RANDY ZOOK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ARKANSANS FOR A STRONG ECONOMY, A BALLOT COMMITTEE V. MARK MARTIN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS (Per Curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2018 Ark. 253 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-18-715 Opinion Delivered: September 6, 2018 RANDY ZOOK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ARKANSANS AN ORIGINAL ACTION: MOTION FOR A STRONG ECONOMY, A TO APPOINT SPECIAL MASTER, BALLOT QUESTION COMMITTEE PETITIONER EXPEDITE SCHEDULING, HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT, GRANT LEAVE TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS, V. AND SHORTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSE TIMES MARK MARTIN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF STATE OF THE STATE OF SPECIAL MASTER GRANTED; ARKANSAS RESPONDENT MOTION FOR EXPEDITED SCHEDULING ORDER GRANTED; MOTION TO INTERVENE KRISTIN FOSTER, INDIVIDUALLY GRANTED. AND ON BEHALF OF ARKANSANS FOR A FAIR WAGE INTERVENOR PER CURIAM Respondent, Mark Martin, Arkansas Secretary of State, certified a proposed initiated act with the popular name, “An Act to Increase the Arkansas Minimum Wage” to be placed on the November 6, 2018, general election ballot. On September 4, 2018, petitioner, Randy Zook, individually and on behalf of Arkansans for a Strong Economy, a ballot question committee, filed an original action in this court pursuant to article 5, section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution, as amended by amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution, challenging the proposed initiated act, and requests an order declaring the ballot measure legally insufficient. Petitioner also filed a motion for appointment of special master, for an expedited scheduling order, motion for oral argument, and for leave of court to take depositions and shorten discovery deadlines. Respondent filed a response to the originalaction petition as well as a response to the motion for appointment of special master, for an expedited scheduling order, motion for oral argument, and for leave of court to take depositions and shorten discovery deadlines. Petitioner seeks to enjoin respondent from placing the measure on the ballot. Specifically, petitioner asserts that the sponsor of the proposed initiated act failed to comply with mandatory provisions of Arkansas Code Annotated sections 7-9-601 et seq. (Repl. 2018). Kristin Foster, individually and on behalf of Arkansans For a Fair Wage, a ballot question committee and sponsor of the proposed initiated act, has filed a motion to intervene in this action. As an initial matter, we grant the motion to intervene. Further, this original action raises issues of fact. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6-5(c) (2017) provides that evidence on issues of fact will be taken by a special master to be appointed by this court. Therefore, we appoint the Honorable Sam Bird as special master and direct him to conduct such proceeding, and hearings subject to, and in accordance with, Rule 6-5(b) and Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 53 (2017), as are necessary to determine the questions of fact contained in the petition. We further direct the special master to file his report with this court by September 24, 2018. In the discharge of his duties, the special master has the authority to address the parties’ discovery motions. This court has routinely required parties to post a bond in 2 original actions brought under amendment 7 when a master is appointed. See Stephens v. Martin, 2014 Ark. 402 (per curiam). Respondent, as the State of Arkansas, is not subject to the payment of costs. See id. Petitioner and intervenor are both directed to file a bond to be approved by our clerk in the amount of $5,000 to secure payment for costs adjudged against them incurred in taking and transcribing proof, including the special master’s fee. We grant petitioner's motion for expedited consideration and we set the expedited briefing schedule as follows: Simultaneous briefs are due by 4:30 p.m. on October 1, 2018; simultaneous reply briefs are due by 4:30 p.m. on October 8, 2018. Motion for oral argument denied. It is so ordered. 3
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.
