Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

309 Ark. 400

Stack v. Clinton

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 18, 1992

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1992-05-18

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1992

2 state decisions

Relies on Bizzell v. White · Taylor v. Clinton

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1992-05-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1Petitioners filed their Petition and Application for Revision of Plan of Apportionment on April 12, 1992, contesting a) the division of Van Burén County into three House Districts under the Plan of Apportionment filed January 13, 1992, and b) the transfer of three townships from one House District to another by technical amendment of the Board of Apportionment on March 12,1992. The respondents have moved to dismiss the petition.

¶2 The Plan of Apportionment filed January 13, 1992, divided Van Burén County into three House Districts. Petitioners’ challenge to this division is untimely as it was not made within thirty days of the filed Plan. Ark. Const, art. 8, §§ 4 and 5. We have held that the requirement that a challenge be made within the thirty day period is jurisdictional. Taylor v. Clinton, 284 Ark. 170, 680 S.W.2d 98 (1984).

¶3 Petitioners are, therefore, limited in their petition to the March 12, 1992, amendments which relate to three townships within Van Burén County. On this point, the recourse of the petitioners is to return to the status quo, that is, to the placement of the three townships under the Plan of January 13, 1992. Our constitutional authority, however, does not permit a piecemeal attack on the Plan of Apportionment. Ark. Const, art. 8, § 5; Bizzell v. White, 274 Ark. 511, 625 S.W.2d 528 (1981).

¶4The motion to dismiss is granted.

/309/ark/400 · .json · Public domain