Opinion
96-1077
Opinion delivered October 28, 1996
1. ELECTIONS — ORIGINAL ACTION — DISMISSED AS MOOT. — Where the supreme court had held that proposed Amendment 8 was improper, on other grounds, for inclusion on the general-election ballot, petitioners' original action challenging the sufficiency of the number of signatures needed to place the proposed amendment on the ballot was dismissed as moot. 2. ELECTIONS — ORIGINAL ACTION — MOTION TO DISQUALIFY — DISMISSED AS MOOT. — Where intervenor had moved to disqualify a law firm from its representation of petitioners on the ground of conflict of interests, that issue became moot as a result of the supreme court having previously declared proposed Amendment 8 improper for inclusion on the general-election ballot; the original action was dismissed.
Original Action Petition; dismissed.
Friday, Eldredge Clark, by: Elizabeth Robben Murray, for petitioners.
Ann Purvis and Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by: M. Wade Hodge, Asst. Att'y Gen., for respondent.
The Petitioners, Monty Scott, Bob Wheeler, Bill Goodwin, Eric Jackson, and Bill Walmsley, individually and on behalf of the Committee Against Amendment 8, brought this original action. They challenge the certification made by the Secretary of State with respect to the sufficiency of the number of signatures of registered voters needed to place proposed Amendment 8 to the Arkansas Constitution on the ballot in the coming general election. See Ark. Const. amend. 7.
We appointed the Honorable Jack Lessenberry as master to ascertain the facts in the dispute. Judge Lessenberry filed his report in a timely manner.
[1] We need consider the petition no further, as proposed amendment 8 was, on October 21, 1996, held by this Court to be improper, on other grounds, for inclusion on the ballot. Our opinion to that effect was rendered in response to an original action brought by these same Petitioners against the Secretary of State in case number 96-1078.
Diane Bray intervened in this action and moved to disqualify the Friday Law Firm from its representation of the Petitioners on the ground of conflict of interests. That issue has become moot as a result of our action in case number 96-1078.
Original action dismissed.
Special Justice JOHN C. LESSEL joins in this opinion.
DUDLEY, J., not participating.