Not Letting Felons Vote Damages Democracy for All Citizens

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat— Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty, and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—argues that disenfranchising felons, as most American states do in some way, does substantial harm to everyone in our democracy. Sarat praises a recent decision by a federal district court in Florida striking down a state law requiring people with serious criminal convictions to pay court fines and fees before they can register to vote, but he cautions that but much more needs to be done to ensure that those who commit serious crimes can exercise one of the essential rights of citizenship.

Read More

Harmon v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 216

Opinion Date: May 28, 2020

Judge: Wynne

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for various drug and drug-related offenses and sentencing him to an aggregate term of forty years' imprisonment, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the presence of filmmakers at the search of Defendant's residence. When DEA officers and other law enforcement officers executed a warrant for the search of Defendant's home, they found drugs and drug paraphernalia. An HBO documentary film crew was present at the search under an agreement with law enforcement. The filmmakers did not participate in the search, nor did they include footage of the search in a documentary that later aired on HBO. On appeal from his convictions, Defendant argued, among other things, that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to order the State to obtain the HBO video footage of the search of Defendant's home and to identify the filmmakers who were present. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not abuse its discretion in declining to order the State to obtain the video; (2) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's request for a continuance; (3) did not abuse its discretion in granting the State's motion to exclude testimony about the film; and (4) erred in giving a nonmodel instruction, but the error was harmless.

Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration v. Carpenter Farms Medical Group, LLC

Citation: 2020 Ark. 213

Opinion Date: May 28, 2020

Judge: Rhonda K. Wood

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

In this action challenging the decision of the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Commission disqualifying Carpenter Farms Medical Group, LLC's application for a marijuana-cultivation facility the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and dismissed in part the judgment of the circuit court denying the State's motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity, holding that the complaint may go forward only under Ark. Code Ann. 25-15-207 and the declaratory judgment action alleging an equal protection violation. In its complaint, Carpenter Farms asserted (1) it was the only 100 percent minority-owned applicant and that the Commission singled out its application for disparate treatment in violation of equal protection guarantees; and (2) the Commission violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to adopt certain rules and improperly applying the rules it did adopt. The circuit court denied the State's motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed in part, holding (1) the lawsuit cannot proceed regarding the Commission's application of its own rules or as an administrative appeal; and (2) Carpenter Farms can go forward with it claim that the Commission failed to adopt model rules and with its declaratory judgment action alleging an equal protection violation.

Hurd v. Arkansas Oil & Gas Commission

Citation: 2020 Ark. 210

Opinion Date: May 28, 2020

Judge: Hudson

Areas of Law: Contracts, Energy, Oil & Gas Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court affirming amended integration orders entered by the Arkansas Oil & Gas Commission (AOGC), holding that the AOGC did not exceed its statutory authority in granting SWN Production, LLC's (SWN) request to reduce the royalty payable under Appellants' oil and gas leases when the lessees elected to go "non-consent." On appeal, Appellants argued that the AOGC's actions were both ultra vires and arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) while there is no statutory provision specifically stating that the AOGC may reduce the royalty rate contained in a lease, there is also no statutory language expressly stating that the consenting parties - such as SWN - are responsible for payment of royalties when an uncommitted leasehold working-interest owner elects to go non-consent; and (2) the AOGC's orders were neither ultra vires nor arbitrary and capricious.

Carter v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 218

Opinion Date: May 28, 2020

Judge: Womack

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Defendant's motion for a new trial based on postconviction DNA testing results, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the motion and in not granting an evidentiary hearing before ruling on the motion. Defendant was convicted of rape, aggravated robbery, and burglary more than thirty years ago. In 2012, Defendant moved for postconviction DNA testing under Act 1780 of 2001 seeking to test for "touch DNA" on the knife found at the crime scene. The circuit court entered a stipulated order for postconviction DNA testing on the knife and several hairs and hair fragments. After testing was complete, Defendant moved for a new trial, relying on the DNA testing results. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion for new trial; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in finding that an evidentiary hearing was not required.

Dollar General Corp. v. Elder

Citation: 2020 Ark. 208

Opinion Date: May 28, 2020

Judge: Hudson

Areas of Law: Personal Injury

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court in favor of Plaintiff on her slip and fall action, holding that the circuit court did not err or abuse its discretion. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) did not err by not granting Defendants' motion for a directed verdict because substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict; (2) did not abuse its discretion as a matter of law by allowing a chiropractor to testify as an expert regarding the causal connection between Plaintiff's fall and the treatment provided by other physicians; and (3) did not abuse its discretion by allowing Plaintiff to give causation testimony regarding her treatments that were not rendered in temporal proximity to the occurrence of the accident.