An initiated ordinance to put the city's DeGray Lake water project up for a vote Nov. 4 will not be on the ballot, Garland County Circuit Court Judge Marcia Hearnsberger ruled Monday night.
George Pritchett, an Independent candidate for state Senate District 14, on behalf of Hot Springs FIRST Committee, retired attorney Cliff Jackson, and Bob Driggers, chairman of the Garland Good Government Group, filed a complaint against Lance Spicer, individually and in his capacity as city clerk of Hot Springs, and the Garland County Election Commission.
Petitions seeking to have the ordinance placed on the ballot were rejected by the city Sept. 4 due to the lack of enacting language.
Two identical petitions, which were treated as one, were filed Aug. 28 and Sept. 2, but with different signatures, seeking to have an initiated ordinance placed on the Nov. 4 general election ballot directing the city to "immediately stop its efforts to procure water from lake DeGray and build a new water treatment plant until and unless legal city voters approve the same; and to recover unexpended and unused funds already approved or appropriated for the project."
The petitions were filed by Driggers, chairman of the Garland Good Government Group, and Jackson, on behalf of the Hot Springs FIRST Committee.
The petitions were rejected by the city after City Attorney Brian Albright issued an opinion to City Clerk Lance Spicer that the petitions were deficient in that they failed to contain the enacting phrase "Be it enacted by the people of ... ," which is a mandatory requirement of Amendment 7 of the Arkansas Constitution.
Hearnsberger ruled that the first petition was void because "Amendment 7 is the controlling authority and contains a black-and-white form of the enacting language," she said after hearing about three hours of testimony and spending about an hour reviewing the case.
After the first two petitions were rejected by the city, a third petition was circulated with the mandatory enacting language included and presented to the city late last week. Jackson was asking the court to rule that it was an amended petition and order it be placed on the ballot.
Hearnsberger dismissed the newest petition, stating that it was "a new petition," not an amendment and as such it was filed too late.
In his presentation, Jackson argued that the rejected petitions, while not bearing the exact mandatory language, contained "substantially enacting" language since they included the phrase "may be adopted, enacted, or rejected by the vote of legal registered voters of said city of Hot Springs."
Attorney Elizabeth Robben Murray of the Friday, Eldredge & Clark law firm of Little Rock, which represented the city, said, "Amendment 7 is unambiguous in its requirement of an enacting clause."
Jackson also asked the court to order the measure be placed on the ballot subject to a full hearing in response to answers and briefs filed for the city on Friday.
"We've had no opportunity to address or challenge the other defenses they raised," Jackson said.
In her ruling, Hearnsberger said there would be no other hearings on the matter.
Jackson, who represented himself in the hearing, said after the ruling that he was not sure if he wanted to pursue the case any further. Charles "Skip" Davidson, who represented Driggers and Pritchett, said he would have to consult with them to see if he would appeal the ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
"We respect the initiative process and the people's right to be able to participate in the process. However, the process is there for all of us," Albright said.
Local on 09/16/2014