Opinion ID: 6109822
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Preliminary Injunction: Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Text: Appellants Martin and the Commissioners argue that appellee failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits because Act 633 comports with Amendment 51's requirements for amendment by the General Assembly. We begin by noting that an act of the legislature is presumed constitutional and should be so resolved unless it is clearly incompatible with the constitution, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of constitutionality. See Walden v. Hart , 243 Ark. 650 , 652, 420 S.W.2d 868 , 870 (1967) ; Cent. Oklahoma Pipeline, Inc. v. Hawk Field Servs., LLC , 2012 Ark. 157 , at 9-10, 400 S.W.3d 701 , 707-08 (An act should be struck down only when there is a clear incompatibility between the act and the constitution.). Furthermore, public policy is for the General Assembly to establish, not the courts. McCutchen v. City of Fort Smith , 2012 Ark. 452 , at 15, 425 S.W.3d 671 , 681. We are, of course, not concerned with the wisdom or policy of the legislation, as this is a question solely for the General Assembly. We may consider only the power of the General Assembly to enact the legislation. Adams v. Whittaker , 210 Ark. 298 , 300, 195 S.W.2d 634 , 635 (1946). Regarding the General Assembly's power to amend Amendment 51, section 19 of the amendment provides as follows: § 19. Amendment. The General Assembly may, in the same manner as required for amendment of laws initiated by the people, amend Sections 5 through 15 of this amendment, so long as such amendments are germane to this amendment, and consistent with its policy and purposes.  The express policy of Amendment 51 is set out as follows: § 1. Statement of policy. The purpose of this amendment is to establish a system of permanent personal registration as a means of determining that all who cast ballots in general, special and primary elections, in this State are legally qualified to vote in such elections, in accordance with the Constitution of Arkansas and the Constitution of the United States. Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution, codified at article 5, section 1, provides that laws initiated by the people may be amended through a two-thirds vote of both houses of the General Assembly. It is undisputed that Act 633 received the required two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives and the Senate. At issue then is whether Act 633 is germane to Amendment 51 and consistent with its policy and purposes. Some background is necessary. Amendment 51 was proposed by initiative petition and approved at the general election in 1964. Its short title is Arkansas Amendment for Voter Registration without Poll Tax Payment. Ark. Const. amend. 51, § 20. Amendment 51 abolished the poll tax, and it provides a comprehensive regulatory scheme governing the registration of voters. Martin v. Kohls , 2014 Ark. 427 , at 17, 444 S.W.3d at 854 (Goodson, J., concurring). Here, the circuit court found that the provisions of Act 633 are not germane to Amendment 51 and are not consistent with Amendment 51's purpose and policy. The circuit court thoroughly set out and analyzed the voter registration process, and it found that Act 633 imposes requirements that are not related to the system of voter registration in Amendment 51. The circuit court found that providing photo identification does not constitute a verification of voter registration, as it is the county clerk who verifies voter registration. According to the evidence at the hearing, prior to Act 633, poll workers verified a voter's registration by asking his name, date of birth, and address, and then confirming that information with the information in the poll book. The county clerk's poll book consists of only verified, legally registered voters. In the circuit court's view, [n]othing in the requirement to produce a compliant photo identification or to complete a sworn statement each time one votes involves the actual process of registering to vote. Appellants contend that this reading of Amendment 51 as only encompassing voter registration, and nothing else, is too narrow. For the reasons that follow, we agree. First, we must determine whether Act 633 is germane to Amendment 51. Germane means [r]elevant; pertinent, Black's Law Dictionary 802 (10th ed. 2014), or having a close relationship. Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged 951 (1993). In essence, whether an amendment is relevant, pertinent, or bears a close relationship to Amendment 51 turns on the subject matter and scope of Amendment 51. In our view, providing a system of verifying that a person attempting to cast a ballot is registered to vote is relevant and pertinent, or has a close relationship, to an amendment establishing a system of voter registration. We hold that verifying voter registration as set out in Act 633 is germane to Amendment 51. Next, this court must decide whether Act 633 is consistent with the policy and purpose of Amendment 51. Amendment 51's stated purpose is to establish a system of permanent personal registration as a means of determining that all who cast ballots in ... elections ... are legally qualified to vote in such  elections. Appellants argue that verifying voter registration is a way of determining that all who seek to vote are legally qualified to do so, which is the ultimate aim of the voter-registration system. Appellee, on the other hand, emphasizes the purpose of establishing a system of permanent personal registration, and argues that the language as a means of determining that all who cast ballots in general, special and primary elections in this State are legally qualified to vote in such elections modifies the requirement of establish[ing] a system of permanent personal registration. Thus, in appellee's view, registration is the method of ensuring that all voters are qualified. This argument might be persuasive if we were viewing section 1 of Amendment 51 in isolation. However, we must look to Amendment 51 as a whole to determine its policy and purpose. Gatzke v. Weiss , 375 Ark. 207 , 211, 289 S.W.3d 455 , 458 (2008) (The Arkansas Constitution must be considered as whole, and every provision must be read in light of other provisions relating to the same subject matter.). Additionally, section 3 of Amendment 51 provides: No person shall vote or be permitted to vote in any election unless registered in a manner provided for by this amendment. Thus, the amendment itself contemplates some enforcement mechanism, and Act 633 provides a method of ensuring that no person is permitted to vote who is not registered. Providing a method of enforcement-verification of voter identity by photo identification or by affirmation-is consistent with the policy and purpose of Amendment 51. According to appellee, Act 633 is an attempt to re-write and enlarge the scope of Amendment 51 beyond voter registration to include day-of and post-voting qualification of registered voters. Appellee advances several arguments in favor of this position. For instance, registration ceases thirty days before each election, so according to the appellee and the circuit court, the voter registration process is complete long before the voter appears at a voting location or casts his ballot. In addition, appellee argues that Act 633's ongoing requirement that voters present compliant identification at the time of voting runs contrary to the intent of Amendment 51 that the system of voter registration be permanent. In appellee's view, it is impermissible for Act 633 to require voters to resurrect the completed registration process and re-qualify as a voter each time she votes, as long as she lives. However, none of appellee's arguments are persuasive if one accepts the broader view of Amendment 51's purpose-to ensure that all who cast ballots in elections are legally qualified to vote. Here, we consider only the General Assembly's power to enact Act 633. We cannot say that Act 633's constitutional amendment is clearly not germane to Amendment 51 and not consistent with its policy and purpose. It is therefore constitutional. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court's preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Because we hold that appellee has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, it is unnecessary to address the arguments regarding irreparable harm. See Manila Sch. Dist. No. 15 v. Wagner , 356 Ark. 149 , 156, 148 S.W.3d 244 , 248 (2004) (citing cases). Likewise, it is unnecessary to address the remaining points on appeal because Act 633 is a valid constitutional amendment. 6  The time for issuance of the mandate is shortened to seven days, and we direct that any petition for rehearing be filed within seven days from the date that this opinion is issued. Reversed and remanded. Kemp, C.J., and Hart, J., dissent. I do not agree that Act 633 is germane to amendment 51. Section 1 of amendment 51 clearly states that [t]he purpose of this amendment is to establish a system of permanent personal registration as a means of determining that all who cast ballots in general, special and primary elections in this State are legally qualified to vote in such elections, in accordance with the Constitution of Arkansas and the Constitution of the United States. Further, section 3 of amendment 51 states, No person shall vote or be permitted to vote in any election unless registered in a manner provided for by this amendment. I can draw no other conclusion that while the desire to ensure that only qualified electors cast ballots was the impetus for the amendment, its only stated mechanism for achieving this worthy goal was creating a system of registration. Requiring a voter to show a photo identification card at a polling place is simply not part of the voter registration process. Accordingly, the circuit court did not clearly err when it so reasoned. Like the circuit court, I find it telling that an individual registering to vote is not required to provide photo identification. Certainly the legislature could have required the presentation of a photo identification card when a person registers to vote. That would clearly be germane to the purposes of amendment 51. If providing photo identification were required at registration, requiring presentation of the card at the polling place would be more defensible. Asking for a photo identification card at the polling place strikes me as locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen. Finally, the secretary of state's argument that sections 1 and 3 of amendment 51imply that an enforcement mechanism is germane to the purposes of the amendment is a leap that I cannot make. No one has suggested that an enforcement mechanism can be found anywhere in the text of amendment 51. Accordingly, if it is implied, then support for that proposition must exist in the amendment 51 penumbra. Resorting to penumbras when the text of the constitution is silent on the subject is the kind of judicial activism that I have always opposed. The end never justifies the means. I dissent. Kemp, C.J., joins.