Opinion ID: 2361341
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jacobs's Motion to Dismiss

Text: We first address Jacobs's motion to dismiss the appeals of Helton and the Election Commission. The motion is premised on Jacobs's conclusion that his June 15, 2000 petition was an election contest. Because we do not agree that Jacobs's petition was one contesting the election results between two candidates or that the circuit court's order resolved an election contest, we deny the motion. As an initial point, we again observe that Jacobs never disputed the eligibility or qualifications of Helton to stand as a candidate for Justice of the Peace, District 7. Jacobs's eligibility as a candidate, however, was challenged pre-election by Tyler, and the circuit court agreed that he was disqualified and ordered that any votes cast for him should not be certified. The procedure followed by Tyler for Jacobs's removal from the ballot was a petition for writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment, which is the procedure this court endorsed in State v. Craighead County Bd. of Election Comm'rs, 300 Ark. 405, 779 S.W.2d 169 (1989), for pre-election attacks on a candidate's eligibility to stand for election and for removal of that ineligible candidate's name from the ballot. See Ark.Code Ann. § 7-5-207(b) (Repl.2000). See also Tittle v. Woodruff, 322 Ark. 153, 907 S.W.2d 734 (1995). Upon removal, that person is no longer a candidate. An election contest, on the other hand, is a right of action conferred on any candidate to contest the certification of nomination or the certificate of vote as made by the appropriate officials in any election. Ark.Code Ann. § 7-5-801(a) (Repl.2000) (emphasis added). It is a post-election contest between two competing candidates. Jacobs v. Yates, 342 Ark. at 250, 27 S.W.3d at 738. See also Rubens v. Hodges, 310 Ark. 451, 837 S.W.2d 465 (1992); McClendon v. McKeown, 230 Ark. 521, 323 S.W.2d 542 (1959). What is undisputed in this case is that Jacobs was disqualified as a candidate before the election. Thus, he could not contest the election results as a candidate, as required by § 7-5-801(a). Because Jacobs's cause of action was not an election contest, the seven-day limit for a party to appeal an order set out in Ark.Code Ann. § 7-5-810 (Repl.2000), does not apply. We hold that Helton had thirty days to file his notice of appeal and that it was timely. See Ark. R.App. P.Civ. 4(a). Jacobs moves that the Election Commission has no right to pursue this appeal for different reasons. He asserts that the Election Commission, as a nominal party, has no standing to appeal and, further, that it failed to make financial arrangements with the court reporter to prepare the record. We address the financial arrangements point first. Both Helton and the Election Commission stated in their notices of appeal that no financial arrangements had been made with the court reporter yet, but that they both were willing to pay up to fifty percent of the transcript costs in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-510(c) (Repl.1999). Attached to Helton's response to the motion to dismiss was a copy of a letter dated January 5, 2001, from Helton's counsel to the court reporter ordering the record, along with a copy of a check for $100, as a deposit. Furthermore, we note that the record was timely filed by the appellants. Failure to include financial arrangements language in a notice of appeal no longer renders that notice invalid. In Re: Rule 3, Rules of Appellate Procedure Civil, 336 Ark. 645 (1999). Under these circumstances, we determine that there has been substantial compliance with Ark. R.App. P.Civ. 3(e). See Rogers v. Tudor Ins. Co., 325 Ark. 226, 925 S.W.2d 395 (1996). We hold that there is no basis for dismissing the Election Commission's appeal for lack of financial arrangements. With respect to the standing of the Election Commission to appeal, we hold that standing was indeed present. We said in Jacobs v. Yates, supra , that the Election Commission had standing to question the qualifications of candidates. Clearly, the issue of candidate qualifications falls within the Election Commission's duty to assure proper and lawful elections. The same holds true with regard to the Election Commission's duty to uphold a valid election. In Rubens v. Hodges, supra , this court distinguished the Election Commission's nominal role in an election contest between adversarial candidates and its role in an action seeking to void an election. In the latter case, we said the Election Commission's function is to promote fair elections. Rubens, 310 Ark. at 454, 837 S.W.2d at 467. See also Phillips v. Earngey, 321 Ark. 476, 902 S.W.2d 782 (1995). That function extends to appealing perceived error by a circuit court in voiding a valid election. As a final observation on this point, Jacobs urges that both Helton and the Election Commission admitted in their answers that the action brought by Jacobs was a civil action filed pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. §§ 7-5-801, et seq., which is the Election Contest Subchapter. We do not read the appellants' answers as waiving their rights to contend that this was not an election contest. Rather, we read their answers as admitting that that is how Jacobs had couched his petition. This argument has no merit. Accordingly, Jacobs's motion to dismiss is denied.