Opinion

Jacobs v. Yates

  • 342 Ark. 243
  • 27 S.W.3d 734
  • 2000 Ark. LEXIS 453
Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Filed
Oct 5, 2000
Status
Published
Author
Glaze
On the bench
Ray Thornton
Cited by
25 cases
Authority
More cited than 10.1%

stating that: "Certainly, they possess standing, as a result of their ministerial obligations under statute, to request a judicial determination whether a candidate was qualified to stand for the office in question"

How later courts described this case

  • stating that: "Certainly, they possess standing, as a result of their ministerial obligations under statute, to request a judicial determination whether a candidate was qualified to stand for the office in question"
  • holding pre-election challenge to candidate’s eligibility was cognizable through petition for writ of mandamus even though statute established a comprehensive procedure for challenging qualifications following the election
  • addressing issue of standing arising from an eligibility contest in a primary election

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Tom Glaze, Justice, concurring. The lack-of-standing issue raised by Jacobs in this case is easily resolved by recognizing that the Phillips County Board of Election Commissioners and the Phillips County Democratic Committee had the standing to request the relief they requested, namely, for the trial court to declare the parties’ rights and direct the county election commissioners and county Democratic Committee members as to how they should proceed with respect to their election duties. For example, the Phillips County Election Commissioners are necessary parties in this litigation because they had the responsibility to provide the election ballots for the primary election and the ballots were to contain the names of the qualified and eligible candidates. Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-207 (Repl. 2000); see also Ark. Code Ann. §§ 7-5-208 , 7-5-211, and 7-5-407 (Repl. 2000). Obviously, the Phillips County Board of Election Commissioners was a necessary party so that complete relief could be afforded in this action which was brought seeking compliance with § 7-5-207. See State v. Craighead County Bd. of Election Commr’s, 300 Ark. 405 , 779 S.W.2d 169 (1989); Ark. R. Civ. P. 19 (2000).

Because I agree with the majority opinion that the Phillips County Board of Election Commissioners (and the Phillips County Democratic Committee) have standing in this action, I see no need for the court to address whether Doris Tyler had standing. For that reason, I concur with the majority on the standing issue.

Brown and Smith, JJ., dissenting.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.