In 1996, a U.S. District Court ruled that the number of signatures needed for a new party in Arkansas (3% of the last gubernatorial vote, or about 22,000 signatures) violates the U.S. Constitution. Citizens to Establish the Reform Party in Arkansas v Priest, 970 F Supp 690. On August 10, 2005, Arkansas Attorney General ruled that the state need not obey the 1996 court ruling.

The Attorney General’s Opinion is 16 pages long, but it never acknowledges that a specific finding of law in the 1996 opinion (#18, on page 698) says that the number of signatures is invalid, without regard to the petition deadline. Instead, the Attorney General Opinion quotes from some of the decision’s findings of fact, which seem to indicate that the number of signatures was invalid only in conjunction with the early deadline. The state had cured the deadline defect but has never amended the number of signatures.

The Attorney General’s Opinion acknowledges that the same U.S. District Court judge repeated his finding in 2001 in Green Party of Arkansas v Priest, 159 F Supp 2d 1140 (a decision that also struck down the inability of the state to have any procedures for a new party to get on the ballot in an odd-year special election). But he says that this was just “dicta”.

The Attorney General also suggests that only a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling is binding on the state. He ignores the fact that Arkansas did file notice of appeal in the 1996 case to the 8th circuit, and then abandoned its own appeal. In any event, even U.S. District Court findings that laws are unconstitutional are binding, if the state doesn’t appeal them.

Finally, the Attorney General’s Opinion contradicts a Secretary of State’s ruling earlier this year, which said that since the 2003 legislature had eliminated the law explaining what the deadline is for a new party petition is, but retained the law saying a party petition must be completed in 5 months, that therefore a new party petition can be circulated in any 5 months period.
The Attorney General Opinion says the Secretary of State was wrong, but does not explain a basis, nor does he say what the start period and the deadline should be.

If this posting is difficult to understand, one can only say that is because one doesn’t ordinarily expect state officials to issue rulings of such poor reasoning quality. The ruling seems to be from Alice in Wonderland’s world.