Paul Schlaf and Scott Harford v. Frank Gilbert and Sharon Priest, Secretary of State

Paul SCHLAF and Scott Harford v. Sharon
PRIEST, Secretary of State, and Frank Gilbert

96-1037                                            ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered October 14, 1996


Elections -- supreme court concerned only with legal issues 
     pertaining to popular name and ballot title -- unnecessary to
     appoint special master or to order discovery. -- Where
     petitioners clearly stated in their earlier motion to expedite
     that they did not intend to offer proof on the factual
     allegations contained in their original petition challenging
     the sufficiency of Proposed Amendment 9, the supreme court
     would be concerned only with the legal issues pertaining to
     the popular name and ballot title, and it was unnecessary to
     appoint a special master or to order discovery in the case;
     the court denied petitioners' motions for judgment as a matter
     of law and to appoint a special master.


     Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law denied; Motion to
Appoint Special Master denied.
     Oscar Stilley, for petitioners.
     Kelly Law Firm, PLC, by: A.J. Kelly, for respondent Frank
Gilbert.

     Per Curiam.
     In this original action, Respondent Frank Gilbert has filed a
response to Petitioners' motion to expedite and has moved the Court
for judgment as a matter of law as to the factual allegations
contained in the original petition.  Mr. Gilbert moves in the
alternative for appointment of a special master pursuant to Ark.
Sup. Ct. R. Rule 6-5(b), and he asks the Court to compel the
Petitioners to respond to his requests for discovery.  
     Petitioners filed a motion to expedite on October 1, 1996.  We
granted the motion on October 7, 1996, relying on Petitioners'
statement that their challenge to the sufficiency of Proposed
Amendment 9 would concern only legal issues.  Petitioners clearly
stated in their motion that they did not intend to offer proof on
the factual allegations contained in their original petition; thus,
we will be concerned only with the legal issues pertaining to the
popular name and ballot title.  It is unnecessary to appoint a
special master or to order discovery in this case, and we deny the
motions.