Filed Date: Aug. 9, 2007
Closed Date: Aug. 24, 2009
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged Ordinance Number 19,7615 that increased the Mayor of Little Rock, Arkansas’ power, including but not limited to an increased salary, veto power, and the ability to hire and fire the City Attorney and City Manager.
On August 9, 2007, five citizens of Pulaski County, Little Rock, Arkansas filed a lawsuit simultaneously with a motion and integrated brief that sought immediate injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Arkansas. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against the mayor of Little Rock, in their individual and official capacity; the city attorney for Little Rock, in their individual and official capacity; the city directors of Little Rock, in their individual and official capacity; the Pulaski County election commissioners, in their individual and official capacity; the governor of the state of Arkansas, in their individual and official capacity; and the state of Arkansas under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Voting Rights Act, and state law. Four of the five Plaintiffs were represented by private counsel and one Plaintiff was pro se. In their complaint, Plaintiffs claimed that Pulaski County’s Ordinance Number 19,7615 diluted the power of minority voters in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act because the increase in the mayor’s power diluted the voice of minority voters. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary and permanent injunction to stop the election that was scheduled. They also asked the Court for a declaratory judgment, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.
The case was initially assigned to Judge Susan Webber Wright, but was reassigned on August 10, 2007 to Judge J. Leon Holmes. However, that same day Plaintiffs moved to recuse Judge Holmes. The motion was immediately granted and the case was reassigned to Judge William R. Wilson Jr.
On August 13, 2007, seven out of the fourteen named Defendants, including the City of Little Rock and jointly referred to as the City of Little Rock Defendants, filed a response to the motion for injunctive relief. They claimed that Plaintiffs sought to enjoin an election that was already under way with early voting and was already scheduled for August 14, 2007. The City of Little Rock Defendants claimed that since Plaintiffs filed their Motion less than six days prior to the date of the election, and the City had already expended approximately $80,000 on the election, the City would have incurred more harm than Plaintiffs if the Court enjoined the election. Furthermore, the City of Little Rock Defendants claimed that the public interest was in favor of permitting the election of the Ordinance as this was a last-minute attempt to thwart the right of the people to decide as to how they wished to be governed. The City of Little Rock Defendants requested that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ the injunctive relief sought and, in the alternative, require Plaintiffs to post an $80,000 bond for the cost of holding the election at a time in the future once the injunction was lifted.
Also on August 13, 2007, the City of Little Rock Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss stating that Plaintiffs’ Complaint failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted. Specifically, the City of Little Rock Defendants claimed, among other things, that there was no violation of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, as Plaintiffs did not allege that any person would be denied the right to vote on the pending referendum election because of race, creed, or national origin, nor that such an individual would be precluded from voting because of the use of artificial means, e.g., a literacy test, to defeat the right to vote. The City of Little Rock Defendants further stated that Plaintiffs failed to state how the ordinance in question was discriminatory on its face and the mere fact that the City of Little Rock Defendants voted on the ordinance failed to demonstrate any constitutional or statutory violations.
The remaining four named Defendants, including the Pulaski County election commission and jointly referred to as the Pulaski County Defendants, also filed their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint on August 13, 2007. In their Motion, the Pulaski County Defendants claimed that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim against the Pulaski County Defendants upon which relief can be granted. They claimed that Plaintiffs only named them because they had oversight in and were carrying out the execution of the special election related to the Ordinance at issue. The Pulaski County Defendants stated that since the Complaint contained no other allegations pertaining to the Pulaski County Defendants and that since the Court declined to issue an injunction, the Pulaski County Defendants’ participation in this action was moot, and they should be dismissed from the Complaint.
Later that year, on August 24, the City of Little Rock Defendants filed a response in support of the Pulaski County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. They asserted the Pulaski County Defendants did nothing more than set up the voting machines, provide places for the vote, and certify the election results.
The same month, on August 29, the remaining three Defendants, which included the State of Arkansas and were jointly referred to as the State of Arkansas Defendants, filed a motion to dismiss claiming that Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety because (1) Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims against the State of Arkansas and the Office of the Governor of Arkansas were barred by the Eleventh Amendment; (2) Plaintiffs’ claims, if any, against the Governor in his individual capacity are barred by qualified immunity; (3) Plaintiffs failed to assert facts demonstrating that the Acts referred to in their Complaint were unconstitutionally vague and Plaintiffs did not have standing to assert this claim; (4) Plaintiffs failed to plead specific facts alleging that the Governor or any of the State of Arkansas Defendants violated any of Plaintiffs’ federal rights; (5) Plaintiffs failed to allege that they had standing to pursue their claims; (6) (a) the Governor was not a proper party under the Voting Rights Act; (b) the Voting Rights Act does not provide the relief that Plaintiffs sought (reapportioning the power granted to the Mayor by the electors); and (c) Plaintiffs had not pled facts that would satisfy the three Gingles preconditions to a claim under § 2 of the Voting Rights Act; and (7) Plaintiffs failed to assert facts that create the inference of discriminatory intent on the part of the State or its officials in enacting or maintaining the existing electoral system.
Plaintiffs failed to file a response to any of the motions to dismiss. Therefore, on August 30, 2007, the Court dismissed this case without prejudice. It noted that should Plaintiffs refile their case, they would need to address all of the points in all of the named Defendants’ respective motions.
On August 31, 2007, Plaintiffs moved to set aside the dismissal and filed an Amended Complaint. This Amended Complaint was substantially the same as their first Complaint. The only change was the specification of the Plaintiffs who represent the class and the addition of it being a class action lawsuit.
The next month, on September 10, the State of Arkansas Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. In their motion, the State of Arkansas Defendants claimed that Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint should be stricken because Plaintiffs failed to seek and obtain leave of the Court to file an amended complaint. Additionally, the State of Arkansas Defendants claimed that Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint added nothing to Plaintiffs’ substantive claims and failed to make sufficient allegations to entitle them to class status.
A few days later, on September 13, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, stating that Plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to establish standing to bring the case, and denied all pending motions as moot. In its Order, the Court stated that Plaintiffs had not pled sufficient facts of a concrete and particularized harm but had pled general grievances concerning alleged misconduct at City Hall. As such, Plaintiffs did not have standing to invoke the power of the federal courts to correct this alleged harm. 2007 WL 2710096.
On October 12, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (Docket 07-3413). Plaintiffs moved to stay the case while they appealed, but the Court denied the motion later that month, on October 25.
Two years later, on July 27, 2009, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision based on Plaintiffs' lack of standing. 329 Fed.Appx. 693. The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Stephanie Robin (11/28/2023)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5245387/parties/winstead-v-stodola/
Alexander, John (Arkansas)
Bridges, Kathryn N. (Arkansas)
Austin, LaTonya Laird (Arkansas)
Bell, Patricia V. (Arkansas)
Betton, Alexander J. (Arkansas)
Austin, LaTonya Laird (Arkansas)
Betton, Alexander J. (Arkansas)
Burnett, Karla Moore (Arkansas)
Carpenter, Thomas M. (Arkansas)
Davis, Cheryl Lynette (Arkansas)
Dawson, Cynthia Sweets (Arkansas)
Fields, Amy Beckman (Arkansas)
Garcia, Caleb Peter (Arkansas)
Hollingsworth, Patrick E. (Arkansas)
Hughes, Kandi Nia-Michelle (Arkansas)
Mankin-Mitchell, Amanda (Arkansas)
Merritt, Jennifer L. (Arkansas)
Readnour, Warren Taylo (Arkansas)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5245387/winstead-v-stodola/
Last updated June 2, 2025, 1:13 a.m.