Case 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

Similar documents
Case 4:15-cv DPM Document 25 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 12

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS SIXTH DIVISION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS

Case 4:18-cv KGB-DB-BSM Document 14 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 6 FILED

Case 4:18-cv KGB Document 26 Filed 04/09/18 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION FLORIDA SECRETARY OF STATE S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Supreme Court of the United States

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION SCOTT L. BEAU AND WYNCROFT, LLC ANSWER

Case 3:15-cv FAB-MEL Document 29 Filed 09/28/15 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS FIFTH DIVISION COMMITTEE TO RESTORE ARKANSANS RIGHTS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION

IN THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT MARK MARTIN, SECRETARY OF STATE INTERVENORS FIRST AMENDED CROSS-CLAIM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION. Case No. 5:07-CV-231

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NEWTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS CIVIL DIVISION THE ARKANSAS POLLUTION CONTROL AND ECOLOGY COMMISSION'S RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF APPEAL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

Supreme Court of the United States

IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO CIVIL DIVISION. DAVID ESRATI : Case No CV Plaintiff, : Judge Richard Skelton

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION CASE NO: 5:07-CV-231

CAPITAL CASE EXECUTION SCHEDULED NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS. WENDY KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

Case 1:08-cv RPM Document 12 Filed 01/16/09 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Case 1:18-cv LY Document 43 Filed 09/17/18 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

I. ANSWER. COMES NOW Defendant IMPULSE MEDIA GROUP, INC. in the above-captioned

Case 2:17-cv EEF-MBN Document 66 Filed 11/07/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Case 3:13-cv JJB-SCR Document 27 09/20/13 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Case 4:14-cv RH-CAS Document 103 Filed 12/29/14 Page 1 of 5

Case 2:12-cv MSD-TEM Document 4 Filed 12/26/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 25

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA ) ) ) ) ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 3:15-cv RGJ-KLH Document 38 Filed 11/25/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 257 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

PlainSite. Legal Document. Georgia Northern District Court Case No. 1:10-cv D. H. Pace Company, Inc. v. Stephens et al.

Case: 25CH1:15-cv Document #: 7 Filed: 10/05/2015 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT

Case 3:15-cv RRE-ARS Document 91 Filed 10/13/15 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

WEST MEMPHIS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION CHECK LIST. I. Petition for Rezone and Special Permit Use should include one or more of the following:

Case 3:17-cv PRM Document 185 Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

Case 4:18-cv KGB-DB-BSM Document 38 Filed 06/14/18 Page 1 of 9

Case 4:12-cv JMM Document 1 Filed 02/27/12 Page 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-1274-LCB-JLW

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NO. 1:15-CV TDS-JEP. Plaintiffs, Defendants.

Case: LTS Doc#:111 Filed:05/25/17 Entered:05/25/17 13:40:50 Document Page 1 of 6

Case: 5:09-cv KSF-REW Doc #: 51 Filed: 12/16/10 Page: 1 of 4 - Page ID#: 2224

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION. No. 5:10-CT-3123-BO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 2:68-cv MHT-CSC Document 759 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 5:19-cv LLP Document 16 Filed 04/16/19 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 211 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

CAUSE NO GINGER WEATHERSPOON, IN THE 44 th -B JUDICIAL. Defendant. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT S PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS SIXTH DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO UNOPPOSED MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

DEFENDANT CITY OF FORT COLLINS ANSWER WITH CROSS-CLAIM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. 1:16-CV-1164-WO-JEP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

Snell & Wilmer IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. Leslie Feldman, et al.,

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS CIVIL DIVISION. v. CASE NO.: COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. 1:16-CV-1164-WO-JEP

Case 1:17-cv TSC Document 13 Filed 09/08/17 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION. No. 3:75-CR-26-F No. 5:06-CV-24-F

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION. vs. Civil Action 1:15-cv RP

Case 1:14-cv CMA-KMT Document 1081 Filed 05/16/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

COMPLAINT NATURE OF THE ACTION PARTIES

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAULKNER COUNTY, ARKANSAS DIVISION ONE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

Case 1:11-cv JLH Document 43 Filed 05/20/12 Page 1 of 8

Case MDL No Document 52 Filed 07/28/15 Page 1 of 3 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP-0755-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-1164-WO-JEP

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS DRIVING ARKANSAS FORWARD LESLIE RUTLEDGE, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Case 1:16-cv RB-WPL Document 1 Filed 12/27/16 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 1:15-cv SS Document 10 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Case 5:02-cv DDD Document 121 Filed 09/15/2003 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT YAKIMA

Case 1:15-cv SCY-KBM Document 2 Filed 01/21/15 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY. Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (hereinafter FedEx Ground ), by and

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION

Case 2:17-cv RAJ Document 36 Filed 07/21/17 Page 1 of 5

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE APPEAL FROM MAURY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT AT COLUMBIA, TENNESSEE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. Plaintiff, v. Case No. 04-C-0986

Case 5:14-cv gwc Document 5 Filed 08/28/14 Page 1 of 21

Case 0:17-cv BB Document 89 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2018 Page 1 of 4

Case 1:12-cv DJC Document 36 Filed 09/10/13 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

CIVIL ACTION. Defendant Jeff Carter, by and through his counsel Law Offices of Walter M. Luers, by

Attorneys for Subpoena Respondent Charles Hoskins, Maricopa County Treasurer IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS DIVISION

Transcription:

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 FOUNDATION, INC., ARKANSAS SOCIETY OF FREETHINKERS, JOAN DIETZ, GALE STEWART, RABBI EUGENE LEVY, REV. VICTOR H. NIXON, TERESA GRIDER, and WALTER RIDDICK PLAINTIFFS v. No. 4:18CV00343 JM MARK MARTIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Arkansas DEFENDANT ANSWER WITH JURY DEMAND Arkansas Secretary of State Mark Martin, in his official capacity, through counsel, states for his answer as follows: 1. Admitted that a Ten Commandments monument stands on the state capitol grounds. The Defendant denies all other allegations contained in paragraph 1. 2. Paragraph 2 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the 3. Paragraph 3 in part speaks for itself and in part states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the extent that any response is called for, the Defendant denies all allegations contained therein. 4. Paragraph 4 in part speaks for itself and in part states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the extent that any response is called for, the Defendant denies all allegations contained therein.

Case 4:18-cv-00343-JM Document 11 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 10 5. Paragraph 5 in part speaks for itself and in part states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the extent that any response is called for, the Defendant denies all allegations contained therein. 6. Paragraph 6 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the 7. Paragraph 7 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the 8. Paragraph 8 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the 9. Paragraph 9 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the 10. Paragraph 10 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the 11. Paragraph 11 in part speaks for itself and in part states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the extent that any response is called for, the Defendant denies all allegations contained therein. 12. Defendant avers that that Act 1231 speaks for itself. In addition, paragraph 12 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the extent that any response is called for, the Defendant denies all allegations contained therein. 13. Admitted that the monument contains the quoted wording. 14. Admitted that hearings were held in which persons expressed objections to the placement of a monument, and admitted that a monument was placed on the state capitol grounds. Defendant denies all other allegations contained in paragraph 14. 2

Case 4:18-cv-00343-JM Document 11 Filed 06/13/18 Page 3 of 10 15. Paragraph 15 is admitted. 16. Paragraph 16 is admitted. 17. Paragraphs 17, 17a, 17b, 17c, 17d, 17e, 17f, 17g, 17h, 17i, and 17j state legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the extent that any response is called for, the Defendant denies all such legal allegations contained therein. As to the factual allegations, Defendant lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph, and so denies the same. Alternatively, the other allegations contained in these paragraphs speak for themselves and do not call for a response, but to the extent that a response is called for, all such allegations are denied. 18. Paragraph 18 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the extent that any response is called for, the Defendant denies all such legal allegations contained therein. As to the factual allegations, Defendant lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the Alternatively, the other allegations contained in this paragraph speak for themselves and do not call for a response, but to the extent that a response is called for, all such allegations are denied. 19. Admitted that Mark Martin is the Secretary of State of the State of Arkansas. The other allegations in paragraph 19 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the extent that any response is called for, the Defendant denies all such allegations. 20. Defendant admits that he referred the matter to the Capitol Arts and Grounds Commission, and admits that a monument was placed on the capitol grounds. Defendant denies all other allegations contained in paragraph 20. 21. Admitted that the monument is located on the south end of the west side of the capitol grounds. 3

Case 4:18-cv-00343-JM Document 11 Filed 06/13/18 Page 4 of 10 22. Paragraph 22 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the extent that any response is called for, the Defendant denies all such legal allegations contained therein. As to the factual allegations, Defendant lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the Alternatively, the other allegations contained in this paragraph speak for themselves and do not call for a response, but to the extent that a response is called for, the Defendant denies all such allegations. 23. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 23, and so deny the same. Alternatively, the allegations contained in this paragraph speak for themselves and do not call for a response, but to the extent that a response is called for, the Defendant denies all allegations contained therein. 24. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 24, and so deny the same. The second sentence states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the extent that any response is called for, the Defendant denies all allegations contained therein. 25. Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 25, and so denies the same. 26. Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 26, and so denies the same. 27. Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 27, and so denies the same. 28. Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 28, and so denies the same. 4

Case 4:18-cv-00343-JM Document 11 Filed 06/13/18 Page 5 of 10 29. Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 29, and so denies the same. 30. Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 30, and so denies the same. 31. Paragraph 31 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the extent that any response is called for, the Defendant denies all such legal allegations contained therein. As to the factual allegations, Defendant lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the Alternatively, the other allegations contained in this paragraph speak for themselves and do not call for a response, but to the extent that a response is called for, the Defendant denies all such allegations. 32. Paragraphs 32, 32a, 32b, 32c, 32d, and 32e state legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the extent that any response is called for, the Defendant denies all allegations contained therein. 33. Paragraph 33 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the 34. Paragraph 34 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the 5

Case 4:18-cv-00343-JM Document 11 Filed 06/13/18 Page 6 of 10 35. Paragraph 35 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the 36. Admitted that Rapert was among the sponsors of Senate Bill 939. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the other allegations contained in paragraph 36, and so denies the same. 37. Paragraph 37 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the 38. Paragraph 38 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the 39. Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 39, and so denies the same. 40. Paragraph 40 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the 6

Case 4:18-cv-00343-JM Document 11 Filed 06/13/18 Page 7 of 10 41. Paragraph 41 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the Defendant denies any other allegations contained in this paragraph. 42. Paragraph 42 is denied. 43. Paragraph 43 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the denies any other allegations contained in this paragraph. 44. Paragraph 44 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the denies any other allegations contained in this paragraph. 45. Paragraph 45 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the denies any other allegations contained in this paragraph. 46. Paragraph 46 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the denies any other allegations contained in this paragraph. 47. Paragraph 47 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the 48. Paragraph 48 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the 49. Paragraph 49 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the 7

Case 4:18-cv-00343-JM Document 11 Filed 06/13/18 Page 8 of 10 50. Paragraph 50 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the 51. Paragraph 51 is denied. 52. Paragraph 52 is denied. 53. Paragraph 53 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the admits that public hearings were held in which both supporters and opponents of the monument spoke. Defendant denies all other allegations contained in this paragraph. 54. Defendant lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 54, and so denies the same. 55. Paragraph 55 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the denies all other allegations contained in this paragraph. 56. Paragraph 56 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the 57. Paragraph 57 states legal conclusions that do not call for a response, but to the 58. Defendant denies that any Plaintiff is entitled to any relief. 59. Defendant denies all allegations not specifically admitted herein. 60. Defendant specifically denies all allegations to the extent that they state legal conclusions. 61. The Defendant reserves the right to file an amended answer or other appropriate pleading. 8

Case 4:18-cv-00343-JM Document 11 Filed 06/13/18 Page 9 of 10 DEFENSES 62. The Plaintiffs lack standing. 63. The Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. 64. The Defendant is entitled to immunity under the U.S. Constitution, including the Eleventh Amendment, and under general principles of sovereign immunity to any suit or claim. 65. This action is barred by the statute of limitation. 66. This action is barred by the doctrine of laches. 67. The Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 68. The Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity and statutory immunity. JURY DEMAND 69. The Defendant gives notice of his jury demand. Therefore, the Defendant respectfully requests that the court dismiss the Plaintiffs complaint. Respectfully submitted, LESLIE RUTLEDGE Attorney General 9

Case 4:18-cv-00343-JM Document 11 Filed 06/13/18 Page 10 of 10 By: /s/ Lee P. Rudofsky Lee P. Rudofsky (2015015) Solicitor General of Arkansas Nicholas J. Bronni (2016097) Deputy Solicitor General Michael A. Cantrell (2012287) Assistant Solicitor General Dylan L. Jacobs (2016167) Assistant Solicitor General ARKANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ph: (501) 682-2007 Fax: (501) 682-2591 Email: Lee.Rudofsky@ArkansasAG.gov A.J. Kelly (92078) General Counsel and Deputy Secretary of State ARKANSAS SECRETARY OF STATE S OFFICE P.O. Box 251570 Little Rock, AR 72225-1570 Ph: (501) 682-3401 Email: kellylawfedecf@aol.com Attorneys for Secretary of State Mark Martin CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michael A. Cantrell, hereby certify that on June 13, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to all counsel of record. /s/ Michael A. Cantrell Michael A. Cantrell 10