IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS DRIVING ARKANSAS FORWARD LESLIE RUTLEDGE, ATTORNEY GENERAL
|
|
- Marlene George
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS DRIVING ARKANSAS FORWARD ELECTRONICALLY FILED Arkansas Supreme Court Stacey Pectol, Clerk of the Courts 2018-Apr-20 11:26:50 CV Pages PETITIONER v. CASE NO. CV LESLIE RUTLEDGE, ATTORNEY GENERAL RESPONDENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONER S REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS Driving Arkansas Forward (DAF) seeks review by this Court of its proposed constitutional amendment and requests a preliminary injunction, or alternatively, a writ of mandamus, against the Attorney General s rejection of the same. This Court should deny DAF s petition because (1) the Attorney General performed her duties under Ark. Code Ann , and DAF is not aggrieved by the Attorney General s rejection of DAF s ballot proposal; (2) DAF does not seek proper relief under that statute because DAF may not compel or control the Attorney General s discretionary review of DAF s ballot submittal by mandamus or injunctive relief; and (3) on the merits of DAF s petition, the Attorney General properly rejected DAF s ballot proposal as misleading. A. DAF s petition fails under Ark. Code Ann (d) to meet the threshold requirements for review by this Court. This Court should reject DAF s petition without reaching the merits because a ballot petition sponsor may only seek review from this Court where the Attorney General has refused to act on a ballot submittal, or where the petitioner is 1
2 aggrieved by the Attorney General s response. Ark. Code Ann (d). DAF fails to satisfy either of these conditions. First, the Attorney General has not refused to act on DAF s ballot submittal. Before any initiative and referendum petition ordering a vote upon any amendment or act may be circulated for signatures, the sponsor must submit a proposed ballot title and popular name to the Attorney General. Ark. Code Ann (a). Within ten days, the Attorney General must (1) approve and certify the ballot title and popular name; (2) substitute and certify a more suitable and correct ballot title and popular name; or (3) reject the entire ballot title, popular name, and petition and state his or her reasons therefore and instruct the petitioners to redesign the proposed measure and the ballot title and popular name in a manner that would not be misleading. Ark. Code Ann (b)-(c). Here, the Attorney General acted under Ark. Code Ann (c) by timely and properly rejecting DAF s ballot title because it did not fairly and correctly summarize the text of the measure itself where the measure s text contained several ambiguities. (Petition, p ) DAF concedes the Attorney General acted within the requirements of the statute when she found that DAF s ballot title was misleading. (Petition, 11.) Second, DAF is not aggrieved by the Attorney General s acts in such circumstances. As set forth below, the Attorney General s decision to reject DAF s ballot submittal was correct as a matter of law. Furthermore, the Attorney 2
3 General has not acted in any way that denies DAF any legal right. DAF has submitted a series of four ballot proposals, and in each instance the Attorney General reviewed the proposal and, in her discretion as authorized by statute, rejected the proposal, stated her reasons therefor, and instructed DAF to redesign the proposal in a manner that would not be misleading. (See Petition, p. 152.) DAF is free to redesign and resubmit its proposal in a manner that would not be misleading, but instead of doing so, it now seeks to circumvent the statutory process by petitioning this Court for improper relief. B. DAF s petition does not seek proper relief as required by Ark. Code Ann (d). DAF s petition seeks two types of relief in the alternative: (1) a writ of mandamus; or (2) a preliminary injunction. Neither of these is proper relief under the law. First, DAF would be entitled to a writ of mandamus only if it can show the Attorney General failed to perform a purely ministerial act required by Ark. Code Ann Clowers v. Lassiter, 363 Ark. 241, (2005). DAF is not entitled to a writ of mandamus where, as here, the Attorney General has complied with her duties under the statute by reviewing and informing DAF that its ballot measure is not eligible for certification. Arkansas Code Annotated requires nothing more of the Attorney General. Mandamus may not be sought for the purpose of controlling the discretionary acts of a state official. Russell v. Pope, 2015 Ark. 199, 2, 461 S.W.3d 681, 682; Robinson v. Craighead 3
4 County Bd. of Election Com'rs, 300 Ark. 405, 779 S.W.2d 169 (1989). DAF argues that the Attorney General exceeded her discretion in determining that the ballot measure was misleading. (Petition, 21.) By the plain text of Ark. Code Ann (c), the Attorney General s review of ballot proposals is unquestionably a discretionary process. The statute, however, places no boundaries on that discretion other than three possible dispositions, as described below, and two potential determinations by which the Attorney General may reject a ballot proposal. DAF may not, through a petition for writ of mandamus, control how the Attorney General exercises her discretion. While DAF has a right to submit a ballot petition and to have it reviewed and acted upon, it does not have a right to force a particular outcome of the Attorney General s review and disposition of the petition. See Russell v. Pope, supra. Because analyzing the validity of submitted ballot measures is a discretionary process and not a ministerial function, a petition for writ of mandamus compelling a specific result, i.e. certification or substitution, is not an application to this Court for proper relief as required by (d). Neither is injunctive relief against the Attorney General proper in this case. A state official may be enjoined from an act that is ultra vires, illegal, unconstitutional, or otherwise outside the official s authority. Ark. Dep t of Envtl. Quality v. Oil Producers of Ark., 2009 Ark. 297, 318 S.W.3d 570. A petitioner, 4
5 however, may not obtain injunctive relief against the lawful acts of a state official. Ark. Lottery Com n v. Alpha Mktng., 2013 Ark. 232, 428 S.W.3d 415. Arkansas Code Annotated (c) provides two grounds upon which the Attorney General is authorized to reject a ballot title without providing a substitution. Couch v. Rutledge, CV If, as a result of her review of the ballot title of a proposed constitutional amendment, the Attorney General determines that the ballot title, or the nature of the issue, is (1) presented in such manner that the ballot title would be misleading, or (2) designed in such manner that a vote FOR the issue would be a vote against the matter or viewpoint that the voter believes himself or herself casting a vote for, or, conversely, that a vote AGAINST an issue would be a vote for a viewpoint that the voter is against, the Attorney General may reject the entire ballot title, popular name, and petition and state his or her reasons therefor and instruct the petitioners to redesign the ballot title in a manner that would not be misleading. Ark. Code Ann (c). The Attorney General rejected DAF s ballot title because she determined, in her discretion, that the ballot title was misleading. Thus, the Attorney General lawfully rejected DAF s ballot title, and DAF s petition for a preliminary injunction is not an application to this Court for proper relief under (d). 5
6 C. DAF erroneously interprets Ark. Code Ann DAF argues the Attorney General exceeded her authority under Ark. Code Ann (c), and mistakenly asserts the Attorney General is required by statute to either approve and certify the ballot title submitted or to substitute and certify a more suitable and correct ballot title. (Petition, 26.) That assertion is without merit from a plain reading of the text of the statute. The three options for disposition after review are approval and certification, (b), substitution and certification, id., or rejection, (c). This Court has recently considered and rejected the same argument. Couch v. Rutledge, CV In Couch v. Rutledge, the petitioner argued he was entitled to either approval of his submitted ballot title or a substituted ballot title. Like DAF here, Couch sought an expedited preliminary injunction, asserting that Ark. Code Ann required the Attorney General to certify a substituted ballot title after his petition had been rejected. This Court denied Couch s motion for injunctive relief and dismissed his petition. The Court should reach the same result here. DAF claims, The purported reasons for the Attorney General s April 16, 2018 rejection of the Fourth Submission are incorrect; exceed the discretion provided to her under Ark. Code Ann (c); and unconstitutionally restrict, hamper, and impair the exercise of the rights reserved to the people under Article 5, section 1, of the Arkansas Constitution. (Petition, 19.) In Washburn v. Hall, 6
7 225 Ark. 868 (1956), this Court upheld the constitutionality of the Attorney General s review of ballot measures. To the extent DAF argues this Court should overrule Washburn, and assuming, arguendo, that the Attorney General s discretionary rejection of DAF s ballot title indeed violates Article 5, 1 of the Arkansas Constitution, then the only conclusion this Court may reach is that Ark. Code Ann must be struck in its entirety as unconstitutional. That conclusion would compel this Court to dismiss DAF s petition. D. The Attorney General properly rejected DAF s ballot title because it is misleading in several respects. If the Court reaches the petition s merits, it should conclude that the ballot title was properly rejected under (c) as misleading. This Court has held that ballot titles must adequately inform the voter of how the ballot proposal will change current law. Bradley v. Hall, 220 Ark. 925, 927, 251 S.W.2d 470, 471 (1952). The ballot title must include an impartial summary of the proposed amendment or act that gives the voter a fair understanding of the issues presented. Lange v. Martin, 500 S.W.3d 154, 157 (Ark. 2016), reh'g denied (Oct. 27, 2016); Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. 219, 226, 604 S.W.2d 555, 558 (1980). The ballot title must be intelligible, honest, and impartial. Ward v. Priest, 350 Ark. 345, 86 S.W.3d 884 (2002). Essential fact information omitted from the ballot title which would give the voter serious ground for reflection must be disclosed. Id. Furthermore, a ballot title cannot be approved if the text of the proposed measure 7
8 itself contributes to confusion and disconnect between the language in the popular name and the ballot title and the language in the measure. Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 825, 20 S.W.3d 376, 382 (2000). A careful comparison of DAF s proposed ballot text to the text of its proposed amendment reveals several inconsistencies that could lead to voter confusion. First, the ballot title and popular name represent that casinos will be located at Southland and Oaklawn. (Petition, p. 5.) There can be no certainty of this, however, because the proposed amendment explains that Southland and Oaklawn will be granted only an opportunity to operate casinos at specific locations. (Petition, p. 5.) There is no requirement that these two entities open and operate casinos. The popular name and ballot title leave voters with the impression that a vote for the measure will automatically create casinos at Southland and Oaklawn, though the amendment s text sets out that this is merely a possibility. These ambiguities between the ballot title and text do not give voters an honest and accurate picture of the proposed change in the law, and so the Attorney General correctly determined that the ballot title was misleading. This ambiguity alone is sufficient reason to reject DAF s petition. See Lange v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 337 (opining that the court need not reach the remaining grounds for determining sufficiency of a ballot title, where it found that the ballot title was insufficient on the first point). 8
9 Second, DAF s ballot title does not enable the voter to reach an intelligent and informed decision concerning whether Southland and Oaklawn are constitutionally mandated to operate horse and greyhound racing in perpetuity, whether or not those entities wish to continue operating. Specifically, the language continue to conduct and for so long as authorized appears to constitutionally mandate that private companies continue to operate, notwithstanding market conditions or other legitimate business concerns. The purpose and effect of this requirement are entirely unclear. The ballot title, therefore, does not give the voters a fair understanding of the scope and significance of the proposed change in law. The ballot title provides, Southland and Oaklawn shall continue to conduct horse racing or greyhound racing, as the case may be, from their facilities for so long as authorized under Arkansas law, and the Commission shall impose penalties on Southland or Oaklawn if either violates this provision. However, the measure contains no definition of allowable penalties and fails to give clear guidance to the Commission for adoption of rules on enforcement of this provision. It is further unclear whether penalties are imposed for declining to operate a private business or for operating a business without authorization under Arkansas law. To that end, voters cannot cast their ballots with a fair understanding of the issue presented. Third, the ballot initiative contains ambiguities about the types of licenses available for casino operations. Subsections 4(a) and 4(b) are confusing because 9
10 they imply that the Racing Commission will administer two different licenses for casino operations one for facilities and one for operations. The apparent distinction between a license for a casino facility and for operating a casino is significant. Under subsection 4(t), [n]o individual, corporation, partnership, association, trust, or other entity may hold more than one casino license [to operate] in Arkansas. There is no similar limitation, however, on a license for a casino facility. This ambiguity suggests that someone holding a license to operate a casino is not prevented from obtaining more than one license for a casino facility. Thus, the ballot measure is misleading. Fourth, the ballot title is silent concerning compensation to casino licensees, and the details of compensation in the proposed amendment s text are ambiguous. Subsection 4(u) states that [t]he casino licensee may receive compensation for providing the goods and services allowed by this Amendment. That a casino licensee may receive compensation is ambiguous. It is unclear whether a licensee has the discretion on its compensation, whether the Commission will have the authority to approve the compensation, or something else entirely. Further, it is unclear whether the services for which a licensee may receive compensation are related to casino gaming and it is also unclear as to what goods a casino licensee would provide. Moreover, the ballot proposal does not clearly indicate whether the licensee must itself operate the facility, or whether the casino license is 10
11 transferable and its operational responsibilities assignable. These are important matters pertaining to the compensation provision. Finally, the measure does not specify the source of compensation. Voters may assume that compensation is paid out of gross receipts, but the measure does not make clear this intent. DAF s proposal establishes an entire new industry in Arkansas. Considering the significance of compensation, voters should be fully apprised of the meaning and effect of this provision, which is not addressed or summarized in the ballot title. In Lange v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 337, this Court held that the impact of omitted language in a ballot title is whether knowledge of that language would give voters a serious basis for reflection on how to cast their ballots. The omission of a material issue is sufficient basis to strike a proposed amendment. Walton v. McDonald, 192 Ark (1936). Compensation for goods and services provided is a material issue, the omission of which is fatal to DAF s proposal because, if included, it would give voters serious ground for reflection on how to vote. Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277 (1994). The Attorney General properly determined in her discretion that omitted language in DAF s proposed ballot title renders the proposal misleading. This Court should decline to reach the merits of DAF s petition, but if it does so, it should conclude that the Attorney General has performed her statutory duty to review DAF s ballot proposal in her discretion and 11
12 within the requirements of Ark. Code Ann , and should, therefore, deny DAF s petition for relief. Respectfully submitted, LESLIE RUTLEDGE Attorney General By: By: /s/ Kat R. Hodge KaTina R. Hodge Ark. Bar No Assistant Attorney General /s/ Monty Vaughan Baugh Monty Vaughan Baugh Ark. Bar No Deputy Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR Phone: (501) Fax: (501) KaTina.Hodge@arkansasag.gov Monty.Baugh@arkansasag.gov Attorneys for Respondent 12
13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kat R. Hodge, hereby certify that on April 20, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the Court s eflex system, which shall advise all parties of record, including: Alex T. Gray alex@swghfirm.com Nate Steel nate@swghfirm.com Jeremy Hutchinson jeremy@swghfirm.com Steel, Wright, Gray & Hutchinson, PLLC 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2910 Little Rock, AR /s/ Kat R. Hodge Katina R. Hodge 13
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS FIFTH DIVISION COMMITTEE TO RESTORE ARKANSANS RIGHTS
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS FIFTH DIVISION ELECTRONICALLY FILED Pulaski County Circuit Court Larry Crane, Circuit/County Clerk 2018-May-17 11:07:48 60CV-18-2834 C06D05 : 8 Pages COMMITTEE
More informationSTATE OF ARKANSAS THE ATTORNEY G ENERAL LESLIE RUTLEDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS THE ATTORNEY G ENERAL LESLIE RUTLEDGE February 3, 2015 Attorney at Law 1501 North University, Suite 228 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 Dear Mr. Couch: This is in response to your request
More informationSTATE OF ARKAN SAS ATTO RN EY GEN ERAL LES LI E R_UT LE DGE
STATE OF ARKAN SAS ATTO RN EY GEN ERAL LES LI E R_UT LE DGE January 25, 2018 Driving Arkansas Forward Ballot Question Committee c/o Steel, Wright, Gray & Hutchinson, PLLC 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite
More informationIN THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT. JIM KNIGHT, in his individual capacity and on behalf of CITIZENS FOR LOCAL CHOICE
IN THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT JIM KNIGHT, in his individual capacity and on behalf of CITIZENS FOR LOCAL CHOICE PETITIONER vs. No. CV-18- MARK MARTIN, in his Official Capacity as Secretary of State for
More informationCite as 2018 Ark. 293 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
Cite as 2018 Ark. 293 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-18-715 RANDY ZOOK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ARKANSANS FOR A STRONG ECONOMY, A BALLOT QUESTION COMMITTEE PETITIONER Opinion Delivered October
More informationSTATE OF ARKANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL LESLIE RUTLEDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL LESLIE RUTLEDGE February 11, 2016 David A. Couch Attorney at Law 1501 North University, Suite 228 Little Rock, AR 72207 Dear Mr. Couch: I am writing in response to your
More informationA Bill Regular Session, 2019 HOUSE BILL 1489
Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to present law. 0 0 0 State of Arkansas nd General Assembly As Engrossed: H// A Bill Regular Session, 0 HOUSE BILL By: Representative
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Pulaski County Circuit Court Larry Crane, Circuit/County Clerk 2018-Jul-25 11:46:28 60CV-18-4857 C06D17 : 8 Pages IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS MARION HUMPHREY,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS DIVISION
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Pulaski County Circuit Court Larry Crane, Circuit/County Clerk 2018-Apr-19 15:33:26 60CV-18-2497 C06D09 : 10 Pages IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS DIVISION MICHAEL
More informationIN THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT MARK MARTIN, SECRETARY OF STATE INTERVENORS FIRST AMENDED CROSS-CLAIM
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Arkansas Supreme Court Stacey Pectol, Clerk of the Courts 2016-Sep-16 11:20:16 CV-16-776 6 Pages IN THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT COL. MIKE ROSS, RET.; MARION HUMPHREY; JAMES BROOKS;
More informationIN THE CHANCERY COURT OF TENNESSEE FOR THE THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT MEMPHIS
IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF TENNESSEE FOR THE THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT MEMPHIS THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, ex rel CITIZENS FOR BETTER EDUCATION, EDDIE JONES AND KATHRYN LEOPARD Petitioners, v. Case No.:
More informationSUPREME COURT STATE OF COLORADO. 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO COURT USE ONLY Case No. 2014SA151
SUPREME COURT STATE OF COLORADO DATE FILED: May 15, 2014 4:30 PM 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Original Proceeding Pursuant to 1-40-107(2), C.R.S. (2013) Appeal from the Ballot Title Board In the
More informationArkansas Constitution
Arkansas Constitution Amendment 7. Initiative and Referendum The legislative power of the people of this State shall be vested in a General Assembly, which shall consist of the Senate and House of Representatives,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS CIVIL DIVISION CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS CIVIL DIVISION ELECTRONICALLY FILED Pulaski County Circuit Court Larry Crane, Circuit/County Clerk 2018-Feb-18 18:02:06 60CV-18-379 C06D06 : 10 Pages CITY
More informationHugh Jazz Supports the Scholarship Lottery: The Arkansas General Assembly Wrecks the Right to Ballot Initiative with Act 1413 *
Hugh Jazz Supports the Scholarship Lottery: The Arkansas General Assembly Wrecks the Right to Ballot Initiative with Act 1413 * I. INTRODUCTION In 2013, the Arkansas General Assembly controversially changed
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE COURT OF APPEALS BRIEF OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND BOARD OF CANVASSERS IN RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT FOR MANDAMUS
STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE COURT OF APPEALS CITIZENS PROTECTING MICHIGAN S CONSTITUTION, JOSEPH SPYKE AND JEANNE DAUNT, v Plaintiffs, SECRETARY OF STATE AND MICHIGAN BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS, Michigan Court
More informationCONCORD SCHOOL DISTRICT REVISED CHARTER AS ADOPTED BY THE VOTERS AT THE 2011 CONCORD CITY ELECTION
CONCORD SCHOOL DISTRICT REVISED CHARTER AS ADOPTED BY THE VOTERS AT THE 2011 CONCORD CITY ELECTION [Note: This Charter supersedes the School District Charter as enacted by the New Hampshire Legislature,
More informationHall of the House of Representatives 91st General Assembly - Regular Session, 2017 Amendment Form
Hall of the House of Representatives 91st General Assembly - Regular Session, 2017 Amendment Form Subtitle of House Joint Resolution No. 1003 AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING PROPOSED
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-18-375 HON. MARK MARTIN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF ARKANSAS AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 08-1184 SAVE ENERGY REAP TAXES, APPELLANT, VS. YOTA SHAW AND MORRIS STREET, APPELLEES, Opinion Delivered October 16, 2008 APPEAL FROM THE SHARP COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. CV2008-195,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA MARCOS SAYAGO, individually, Plaintiff, vs. CASE NO.: 2014-CA- Division BILL COWLES, in his official capacity as Supervisor
More information23.2 Relationship to statutory and constitutional provisions.
Rule 23. Rules Concerning Referendum Petitions. 1-40-132, 1-1-107 (2)(a) 23.1 Applicability. This Rule 23 applies to statewide referendum petitions pursuant to Article V, section 1 (3) of the Colorado
More informationSupreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed September 03, Case No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed September 03, 2015 - Case No. 2015-1456 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO ex. rel. KATHRYN WILEN 867 Stonewater Drive Kent, OH 44240 and WILLIAM WILEN
More informationCase 4:18-cv KGB-DB-BSM Document 14 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 6 FILED
Case 4:18-cv-00116-KGB-DB-BSM Document 14 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 6 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MARO 2 2018 ~A~E,5 gormack, CLERK y DEPCLERK IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS ELECTRONICALLY FILED 2014-Apr-16 13:27:13 60CV-14-1495 C06D06 : 17 Pages FREEDOM KOHLS; TOYLANDA SMITH; JOE FLAKES; and BARRY HAAS PLAINTIFFS vs. Case No.
More information1. The petitioners hereby allege that Respondent erroneously concluded that the
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------X Index #: 100814/14 In the Matter of the Application of NEW YORK CITY COALITION
More information1N THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. CASE NO Cleveland, Ohio 44104, RELATORS' MOTION FOR Relator, ) RECONSIDERATION
1N THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO ex rel. TERRANCE McCLAIN, 11091 Reservoir Place Drive CASE NO. 2009-1413 Cleveland, Ohio 44104, RELATORS' MOTION FOR Relator, ) RECONSIDERATION vs. Expedited
More informationOhio Constitution Article II 2.01 In whom power vested 2.01a The initiative 2.01b
Ohio Constitution Article II 2.01 In whom power vested The legislative power of the state shall be vested in a general assembly consisting of a senate and house of representatives but the people reserve
More informationt! CAUSE NO ORIGINAL PETITION FOR MANDAMUS RELIEF
RUSSELL CASEY, vs. TIM O'HARE, PETITIONER, RESPONDENT. 067 297127 t! CAUSE NO. ------- "3 ---. c:::, os ~ ui..:... i -1 > :z: :.'..! tr. I 0 -t J:*,;., N IN THE DISTRI{ff,.COUWf m :::.:: ::i:: ~;:::: -
More information2018 General and Nonpartisan Runoff Election November 6, 2018
11 SAMPLE BALLOT STATE OF ARKANSAS 2018 General and Nonpartisan Runoff Election November 6, 2018 SAMPLE BALLOT BENTON COUNTY 1. Vote on candidates by placing an appropriate mark (blacken the oval ) next
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MARION. Case No. OVERVIEW OF CASE
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MARION 7 CHRISTINE B. MASON, an individual, Case No. 8 9 v. Plaintiff, COMPLAINT (ORS 246.910 Act or Failure to Act by Secretary
More informationRule 8.03 SUPREME COURT REVIEW OF COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
Rule 8.03 SUPREME COURT REVIEW OF COURT OF APPEALS DECISION (a) Generally. A party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals may petition the Supreme Court for discretionary review under K.S.A. 20-3018.
More informationRULES ON POLL WATCHERS, VOTE CHALLENGES, AND PROVISIONAL VOTING (Effective April 22, 2006; Revised October 28, 2017)
RULES ON POLL WATCHERS, VOTE CHALLENGES, AND PROVISIONAL VOTING (Effective April 22, 2006; Revised October 28, 2017) Agency # 108.00 STATE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS 501 Woodlane, Suite 401N Little
More informationCase 4:92-cv SOH Document 72 Filed 01/17/19 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 730
Case 4:92-cv-04040-SOH Document 72 Filed 01/17/19 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 730 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION MARY TURNER, et al. PLAINTIFFS V. CASE NO.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04-947
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04-947 ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE: FAIRNESS INITIATIVE REQUIRING LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION THAT SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS SERVE A PUBLIC
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS DIVISION
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Pulaski County Circuit Court Larry Crane, Circuit/County Clerk 2018-Aug-09 18:58:38 60CV-18-5634 C06D06 : 8 Pages IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS DIVISION REED BREWER
More informationIN THE CHANCERY COUNT OF TENNESSEE FOR THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT CHATTANOOGA
IN THE CHANCERY COUNT OF TENNESSEE FOR THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT CHATTANOOGA PETER B MURPHY JESSIE PHILLIPS LETTIE MCINTIRE and OLIN IVEY Petitioners v 1o 06 HAMILTON COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION
More informationPetitioners, * COURT OF APPEALS. v. * OF MARYLAND. MARIROSE JOAN CAPOZZI, et al., * September Term, Respondents. * Petition Docket No.
LINDA H. LAMONE, et al., * IN THE Petitioners, * COURT OF APPEALS v. * OF MARYLAND MARIROSE JOAN CAPOZZI, et al., * September Term, 2006 Respondents. * Petition Docket No. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PETITION
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE CHEROKEE NATION PETITION CHALLENGING ELECTION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE CHEROKEE NATION IN THE MATTER OF THE 2011 ) GENERAL ELECTION ) Case No. 2011 05 ) PETITION CHALLENGING ELECTION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS Statutory
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-15-988 NATHANIEL SMITH, MD, MPH, DIRECTOR OF THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN OFFICE APPELLANT V. MARISA N. PAVAN AND
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY. FAYETTEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS and VICKI THOMAS
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY TIM HOLLIS PLAINTIFF v. NO. CV FAYETTEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS and VICKI THOMAS DEFENDANTS COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT,
More information2:14-cv LPZ-RSW Doc # 21 Filed 05/08/14 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 235 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:14-cv-11296-LPZ-RSW Doc # 21 Filed 05/08/14 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 235 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ROBERT DASCOLA, vs. Plaintiff, Case No. 2:14-cv-11296-LPZ-RSW
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-1564 ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE: INITIATIVE EXTENDING SALES TAX TO NON-TAXED SERVICES WHERE EXCLUSION FAILS TO SERVE PUBLIC PURPOSE / INITIAL
More informationCounty Initiative and Referendum Manual
County Initiative and Referendum Manual Published by Elections Division phone 503 986 1518 255 Capitol St NE fax 503 373 7414 Suite 501 tty 1 800 735 2900 Salem OR 97310-0722 web www.sos.state.or.us 2010
More informationMunicipal Township Initiative and Referendum
Chapter 6 Municipal and Township Initiative and Referendum Ohio Ballot Questions and Issues Handbook Chapter 6: Municipal and Township Initiative and Referendum DEFINITIONS As used in this chapter, the
More informationPETITIONERS ANSWER BRIEF
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO 2 East 14 th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 DATE FILED: March 22, 2016 5:00 PM Original Proceeding Pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. 1-40-107(2) Appeal from the Ballot Title Board In the
More informationAnalysis Prepared By the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission
ORDER OF THE WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION The Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission hereby creates ERC 70, 71 and 80 relating to annual certification elections. Analysis Prepared By the
More informationCAPITAL CASE EXECUTION SCHEDULED NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS. WENDY KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
CAPITAL CASE EXECUTION SCHEDULED NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS JACK GORDON GREENE PETITIONER VS. CASE NO. CV-17-913 WENDY KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT
More informationFor County, Cities, Schools and Special Districts
GUIDE TO MEASURES For County, Cities, Schools and Special Districts 2018 Sacramento County Voter Registration and Elections 7000 65th Street, Suite A Sacramento, CA 95823 (916) 875-6451 www.elections.saccounty.net
More informationGUIDELINES FOR COUNTY AND DISTRICT INITIATIVES
GUIDELINES FOR COUNTY AND DISTRICT INITIATIVES REGISTRAR OF VOTERS 1225 FALLON STREET G-1 OAKLAND, CA 94612 510-272-6933 This guide was developed in an effort to provide answers to questions frequently
More informationCase 2:16-cv DN Document 2 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 30
Case 2:16-cv-00038-DN Document 2 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 30 Marcus R. Mumford (12737) MUMFORD PC 405 South Main Street, Suite 975 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801) 428-2000 Email: mrm@mumfordpc.com
More information[Cite as State ex rel. Scioto Downs, Inc. v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 24, 2009-Ohio-3761.]
[Cite as State ex rel. Scioto Downs, Inc. v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 24, 2009-Ohio-3761.] THE STATE EX REL. SCIOTO DOWNS, INC. ET AL. v. BRUNNER, SECY. OF STATE, ET AL. [Cite as State ex rel. Scioto Downs,
More informationColorado Constitution
Colorado Constitution Article V: Section 1. General assembly - initiative and referendum. (1) The legislative power of the state shall be vested in the general assembly consisting of a senate and house
More informationCase: 2:12-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 89 Filed: 06/11/14 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 1858
Case: 2:12-cv-00636-PCE-NMK Doc #: 89 Filed: 06/11/14 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 1858 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION OBAMA FOR AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs,
More informationCITY OF BERKELEY CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT
CITY OF BERKELEY CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT 5% AND 10% INITIATIVE PETITION REQUIREMENTS & POLICIES 1. Guideline for Filing 2. Berkeley Charter Article XIII, Section 92 3. State Elections Code Provisions 4.
More informationHow to do a City Referendum
How to do a City Referendum A Guide to Placing a City Referendum on the Ballot PREPARED BY: THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ CITY CLERK S DIVISION Bonnie Bush, Interim City Clerk Administrator / Elections Official
More informationGuide to Submitting Ballot Arguments
City and County of San Francisco November 8, 2016 Consolidated General Election Guide to Submitting Ballot Arguments In favor of or against local ballot measures, for publication in the San Francisco Voter
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION STATE ex rel. SKAGGS, et al. v. Relators, JENNIFER L. BRUNNER SECRETARY OF STATE OF OHIO, et al., Respondents. Case
More informationCOUNTY INITIATIVE PROCEDURES 2018
COUNTY INITIATIVE PROCEDURES 2018 NOTICE The publication is intended for general reference and guidance only. The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk does not provide legal advice to the
More informationCOUNTY INITIATIVE PROCEDURES 2019
COUNTY INITIATIVE PROCEDURES 2019 NOTICE The publication is intended for general reference and guidance only. The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk does not provide legal advice to the
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 1:18-cv-04776-LMM Document 13-1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION RHONDA J. MARTIN, DANA BOWERS, JASMINE CLARK,
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
David R. Langdon (0067046) Thomas W. Kidd, Jr. (0066359) Bradley M. Peppo (0083847) Trial Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO LETOHIOVOTE.ORG 208 East State Street
More informationHOW TO DO A COUNTY INITIATIVE
HOW TO DO A COUNTY INITIATIVE A Guide to Placing a County Initiative on the Ballot Prepared by the Kern County Elections Office This guide was developed in an effort to provide answers to questions frequently
More informationThis article shall be known and may be cited as the "Mississippi Credit Availability Act."
75-67-601. [Repealed effective 7/1/2018] Short title. 75-67-601. [Repealed effective 7/1/2018] Short title This article shall be known and may be cited as the "Mississippi Credit Availability Act." Cite
More informationTABLE OF CONTENTS. Introduction. The Citizen Initiative Process
April 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction The Citizen Initiative Process What is a Citizen Initiative? Who Can Use the Citizen Initiative Process? Beginning the Process: The Notice of Intent Petition Forms
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-1566 ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE: INITIATIVE DIRECTING MANNER BY WHICH SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS ARE GRANTED BY THE LEGISLATURE / INITIAL BRIEF
More informationRamsey County, North Dakota Home Rule Charter Draft
1 Ramsey County, North Dakota Home Rule Charter Draft Preamble Pursuant to the statutes o f t h e State of North Dakota, we the people o f R a m s e y County do establish this Home Rule Charter. Article
More informationRICHLAND COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA HOME RULE CHARTER PREAMBLE
RICHLAND COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA HOME RULE CHARTER PREAMBLE Pursuant to the statues of the State of North Dakota, we the people of Richland County do hereby establish and ordain this Home Rule Charter. Article
More informationNevada Constitution Article 19 Section 1. Referendum for approval or disapproval of statute or resolution enacted by legislature. Sec. 2.
Nevada Constitution Article 19 Section 1. Referendum for approval or disapproval of statute or resolution enacted by legislature. 1. A person who intends to circulate a petition that a statute or resolution
More informationCase 4:18-cv KGB-DB-BSM Document 38 Filed 06/14/18 Page 1 of 9
Case 4:18-cv-00116-KGB-DB-BSM Document 38 Filed 06/14/18 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION DR. JULIUS J. LARRY, III PLAINTIFF v. CASE NO.
More informationA Guide to Placing a County Initiative on the Ballot
A Guide to Placing a County Initiative on the Ballot Prepared by the Sutter County Elections Department 1435 Veterans Memorial Circle Yuba City, CA 95993 Phone: (530) 822-7122 Fax: (530) 822-7587 WEBSITE:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
E-Filed Document Feb 27 2017 15:41:09 2016-CA-01033-COA Pages: 12 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI MICHAEL ISHEE APPELLANT VS. NO. 2016-CA-01033-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF
More informationCase 4:18-cv JM Document 11 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION
Case 4:18-cv-00343-JM Document 11 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ANNE ORSI, AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION, FREEDOM FROM RELIGION
More informationTITLE 8. ELECTIONS ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS
. ELECTIONS ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS CHAPTER 1. DEFINITIONS AND CONSTRUCTION... 8-1-1 Sec. 8-1101. Definitions.... 8-1-1 Sec. 8-1102. Construction.... 8-1-2 CHAPTER 2. MISCELLANEOUS... 8-1-2 Sec. 8-1201.
More informationCase: 2:13-cv WOB-GFVT-DJB Doc #: 81 Filed: 07/26/13 Page: 1 of 7 - Page ID#: 1489
Case: 2:13-cv-00068-WOB-GFVT-DJB Doc #: 81 Filed: 07/26/13 Page: 1 of 7 - Page ID#: 1489 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY COVINGTON DIVISION CIVIL KENNY BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs
More informationPETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
L.A.R. Misc. 112 PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 112.1 Considerations Governing Review on Certiorari (a) Review on writ of certiorari is not a matter of right,
More informationARKANSAS POLLUTION CONTROL AND ECOLOGY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF OSAGE BASIN ) DOCKET NO P WASTEWATER DISTRICT ) ORDER NO.
ARKANSAS POLLUTION CONTROL AND ECOLOGY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF OSAGE BASIN ) DOCKET NO. 05-002-P WASTEWATER DISTRICT ) ORDER NO. 3 ORDER On December 31, 2004, the Arkansas Department of Environmental
More informationMandamus in Election Action
William & Mary Law Review Volume 1 Issue 1 Article 12 Mandamus in Election Action Thomas H. Focht Repository Citation Thomas H. Focht, Mandamus in Election Action, 1 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 107 (1957), http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol1/iss1/12
More informationCity Referendum Process
City Referendum Process Ventura County Elections Division MARK A. LUNN Clerk-Recorder, Registrar of Voters 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93009-00 (805) 654-664 venturavote.org Revised 9/5/7 Contents
More informationHow to do a County Referendum
How to do a County Referendum A Guide to Placing a County Referendum on the Ballot Prepared by The Madera County Elections Division 200 W. 4th Street Madera CA 93637 {559) 675-7720 {559) 675-7870 FAX www.votemadera.com
More informationDRAFT GPCA ELECTIONS CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT GPCA ELECTIONS CODE SECTIONS Oct. 2006 Rev 3 DIVISION 6. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS... 2 PART 1. PARTISAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES... 2 CHAPTER 5. GREEN PARTY PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY... 2 Article 1. General
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE DIVISION KERRY INMAN, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, vs. Plaintiff, INTERACTIVE MEDIA MARKETING, INC. and
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS. No. CV-17-34 KEDRICK TREVON DARROUGH APPELLANT V. WENDY KELLEY, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION APPELLEE Opinion Delivered November 9, 2017 PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE
More informationCase 3:11-cv BRW Document 1 Filed 10/03/11 Page 1 of 12 FILED
Case 3:11-cv-00198-BRW Document 1 Filed 10/03/11 Page 1 of 12 FILED u.s. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 03 2011 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO
More informationRULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT
RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT Effective April 29, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GENERAL PROVISIONS... 1 1. Authority and Applicability.... 1 2. Definitions.... 1 A. Administrative Law
More informationCase No.: 2017SA305. Petitioner: Scott Smith. Respondents: Daniel Hayes and Julianne Page, and
COLORADO SUPREME COURT 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Original Proceeding Pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. 1-40-107(2) Appeal from the Ballot Title Board In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and
More informationRULES FOR APPOINTMENT OF CERTIFIED ELECTION MONITORS (Effective November 8, 2013; Revised December 29, 2015)
Agency # 108.00 RULES FOR APPOINTMENT OF CERTIFIED ELECTION MONITORS (Effective November 8, 2013; Revised December 29, 2015) STATE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS 501 Woodlane, Suite 401N Little Rock,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Pulaski County Circuit Court Larry Crane, Circuit/County Clerk 2018-Feb-07 10:03:24 60CV-18-752 C06D12 : 27 Pages IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS BARRY HAAS PLAINTIFF
More informationCounty Referendum Process
County Referendum Process Ventura County Elections Division MARK A. LUNN Clerk-Recorder, Registrar of Voters 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 9009-00 (805) 654-664 venturavote.org Revised 0//7 Contents
More informationCase: 2:13-cv WOB-GFVT-DJB Doc #: 122 Filed: 09/23/13 Page: 1 of 7 - Page ID#: 1866
Case: 2:13-cv-00068-WOB-GFVT-DJB Doc #: 122 Filed: 09/23/13 Page: 1 of 7 - Page ID#: 1866 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY COVINGTON DIVISION KENNY BROWN, individually and in his
More informationProvince of Alberta AUDITOR GENERAL ACT. Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter A-46. Current as of December 15, Office Consolidation
Province of Alberta AUDITOR GENERAL ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Current as of December 15, 2017 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer Suite 700, Park
More informationCase: 2:13-cv MHW-TPK Doc #: 130 Filed: 07/08/14 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 2883
Case: 2:13-cv-00953-MHW-TPK Doc #: 130 Filed: 07/08/14 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 2883 LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OHIO, et al., and ROBERT HART, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN
More informationCity Elections Manual
City Elections Manual Published by Elections Division phone 503 986 1518 255 Capitol St NE fax 503 373 7414 Suite 501 tty 1 800 735 2900 Salem OR 97310-0722 web www.sos.state.or.us 2010 Secretary of State
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 10-327 TIM S. PARKER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, AND RAMONA WILSON, CIRCUIT CLERK AND EX OFFICIO RECORDER OF CARROLL COUNTY, ARKANSAS, PETITIONERS, Opinion Delivered 10-7-10 P E T I
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAULKNER COUNTY, ARKANSAS DIVISION ONE
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAULKNER COUNTY, ARKANSAS DIVISION ONE FAULKNER COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION and MARGARET DARTER in her official capacity as FAULKNER COUNTY CLERK PETITIONERS vs. Case No. 23CV-18-355
More informationGENERAL PROCEDURES FOR ADOPTING OR CHANGING A RULE
GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR ADOPTING OR CHANGING A RULE 1. Draft the proposed rule. 2. Unless the Governor grants an exemption, all state agencies must submit proposed rules (including proposed amendments to
More informationSirkin, Shawn v. Trans Carriers, Inc.
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims and Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Law 10-12-2015 Sirkin, Shawn v.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:18-cv-04789-LMM Document 5 Filed 10/17/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION GEORGIA MUSLIM VOTER PROJECT and ASIAN-AMERICANS ADVANCING
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO. 10:00 a.m. June 21, 2013 HON. EUGENE L. BALONON
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE/TIME: JUDGE: 10:00 a.m. June 21, 2013 HON. EUGENE L. BALONON DEPT. NO.: CLERK: 14 P. MERCADO CITY OF RIVERSIDE; SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER REDEVELOPMENT
More informationGuide to Qualifying San Francisco Initiative Measures. June 5, 2018, Consolidated Direct Primary Election. City Hall, Room 48, San Francisco, CA 94102
Guide to Qualifying San Francisco Initiative Measures June 5, 2018, Consolidated Direct Primary Election 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place Hall, Room 48, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-4375 sfelections.org
More information