Letter from Michael Langley (ABC)

2011-05-18 14:36 »
.,} . .).
P 2/17
STATE OF ARKANSAS AtCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL DIVISION
1513 \Ves! 71h Slt'eel, Sulle 503
Little Rock, Arknns!1S 72201
TeJephone (SO I) 682-1105
Fa~(501)682-2221
1\'1 ichael W, Langley" :
Diredtor
,
80ARD MEMBERS:
Donald R,!Bcnnctt ,.
Thomas P. Powell, Jr., Chairman
ROil Puller
Tony Ellis
Jean Hervey
Martin B. Silverfield
·Altol·hey
j
M it ton [f;Lucken
Attciqley
,
.j.
,
. .
=!
"
1
'i· .
. i.
~ ~l
':,
:;-. "!":
TO:
REPRE$ENTA1'IVE BARRY HYDE
OlOTH,EARKANSAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATE'!Ci\P1TOL BUILDING
'
'.........:1:>
/'
MI9HA.~Lw. LANGLEY, DIRECTOR)/ijJ,,-- .. ·~
/
AB,CPkVI~ION
~~~~tti~~:5~grION
RE:
STATUS OF AREA ANNEXED BY THE
GRAYffPWNSHIP- 1956 ELECTION
t
DATE,;
MAY t~,':2'Oll
.
.
..
;
r
'.
.
.!'.:'
.
'!
oJ,
MEMO
;\f. '. !
Attach~d please'fi:fld,:a'dopyof a memo prepared by my staff attorney, Don Bennett, on
the loch! option shit,ds of pr8)' Township as it existed in 1956. As reflected in the
memo ~t is MLBeriri~tt':i 9pinion that the area voted dry in 1956 remains dry in spite
of the .fact that .aporponof
it was annexed by the city of Sherwood in a subsequent
'
'.
year.:
,.:j
~f
:';1
.,
,
'
If you have any' questions in this matter please contact me at your earliest
convel1ience, , ' j
.i1
MWL/DRB/kh
:',: ii ,
;
'1 i
(
'I ;
. ;
',"i, .'
,~
r ,
i
,I, .,
,!
;
~}.,
.(
'I
.. .,i 'I
,,;!
I
-:1'
'j
.'
. ,J
...I
2011-05-18 14 :3'8
»
P 3/17
1;
,[
I: '.'
"i' :
,:'. ,', '1':
MICH~fL,W. LANGLEY
TO:
-.~" -~
'. ' ; ,;:
:l. :-,___ ~
: '_ .
FROM:
DON
,': ,- :BttNNE1.T
';J : •.
RE:
L,dbAI..:!OJ?,TJON ELECTION STATUS - GRAY TOWNSHIP,
:~' _. ',' _"' ~~ J
: '. :
.PljLAsI<:{COUNTY
LE(jAI,-:!Qis,CRIPTION OF GRAY TOWNSHIP IN 1956­
UAST I"DCAL OPTION ELECTION FOR GRAY TOWNSHIP
,
"
DATE::
. :. "',:" t
,! ;
.
.
MAY12,2(Hl
. --,'
.i
.:i
"
,
MEMO
I
;'" . '-.' Li.
'
At YOU:l' reque~t'tht:i~ecortipned this memo to answer the following question that you
:.
':,::. ,>i',;"
have posed to:nie,:;,Whfit is, the current local option election status of Gray Township,
;
",I. ,:" . . '
c' :";
Pulaskicouniy,'
a~ntt e*i.sted
in 1956?
':
,- --::
-.­
.
,
;i
i· , '
.
In order to an~~er}i~UI1~ti~stion I am going to take the position that Gray Township,
.
."', ,+:
~ ..!
as it eXll'lted in.Calertdal:'Y~ar 1956 is a "dry" township, even though this particular
;
township no
,
. ., "I"';,
l~ng~r~U~ts~s
a political voting unit under today's rules.
:i '
il .- ;
~
,' .
,
'I
, ,
..... ,:,'
'I
.. '
Some.backgro'1:ln~,~hi~h
'
I believe is still good today, will help you understand my
; : ,,,',J. ;,'
answer to YOUr questlOI). ,
.. !j
-'i'
:.1'
,
,:,.1.
'.
Pursuant to laws ih'~ffect at that time, the Pulaski County Election Commission and
,
'
'.
,I
.
othet~!fi1ed a P:e;titlo*
",
'-- . -:-
be 'ruled on by the then Pulaski County Judge Arch Campbell,
!
to chahge the:b6rd~:tlso,fvoting preclllcts in Pulaski County in 1956. In their petition
,~!
it is repited that it wljl.s nece,ssary for political townships to be realigned partly due to
"
: :.:
.':
,:: .
_~
-, r . .
the recent anlh~~ati9r~Jo the city of Jacksonville which necessitated the boundary line
;-. ,
t_,
,j
, ).i '
i:'
l'
I
~i
.;
J
------
~--~
.1
i
2011-05.-18 14:39
»
P 4/17
-.I
I
'J,
'J .',
.
. '1;.,
.
of Gray.TownshiptQ.6~~hanged, it also recited that realignment of the voting .";
:i,,': .' ,'~
precinGts, whichwere'tQWnships at that time, would make voting places more
.:.'
J:" ,.;. ;-. : . .• C> 'J,,;.' . . .
accessible tot;iiepubHc :dUe to the shifting population and other such matters,
,
copy
,
"
.,1,,;"
A
of the JU~~~'sdrd~r; which is found in Pulaski County Record Book 61, pages 38
: . ' , . , " , I :'"
:
",~'
.',.
.and 3.9,;;
":"
'.-
; - . ' c'
[ - _ -', ;
teflect~ the)ie~metes
i '~
. . <> :::::': n"
and bounds description of Gray Township. The
Judge's orderk$s'sime~ ;oll February 13, 1956, and it recited that the petition would
be gnJted
.'
and.tniLt'~({brder
was to become effective as soon as the court signed the
' , ' ' '.' ·I·"!"
-,.;
.
:
J .::.:;(-:;
;,!',
same on Febrtiaty 13,,;1956, and that voters would vote accordingly henceforward,
::
,"1:'-
.;1
. i- .' ~
1"
..j'
Onde~~~he neW'19S~;leg~ description of Gray Township a local option election was
.
/.:;
'.::' . ,' l
~:- ::~,,~.
~;'-r'; ,.'
held 0~NoveIll:~er6':11956;and the area was voted dry by a vote of421 against and
..:
',"
219 fOlt
.
.. ::;!
',.,','
'~",,J":'
,
}
..
-;1' ,
,J
r";r,;:",
.,: '
Subsequent t?~th~(el~dionthat agency discovered, a number of years ago, that it had
i".;·:
,"
;:~.::·';,.:t> .;'J:;:~- ,:~":
'
grarited retaill;>e\i-~~'a'geperri1its to the area of Pulaski County that had been defined in
, "
,11, .':,1; ~ :>:
1956 a~GrayTp\v.'rts~p~ t4e agency undertook to cancel various permits that had
.
;
been
-I:::, .:' ':', '_i. tJ
".;.-:
::~
is:Su.edb~;;t~~,~~~cY, ,hi the Gray Township
area, one of which appealed the
, ' , ' ";''':; i : [ " < : '
agencyrsdecisiptil6':'tiPisinatter to the Arkansas Supreme Court. In the case of
.
':' 'j" ; " ')1:" L_:'·-,:/;'{.1 ~:,",t·,:->-,,: _~.
AlcohOiic BeverageCcDtttrgiDivision vs. Barnett, 285 Ark. 189,685 S,W. 2d 511 (1985)
~ ~~-
.
. :;": .i"'
: • ': ,: :.~:..
"j.J
_!'; ;-' . .
'.!
the Aikan.sas ,$up,tern.e Court upheld the agency on the action in cancelling the permit
"
that
",
,,·,:,,:·:'t'·, . :
h~dbeen '~s;~ed~t~ iOe11,ner Barnett, who was succeeded in the case by his widow,
:;
_/'__ L'/'~u,;r \: . ~--< ,;",'
Ednaaamett,fWhil~thete were some technicalities discussed in the Supreme Court
.:;.!
"".+';
opinion the bottom li;p.& brtthis is that the 1956 election stayed in place,
. -j
,
.{ ~ :';' :~~ j; -".;" ;: '. .
I
.j:
.
2011-05-18 14:39
»
. !;\ .
P 5/17
...... ! .
I
'i :1'
p,jNNE~:IbN'9FPORTION OF GRAY TOWNSHIP BY CITY OF SHERWOOD
I'
:
I·
::::;~', '.:t,
1
You hive asked h;t~.t?:'~~ress an opinion as to whether the subsequent annexation by
i,
" <:',-!
:).. ; .):. ,,:. :, ..:
the city of She'rWcj6d:pf~yofthe "Gray Township" "dry" territory had any effect on the
: ' . ..':.'1',,":.
local ohtic)n el~,cti9n,,~t~tusof that portion so annexed. In my legal opinion there has
•
; 1.
'l"
.. ~:: ,;',
.:
j i, . '.
:
.
been ~bsoluteikho.'t~lhtge
in the local option status of that portion which had been
; ,.
" .', "! .'.. " .
~..
voted ;'~dty"
,:
inih~:19$6election.
. :.', ',; >,~y :" ~ ;
·"i·
~
,1, . . ' _ , ;
~
.r ';.
!. . ~ ;::,. ;".
.~ ;i ,:
;, .. : '.'
If you l;eview the:1~g~~~s,t~ption you will find that the 1956 version of Gray Township
has as:one
':
.
,:
of.it~!i'.cai~s:;:We ~ollowing:
.,"
"
'1
...,.,'.:,;,"i':, ..
:fthellc~';Easf<.¥?ri-gSouth
line of Township 3 North to East boundary of Pulaski
. "';" n : .
iCounty:.;'!·· . ,,'.n.,
I:,
".
(: . i
j.
;.
... ;'.: . . ::<1):·:,
When,! laid tl1~*;jPv~n:wm,ap and when I compared it to the city street map that we
had
av1w~ble{~jtiiJi~;e~u~tes to "Maryland Avenue" of Sherwood.
,:>rl',',
-;',)
.·r·; /' . .
~I
1.' ~
'.;.\",:1';.::
The atl.r~xati0r.~y~e'.<'1itYOf Sherwood had no effect upon the local option status of
Gray
TOW~S4i~.Be~~~~e~ih~ only way that the prohibition placed into effect in
, :;
1956
.. .;:: .:';";/'" ';f:' ..> ." '."
can ever,be rer:p.ovedil'lfot the exact same territory, even though it does not any longer
:.: i
;;·;·:r··:,·~.· . .::;.:,::,.,'
. ::..'.:':::'..:' -';'
legally ,exist as, a:~~p¥.aJ~voting unit, to remove the prohibition. In this regard please
'.
" .
:,~:~ ;i' ':.
. ,"
:
"'.t... ,
'
see AGf\3-8-208;apbrtion of Initiated Measure No.1 of 1942, the current local option
••...
·f.';',.·,:!.;,; .:. ,.. .
electi0f.tlaw,artd:the'liritierp(etation of ACA 3-B-20B(b) as stated in Denniston v. Riddle .
. :. ;'
, ;::'.:'. ;':" ': \'. ~;f- : ; . ..'-.
210 Ark.
1039~)99S:V.( 2d308 (1947).
.
',. '.: "!
~.
-
':
'j , 1 ' ""
.',
:'"
'
.....;,
,\.,1 . ':;i'!'"", :'.'
H
2011-05-18 14:39
»
P 6/17
'l"'1 .
'!
.: . ",f .
i., '.
The s~bject of~ne~a~~~s by cities of "dry'" territories was covered at one Woe by a
provision of the Aikahs11s Code. However that portion of the Arkansas Code was
'!'I' .
:
':'.
repealed in 1995. 'i
I
.
"',j
i
.<
.;
" : ."'j
.
~ ~
All we ,have le~t a~tb:i,spo1nt is ACA 3-8-208. !..
J ' ". '..
i
..' ' ) ....
This is; not theT¢st'.tftr1<e .that this issue has been submitted to the office. The late
;
'.
.\,'
~
'.' .',1
.'~,
',>
:
Ralph Pattersdri: ,Orit~ 'becrune aware that a cHen t of his wanted to locate in what had
.'
,'" "':"
been, in his opi.t~foni!~ former "dry" territory in Conway County called Austin
,.
;
'
TO\lIJIlspip.
•..
; :'}.: ..
.
ApPflre~tly,tpere
had been sonie sort of realignment of the voting precinct
I, :
for
the;COnvefli~hcJ'*f:tp~ voters in Conway County and the Austin Township voting
'.
. 1
.'
place'~ad bee#~hlf~t4,}did research at that time and at that time our office supplies
inc1ud~d
a legru
!enc~cldpedia.
, ,
. .
,
'1:
Measute
;
I advised Mr. Patterson that in view of the Initiated
provi~i~l'1 r,~cited above, and in view of the fact that there was no other state
', . . ; '.. ,i: ) , .
law infffect,t:,4at th~ ot;fice:vould follow the majority opinion in this matter and would
, ~.,
, reorgariiza:~bh6r
.' " ''1.,,; , realignment of a voting precinct would not alter the local
say th';"t
option~resultsthat I;i~d:been attached in an election.
·'1"
I!.
'I
My
po~ii:ion il1t11is~aqer has been backed up in an Arkansas AG opinion which was
'.
,I
issuedjon April
•
,..
•
.'
29, 2;Ob~;lacopy of which is attached.
"
~
:1
See AG's opinion No. 2002-115.
:
i
'I , 1
SUMMARY
·1·
.'1
i ' .
. .
','
l·'
'.I
'
It is my legal opiniori:th~t the territory designated as Gray Township by County Judge
.
, : '..1, ; .
Arch C'ampbeI!.irt.
hi~
i $56 Order,
and which was subsequently voted "dry" is still a
.
,'!
..
2011-05-18 14:39
»
,,
I
,
.,
,
'I,
dry territory
eveh'thdughthe
political township known as Gray Township no longer
.
.. "
;
exists.',' It is
'.'
n:iylfurJ~rilegal
opinion that the totality of Gray Township shall remain
,,',
"(,;,'
:',
dry un,til a prdperel¢ritiotl is held to reverse the prohibition as required by ACA 3-8­
"
" , ' ",1 " ,
,
208(bl;asinteiPrete:<ii~Y the case of Denniston v. Riddle, supra. It is my further legal
;,:,:J
'
OPiniol~ thattiie~rihc~tion by the city of Sherwood had no effect on the local option
"
. '.:: !.
":/:'.
.
election statusqt:tha;tai-ea which had been previously voted "dry".
.
"
. ,:
: ,­
",1 ': !
,
.: i:
:r ­ ,~
,
"
DRB/lili ,
"
.
!•
I
; ~
P 7/17
-~-----------~-~----.--------.~--
.i
2011-.Q5-1814:J9
»
,.,
P 8/17
.,
i.
IN 'rHF. /-l.\T'l'BR
.ofi TI1 f.;:!C,ON.sDLlD"';'lON
_ '.
l.'.;[)
,i:"H,:l'; I'
&H
:' "I. ; : ' : , ; ' ;
HtLOCAT),ON OF,
tHmI'O~It+CALTO';:NSIlIP3
" i
'j
:-'.
11
Q
Q
'\
No"'~ii\l1i~dc.l"':ls pr~sented to the Court fo!' clpproval the
pet.! t.i~;~ of th~!~:tl~iJki;cou~ty Election Commission and Chairman and
' .'
,'.1';:.,/: '. >
th:eif'y~~\~k1Cdunty
'1'.:.
SL'cr!!tary of
'
" " ; - , : <..
consolida.te
:;.-
and;re.-:·lH~at:e.
sOme
':; '''j :-.:-::::' -~!' ,,'. ; , - .
th.~
Democratic Central GOI1l!T.Htea, to
of the POlitical townships, which is
to --~ :'i,'{::iTi-lt'bnt:
' pArtlY:d'lie
::.:
,.': ." ,: ~l !' ,.;' annexations to the City ot .1 a
oksonvi11y,',Jhich
nece ssl00 te s thEr ;b'bun~arj ,or. Gray Tmvnship to be chant;ed. .
-~
>":. ! " :
:.':" F;':\,:'{f
P:~t'i~'i:?~er$';bfJllevc
The
rso
""t.s(
i
PUhS~ii,,~p.f,Hi:~:n.:1t
this will bl:) fOr the betterment of the
will hD ablt: to mnkQ voting fJI;\c0s
accessible to 1;geh'IUb.£in:due to the
' ;
!,,,,.j 11 ce
. ! ":;--",:
l:;/1e
COs
'0
of population;
elect 10ns a n':l they her€ l by
a~diW~liiiis~'desbriPt:!on
-.:,~
~iljft1ng
i t will
:
t';OI> :dond,ll~t'1ng
Court a'rneces
. ":..
.' .;: . r
.
<}_-',i
morc
;~';I, ~"I:',
sub:ni t to the
of the; toWn:;hips a$ wo feel they
"hotild b:e.
;d~H:e;th
Hi th Seetion lR-lOl-19i+7, flobh­
: 'Tbi:$',:ls
. ,; . :.......
: j ' : i. conlOlJanc9
,
H",rrlll:;; Al'kansii~:~ta;:i!u'j;~'s~
; .'i:.,i'~?,nt'!;::·;OHf,Y TCMNSllIJ:
!=I,ega, ~ tn'~~.~~~c.~~6i~ of North line of Township 3 Nor ttl
,\Yith'EaS,t·;Il~un4e._l'Y,11ne of Pulaski County, then ~/est
.. along ':N9J;'th:111ili! TOWnship 3 North to Northl'lest cornel'
secdori1'lr·l':ci~ri(ihiP 3 North Range 12 West, which is
.1
a1so~l:1.e,)l:as/t:,·b?dndary of Camp Robinson, thence South
. '; 'u1ong::C':I!-.st, 'QPtirid<lrY of Camp Robinson as of .Januar'y 1,
:, 1956,,;Ci:)':S61.)ith rIlne of TOImship 3 North ~hf:nc'e East
ill:ong;§qp.th,,'l~r:\eiof To~mship 3 North to East boundary of
' i Pula s~:3,l~~o:j.r'!~Y',~~li"'nce North along Ea st bountiary. of
Pttlask1,:County'tQ :intersection of NOJ'th line of TCAm"hip
3 Nor~h,;bri:ih~ pOiiit of beginning
. • "'::{,'
.,
',.'1,.
~OnTHi!:l1 TO'..;~iSlll~
o
.'
~ Sf),~in at. Not',b!1\/t;!£t,'coC'nel' of ~;"c~ion 1, 'I'Q"lll::ohip ? t:orLh
,Hallg.:: ·12.' ~hi;i\tce:lvt:lst to PnlaT'llI Craek. '!'henc~J Soutb'>I€i!7t
. 616n(~ Pal1a)hnJCr",ek'to Ccnt.:l' 01' ',l'!Um"U:5 itivut', thellCl!
; ;';,1uthp,t)$it':'nlilll\g',;,11lnter of AI'krIH;<l!l to 'th,!:t .line Secl,iotls
:10 "nd:;~~7.:1'9\~h);(d,p! 2 NOl'th n::nl~(' 13 \>Ie ~t~ thcmce Horth
;,longivtl;RtJ;':fne;'of /kcLJonr. 15-10 ilnil 3, ~o NortilWL::;t;
.<.!° 1'1.I!:!r '-?ft!t.1~T)..');i ;'l'bwn,<'hip 2 t~OI' ~h, H';'IH:e !,3 ~J~st, ~tJencc
cOlll:l,riXie:,8as:I; ::\3·O'FI/: t·Jorth line 'l'ul-lll:;llJ.p 2 :br'th to
Oatirfl Hop1n!;on. 'J'hcll1C,~ Hortll nlong I~ilst
O(llHldn'!'}hbf'·
",.,t
oounjar'y:.or::QO\l11p>:j{obill:wn to N01'tlMO!;t C;(J!'~lElr ot' ,s,",~tion 1,
!klne'" 12 ~J",,:t bdllr: p<.lln\. 0[' bt.:ginning.
T')\"nO:ldJ)-'\'~/'~9J?'t!i;:
"
,';1."
'. ~,'t, '-,;
1
.,
"
»
P 9/17
-2­
i
'i
, The ne,"', :bbui:\da,rles of Gray and Horthen
, a bol1sQesM'~1'l~r!l1 'I'o'"'flship
To~mship
0
I
'
ii '
YOUNG TO,>JNSH IP
,
. , .', I·'
.
; Begi~ :a '1nt'+I'section of North line l'ownshlp 2 North
and E:ast':bocl{lda'l'ies of Pulaski County, Thence West along Horth ;:lit\,e 'n:ll~nship 2 North to North~lest corner of Sectldl1;~,., TOWh,5',hi P 2 North Han&a 11 Hast, thence South a1ong,'Wes.tJ;;tne,· Sections 4-9-16-21-28 and 33, Township 2 North,,;~an;ge II I'/est and continuing South along \'lest line ~'eq't;ionl4-,; ~OWhsh p 1 North, Range 11 \.Jest to
.
Cente r;,,'lf.I\~:kansa S ',Ri ver! thane e Souther1y along center of Arkansasqqv~l".to intersection Baseline, Thence East alol1g,Ba~seJ.1ne ,to East line of Pulaski County, Thence North <along' jl:!lSt ,line of PulasJ{i County to Northeast cOl'ner'Se6t1:pn ;)+jTOlmship 2 Harth Ral1t:e 10 ~iest a point of beglnning~'
,', ; .. 'r f> : .
. !: The C9~ftuP;o~.e~ilOlinntion of said petition being well and
t:
l
: ,""';,-,
grant
!
advlsed,';as
suffid~ntly
to Iill matter of fact and
1£1\'1
arising hereill dot
~he pet~tibJi,~
." ,,"J , : ,
It is 'tJ,~ere:f10r~. considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court
)".,
"
':
,
th~ pe tiqon :f~.'jgranted and
tha t
some of the pol1 tical townships have
been consolidated ~nd.r~-loc·ated
fOr the betterment of the voters makinf
- I"·'
"'.
voting places
~~~~ a~ceS$ible
'" '.' ' .,J' ..... ,
to the public.
I t 15 further ordered
by the, Court t1;1<1I;' th{s'order is to become effetitiv6 as soon
~ie;ns
s;tm0
an,d.
\~111
Oll
the Courl
vote accordingly henceforward,.
Clul'k dn hc:fehy cel Li fy Un t the [oxe­
f) ',lnL'd on
th,~
1 ~:th
(j,1'1
of
Fcbru;;ry,
1<)'.)6,
of;
!L S. prE'IBiS, County Clerr.
"J
2011-05:"18 14:39
I
»
.,
,J .
. ,I;
P 10/17,-,
Page I
. :. i . .
or 4
'T··
, :
'i
:1 ".'
Page 511
685 S.W.2d 511
285 Ark. 189
j ··.l . '.
ALCOHQiLIC'BEVERAGE CONTROL DIVISION, Appellant,
.' i
...
,.!
".
p
•• ,
..
...
,
,f -,"
.
v.
::t,·: ." '. Edna BARNETT, Appellee.
'd
",' 'j;:,:;
No.
. i- ; .
84~248 •
"
.'
.i
. . .J "
"
~1
Supreme Court of Arkansas.
'
J. ".,
March 11, 1985.
-;: ,
Donald
R.·B:e~n'tt';little Rock, for appellant.
Page 51i
.d
I .
. ' ',:''1''.
.
Milas H. H~I:~rNprthLittle Rock, for appellee.
.
; .~ .
'. ~ . ',.
~,'
: .; ' •.\ . ~'.
.
.:.;~. .." .1.
,
HAYS, J4s~.I(:e.;:L ~; .
. .
,
"
:''; ;"
:. . ",.
:,j'
;Ii'
.
~
,
:,
TheAlcot'l,CiJI~.~e,'v"era'ge Control Division has appealed from an order of the
Pulaski qircuitqp!-lr1::':r,;ey~rSir1g the Division's cancellation of the permit of Delmer
Barnett f, appene:eitd.~ell, beer at his grocery store on Kellogg Road in North Little
Rock, lying
t3~~y:t~vrn.S.!liP
.'. . .
in
.~T/;Ji'·.·
.
.
In1,.981t~~::pjVipib;n,discovered that a part of Gray (285 Ark. 190) Township
thought to be "\f\(~t,~~:v,v~s.actually "dry" as a result of a 1956 local option election.
That faCt had h9,k~~~:b,t~~O~ed to the DiVision and consequently, three permits to
dispenseialcohdl)S:c~.e,~erf:iges in the dry area had been issued prior to the discovery,
one of whichwcis>helt,fpv.,the appellee.
sePte~'~;~,,;il~'82'the
Director of the Division notified the three permittees of
, In
the problem andi"9f'i!r'~$ct:jedl:lled hearing. The facts developed before the Director
were nbt: disputEiid:' iriiDec$rriber, 1954 Gray Township held a local option election and
voted
dry. by av:oteoW·$2.8
to. 473. In February, 1956 the Pulaski County Court
.
.......
,"1'"
entered'an otdetAltet:irm the boundaries of several townships. Gray Township was
enlarged and tti~.p~d1dJract included the locations of the appellee and the other two
permittelfs. The:f9I1oW,ihgNPvember a wet-dry election was held in Gray Township, as
neWly cotnposedi:~hd:ft.~e, drys won, by a vote of 421 to 219. On these grounds the
Director()rdered'the',;p;~:rr;nltscancelled, allowing ninety days for the permit holders to
apply for:' lransfer;t()ci~her·locatjons.
.
'.
.....,'... "'i ';, .
On'appeal:t()'th~AIC9hqIiC Beverage Control Board the permit holders argued
thatthe two
putJlicatiq.ns:of
notice of the 1956 local option election were deficient in
.
'.
, . ;'.
'.\.
.c··
;i
.
..~
",,;~ ·:>··~·~f·.
: '. ­
https:l/apps,. fastcase':cbil'i/Resear~hlPageslDocul11enLaspx'?LTID=alJK Yv7J38rR8ewTLQh... 4/19/2011
.
. I.'"" ,.;', . ·.i.,.I: . '.'
"
2011-05-18 14:40
.'
»
Fastcasc •
..
::
,I.
P 11/17
Page 2 of 4
.
td
that the ;noticesfalled!
include tile full text of the proposal, as required by
Ark.Stat,Ann. §2~307
(f.{epL1976).
.
. .
\
: .:.
:>'1··::'
Th~ PUblisb~d:'h?~i~esinformed the public of a local option election affecting
Gray To~nship to;De~~e'd.o~ November 6, 1956, the date of the next general
eledion-;The no'.tites~atedl "the text of this measure and its ballot title read as
follows: .
"'.
·1, . . ';
I
.;.
"
·:i
GRAY TC)WNSHIP'JmtV\TNE ACT NO. 1. AN ACT TO LEGALIZE THE MANUFACTURE,
SALE, BARTERIN~" LENDING AND GIVING AWAY OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR WITHIN
GRAY T6WNSI-f[lt~ PUU,xSKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS. FOR PROPOSED INITIATIVE ACT
NO. l.:A~AI~$I PROPOSED INITIATIVE ACT NO. 1. _ _ _ .
1'"
. ~i""' .
[285' Ark.)~liJ;~~dthe full text of the proposed act been published, it would have included ttiefoll¢>wing:
.
..' .. ::;1'...... :'.
.
.
"Be it en.;:itted by the,~pe9ple of Gray Townshipi Pulaski County, Arkansas: Secti?n 1.
The manufactur~,:.~a'f?,. bartering, lending, or giving away of intoxicating liquor IS
legal wit\1in Gra·Y"f6whsf.1ip/Pulaski County, Arkansas, and License shall be granted
for said purposes,
:. . .,'.. '··'l· > ~ :
OnJanuary ;17,:·~~~83,.the Board reached a decision granting the permittees an
additional five an~a.'h~lf.months to find alternate locations, failing in which the
permitswould &e'can(:elledas of June 30, 1983 .
';'i ;:' . .'
',1
. : ' , i ,,','
,.
.":1
"
.~. .
. -:-~·:~-:i:;::~ ~"~.:A;:~> :~:-: '.,
Appellee Ba~~et~ filed a petition in the Pulaski Circuit Court to review the
Board's decision,Pllrs~~r1t to the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act
(Ark.Stat.Ann. §,$'''"70i1',:e~ ?eq., Repl.1976L and obtained a stay of the cancellation
pending the appeal.:d,'
".
On)une 2:5,;HH:~4i;the,Circuit Court reversed the Board upon findings that the
administrative rUfirig:of,'the,Board was based on an error of law in that the Board
failed to,recognl;zeth~fJhe1956 local option election was void because the notice
failed to PUbliSh.tJi~}~Hlextof the proposed act as required by Ark.Stat.Ann. § 2-307
(RepI.1976) an~b..efa:pse the election in 1956 violated Ark.Stat.Ann. § 48-802, which
requires that twp 'year:s, el~pse between local option elections .
Page 513
. •. ,J ....
,
•
·i.
.,'
-j'
,
Th~ DiViSi6n;ls.'aJp~ai
.
to this court is predicated on two arguments: the Circuit
Court ha~ .no jurisqi~siOn: in .1984 to deCide an election matter which occurred in
1956, arfdthe ClrcLijtpol.lrterred in ruling the 1956 election was void because two
years hac! not elaps~dV:inBsrouch
as the boundaries of Gray Township changed
. " . .'..... I·· .','
•
between.:the two~.I~C:t;iqns. We sustain the arguments.
I': :",::' _. :j- :,' ~ ; ;.
The dispute;bve~ tne;ti.ming of the two elections can be [285 Ark. 192) easily
disposed;of--it ~a,s'no:,t:raise'd by the appellee or by either of the other two permit
110ldersb,efored;h~'Bb~fd.InArkansas Cemetery Board v. Memorial Properties, Inc.,
'1
..~
.
~
'
.-" ":,'l, -: ,:
. '·1 ,. '"
htt ps:1/app~:fastcas~.c()ril/1~e'search/PageslDoclll11cn t.aspx ?LTI O=aUK YvZ B8rR8ewTI ,Qh... 4/19120/1
.
z'o 11 - 05 -18
14: 4:0
Fns[casc'
·
»
:
;."
•
:.
P 12/17
or 4
Page 3
,,':;
c
•
d/b/a NC?rth HiI(sM~n:1qrial Gardens, 272_Ark. 172, 616 S. W.2d 71J !l9Bl), we said
this is ~5sentialto}ajGdidal,review under the Arkansas Administrative Procedures
Act. We 'qlJoted;fl:qrn';~decision of the Unlts=~L~t~t£;:.l>.S.IJQ.r.~mSlC.Q!.!rtin
UnemplbymeJltcC_9mn)iS$ion v. Aragan, ,~.2.2 l,LS., l.ll3, 6tS.,C;L.24.5, 2.lJ..,.E.d. ~36
{J,94GJ:!
'J;. :
",
,!- ,
'
A reviewing CbUft~so!rps the agency's function when it sets aside the administrative
determina,tionJp6n.a:ground not theretofore presented and deprives the Commission
of an opportunify,to;cpnsider the matter, make its ruling, and state the reasons for
its action.'I' ' . ' j .
·
..... j
. S.ee, TrLck Tn;j.rlspbrt;ILnc.. v. MU!gr
(1965:),,';1 ....... ;[;: ;
: .. i .
TransQoJ.t.2.,l!1~,-, .2.eS.Ark." J?2, ~85 .S,,,-W.. 2d
798
.'L "~
Onj,the reM~Jnir1i9::p.~int the Division submits that election contests must be
broughtwithin twel)tYl.daysof certification (Ark.Stat-Ann. § 3-1001, Rep1.1976) and
Circuit c.ourt ha~ ;npj~tlsdlttion to settle such disputes nearly thirty years later. It
pOints to. those ccises'nQlding that compliance with pre-election requirements is
mandat~ry beforfafi:~J~stion and becomes discretionary afterwards. GaY_Y,--~90!s:i~
25LArk~.56.5, 47:.~S.W'.2d 441 (971).
.
:.,,0/"':1,
.Inrespon~e:/i;lppelieecontends that this is not an election contest, but an action
on revieW to pr~.".ent aniapministrative agency from enforcing the results of an
'electionheldori)~bv.emperi1956 which was null and void. Phillins. '(~Qthrock, 194
Ark. 945~110S;.W~id!26t193Z). We agree to this extent--this is a proceeding to
review
admioi~tt9t:i~~~gency, brought expressly under the Administrative
Procedur;es Act,'.huftnat'very reason compels us to a different result. We need not
decide tne tili1eHn~ssbfthlSdispute, because the issue is not the power of the Circuit
Court t9 :exami~,~: the'I~lec~ion res.ults, but whether the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Division :has a ~j:uty>UQd~r our statutes to look beyond the results of a wet-dry
election, [285 ArR.1913,lhpWever recent or distant in time. The Circuit Court was not
hearingJhis cas:f7! 'd~;:~QVO; ~ut on review to determine whether the Division's order
was in eJ;<cessof;'tl:i~~:~gl?h'~y's authority, or was affected by a n error of law, or was
arbitrary:,caprk;lbus';qr,~h:abuse of discretion, or breached any of the six
considerationslll5te;d'rnArk5tat.Ann. § 5-713(h) (1983 Cumm.Supp.). We have
. referred :to the,~ppell~te'reYiew under the act as "narrowly prescribed" [Arkc\l1sas
po.u.ltryCommis~Jb()vrH.9user 276,Ark, :326, 634 ;i.W,,:?<t.3.e.& (:L<;.J82) ] and as being
"a role of Iimiteascb~:e"Tclty of Newport v. Emery, et ai, 262 ArK, 591,~59 ~W.2d
a"
707 V~27J. ]. .
.
Wh;lIe
':j ..':
.
our:statut:~kjmp()se
a variety of assignments on the Alcoholic Beverage
described in general as limited to the issuance and
revocatldh oflic$nsesifo~ t;jispensing intoxicants and overseeing the enforcement of
laws and'reg\-llati6Ils~ertinent to that responsibility. We find nothing in the statutes
suggesting that:i(islrltended the Division, through its five member board who are
not expectedto;b~pr9Ficlent in the law, to undertake the often difficult task of
decidin~ 'whether :~I~ctHJn procedures have been complied with. That role has been
handled,',moreor./esSieffectively, by the judicial branch and we think the cfear intent
Controlqjvlsloq~' th~Y'lc;~n ~be
.
: ,. "1
'
'. i ' .
I
·1
•
hHps:llapps.fastcase.c()m/~ese~l·ch/PagesjDocumenl.aspx.?L TlD=aUKYvZB8rR8ewTLQh... 4/19/20 II
·
··'r·, .
-','.'
2011-05-18 14:40
»
Fastcasc
P 13/17
Page 4 01'4
,
,
'
of our statutory'scheme,iS such that the Division is not expected to look beyond the
results o'f wet~d,rv',e[ection:s in discharging the functions assigned to it. Whether
appellee; could~tiiLth,~lJenge the results of the 1956 election, we are not deciding,
but thef:orum f()r;tha~'effbrt; is the courts, rather than an
.
.; ". -:' -' .I, ~. , ­
;:j "
•1 :
.
"; '," ", I'
'Page 514
.. : ;-:' .:<j.
administ:rative ~~iE:!:nc~,a.m:l
the administrative procedure act makes express provision
for recourse to:t>ther.~Jerhedies. § 5-713(a) .
,; :.'. :.> , ~<~
. ;
'.:.,'. -,; ,
Th~effect():ttJ1J.:Cirtuit Court's order would thrust a difficult and unintended
'assignment on th:e'DJVision-:.-to decide the legality of wet-dry election procedures.
ThatwouldresQitj:inaf'e:lilemrna for the Division. Section 48-802 directs the Division,
iri, the eve,nt arnC:\jpri~~of·the electors vote against the sale of intoxicating liquors, to
, immedia,tely capcel;'a'pyper-mit for the sale of intoxicants within the territory covered
by the e,lection'.'q~.vlb,u·srY~ the Division cannot effectively enforce the provisions
"direttIYjitnpOse~";~,?~.?t!\(k!,l,94] upon it by law, if at the same time it must decide
whether;pr~-~lection,pr6c¢d,ures were observed.
~
For the reasons,lstated,
the order of the Circuit Court is reversed.
',f .-.,
"
" ',: '"
,'" "J;::':;:;,', "; .,
,I'
"
,"r
::. '"
.
...
:,:
________
.... _"_ _ _ l..
,
,
:
'i
i~
:"-!: ._!
l'
'
'.j: ' ,
::,;"
" IDelmer;l3arnetfW~~b~~1,!9USt 4, 1984 and this litigation proceeded under an order substituting
Mrs.EdnaBarnett~aspe~,boner.ARCP Rule 25.
,"
"
';:';':;l(
. ;!
,
~f
,
'.,
.
"
.!-:"
"j:" ,
. ,I
.
".(
'i ,:.
"
,
-. ,-I:.
:;
,
"
.
https:llapP!l, fastca~¢:<ihilll~esearch/Pages/Docul11cnt.aspx?LTI O=aUKYvZB8rR8ewTf ,Qh... 4/19/201 I
',1
,.
",
'.
,', ,", :';t -,
-
O~:~l g~-SO-LL02
»
2011-05-18 14:41
P 15/17
Page I
or J
,,
Apti129, 2'002
';"-.;'
,:' ,-j.
'f"
The Honoi'a~le Jiil1i\Jfood'j State Repr~sentatiV~ ":, ' :1", P:0.80x.219, ;',> ,1' Tupelo, Arkansas 7~·1~?~qh9.
"
.
.
. . i _:
:
;: ..
:~-_.
Dear
y'~_
.
Repl'esentativ~' WotiJ:':
•.
,
"
,"',>
:'-.'
:'-:",
•
I am writln'g in real;6ri~gta.)rO~1l{ request for an opinion on how the annexation of territory by a city
allects thesule of alcoh6li~peverages in the annexed ten'itory under local option laws. Specifically, you
'il01e that iHeCity o(~tigl.l:ft~ IS considering annexing some lands adjacent to the City. You do not
'.
indicate, burl assurriethat theJand1' w1der consideration are within Woodruff County, You note that the
City of Allgustavottq.:tq'.Pfohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages back in the late 1940s, It is therefore a
." dry" city except as itfelatesto the retail sale of beer, which was later authOlized by the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Boardal,a J?y:statute, See A.C,A. § 3-8-210 (Supp. 2001). Woodruff County, on the
other hantl~ is a "W~{i'A04«,tY:.:Y:Oll:note that there is a liquor store on the lands proposed to be annexed.
You also note that ifJhe,a$~x/ltiol1 occurs, the City of Augusta will collect a city sales tax on the sale of
beer, liquot\ wine,'etc~'fi·~·t\1':thestore located on the lands in question. You also state that the City does
not wish td'do anythlng:t(fJ~()p.a.rclize the liq uor permit of the 1iqllor store on the adjoining property and
the annexation is not hlten~ed.t6affect this. You therefore pose the following tlUestion:
",:
Would the
",1' .;-
,:;'. •
1,':. ",
anne~a~ibJi~?r-tlt~~property upon which is situated the existing license jeopardize the license?
RESPONSE'! '
';.;
"";
It is my opinion (haLt11~a~~~w¢r 'toplis question is "no." There was once a statute addressing the (see
question
torm~f,:1,\.,C.~~;§'14AO-407), which would have required the annexed lands you describe to becol11e i 'dl),." TI~kl.t;shltyt¢'Was i'epealed in 1995, however. Absent any statute on the question, the common la:\¥ ruleapperu:s ~obetllat annexation of territory does not affect the previously adopted local option resuhJorthatt~rritqrY.:J;hus, a territory voted or permitted as "wet," as in WoodruffCounty, would nofchange itsStatu~lb,yviJ'iue of the fact that it is annexed into a mostly "dry" city. above,cu~ielirAf(at:1Sasstatutes do not address this question, A former statute, A.C.A. § 14­
As noted
40-407, ad~pted
asa.pari orActs 1967, No. 651
(§ 7) addressed the issue by
stating: : , ' ::t :' .~ , , .
.
of
When any area in w:Llichtl:i~,'S!iIe, alcoholic beverages is lowful is annexed to any municipality in
which the s~le of al~phdHc';bevei'ages is unlawful, the sale of alcoholic beverages in such annexed area
shall be ul1lawfuI.W~her(aiiY'al·eail1 which the sale of alcoholic beverages is unlawful is annexed to any
municipality in whi~h;thes~\lc,bf alpoholic beverages is lawful, the sale of alcoholic beverages shall
continue to,be unlawt\J1.ln$uc.\1aimexed territory,
.,
'.,
:"
1-
·1'
"",
.J'
.
.
:!
.. "
':
; .. ~ ; . : '\,i.:
;
.
.
http://ag.al·lpnsas.gov(dpii11dn~/docs/2002-1
"Ii,
15 .html 4/2212011
,
!'
2011-05-18 14:.41 »
iI ,
"
.
P 16/17
Page 2 01':3
.
d;
,
<Emphasis added)A')eealsp,Op. Atfy, Gen. 84-226.
"I < ' ,
Under fOrJ~lcr law,,'t.h~n;:f&¢,th~territory you describe would have become "dry" and Ihe license to
which yourefer wOllldha4eJken ~'jeopardized." The statute above, however, Vias repealed by Acts
1995, No. ;555. Thc'till~pf!,l1at Act is "AN ACT 10 Repeal Certain Municipal Laws Which are Obsolete
or Unconstitutional:
~id f~tOther'Pl1rposes:'
',".;
-,'.
. I
f·'·
• r
',',
.j
•
Absent ai1ystatutc'9n:th~~tic$tion, the issue will be governed by the common Jaw. I have found no case
dfthe Ark~nsas StijJrt;ine~ou.1'l, hbwevcr, addressing this precise point There is case law in other
jurisdictionsaddressin.gth~.is'sue,sol11e of which will be discussed below. Particularly instructive is a
'Kentucky ~ase, RiCh.+lill$C~~d·jng Company, [nco d/b/a Holiday Inn V. SlattelY, 448 S.W.2d 379 (Ky.
1969). Cit~tion of Kentua~y lay,is.pm1icularly appropriate because it bas been stated by the Arkansas
Supre.me<to,llrt tha~,t:[",!le,'Ib,pi:l:owed our local option law of 1935 fi'om the Stale of Kentucky."
J)enl1lston,County)udgev.RlddJc, 210 Ark. 1039,199 S.W,2d 308 (1947).
.
...
.•... ;·,1];'
.,
The Kent~cky Cour,;9fAp'pe,aJs had the reverse situation before it in the Rich-Hills case. In Rich-Hills,
a wet city ~nnexed'sqhlererritotyin a dry area. A Holiday Inn in the annexed area thereafter filed an
. applicatiOllfbr a Hqubfp¢hnlt~which was issued by the Alcoholic Beverage Contml Board. Some
c.itizens PJ:otestedttJ.ei~~u~llc~()fthe license and litigated the issue in the circuit COUJ1. The circuit com1
canceled the Iicens¢:al'lrl.tii.e. Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed. The Holiday Inn argued that once
territory ~s: properly,;·t:!'ht1eX~dto 'a,rimnicipality, the residents of the annexed territory become subject to
the rights:;md privllege(a~ wella~ the burdens of the municipality. It therefore contended that the
annexed t~.rritOlY beC:ame:j~'w(W'on its annexation into the city. The citi7.ens, on the other hand, argued
that once a territOlyi isil()t~d"dry/, it remains dry territory even though it is later annexed to a "wee'
. city. Thel<£ntucky;'Go"iitt':~f.Al'peals lUled for the citizens. The court cited several authorities in
reachingiis·c(ji1clu~iqp~)!1~ludi1'l~:,48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors § 58, one sentence of which
summaritesthelaw. ~s:fo,fl.o~s:ulh the absence of a statute otherwise providing, the fact that additional
telTitory isaddedttl'-hsitbdtvislon of a state does not operate to change an area from "wet" to "dry" or
vice vej"saJa~ estabijshediitth,~original territory by an election. in the absence of another
vote." (Footnotes ,dnuftedy';~ . ;' ..
. !.
"
;
•
. ',; "1<,· .
~-'; i; .;', -: '~: ! -. .­
:
•
:.- •
-.
n,
Also cited;by thel(¢tituckY1'Court IS "Change of "wet" or "dry" status IIxed by local option election by
cha~ge ofhame, ~h~~~,~#~rf,p(,boundaries of voting unit, without latel' election" 25 A.L.R. 2d 863, 864 (§
2), m whlchtl1efoH()w,t~1gl.'Y!:IsqUi:>ted by the Kentucky Court of Appeals:
...:,. ,"
-~-~'::""--':'~---.:';--'
...
'.;,'" . 'I ~
'. . . . ' : ' . : ' ; " ' , , '
'
....
Because t~e'thedrY!of}pca:l:bptionJaws is (hat the people ofa political or governmental wlit shall have
the righqo detem'lt6eth~jhtatus,and the correlative right to change it, according to the provisions of
those laws: a statilipritie,ad?pted.is usually considered to attach to the territory which was originally
bound by the vote, :arid:toJe:nia~n operative, unless lawfully changed, notwithstanding changes for other
pUl]Josesin the deslgnatlop, b.oundaries, or organization of the unit.
'.
.
'".
..
'."\1'
1
See 448 S:W.2d 37(382.;. :,.
. ""I:'
Other cas~ssl1p'por~jl?g"'-YI~afappeitrs to be the general rule in this regard are Palmer V. Liquor Control
Commissil:m, 77Hl;ARP.}9.725~ 33 Ill. Dec. 100,396 N.E.2d 325 (1979); Bilandic V. 10 J 1 Club, Inc.,
73J1L App.3d 451,,29')!J.pec, 903, 392 N.E.2d 600 (1979); and Canton V. Imperial Bowling Lanes,
100.. 16 Ohio St. 2d' 4'Z;)14LN.E:2d 566 (1968).
.
:.
"
•
•
w'
~
.. ,:" ·"1·.· .. :.
In ~lY. opiq.ion. lhCl'C:fO.·.~.~e.·:.• ,~Jt.h?~gh...th~re i~ no c~>I1trollin? dcci~~on of {~e Arkansas ~uprcme ~OUI"t O~'
pomt, the.answer t9:yoU!',questlbllIS "no," the ltcense of the affected liquor store WIll not be JeopardIzed
ifthe telTitory is al1riexedrritqtne City of Augusta.
".
.
.
.
-'.:(.
;"
1
r
..: , :.1;";':\/ '..,
. ,1'
h\tp:llag.af:kansas.~oW6pijliplls/docs/2002.115.html .
4/22/201 J
The Honorable Barry Hyde
State Representative
Opinion No. 2008-147
Page 5
These administrative difficulties might, in tum, discourage officials from
redrawing boundaries when necessary.
Third, ff the original dry vole can be altered, how is that aacomplished? The
qualifiei:l electors of the new precinct can alter the original vote by following the
local-option petition and election rules, which are codified at A.C.A. §§ 3-8-20 I to
-210 (1996 & Supp. 2007) and A.C.A. §§ 3-8-301 to -:-317 (1996 & Supp. 2007).
Question 2: Call tlte qualified electors ofthe existillg precillct tJUlt encompasses
tire origilUll dry preci1lct petition and vote OIl lite local optio" electioll?
In my opillion, for the reasons explained in response to your first question, "yes."
Questio" 3: If 1101, what would be tile procetlure to petitioll for a local optioll
election alld who w()uld be tile qualified electol's oft/tat precblcl?
Given my answers to your first two quc.o:;tions, this question is moot.
Assistant Attorney Genera1 Ryan Owsley prepared the foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve. Sincerely, M~
DUSTIN McDANmL
Attomcy General
DM:RO/cyh