{ "id": 3035891, "name": "Maxine BALL v. PHILLIPS COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION", "name_abbreviation": "Ball v. Phillips County Election Commission", "decision_date": "2006-01-12", "docket_number": "05-105", "first_page": "574", "last_page": "580", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "364 Ark. 574" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "222 S.W.3d 205" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "159 S.W.3d 285", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.3d", "case_ids": [ 5402257, 5400750 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/357/0020-01", "/ark/357/0036-01" ] }, { "cite": "357 Ark. 20", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 5402257 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/357/0020-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-13-201", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "b" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "344 Ark. 24", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 210125 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/344/0024-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 Ark. 388", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 3712437 ], "weight": 7, "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/359/0388-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 7-5-207", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "358 Ark. 339", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8452122 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/358/0339-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 565, "char_count": 10895, "ocr_confidence": 0.762, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.865423121185264e-07, "percentile": 0.7254341855451805 }, "sha256": "ed7740ddbb662d0751b117bb207983b334cc7cc01916338c0866a1faae5d9e9d", "simhash": "1:cf19f4015b83a4ae", "word_count": 1787 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:20:15.872106+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Maxine BALL v. PHILLIPS COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Betty C. Dickey, Justice.\nThis appeal arises from an order of the Phillips County Circuit Court, denying a petition, filed by appellant, for a writ of mandamus, declaratory judgment, and negative injunctive relief. Maxine Ball challenged the eligibility of one candidate, Bobby Jones, running for a position on the Board of Directors for the Helena-West Helena School District. Ball now asserts that the circuit court erred by: (1) denying her request for disqualification; (2) finding lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the cause below, and making the determination of substantive issues after determining that subject matter jurisdiction was absent; (3) not entering a judgment of default against appellee Bobby Jones; (4) determining that appellee Jones was a qualified candidate; (5) arbitrarily setting the cause below for trial in St. Francis County and finding Ball\u2019s attorney in contempt; and, (6) ordering a dismissal. Our jurisdiction over this election case is pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. l-2(a)(4). The appeal is moot and it is dismissed.\nThis is not the first time that a case involving appellant\u2019s challenge regarding the eligibility of Bobby Jones as a candidate has come before this court. Jones v. Phillips County Election Commission, 358 Ark. 339, 190 S.W.3d 273 (2004). In Jones, this court reviewed a decision by the Phillips County Circuit Court regarding Maxine Ball\u2019s challenge to Bobby Jones\u2019 eligibility for a seat on the Helena-West Helena School Board in the September 16, 2003, election. This court did not reach the merits of the name-removal issue because the case on appeal was summarily affirmed and dismissed for Jones\u2019 failure to comply with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2.\nThe following year the Helena-West Helena School Board election was scheduled for September 21, 2004. On September 13, 2004, eight days before the election was to be held, Ball filed a petition for a writ of mandamus/petition for declaratory judgment/petition for negative injunctive relief in Phillips County, asserting that Bobby Jones is a convicted felon and therefore an ineligible candidate under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 7-5-207(b) (Repl. 2000). Ball argued that, while Jones\u2019 previous felony convictions were \u201cexpunged\u201d and his record sealed by orders of the Phillips County Circuit Court, his civil rights could be restored through the expungement of a record but his political rights could not. Ball requested that an immediate hearing be held on the writ of mandamus within two to seven days. It should be noted that two of the eight days before the election fell on a weekend. Ball also filed a letter in the clerk\u2019s office addressed to Judge Harvey Yates and Judge L.T. Simes, II, requesting that they both recuse. The letter also informed the court that a procedural and statutory mandate required the case to be heard on or before September 20, 2004, the day before the election.\nJudge Simes did not recuse and on September 17, 2004, appellant filed a motion for reconsideration, a motion to disqualify, and a request for immediate hearing. Judge Simes\u2019 calendar included: criminal plea and arraignment in St. Francis County on September 13, 2004; two civil hearings and motions on September 14, 2004, in Phillips County; and, a hearing on September 16, 2004. Judge Simes was out of town on other court business on Friday, September 17, 2004. Monday, September 20, 2004, there was a previously scheduled jury trial in St. Francis County that was expected to last at least three days. The case coordinator filed a letter on September 20, 2004, at 10:15 a.m., notifying counsel of the jury trial in session in St. Francis County, and the difficulty of scheduling a hearing. However, the case coordinator also notified counsel regardingjudge Simes\u2019 intention to hold a hearing at 3:00 pm that afternoon in St. Francis County. Ball\u2019s attorney verbally expressed to the case coordinator his opposition regarding the hearing being held outside Phillips County and his concern that he could not be prepared on such short notice. A formal letter from the court giving counsel notice of the hearing was filed at 11:20 a.m. on September 20, 2004.\nAt the hearing in St. Francis County, on September 20, 2004, counsel for Bobby Jones, and the counsel for Joanne Smith, Maxine Miller, and Joe Flowe, or his successor, and Linda White, were present, along with the county and probate clerk. However, Ball\u2019s attorney did not attend the hearing, did not call the St. Francis County Circuit Clerk\u2019s office, and did not give the court any explanation for his non-attendance. During the hearing, Jones asked that the court dismiss the recusal motion. There were no objections and the trial judge, saying that there was no basis to disqualify himself, granted Jones\u2019 motion, and denied the motion for recusal. Jones also asked the court to dismiss the writ of mandamus petition, however the court considered the matter submitted for decision because there was not yet an explanation for the absence of Ball\u2019s attorney. On November 5, 2004, Judge Simes filed the order dismissing appellant\u2019s petition in its entirety.\nSimply stated, Ball\u2019s petition was untimely. The candidates\u2019 names were certified on or before August 6, 2004. Ball offers no compelling reason for waiting thirty-eight days to file her petition for writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment to remove Jones\u2019 name from the ballot. If Ball had filed her suit within this thirty-eight day period (or, including the eight days following the September 13, 2004, the forty-six day period), there would have been ample time in which to resolve all relevant issues raised by Ball prior to the September 21, 2004 election. Ball was well acquainted with the special procedure required to challenge Jones\u2019 alleged ineligibility due to his felony convictions, since she pursued such a suit against Jones in the 2003 school election. Ball\u2019s inability to have Jones\u2019 name removed from the ballot in the 2004 School District Election was due to her decision to wait until eight days before the election to file her petition; in addition, she was unsuccessful in obtaining an order preventing the Phillips County Election Commission from certifying the returns tallied in this race. In short, this election case is moot.\nAs a general rule, the appellate courts of this state will not review issues that are moot. Allison v. Lee County Election Commission et al., 359 Ark. 388, 198 S.W.3d 113 (2004). To do so would be to render advisory opinions, which we will not do. Id. Generally, a case becomes moot when any judgment rendered would have no practical legal effect upon a then-existing legal controversy. Id. We have recognized two exceptions to the mootness doctrine. Id. The first exception involves issues that are capable of repetition, but that evade review, and the second exception concerns issues that raise considerations of substantial public interest which, if addressed, would prevent future litigation. Id.\nThe issues raised by Ball are not considerations of substantial public interest which, if addressed, would prevent future litigation. See Allison, supra. While it is true that, in some election cases, we will consider the merits of an appeal after the election has been held, we usually do so when the public interest is involved. Appellant does not suggest that this case falls within that exception, and we are not persuaded that an exception should be made. Any review of this case would be untimely and constitute an advisory opinion. It is well established that this court will not render advisory opinions. Benton v. Bradley, 344 Ark. 24, 37 S.W.3d 640 (2001).\nWe are also aware of Ball\u2019s additional allegations and argument that the trial judge should have disqualified because of serious conflicts of interest. This argument was not raised in Ball\u2019s September 13, 2004, petition, although her counsel later raised the issue by a letter filed with the circuit court on Thursday, September 16, 2004 \u25a0 \u2014 \u25a0 only five days prior to the September 21, 2004 school election. The trial court did set a hearing for Monday, September 20, which complied with the seven-day deadline as required by Ark. R. Civ. P. 78(d).\nAs previously noted, all parti\u00e9s had been notified of the September 20 hearing; however, Ball\u2019s counsel was the only one not present. The trial court later learned that Ball\u2019s attorney had \u25a0filed a \u201cletter motion\u201d with the Phillips County Clerk\u2019s Office on September 20, 2004, again asking the trial judge to disqualify and stating his objections to the court holding a hearing in St. Francis County. As to the venue issue, Ball relied on Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-13-201 (b) (Supp. 2005), which in relevant part provides that \u201c[n]o contested case may be tried outside of the county or venue of case, except for an agreement of the parties interested.\u201d The trial judge\u2019s position was (and is on appeal) that Ball should have appeared at the September 20 hearing in St. Francis county where the judge would have had the opportunity to review the statutory law on venue, so he could properly rule on whether Ball\u2019s motions could be considered in St. Francis county or whether the law required the hearing to be removed to Phillips County.\nRegardless of what the answer might be to this venue issue, it remains true, as considered and fully discussed above, that Ball failed to pursue her petition for mandamus and declaratory judgment expeditiously in order to obtain the remedy to remove Jones\u2019 name from the ballot before the election or before the election results were certified. In other words, Ball\u2019s lawsuit became moot due to her own failure to act timely in the special proceeding.\nIrrespective of the court\u2019s rulings on the disqualification and venue issues, those matters would not have been reasons to delay the trial judge\u2019s consideration of Ball\u2019s paramount quest for a writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment, had Ball filed her motion timely. However, she failed to do so. Ball could not parlay her two subsequent motions into a basis for showing that the trial court erred in delaying its decision on the ultimate issue of removing Jones\u2019 name from the School District election ballot. The denial of neither Ball\u2019s motions for the judge to disqualify, nor her motion challenging venue, were final judgments or orders that can be appealed at this state of the mandamus/declaratory-judgment proceeding, because Ark. R. App. P. - Civ. 2 does not authorize such an interlocutory appeal. See Manila School District No. 15 v. Wagner, 357 Ark. 20, 159 S.W.3d 285 (2004). Ball\u2019s suit effectively ended when her petition was filed untimely, which made this matter moot.\nAppeal dismissed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Betty C. Dickey, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "J. L. Wilson, for appellant.", "L. Ashley Higgins, P.A., by: L. Ashley Higgins, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Maxine BALL v. PHILLIPS COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION\n05-105\n222 S.W.3d 205\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 12, 2006\nJ. L. Wilson, for appellant.\nL. Ashley Higgins, P.A., by: L. Ashley Higgins, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0574-01", "first_page_order": 600, "last_page_order": 606 }