Case: Green Party of Arkansas v. Daniels
4:06-cv-00758 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
Filed Date: June 27, 2006
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
Plaintiffs Green Party of Arkansas (“Green Party”) and Green Party candidates, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, brought an action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on June 27, 2006 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the State of Arkansas to certify the Green Party as a recognized political party. Certification gives a political party access to the ballot and gives the party's nominees an accurate and informative party label once on the ballot. On the same day they filed their complaint, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. The case was heard by Judge George Howard, Jr.
One issue was the discrepancy between the number of signatures required to certify a new political party under Ark. Code Ann. § 7–7–205 (i.e., 24,171 signatures) and the number of signatures required to recognize an independent candidate under Ark. Code Ann. § 7–7–103 (i.e., 10,000). The other issue was that, once certified under Arkansas law, a new political party had to obtain 3% of the total vote cast for the office of Governor or presidential electors at the first election after certification to continue to nominate candidates. Defendant argued that the justification for the 3% signature requirement was to prevent cluttering the ballot with hundreds of frivolous candidates.
On August 23, 2006, after a bench trial that was combined with a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court granted a permanent injunction for the plaintiffs. 445 F. Supp. 2d 1056. The Court held that Arkansas’s party recognition scheme burdens the right of individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs, the right to vote, and the right of citizens to create and develop new political parties. Namely, it determined that while the 10,000-signature threshold is sufficient to serve the State’s interest in avoiding cluttered ballots, the 3% signature requirement imposes a severe burden under the First and Fourteenth Amendments on the associational rights of Plaintiffs, and is not sufficiently narrowly drawn to serve a compelling state interest.
The Court held that Plaintiffs suffered irreparable harm and had no other adequate remedy at law. Accordingly, the Court ordered and declared: (1) The 3% requirement to certify a new political party violates Plaintiffs’ associational rights; (2) Defendant is enjoined from failing to recognize the Green Party and is directed to allow Plaintiffs ballot access; and (3) The Court awarded Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorney's fees. The parties resolved the attorneys' fees issue without further motions.
As of December 2023, there has been no further docket activity.
Summary Authors
Patrick Hagen (11/22/2023)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/12156885/parties/green-party-of-arkansas-v-daniels/
Howard, George (Arkansas)
Dickson, Holly Elizabeth (Arkansas)
Sells, Bryan L. (Arkansas)
Brooks, Brian G. (Arkansas)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/12156885/green-party-of-arkansas-v-daniels/
Last updated July 1, 2026, 7:37 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 27, 2006
Case Ongoing: Perhaps, but long-dormant
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Arkansas Political Party
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State
State of Arkansas
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Other Dockets:
Eastern District of Arkansas 4:06-cv-00758
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Amount Defendant Pays: Unknown amount of attorneys' fees
Issues
Voting:
Voting: Physical/Effective Access
Case Summary of Green Party of Arkansas v. Daniels, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/43780/ (last updated 11/22/2023).