Court Opinion

ID: 9759620
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:22:08.725779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:03.420117
License: Public Domain

Tom Glaze, Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur in part and dissent in part. My disagreement with the majority court has nothing to do with its holding on the merits. In fact, I totally agree with its decision as it pertains to the merits, but disagree that this court procedurally reached the merits. This lawsuit is a declaratory judgment action and, as such, requires that a present actual controversy must exist. In stating this well-recognized principle, this court stated the following: The Declaratory Judgment Statute is applicable only where there is a present actual controversy, and all interested persons are made parties, and only where justiciable issues are presented. It does not undertake to decide the legal effect of laws upon a state of facts which is future, contingent or uncertain. A declaratory judgment will not be granted unless the danger or dilemma of the plaintiff is present, not contingent on the happening of hypothetical future events; the prejudice to his position must be actual and genuine and not merely possible, speculative, contingent, or remote. (Emphasis added.) Andres v. First Ark. Development Finance Corp., 230 Ark. 594, 324 S.W.2d 97 (1959); see also Files v. Hill, 268 Ark. 106, 594 S.W.2d 836 (1980); McFarlin v. Kelly, 246 Ark. 1237, 442 S.W.2d 183 (1969). Justice John A. Fogelman stated the following reasons for the foregoing rule in a concurring opinion where he said: The declaratory judgment act is not intended to be the vehicle for advisory opinions to persons not having a justiciable controversy with their apparent adversaries by a court having no jurisdiction. It is far better, in my opinion, that important questions, particularly constitutional ones, be pounded out on the anvil of advocacy by persons whose interests are vitally real, not academic, with all interested parties before the court. Block v. Allen, 241 Ark. 970, 980, 411 S.W.2d 21, 27 (1967). Let me first point out the obvious — Governor Bill Clinton is not a party to this declaratory judgment action. Second, nowhere in the record before this court is it shown that the Governor has resigned or that he intends to resign his office. In an attempt to circumvent this obvious procedural defect in parties and the record, the parties appear to rely upon the Democratic Party of Arkansas’s brief wherein it argues as follows: The fact that Governor Clinton’s exact resignation date may not be known is not a bar to determining the succession issue. Governor Clinton cannot serve both as Governor and President. Article 6, Section 11 of the Arkansas Constitution provides that no “person holding office under the authority of this State, or of the United States, shall exercise the office of Governor, except as herein provided.” Governor Clinton’s resignation now that he has been elected President cannot be doubted. Governor Clinton will resign no later than January 20,1993, in order to assume the Presidency. Thus, it is assured that there will be a vacancy in the Governor’s office no later than 58 days after November 23rd. The resulting vacancy in the office of Governor is hardly the hypothetical fact situation feared by the courts. The parties to this lawsuit cannot stipulate or assume how a person not a party or witness in this case might act in the future; namely, that Governor Clinton will vacate the Governor’s office. The majority court is wrong in allowing the parties to make such a stipulation, especially when this factual issue could have been resolved by having made the Governor a party to this action and his resignation could then have been easily confirmed. Nor was the Governor deposed or called as a witness so the resignation issue could be put to rest. Clearly, Governor Clinton has an interest in this cause since this case affects not only his duties and responsibilities as governor, but also involves the emoluments he receives from that office. Until the Governor resigns, the succession issue presented in this cause remains purely hypothetical and contingent upon his vacating the office of Governor. In an obvious attempt to avoid the Governor’s absence in this lawsuit and to cure a record failing to reflect the Governor’s resignation, the Democratic Party cites Article 6, Section 11 of the Arkansas Constitution which is captioned “Incompatible Offices” and provides, “No member of Congress, or other person holding office under the authority of this State, or of the United States, shall exercise the office of Governor, except as herein provided.” In citing this constitutional language, the Party concludes the Governor’s resignation now that he has been elected President cannot be doubted. Of course, this is an assumption or conclusion the parties to this action are unable to make. Clearly, the above constitutional language does not mean Governor Clinton automatically resigns or vacates his office upon being sworn in as President. In addition, such dual officeholder issues are decided in quo warranto or ouster, not declaratory judgment, proceedings. My natural inclination is much like the majority court’s and the parties in this case — that (1) the Governor likely will resign sometime prior to January 20,1993, (2) a vacancy will then exist and (3) the succession problem will be a reality.' However, to indulge in this assumption on the actual facts of this case is to ignore an entire body of law that provides this court only grants declaratory judgment relief when a present actual controversy exists and all interested persons ar made parties. This court’s apparent willingness to address the hypothetical facts present here breaks with clear, prior precedent and, in my view, will permit parties henceforth to stipulate to future facts and events in order to obtain declaratory relief and advisory opinions. This court, instead, should require the presence of Governor Clinton in this lawsuit either as a party or a witness, so a finding as to his resignation from or vacating of office can be established. Only then will an actual controversy exist, allowing this court to decide the succession issue. One last point — the Democratic Party, recognizing justiciability as a problem, asserts this court nevertheless can declare the law concerning the Governor-succession issue because this is a case of extreme public importance. In support of this assertion, it cites Robinson v. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, 263 Ark. 462, 565 S.W.2d 433 (1978); Moorman v. Taylor, 227 Ark. 180, 297 S.W.2d 103 (1957); and Rockefeller v. Purcell, 245 Ark. 536, 434 S.W.2d 72 (1968). Suffice it to say, each of these cases, unlike the present case, once involved a justiciable controversy, but the actual controversy later became moot for one reason or another. Here, as already discussed, an actual controversy is yet to occur. The cases cited are simply not on point. For the reasons above, I would reverse. Corbin, J., joins.