Opinion ID: 6108240
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Claims Commission

Text: The State would avoid this conclusion. Citing article 5, section 20, the State argues that this provision affords the State sovereign immunity and that the General Assembly is incapable of waiving that immunity, though it concedes that there are scenarios in which immunity might not be applicable, such as when one seeks to enjoin the state from acting unlawfully or unconstitutionally. However, the State steadfastly maintains that there can be no legal action against the state that could in any way put the state's coffers at risk. Effectively, the State, with complete disdain for any of the rights guaranteed to the people by article 2, argues that when the actions of any of its departments or employees violate the rights of its citizens in a manner that causes those citizens  damages, those same citizens must bear the weight of those damages without any judicially enforceable recompense. If that result seems draconian (it inescapably is ), the majority in Andrews and the State in this case assert that so-deprived individuals have an adequate remedy with the Arkansas Claims Commission (the Claims Commission). The Claims Commission is a nonjudicial forum created by the General Assembly where the merits and value of any claim are within the discretion of governor-appointed and senate-confirmed commissioners. The State's argument here is entirely contradictory. It effectively amounts to the General Assembly cannot allow Arkansas citizens to go to court where they could potentially collect money for injuries suffered at the hands of the State, so instead, let us send them to General Assembly's commission where they could potentially collect money for injuries suffered at the hands of the State. Regardless of this argument's logical fallacy, sending these individuals to the Claims Commission does not solve the problem because this procedure unquestionably violates the rights guaranteed by the Arkansas Constitution, particularly the right to a jury trial guaranteed by article 2, section 7. This court has held that article 5, section 20 cannot supply a basis for infringing upon an individual's right to a jury trial absent a constitutional amendment specifically allowing such infringement, even if the individual could have taken his or her claim to the Claims Commission. Grimmett v. Digby , 267 Ark. 192 , 193-94, 589 S.W.2d 579 , 580-81 (1979) (rejecting attorney general's argument that article 5, section 20 dictated that Claims Commission had exclusive jurisdiction of plaintiff's tort claim to recover damages for vehicular accident caused by state trooper, as such a ruling would violate article 2, sections 7 and 13, absent a constitutional amendment so permitting). No such amendment exists in this case. Simply put, the very notion that the State would make this argument is contrary to any conception of a government instituted for [the people's] protection, security and benefit[.] Ark. Const. art. 2, § 1. In actuality, the legislature's establishment of the Claims Commission appears to be precisely what article 5, section 20 was intended to prohibit. Again, article 5 sets out the framework and procedures of the General Assembly, and it was implemented with the rest of the 1874 Constitution during a time when the State government was known for cronyism, fraud, and lack of accountability. These are the very same criticisms that have been levied against the Claims Commission, a legislatively created forum not subject to any form of judicial review. See, e.g. , Rodney A. Smolla, Politics and Due Process Don't Mix: Should the State Claims Commission be Abolished , 1986 Ark. L. Notes 43 , 49 (1986) (The Commission lacks the single most important component of the judicial function-indeed, the single most important component in the very notion of a tribunal able to dispense meaningful due process of law in an adjudicatory setting: independence.); Brief for Respondent at 5, Grimmett v. Digby , 267 Ark. 192 , 589 S.W.2d 579 (1979) (However, the State Claims commission for years has arbitrarily and as a matter of course always denied subrogation claims filed by insurance companies.); Jason Paul Bailey, Paying the Price for Injustice: The Case for Enacting a Wrongful Conviction Compensation Statute in Arkansas , 2015 Ark. L. Notes 1814 , n.32 (noting the harsh criticism met by the Claims Commission review committee's decision to reverse award in wrongful-imprisonment case, which characterized attorney general's arguments for reversal as unethical tactics to fight a  man who is merely seeking compensation for being wrongly convicted). One can always hope that the commissioners will pursue their responsibilities zealously and objectively, but the reality is that the Claims Commission acts as both judge and jury without any risk of actual independent judicial review.