{ "id": 1885499, "name": "Robert Allen HENARD v. ST. FRANCIS ELECTION COMMITTEE, et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Henard v. St. Francis Election Committee", "decision_date": "1990-02-26", "docket_number": "89-289", "first_page": "459", "last_page": "464", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "301 Ark. 459" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "784 S.W.2d 598" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 3-8-205", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 3-9-201", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "217 Ark. 180", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8718303 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/217/0180-01" ] }, { "cite": "269 Ark. 517", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1712521 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "521", "parenthetical": "quoting Goggin v. Ratchford, 217 Ark. 180, 229 S.W.2d 130 (1950)" }, { "page": "675", "parenthetical": "quoting Goggin v. Ratchford, 217 Ark. 180, 229 S.W.2d 130 (1950)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/269/0517-01" ] }, { "cite": "41 Ark. 111", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1896221 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1883, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "126" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/41/0111-01" ] }, { "cite": "242 Ark. 907", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8724406 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "911" }, { "page": "309" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/242/0907-01" ] }, { "cite": "294 Ark. 160", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1895782 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/294/0160-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 S.W. 161", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "year": 1887, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "50 Ark. 266", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8721860 ], "year": 1887, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/50/0266-01" ] }, { "cite": "286 Ark. 474", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8722410 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "475-476" }, { "page": "379" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/286/0474-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-14-917", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(c)(1)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 Ark. 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1449863 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1941, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/202/0441-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 S.W.2d 26", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1937, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "30" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "194 Ark. 945", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8725585 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1937, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "952-53" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/194/0945-01" ] }, { "cite": "260 Ark. 609", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1616780 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/260/0609-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-14-915", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 537, "char_count": 7645, "ocr_confidence": 0.89, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.5557603230384493e-07, "percentile": 0.814865654329654 }, "sha256": "af888388af9a10639248244337348832819214341c542f75a4af8795027e7578", "simhash": "1:1c2f8e704b0a915e", "word_count": 1309 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:23:07.951222+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Glaze, J., concurs." ], "parties": [ "Robert Allen HENARD v. ST. FRANCIS ELECTION COMMITTEE, et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Otis H. Turner, Justice.\nThis is an appeal from a decision of the circuit court of St. Francis County dismissing appellants\u2019 challenge of a local option election in the town of Wheatley. Appellants raise five points for reversal, none of which we deem to have merit.\nThe local option alcohol issue was raised by a petition; a local minister, the Reverend Eugene Hoggatt, was instrumental in securing the necessary signatures. The matter was placed on the November 8, 1988, general election ballot in the town of Wheatley. The \u201cdrys\u201d prevailed by a vote of 118 to 55.\nAppellants first argue that the petition placing the issue on the ballot was not properly filed with the county clerk within a period \u201cnot less than sixty days prior to the election\u201d as required by Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-14-915(b) (1987), pursuant to Amendment 7 of the Arkansas Constitution.\nThough the clerk\u2019s filing mark did not appear on the petition, the clerk\u2019s testimony indicated that his office received the petition not less than 60 days prior to the election. The circuit court, as trier of the facts, made a determination that the filing was timely, and we will not disturb its finding on appeal. ARCP Rule 52(a).\nThe trial court\u2019s ruling is not in conflict with our decision in Glover v. Russell, 260 Ark. 609, 542 S.W.2d 751 (1976), where a chancellor\u2019s decision invalidating petitions filed 55 days before an election was upheld. In this regard, see also Phillips v. Rothrock, 194 Ark. 945, 110 S.W.2d 26 (1937). Further, we have held that though a filing mark is evidence of the filing of the document, the mark in and of itself is not an essential element of the act. Stanislaus v. Austin, 202 Ark. 441, 150 S.W.2d 610 (1941).\nAppellants argue for their second point the fact that the county clerk apparently failed to publish a notice of the election as required by Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-14-917(c)(1) (1987). That statute calls for notice to be given \u201cthrough publication by a two-time insertion, at not less than a seven-day interval, in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, or as provided by law.\u201d Further, the notice must state that the measure will be presented to voters at the next regular election \u201cand shall include the full text, the ballot title, and the official numeric designation of the measure.\u201d\nIn Phillips v. Rothrock, supra, this court noted the failure of the county clerk to publish \u201cthe notice required by law\u201d and there stressed the mandatory character of the enabling acts governing initiative and referendum. However, in the recent case of Wurst v. Lowery, 286 Ark. 474, 695 S.W.2d 378 (1985), we emphasized that the public interest dictates that election results should become final without delay and stated:\n[T]he failure to publish notice of an election is immaterial if the election is actually held and the electors have not been deprived of the opportunity to express themselves. \u2018 [T] he voice of the people is not to be rejected for a defect or want of notice, if they have in truth been called upon and spoken.\u2019 Wheat v.Smith, 50 Ark. 266, 7 S.W. 161 (1887). There is no indication that the voters in the three townships did not express themselves on the wet-dry issue in the 1980 general election.\n286 Ark. at 475-476, 695 S.W.2d at 379.\nAppellants\u2019 reliance in this regard on Garrett v. Andrews, 294 Ark. 160, 741 S.W.2d 257 (1987), is misplaced. The majority in Garrett referred to Wurst, supra, in a totally different context and said nothing to challenge the language quoted above.\nPoint three argued by appellants concerns the defects in the preparation, circulation, and filing of the petition and the placement of the issue on the ballot. This argument is without merit and is controlled by our holding in Phillips v. Rothrock, where we stated:\n[A] 11 provisions of the election law are mandatory if enforcement is sought before election in a direct proceeding for that purpose; but after election, all should be held directory only, in support of the result, unless of a character to effect an obstruction to the free and intelligent casting of the vote, or to the ascertainment of the result, or unless the provisions affect an essential element of the election, or unless it is expressly declared by the statute that the particular act is essential to the validity of an election, or that its omission shall render it void.\n194 Ark. at 952-53, 110 S.W.2d at 30.\nNone of the errors argued by appellants meet the exceptions of the above-quoted rule. As we observed in Jones v. Etheridge, 242 Ark. 907, 911, 416 S.W.2d 306, 309 (1967): \u201cAn election by the people should not be so lightly impugned by those who only hope to find enough information to change the result of an election.\u201d It must be demonstrated that the outcome would have been different but for the irregularities and such a showing has not been made by appellants.\nThe fourth issue for reversal actually consists of a list of minor irregularities ranging from the voting by non-residents of Wheatley, to the service as an election official of the Rev. Hoggatt, who assumed the duty upon the absence of another appointed official, to the late opening of the polling place. The trial court noted that when the 13 alleged illegal votes were subtracted from the result, there remained a two to one margin in favor of the \u201cdrys.\u201d With regard to the service of the Rev. Hoggatt, there was no showing that his presence at the polling place had any effect on any voter. Nor was there any showing that any voter was disfranchised by the late opening of the polling place.\nWe said long ago, in Patton v. Coates, 41 Ark. 111 (1883):\nThe wrong should appear to have been clear and flagrant; and in its nature, diffusive in its influences; calculated to effect more than can be traced; and sufficiently potent to render the results really uncertain. If it be such, it defeats a free election, and every honest voter and intimidated or deceived voter is aggrieved thereby. . . . If it be not so general and serious, the court cannot safely proceed beyond the exclusion of particular illegal votes, or the supply of particular legal votes rejected.\n41 Ark. at 126.\nThis court has said that while we do not condone disregard of the state\u2019s election laws, we are nevertheless reluctant to void an entire election on the basis of a slight deviation from the statutory requirements. \u201cThe failure to comply with the letter of the law by election officers, especially in matters over which the voter has no control, and in which no fraud is perpetrated, does not as a general rule render an election void, unless the statute expressly makes it so.\u201d Allen v. Rankin, 269 Ark. 517, 521, 602 S.W.2d 673, 675 (1980) (quoting Goggin v. Ratchford, 217 Ark. 180, 229 S.W.2d 130 (1950)). None of the improprieties alleged by appellants appear to have affected the outcome of this election.\nLastly, appellants make a vague assertion that the Arkansas local option election laws amount to a denial of equal protection guaranteed by the Arkansas and U.S. Constitutions in that the private clubs and restaurant provisions of Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 3-9-201 (1987) and Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 3-8-205 (1987), dealing with the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, somehow discriminate in favor of tourists and visitors. No authority is cited for this proposition, and we find the contention to be without merit.\nAffirmed.\nGlaze, J., concurs.", "type": "majority", "author": "Otis H. Turner, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Lonnie Paul Gehring, for appellants.", "Butler, Hicky & Long, by: Fletcher Long, Jr., for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Robert Allen HENARD v. ST. FRANCIS ELECTION COMMITTEE, et al.\n89-289\n784 S.W.2d 598\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 26, 1990\nLonnie Paul Gehring, for appellants.\nButler, Hicky & Long, by: Fletcher Long, Jr., for appellees." }, "file_name": "0459-01", "first_page_order": 491, "last_page_order": 496 }