|
|
| |
| Sun, Nov. 23, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
Supreme Court reinstates challenge to Dollarway millage election Friday, Jun 27, 2008 By John Lyon Arkansas News Bureau LITTLE ROCK - A Jefferson County circuit judge erred in dismissing a lawsuit challenging a millage increase in the Dollarway School District because plaintiffs challenged the tax, not the millage election, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday. The high court reinstated the lawsuit and sent the case back to Jefferson County Circuit Court, an action one justice warned would undermine future millage elections. After the Dollarway district annexed the Altheimer School District in 2006, the new combined district held an election in which voters approved a millage increase. Dollarway Patrons for Better Schools, a group of patrons in the former Altheimer district, filed suit contending district officials misrepresented the effect the increase would have on property taxes. Circuit Judge Holden Wyatt Jr. dismissed the suit, finding that the group was barred from contesting an election more than 20 days after balloting was held. In Thursday's 5-1 ruling, the state's highest court said the suit did not contest the outcome of the election. Instead, the suit alleged the election was illegal and that the tax increase constituted an illegal exaction, the Supreme Court found. "DPBS does not seek to invalidate the results of the election. It does not seek to have votes counted or recounted, nor does it claim that votes cannot be counted. Rather, DPBS alleges that there was no authority to hold the election at all," Chief Justice Jim Hannah wrote for the court. The school district argued that in past decisions the court has voided elections because of misrepresentations in the actual measure being voted on, but it has never voided an election because of misrepresentations in discussions at city council meetings, street conversations or speeches. The Supreme Court said there was no judicial precedent on that issue, and remanded the case to circuit court for a ruling. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Donald Corbin said the majority's decision would erode confidence in the election process. "The effect of the majority's opinion is to allow a collateral attack on an election, outside the statutorily mandated 20-day period, that, in my opinion, could lead to dire consequences for all future elections involving proposed millage increases," Corbin wrote. Justice Tom Glaze did not participate in the decision. |
