau Gamma Alpha Epsilon, Inc., 2010 Ark. 8, 362 S.W.3d 303. An act will be struck down only when there is a clear incompatibility between the act and the constitution. Tsann Kuen Enters. Co. v. Campbell, 355 Ark. 110, 129 S.W.3d 822 (2003). A facial invalidation of a statute is appropriate if it can be shown that “under no circumstances can the [Act] be constitutionally applied.” Linder v. Linder, 348 Ark. 322, 349, 72 S.W.3d 841, 856 (2002) (emphasis in original). Under this constitutional standard applicable to facial challenges, the proponent must establish that “no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987)). Nevertheless, despite this heavy burden, the United States Supreme Court continues to recognize the validity of facial challenges under the appropriate circumstances. See Davis v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 554 U.S. 724 (2008). The key issue is whether Act 595 imposes upon an Arkansas voter an additional qualification beyond those voter qualifications set forth in the Arkansas Constitution. Section 1 of article 3 of the Arkansas Constitution provides as follows: 11 Cite as 2014 Ark. 427 Except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, any person may vote in an election in this state who is: (1) A citizen of the United States; (2) A resident of the State of Arkansas; (3) At least eighteen (18) years of age; and (4) Lawfully registered to vote in the election. [As amended by Const. Amend. 85.] Ark. Const. art. 3, § 1 (Supp. 2013). Act 595, as enacted, states that “any person desiring to vote in this state shall . . . [p]resent proof of identity to the election official when appearing to vote in person either early or at the polls on election day.” Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-201(d)(1)(A) (Supp. 2013). Specifically, section 1 of Act 595 provides the definition of “proof of identity” as follows: (i) A voter identification card under § 7-5-322; or (ii) A document or identification card that: (a) Shows the name of the person to whom the document was issued; (b) Shows a photograph of the person to whom the document was issued; (c) Is issued by the United States, the State of Arkansas, or an accredited postsecondary educational institution in the State of Arkansas; and (d) If displaying an expiration date: (1) Is not expired; or (2) Expired no more than four (4) years before the date of the election in which the person seeks to vote. 12 Cite as 2014 Ark. 427 Further, section 1 lists acceptable documentation, which includes, inter alia, such items as a driver’s license, photo-identification card, and a United States passport, that satisfy the proofof-identity requirement. For approximately 150 years, this court has remained steadfast in its adherence to the strict interpretation of the requisite voter qualifications articulated in the Arkansas Constitution. In Rison v. Farr, 24 Ark. 161 (1865), Farr’s ballot was refused when he declined to subscribe to a statutory oath that he would support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Arkansas; that he had not voluntarily borne arms against the United States or Arkansas; and that he had not aided, directly or indirectly, the Confederate authorities since April 18, 1864. We rejected this requirement, holding that, as a prerequisite to voting, the statutory oath prescribed by the Arkansas General Assembly was in direct conflict with the Arkansas Constitution. We stated as follows: [A]lthough this part of the law is professedly enacted, “TO PROVIDE THE MANNER OF HOLDING ELECTIONS,” it is, in effect, nothing but a prohibition upon the right to vote as secured by the constitution; and is of the same import as an affirmative provision that no person who has voluntarily borne arms against the United States, or this state, or aided the so-called confederate authorities, since the 18th day of April, 1864, shall be allowed to vote at any election in the state of Arkansas. And to admit that the legislature may do this, would be to declare that part of the constitution which defines the qualifications of a voter, absolutely nugatory, and would turn section 2 of article IV [a precursor to voter qualifications], of our constitution into the merest nonsense. And clearly, if the legislature cannot, by direct legislation, prohibit those who possess the constitutional qualification to vote, from exercising the elective franchise, that end cannot be accomplished by indirect legislation. The legislature cannot, under color of regulating the manner of holding elections, which to some extent that body has a right to do, impose such restrictions as will have the effect to take away the right to vote as secured by the constitution. Rison, 24 Ark. at 172. 13 Cite as 2014 Ark. 427 This proposition was reaffirmed years later in Faubus v. Miles, 237 Ark. 957, 377 S.W.2d 601 (1964). In Faubus, the Arkansas General Assembly passed legislation to establish a system of voter registration “purport[ing] to substitute a ‘free’ poll tax (for registration purposes) in lieu of a poll tax for which the voter has paid $1.00.” Id. at 963, 377 S.W.2d at 604. A citizen and taxpayer filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the act, and the chancellor declared the act unconstitutional. On appeal, this court held as follows: It is our conclusion that the legislature has no power, in state elections . . . to substitute said “free” poll tax for the poll tax required by Amendment 8 which provides that the voters “shall exhibit a poll tax receipt or other evidence that they have paid their poll tax. . . .” (Emphasis added.) To hold otherwise would be to approve a subterfuge for evading the letter and the spirit of a plain constitutional provision. Id. at 963, 377 S.W.2d at 604. Applying our well-established precedent to the present case, Act 595 cannot survive a constitutional facial challenge. Here, the Arkansas General Assembly’s passage of Act 595 requires an Arkansas voter to provide a “voter identification card,” pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 7-5-322, or “[a] document or identification card.” However, Act 595’s added requirement of providing a proof of identity as a prerequisite to voting runs afoul of article 3, section 1, of the Arkansas Constitution. Section 1 of article 3 plainly states that any person may vote in an election who is (1) a U.S. citizen, (2) an Arkansas resident, (3) eighteen years of age, and (4) lawfully registered to vote in the election before voting in an Arkansas election. Ark. Const. art. 3, § 1. These four qualifications set forth in our state’s constitution simply do not include any proof-of-identity requirement. Further, with the legislature’s passage of Act 595 requiring this additional qualification, we cannot determine any “set of 14 Cite as 2014 Ark. 427 circumstances exists under which [Act 595] would be valid.” Edwards, 946 F. Supp. 2d at 848. In Bailey, Lieutenant-Governor v. Abington, 201 Ark. 1072, 148 S.W.2d 176 (1941), we declared that [t]he fundamental purpose in construing a constitutional provision is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the framers and of the people who adopted it. The court, therefore, should constantly keep in mind the object sought to be accomplished by its adoption. Id. at 1078, 148 S.W.2d at 180. Given this “fundamental purpose,” id., we adhere to the framers’ intent conferred in article 3, section 1, of the Arkansas Constitution to require the foregoing four qualifications of voters in an Arkansas election and nothing more. To hold otherwise would disenfranchise Arkansas voters and would negate “the object sought to be accomplished” by the framers of the Arkansas Constitution. Id. Therefore, we hold that Act 595 requiring proof of identity is unconstitutional on its face and imposes a requirement that falls outside the ambit of article 3, section 1, of the Arkansas Constitution. We do not interpret Act 595’s proof-of-identity requirement as a procedural means of determining whether an Arkansas voter can “lawfully register[ ] to vote in the election.” Ark. Const. art. 3, § 1(4). Under those circumstances, Act 595 would erroneously necessitate every lawfully registered voter in Arkansas to requalify themselves in each election. See generally Ark. Const. amend. 51 (proposed by initiative petition, approved at the general election in 1964, and providing for an extensive voter-registration process whereby proof of identity is required). On this issue, Appellants cite numerous cases from other jurisdictions declaring a voter’s proof of identity simply as much-needed regulations to verify voter 15 Cite as 2014 Ark. 427 registration. See Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (plurality opinion); League of Women Voters of Indiana, Inc. v. Rokita, 929 N.E.2d 758 (Ind. 2010); Democratic Party of Ga., Inc. v. Perdue, 707 S.E.2d 67 (Ga. 2011); and City of Memphis v. Hargett, 414 S.W.3d 88 (Tenn. 2013). However, these cases are inapposite to the present case because those courts interpreted the United States Constitution or their respective states’ constitutions, and here, we address the present issue solely under the Arkansas Constitution. Because we affirm the circuit court’s ruling on Appellees’ facial challenge, we decline to address Appellants’ remaining arguments on the circuit court’s grant of Appellees’ motion for preliminary injunction, pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 65 (2014), and the circuit court’s denial of Martin’s objections that sovereign immunity precludes an entry of a preliminary injunction. Further, the circuit court did not rule on the impairment allegation in Appellees’ complaint, and as a result, we do not reach any as-applied constitutional arguments raised by the parties. Mandate to issue immediately. Affirmed. BAKER, GOODSON, and HART, JJ., concur.