Forrester v. Daniels
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. 362
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
10-985
APRIL FORRESTER, INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL
SIMILARLY SITUATED CITIZENS OF
ARKANSAS,
PETITIONER,
Opinion Delivered September
30, 2010
VS.
MOTION TO SHORTEN THE TIME
WITHIN WHICH THE
RESPONDENT HAS TO FILE AN
ANSWER OR RESPONSIVE
PLEADING AND TO SHORTEN THE
BRIEFING TIME SET BY RULE 4-4
OF THE RULES OF THE ARKANSAS
SUPREME COURT
CHARLIE DANIELS, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
RESPONDENT,
MOTION TO EXPEDITE GRANTED;
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
ESTABLISHED; ORAL ARGUMENT
GRANTED.
PER CURIAM
Petitioner April Forrester, individually and as a representative of all similarly situated
voter-citizens of Arkansas, has filed a petition for injunctive relief and petition for writ of
mandamus against Respondent Charlie Daniels, the Secretary of State of Arkansas. The
substance of Forrester’s petition asks this court, among other things, to order Secretary of
State Daniels to withdraw the certified ballot title for proposed constitutional amendment No.
2, which is currently set to be voted upon by the voters of Arkansas at the November 2, 2010
election.
In conjunction with her petition for injunctive relief and petition for writ of
mandamus, Forrester has filed a motion asking the court to expedite the proceedings, establish
Cite as 2010 Ark. 362
a briefing schedule, and grant oral argument on her petition. Because of the time-sensitive
nature of this matter, we grant Forrester’s motion to expedite and set the following briefing
schedule for the response and briefs. Secretary of State Daniels shall have until October 4,
2010 to file a pleading responsive to Forrester’s petition. Forrester shall then have until
October 8, 2010 to file a brief in this matter, and Secretary of State Daniels’s brief shall be due
on October 15, 2010. No reply brief will be permitted. We further grant Forrester’s request
for oral argument and set oral argument for October 21, 2010.
In addition to the issues raised in Forrester’s brief, we request that the parties brief and
address the question of whether this court has original jurisdiction to hear this controversy
pursuant to Arkansas Constitution amendment 80.
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
