Filed Date: Sept. 2, 2020
Closed Date: Sept. 15, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
On September 2, 2020, the Chairperson of Arkansas Voters First, Inc., in her individual capacity, and The League of Women Voters of Arkansas filed suit against Arkansas' Secretary of State John Thurston in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant’s enforcement of Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-601(b) violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution because compliance with the statute placed an undue burden on Plaintiffs.
For background, Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-601(b) listed several qualifications that must be met before a paid canvasser may obtain signatures on a petition. At issue was subsection (3) which provided that “[u]pon submission of the sponsor’s list of paid canvassers to the Secretary of State, the sponsor shall certify to the Secretary of State that each paid canvasser in the sponsor’s employ has passed a criminal background check in accordance with this section.”
Plaintiffs sponsored two petitions pertaining to election reform in Arkansas and gathered nearly 100,000 signatures on each by July 6, 2020. Plaintiffs wanted these petitions to be included on the November 3, 2020 ballot. Plaintiffs submitted their petitions to the Secretary of State along with a canvasser list which included the following statement “this statement and submission of names serves as certification that a statewide Arkansas State Police background check, as well as, 50-state criminal background check have been timely acquired in the 30 days before the first day the Paid canvasser begins to collect signatures as required by Act 1104 of 2017.” On July 14, 2020, Defendant wrote to Plaintiff stating that he could not count the submitted signatures because the statement provided by Plaintiff only confirmed that a background check was conducted but not passed.
Plaintiff argued that a criminal background check could not be passed because the Arkansas State Police Criminal Background Check System would not assign a “passing” or “failing” grade to a background check. Moreover, Plaintiff argued that the statute was ambiguous and did not define “passing.” It was not until August 27, 2020, that the Supreme Court of Arkansas defined “having ‘passed’ a criminal background check [as] having no criminal conviction for a felony offense or a violation of the election laws, fraud, forgery, or identification theft as stated in section 7-9-601(d)(3).” Miller v. Thurston, 2020 Ark. 267, slip op. at 8, FN 4. Thus, Plaintiff argued that prior to August 27, 2020, it was impossible for Plaintiff to comply with the statute and Plaintiff would have to lie to make such certification.
On September 2, 2020, along with the Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction that requested the Court to remove the “passed” requirement in Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-601(b)(3) and required the Defendant to verify the signatures.
On September 10, 2020, Defendant filed a Response in Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction and claimed that this was Plaintiffs’ third attempt to avoid compliance with antifraud requirements of Arkansas’ ballot-initiative process. Defendant argued that the Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevented federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over claims that were “inextricably intertwined” with state-court decisions. Plaintiffs’ request for a declaratory judgment and a preliminary injunction of the background-check-certification requirement was inextricably intertwined with their request for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief of that same requirement in the Arkansas Supreme Court. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ alleged injury was not redressable by the Court because Plaintiffs’ initiatives failed to qualify for the ballot on grounds independent of the background-check-certification requirement, and res judicata barred this claim since the Arkansas Supreme Court fully adjudicated the matter and issued an opinion on the merits of the Plaintiffs’ claim concerning the background-check-certification requirement. Miller, 2020 Ark. 267, 2020 WL 5050355, at *4
On September 15, 2020, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Preliminary Injunction. The Court first examined redressability and noted that Plaintiffs’ injury was not exclusion from the ballot but rather the unconstitutional burden on their right to political expression through the enforcement of § 7-9-601(b)(3). The Court found that enjoinment of the enforcement of the state statute would redress this injury. The Court found that the case was barred by res judicata because the prior state case was a final judgment on the merits, the jurisdiction was proper before the state court, the matter was fully contested in good faith, and the parties in both cases shared privity. Further, the Court was not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits of their claim because it was possible to comply with § 7-9-601(b)(3) by stating, for example, that the canvassers had no criminal offenses of record. The Court denied the preliminary injunction and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Summary Authors
Deidre Fragapane (11/20/2023)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18201778/parties/miller-v-thurston/
Brooks, Timothy Lloyd (Arkansas)
Couch, David A. (Arkansas)
Greenwood, Ruth M. (Arkansas)
Bronni, Nicholas (Arkansas)
Cantrell, Michael A. (Arkansas)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18201778/miller-v-thurston/
Last updated Aug. 9, 2025, 10:13 p.m.
State / Territory: Arkansas
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 2, 2020
Closing Date: Sept. 15, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The Chairperson of Arkansas Voters First, Inc., in her individual capacity, and The League of Women Voters of Arkansas
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Secretary of State of Arkansas, State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting: