Todd v. Martin (Majority)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Cite as 2012 Ark. 367 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 12-713 NANCY TODD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NANCY TODD S POKER PALACE AND ENTERTAINMENT VENUES, LLC PETITIONERS V. MARK MARTIN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT Opinion Delivered October 4, 2012 PETITION FOR REVIEW OF SECRETARY OF STATE S SUFFICIENCY DETERMINATION PETITION MOOT. V. CHUCK LANGE INTERVENOR DONALD L. CORBIN, Associate Justice Petitioners Nancy Todd, Individually and as Nancy Todd s Poker Palace and Entertainment Venues, LLC, petition this court for review of a determination by Respondent Mark Martin, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State of the State of Arkansas, that a proposed ballot title that would allow casino gaming in certain Arkansas counties was insufficient. This court allowed Chuck Lange, a registered voter who challenged the sufficiency of the ballot title, to intervene. This action was initially filed as an original action, pursuant to amendment 7 of the Arkansas Constitution wherein Todd petitioned this court for issuance of a writ of mandamus, as well as a review, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9503 (Repl. 2011), of Martin s determination that the submitted ballot title was insufficient. Cite as 2012 Ark. 367 The request for mandamus was rendered moot when Martin certified the ballot title to the county board of election commissioners. Thus, our jurisdiction to proceed is pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-505 (Repl. 2011), which allows this court to review sufficiency determinations by the Secretary of State. Because of today s opinion in Walmsley v. Martin, 2012 Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___, however, it is not necessary for us to review the sufficiency question as it is now moot. Petition moot. Williams & Anderson PLC, by: Peter G. Kumpe and Jess L. Askew III, for petitioners. The Asa Hutchinson Law Group, PLC, by: Asa Hutchinson, for respondent. Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP, by: Stephen R. Lancaster, Justin T. Allen, and Jane A. Kim, for intervenor. 2

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.