Group wants annexation put to vote

HOT SPRINGS — A group that opposes the annexation of 621 acres into Hot Springs has asked a Garland County circuit judge to order the city to certify a petition that would set an election on the annexation.

Attorney Ben Hooten filed a request on behalf of George Pritchett, a former Garland County justice of the peace, the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the annexation ordinance the city adopted in January.

The city stopped verifying petition signatures after a March 9 advisory opinion that City Attorney Brian Albright solicited from the Friday Eldredge & Clark law firm in Little Rock. City Clerk/Assistant City Manager Lance Spicer said the Concerned Citizens Group submitted 1,575 signatures Feb. 23, of which 1,057 were verified.

The group submitted more signatures March 15 and Monday, but Spicer said the verification process won’t proceed unless there’s a court order. To refer the annexation issue to voters will require 1,425 valid petitition signatures, 15 percent of the vote total in the 2014 mayoral race.

Albright asked for the advisory option, seeking clarification on conflicting deadlines set the Arkansas Constitution and in legislation passed last year on submitting referendum petitions.

A letter he sent Spicer on Feb. 23 advised that petitions the Concerned Citizens Commission turned in earlier that day were submitted after the 30-day deadline set in a city ordinance that was adopted under the Arkansas Constitution. The annexation ordinance was approved Jan. 19, or 35 days after the initial signatures were submitted.

The citizens group invoked Act 1093 of 2015, which allows 60 days to circulate a municipal referendum petition but doesn’t stipulate when the time frame begins.

The law firm sided with the city, citing a previous legislatively imposed deadline that the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled was inconsistent with the state constitution.

Act 197 of 1935 set a 30-day deadline for filing referendum petitions on municipal laws, but the state’s high court ruled in Cobb v. Burress that the Legislature exceeded its authority in setting the deadline. The 1948 opinion cited the state constitution’s Initiative and Referendum Amendment, which allows cities to set the deadline at 30-90 days after a municipal law is passed, something the constitution says the Legislature shall not “restrict, hamper or impair.”

“Under Amendment 7 and the holding of Cobb v. Burress, Act 1093 is void to the extent it attempts to infringe on Hot Springs’ Amendment 7 right to set the deadline for filing a referendum petition,” Elizabeth Robben Murray of Friday Eldredge & Clark wrote.

A news release the Garland Good Government Group issued Tuesday took exception to the firm’s opinion, which it said was based on outdated case law.

“Our opinion is that using legislation and litigation which predates civil rights, voting rights and requires poll tax receipts in order to vote is quite a stretch,” the release said.

The request to the circuit court says the Feb. 23 submission was 30 days after the Jan. 24 publication of the annexation ordinance and says the ordinance wasn’t duly passed until the publication date. It asks for clarity on the deadline, saying the city’s solicitation of an outside opinion shows that the city is also unclear on how to proceed.

“The city didn’t know the proper time for accepting petitions as evidenced by their eight-day delay in refusing to certify, and using an opinion letter from a law firm,” the complaint said. “The issue that must be resolved is whether or not the date of publication, or the date the ordinance was passed, begins the 30-day clock to file a referendum petition.”

A court order issued March 10 stayed the April 1 enactment of the ordinance pending the outcome of Pritchett’s litigation. It is scheduled for trial April 27. Spicer said the usual 30-day enactment after the ordinance’s adoption was waived to make allowances for the county’s quarterly billing cycle for sanitation services.

He said putting the ordinance into effect 30 days after its Jan. 19 adoption would have interrupted a billing cycle that ends April 1 and made it difficult to credit annexed residents who have already paid for a full year of county service.

A separate lawsuit filed by residents in the annexed area also seeks to invalidate the ordinance and prevent all future annexations that rely on the rationale that the city has invoked in support of two annexation measures. The first one adopted in December put a 481-acre area under city control. Both areas border Lake Hamilton.

The law allows a city’s legislative body to annex enclaves, or unincorporated areas surrounded by corporate limits. Act 109 passed by the Legislature last year broadened enclaves to include land bound by municipal territory on three sides and a lake or river on a fourth side.

Pritchett’s lawsuit contends that most of the 600 acres the city annexed in January falls outside the scope of Act 109 and asks the court to declare that the area is in the unincorporated part of the county.

“Tract B of Enclave B consists of approximately 10 miles of boundary with Lake Hamilton on its south and east, compared to only 3.5 miles of boundary with the city of Hot Springs on its north and west, which does not meet the three sides on the city and one on the lake required by Act 109 of 2015,” the complaint said.