Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Ward v. Priest

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided October 24, 2002No. 02-954Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJim Hannah, Justice

stice, majority that this court has jurisdiction. Further, nobody agrees more than I do with the concern expressed in the dissents about last minute ballot challenges. Those opposed to proposed amendments have developed the disagreeable practice of challenging the ballot title and popular name so late in the election cycle that if they prevail, there is no time to remedy any problems. In this way, they thwart the whole purpose of Amendment 7 and force this court to decide the matter on the eve of the election. Those who have invested time and money in getting amendments on the ballot…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Plugge Ex Rel. Arkansas for Representative Democracy v. McCuenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1992
  2. Westbrook v. McDonaldSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
  3. McKenzie v. BurrisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1973
  4. Daniel v. JonesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1998
  5. Harris v. City of Little RockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2001

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API