Paul R. Parker v. Sharon Priest, in Her Official Capacity of Secretary of State of the State of Arkansas
Annotate this CasePaul R. PARKER v. Sharon PRIEST, In Her Official Capacity of Secretary of State of the State of Arkansas 96-1072 ___ S.W.2d ___ Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered October 21, 1996 Elections -- original action -- issues raised in petition rendered moot -- petition dismissed. -- Where the supreme court, in an opinion delivered the same day, granted a petition to enjoin the placement of Proposed Amendment 8 on the general-election ballot, the issues raised in petitioner's original-action petition were moot, and the petition was dismissed. Original Action Petition; dismissed. William Randal Wright, for petitioner. Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by: M. Wade Hodge, Asst. Att'y Gen., for respondent. Per Curiam. Petitioner Paul R. Parker filed his original action petition against respondent Sharon Priest in her capacity as Secretary of State. Petitioner sought an injunction from placing Proposed Amendment 8 to the Arkansas Constitution on the ballot for the November 5, 1996 General Election and from counting any ballots that might be cast prior to that injunction. Proposed Amendment 8 bears the popular name: AN AMENDMENT TO AUTHORIZE A STATE LOTTERY, CHARITABLE BINGO AND RAFFLES, AND CASINO GAMBLING AT CERTAIN APPROVED SITES AND UNDER CERTAIN APPROVED CONDITIONS; CREATING THE ARKANSAS LOTTERY AND CASINO GAMBLING COMMISSION TO REGULATE SUCH ACTIVITIES; AND EXEMPTING CERTAIN FOOD ITEMS FROM SALES TAX. Petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the popular name and ballot title on the basis of length, complexity, and misleading tendency due to serious omissions. Because we have delivered the opinion of this court in Scott v. Priest, 326 Ark. ___, ___ S.W.2d ___ (October 21, 1996) (No. 96-1078), granting the petition to enjoin the placement of Proposed Amendment 8 on the November 5, 1996 general election ballot, the issues raised in this petition are moot. The petition, therefore, is dismissed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.