Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Arkansas Cap on Medical Malpractice Attorney Fees, Issue 4 (2016)
| Arkansas Issue 4 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2016 | |
| Topic Tort law | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin Citizens |
| 2016 measures |
|---|
 |
| November 8 |
Issue 1  |
| Issue 2 |
| Issue 3 |
| Issue 6 |
| Polls |
| Voter guides |
| Campaign finance |
| Signature costs |
The Arkansas Cap on Medical Malpractice Attorney Fees Amendment, also known as Issue 4, was not on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Arkansas as an initiated constitutional amendment. The Arkansas Supreme Court struck Issue 4 from the ballot on October 13, 2016, on the basis of not defining the term "non-economic damages."[1] The measure appeared on the ballot, but the court instructed the Arkansas Secretary of State to neither count nor certify results.
| A "yes" vote would have required the legislature to limit awards at $250,000 or less for non-economic damages in medical-injury lawsuits. |
| A "no" vote would have opposed this measure limiting awards for non-economic damages in medical-injury lawsuits.[2] |
Overview
Initiative design
Issue 4 would have required the Arkansas Legislature to pass statute by 2017 establishing a cap of at least $250,000 on awards for non-economic damages in medical-injury lawsuits. The Arkansas Supreme Court would have been tasked with reviewing the cap and adjusting it for inflation. Issue 4 would have also required legislators to prohibit attorneys from charging "contingency fees," or fees for legal representation, of more than one-third above the amount awarded to clients in medical-emergency lawsuits.[2][3]
Status of the ballot measure campaigns
- See also: Campaign finance for Issue 4
Supporters, organized as Health Care Access for Arkansans, of Issue 4 raised $779,010 by the end of October 2016. The opposition’s Committee to Protect AR Families had received $1,013,573. Whereas most of the support’s war chest came from nursing homes and assisted living centers, most of the opposition’s came from lawyers.
Text of measure
Popular name
The popular name given for Issue 4 was as follows:[4]
| “ |
An Amendment to Limit Attorney Contingency Fees and Non-Economic Damages in Medical Lawsuits[5] |
” |
Ballot title
The ballot title for the initiative was as follows:[6]
An amendment to the Arkansas constitution providing that the practice of contracting for or charging excessive contingency fees in the course of legal representation of any person seeking damages in an action for medical injury against a health-care provider is hereby prohibited; providing that an excessive medical-injury contingency fee is greater than thirty-three and one-third percent (33 1/3%) of the amount recovered; providing that, for the purposes of calculating the amount recovered, the figure that shall be used is the net sum recovered after deducting any disbursements or costs incurred in connection with prosecution or settlement of the medical-injury claim; providing that this limitation shall apply whether the recovery is by settlement, arbitration, or judgment; providing that this limitation shall apply regardless of the age or mental capacity of the plaintiff; providing that the prohibition of excessive medical-injury fees does not apply to workers’ compensation cases; providing that the General Assembly may enact legislation which enforces this prohibition, and that it may also enact legislation that determines the relative values of time payments or periodic payments and governs the consequences and penalties for attorneys who contract for or charge excessive medical-injury contingency fees; providing that the General Assembly shall enact a measure which specifies a maximum dollar amount for a non-economic damage award in any action for medical injury against a health-care provider, but that such a measure may never be smaller than two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000); providing that the General Assembly may, after such enactment, amend it by a vote of two-thirds of each house, but that no such amendment may reduce the maximum dollar amount for a non-economic damage award in any action for medical injury against any health-care provider to less than two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000); providing that the Supreme Court shall adjust this figure for inflation or deflation on a biennial basis; and providing that this amendment does not supersede or amend the right to trial by jury. |
Constitutional changes
- See also: Amendment 80 and Section 32 of Article 5 of the Arkansas Constitution
The measure would have amended Section 3 of Amendment 80 and Section 32 of Article 5 of the Arkansas Constitution to read as:[2] Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.
§ 3. Rules of pleading, practice, and procedure.
(A) The Except as provided in subsection (B) of this section, the Supreme Court shall prescribe the rules of pleading, practice, and procedure for all courts; provided these rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right and shall preserve the right of trial by jury as declared in this Constitution.
(B) (1) The practice of contracting for or charging excessive contingency fees in the course of legal representation of any person or entity seeking damages in an action for medical injury against a health-care provider is hereby prohibited.
(a) An excessive contingency fee is in excess of thirty-three and one-third percent (33 1/3 %) recovered.
(b) The above limitation shall apply regardless of whether the recovery is by settlement, arbitration, or judgment; the above limitation shall also apply regardless of the age or mental capacity of the person or entity for whom the recovery is made.
(c) For purposes of subsection (B) (1) (a), "recovered" refers to the net sum recovered after deducting any disbursements or costs incurred in connection with prosecution or settlement of the claim. Costs of medical care incurred by the plaintiff and the attorney's office-overhead costs or charges are not deductible disbursements or costs for such purpose.
(d) The terms "action for medical injury,” "health-care provider,” and "medical injury" are defined in this Amendment's addition to Article 5, Section 32 of the state Constitution.
(e) The prohibition of excessive medical-injury attorney fees described in this subsection does not extend to workers’ compensation cases.
(B) (2) The General Assembly's power to enact laws that prohibit excessive contingency fees includes the subsidiary power to enact laws which govern (a) how the total value or present value of a set of periodic payments should be calculated, (b) how or whether life expectancy or other relevant factors shall be taken into account with respect to those calculations, (c) to what extent the use of total value or present value calculations for such periodic payments shall be required when determining excessive contingency fees, and (d) the consequences and penalties for attorneys who contract for or charge excessive medical-injury contingency fees.
(B) (3) The General Assembly shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this section.
(B) (4) A rule of pleading, practice, and procedure enacted by law under subdivision (B) (1), (B) (2), or (B) (3) of this section shall supersede a conflicting rule of pleading, practice, and procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court.
SECTION 2. Section 32 of Article 5 of the Arkansas Constitution is Amended to Read as Follows:
32. Workmen's Compensation Laws — Actions for personal injuries. (a) The General Assembly shall have power to enact laws prescribing the amount of compensation to be paid by employers for injuries to or death of employees, and to whom said payment shall be made. It shall have power to provide the means, methods, and forum for adjudicating claims arising under said laws, and for securing payment of same. Provided, that otherwise, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, no law shall be enacted limiting the amount to be recovered for injuries resulting in death or for injuries to persons or property; and in case of death from such injuries the right of action shall survive, and the General Assembly shall prescribe for whose benefit such action shall be prosecuted.
(b) (1) (A) The General Assembly shall enact laws that specify the maximum dollar amount of non-economic damage awards in a civil action for medical injury brought against a health-care provider. (b) (1) (B) The maximum dollar amount award of non-economic damages specified under subdivision (b) (1) (A) of this section shall be at least two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250.000) per health-care provider against whom a judgment is rendered, regardless of whether the health-care provider is a health-care professional or a health-care business.
(b) (2) (A) "Action for medical injury" means all actions, including actions for wrongful death, whether based in tort, contract, or otherwise, to recover damages on account of medical injury.
(b) (2) (B) "Health-care provider" means either a “health-care professional" or a "health-care business."
(b) (2) (C) "Health-care professional" means an individual providing and billing for health-care services (including a physician, certified registered nurse anesthetist., physician's assistant, nurse, optometrist, chiropractor, physical therapist, dentist, podiatrist, pharmacist, psychologist, or veterinarian) that is licensed by the state or otherwise lawfully providing professional health-care services.
(b) (2) (D) "Health-care business" means an entity providing and billing for health-care services (including a hospital, nursing home, community mental health center, ambulatory surgical treatment center, birthing center, intellectual disability institutional habilitation center, nonresidential substitution-based treatment center for opiate addiction, outpatient diagnostic center, recuperation center, rehabilitation facility, hospice, clinic, or home health-care agency) that is licensed by the state or otherwise lawfully providing health-care services: and including an owner, officer, employee, or agent of such a health-care business acting in the course and scope of employment in the providing of health care services.
(b) (2) (E) "Medical injury" means any adverse consequence or any set of adverse consequences arising out of or sustained in the course of the professional services being rendered by a health-care provider to a patient or resident, whether resulting from negligence. error, or omission in the performance of such services; or from rendition of such services without informed consent or in breach of warranty or in violation of contract; or from failure to diagnose; or from premature abandonment of a patient or of a course of treatment; or from failure to properly maintain equipment or appliances necessary to the rendition of such services; or otherwise arising out of or sustained in the course of such services.
(b) (3) (A) The General Assembly may, for the purposes of this. section, further define "health-care professional" in law, so long as that definition includes the categories listed in section (b) (2) (C).
(b) (3) (B) The General Assembly may, for the purposes of this section, further define "health-care business" in law, so long as that definition includes the categories listed in section (b) (2) (D).
(b) (3) (C) The General Assembly may, for the purposes of this section, further define “medical injury" in law. so long as that definition includes the categories listed in section (b) (2) (E).
(b) ( 4) (A) By a majority vote of each house, the General Assembly shall enact laws in the 2017 Regular Session implementing subdivision (b) (1) of this section.
(b) ( 4) (B) After enacting the laws as required by subdivision (b) ( 4) (A) of this section, the General Assembly may amend a law required by subdivision (b) (1) of this section by a two-thirds vote of each house.
(b) ( 4) (C) In no event shall a law implementing subdivision (b) ( 4) (A) or (b) ( 4) (B) of this section violate subdivision (b) (1) (B) of this section.
SECTION 3. This amendment does not supersede or amend the right of trial by jury as declared by the Arkansas Constitution.
SECTION 4. In January of 2018 and every two years after January of 2018. the Supreme Court of Arkansas shall issue a rule which adjusts the maximum dollar amount of non-economic damage awards for inflation or deflation to the nearest multiple of one thousand dollars ($1.000). The biennal adjustment shall be based upon the Consumer Price Index or a comparable index chosen by the Court; when reasonably possible. the particular index the Court chooses shall remain the same over time. The sole intent and effect of the biennial adjustment shall be to compensate for the effects of inflation or deflation with reasonable precision.
SECTION 5. In the event that any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, subparagraph, item, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this amendment is declared or adjudged to be invalid or unconstitUtional. such declaration or adjudication shall not affect the remaining portions of this amendment. which shall remain in full force and effect as if the portion so declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional was not originally a part of this amendment.
SECTION 6. This amendment shall be effective on January 1, 2017.[5]
Support
Healthcare Access for Arkansas led the campaign in support of Issue 4.[7]
Supporters
- Arkansas Hospital Association[8]
- Arkansas Medical Society
Arguments
The University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture's 2016 Ballot Issue Guide summarized proponents' arguments in three bullet points:[3]
| “ |
|
” |
Healthcare Access for Arkansas argued that Issue 4 was needed because:[7]
| “ | Arkansas ranks as one of the 10 worst states in the country for lawsuits. A higher rate of lawsuits raises health care costs for everyone, keeps doctors and specialists from moving to our state, and compels existing ones to leave. It’s simple: through higher prices and reduced access to care, Arkansans pay the price for predatory lawsuits.
About half of the states in the country have put in place the types of reforms proposed by this initiative. Arkansas cannot be left behind.[5] |
” |
David Wroten, Executive Vice President of the Arkansas Medical Society, argued:[8]
| “ | Patients deserve the reform provided by Issue 4 because they are the ones who ultimately pay the real cost. … Physicians do consider a state’s tort reform environment when deciding where to practice and what to practice. The constant threat of frivolous lawsuits generates higher healthcare costs and creates distractions to patient-centered care. Without Issue 4, doctors may choose not to practice here, in a small town in Arkansas that desperately needs local healthcare.[5] | ” |
Other arguments in support of the measure included:
- Daniel Greenburg, an attorney who helped write Issue 4, stated, “Every time a healthcare provider steps into, you know, the operating room, or steps into some place where they are giving care, they are facing kind of a negative lottery. They are facing a chance of a huge verdict against them.”[9]
Opposition
The Committee to Protect AR Families led the campaign in opposition to Issue 4.[10]
Arguments
The University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture's 2016 Ballot Issue Guide summarized opponents' arguments in three bullet points:[3]
| “ |
|
” |
The Committee to Protect AR Families made three main points in arguing against Issue 4:[11]
| “ | Why this is bad for Arkansas:
|
” |
Committee to Protect AR Families' “Martha's Story”
|
Martha Deaver, President of the Arkansas Advocates for Nursing Home Residents, argued:[12]
| “ | This proposed amendment is an attempt by special interest lobbyists and corporate nursing home owner Michael Morton to protect his bottom line at the expense of our family members who are trusted into their care. For many years I have fought each and everyday to give nursing home residents and their families the peace of mind that their loved ones will be given the highest quality of care available. Furthermore, this is an attack on our justice system and will protect the people who neglect our elderly family members.[5] | ” |
Other arguments in opposition to the measure included:
- Jerry Cox, Executive Director of the Family Council Action Committee, argued against Issue 4, saying, "I really see it as a pro-life issue. This amendment leaves too many opportunities for nursing homes to neglect residents and get away with it."[13]
- Denise Hoggard, President of the Arkansas Bar Association, argued, "This amendment would take away fundamental rights of Arkansans that have been protected in our state and national constitutions."[14]
Campaign finance
| Total campaign contributions: | |
| Support: | $779,010.00 |
| Opposition: | $1,017,563.00 |
Two campaign committees were registered in support of Issue 4 as of October 2016. Two campaigns were registered in opposition. The contribution and expenditure totals below were current as of October 22, 2016.[15]
Support
- Note: Contributions and expenditures by the Arkansas Health Care Association were not added into the total because all of the group's expenditures were to Health Care Access for Arkansans. Adding the group's contributions and expenditures into the total would be counting resources twice. See the methodology section for more information.
| PAC | Amount raised | Amount spent |
|---|---|---|
| Health Care Access for Arkansans | $779,010.00 | $670,598.12 |
| Arkansas Health Care Association | $580,000.00 | $580,000.00 |
| Total | $779,010.00 | $670,598.12 |
The following were the top donors who contributed to the Health Care Access for Arkansans committee as of October 22, 2016:[15]
| Donor | Amount |
|---|---|
| Arkansas Health Care Association | $330,000 |
| RHC Operations | $150,000 |
| Southern Administrative Services | $86,000 |
| Health Care Solutions, LLC | $5,000 |
Opposition
Note: Family Council Action Committee was registered in opposition to Issue 4, Issue 5, Issue 6, and Issue 7. The group's expenditures were likely split between opposing the different measures.
| PAC | Amount raised | Amount spent |
|---|---|---|
| Committee to Protect AR Families | $1,013,573.00 | $147,055.32 |
| Family Council Action Committee | $3,990.00 | $7,491.42 |
| Total | $1,017,563.00 | $154,546.74 |
The following were the top donors who contributed to the Committee to Protect AR Families as of October 22, 2016. Together, the top five donors' contributions accounted for 53 percent of all campaign funds.[15]
| Donor | Amount |
|---|---|
| Brad Hendricks | $105,000 |
| Joey McCutchen | $100,000 |
| McDaniel Law Firm, PLC | $100,000 |
| Simmons Hanly Conroy | $75,000 |
| Bailey & Oliver Law Firm | $64,527 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Path to the ballot
Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge approved Issue 4 for circulation on April 20, 2016.[6]
Supporters of Issue 4, an initiated constitutional amendment, had until July 8, 2016, to submit 84,859 valid signatures. Further, proponents were required to collect signatures equaling at least 5 percent of the previous gubernatorial votes in at least 15 of the state's counties. For example, if 1,000 people voted for governor in a county, the signatures of 50 qualified electors would be required. Supporters submitted more than 130,000 signatures to the secretary of state on July 8, 2016.[16] The secretary of state's office certified the measure on August 5, 2016.[17]
Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired 3.0 LLC to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $807,762.00 was spent to collect the 84,859 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $9.52.[18]
Lawsuits
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Ballot language; ballot title was allegedly misleading | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, removing the measure from the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Fairness for Arkansans | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff argument: Ballot title did not inform voters of various components of the measure | Defendant argument: Ballot title adequately explained the measure |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Signatures; allegation that not all signatures validated were collected lawfully | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed due to ruling in Fairness for Arkansans v. Martin | |
| Plaintiff(s): Committee to Protect AR Families | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff arguments: Health Care Access for Arkansans did not comply with mandatory canvasser certification laws and mandatory filing requirements | Defendant arguments: The secretary of state already found that Health Care Access for Arkansans complied with the circulation process |
Sources: Arkansas Supreme Court and Arkansas Supreme Court
Fairness for Arkansans v. Martin
On August 29, 2016, Fairness for Arkansans, a group established by the Arkansas Bar Association, filed litigation against Secretary of State Mark Martin and asked the Arkansas Supreme Court to remove Issue 4 from the ballot. The plaintiff alleged that the ballot title contained a number of inaccuracies. First, the plaintiff argued that the title failed to explain that the Supreme Court's power to prescribe rules for court proceedings and practices would be diminished. Second, Fairness for Arkansans claimed the title failed to inform voters that juries would face a cap when awarding non-economic damages. Third, the title did not define important terms, such as "health-care provider," "health-care business," "medical injury," and "non-economic damages."[19][20] The court set October 6, 2016, as the hearing date for the case.[21]
Rachel Davis, Executive Director of the Arkansas Health Care Association, responded to the litigation, contending, “This lawsuit doesn’t surprise us, it’s merely a tactic to try and stop Arkansas voters from having their say on the issue of getting these excessive lawsuits under control. The ballot title clearly says what the amendment does, and we expect the courts will agree.” Health Care Access for Arkansans, the campaign organization supporting Issue 4, intervened in the case as a defendant.[22]
On October 13, 2016, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, striking Issue 4 from the ballot. In his opinion, Associate Justice Paul Danielson acknowledged "the ultimate issue is whether the voter, while insider the voting booth, is able to reach an intelligent and informed decision for or against the proposal and understands the consequences of his or her vote based on the ballot title." He determined that Issue 4 did not define "non-economic damages" for voters and thus did not provide voters with enough information to make an informed decision. Justice Danielson wrote:[1]
| “ | Both the amendment and the ballot title fail to provide a definition of “non-economic damages.” … We have disapproved the use of terms that are technical and not readily understood by voters, such that voters would be placed in a position of either having to be an expert in the subject or having to guess as to the effect his or her vote would have. … The term "non-economic damages" is a "technical term" that is not readily understood by voters. Without a definition of this term, the voter would be in the position of guessing as to the effect his or her vote would have unless he or she is an expert in the legal field. … Accordingly, we conclude that the ballot title of the proposed amendment is insufficient because it fails to define the term “non-economic damages."[5] | ” |
Committee to Protect AR Families v. Martin
The Committee to Protect AR Families filed litigation against Secretary of State Mark Martin on September 1, 2016. Health Care Access for Arkansans intervened in the case as a defendant. Alleging that Health Care Access for Arkansans failed to "comply with mandatory canvasser certification laws and mandatory filing requirements and failed to submit the requisite number of verified signatures," the Committee to Protect AR Families asked the Arkansas Supreme Court to remove Issue 4 from the ballot.[23]
Judge J.W. Looney was appointed by the Supreme Court to research and write a report on the issue of Health Care Access for Arkansans' petition signatures. On September 28, 2016, Judge Looney said enough signatures could be invalid to remove the measure from the November ballot. Of the 93,102 signatures that the secretary of state's office deemed valid, 1,825 were collected before the names of canvassers were submitted and 47 were collected by canvassers without up-to-date statements of eligibility. An additional 10,764 signatures were collected by canvassers that the campaign failed to report criminal background checks to the secretary of state. The judge did find 1,372 signatures that should or could have been counted as valid.[24] If the Supreme Court heeded to all of Judge Looney's suggestions, then 81,838 valid signatures would have been left. At least 84,859 signatures were needed for certification.
Chase Dugger, Executive Director of Health Care Access for Arkansans, responded to Judge Looney's finding, stating, "We worked carefully to honor the secretary of state’s process. The secretary of state found that we had complied with the process and certified more than 93,000 signatures. We are confident that the Supreme Court will respect the will of the people and keep Issue 4 on the ballot this November."[24] The group also filed a cross-claim, alleging Secretary of State Martin threw out some signatures that should have been counted.[25]
On October 13, 2016, the Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed the case due to the ruling in Fairness for Arkansans v. Martin, which struck Issue 4 from the ballot.[26]
State profile
| Demographic data for Arkansas | ||
|---|---|---|
| Arkansas | U.S. | |
| Total population: | 2,977,853 | 316,515,021 |
| Land area (sq mi): | 52,035 | 3,531,905 |
| Race and ethnicity** | ||
| White: | 78% | 73.6% |
| Black/African American: | 15.5% | 12.6% |
| Asian: | 1.4% | 5.1% |
| Native American: | 0.6% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander: | 0.2% | 0.2% |
| Two or more: | 2.1% | 3% |
| Hispanic/Latino: | 6.9% | 17.1% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate: | 84.8% | 86.7% |
| College graduation rate: | 21.1% | 29.8% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income: | $41,371 | $53,889 |
| Persons below poverty level: | 22.9% | 11.3% |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Arkansas. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. | ||
Presidential voting pattern
- See also: Presidential voting trends in Arkansas
Arkansas voted Republican in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.
Pivot Counties (2016)
Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, one is located in Arkansas, accounting for 0.5 percent of the total pivot counties.[27]
Pivot Counties (2020)
In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Arkansas had one Retained Pivot County, 0.55 percent of all Retained Pivot Counties.
More Arkansas coverage on Ballotpedia
- Elections in Arkansas
- United States congressional delegations from Arkansas
- Public policy in Arkansas
- Endorsers in Arkansas
- Arkansas fact checks
- More...
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Arkansas Limit Contingency Fees Medical Cases Amendment. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
- Arkansas 2016 ballot measures
- 2016 ballot measures
- Marijuana on the ballot
- Arkansas Legislature
- List of Arkansas ballot measures
External links
Basic information
- Initiative Petition for Issue 4
- Arkansas 2016 Ballot Issues
- University of Arkansas 2016 Guide to Arkansas Ballot Measures
Support
Opposition
- Committee to Protect AR Families
- Committee to Protect AR Families Facebook
- Committee to Protect AR Families Twitter
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Arkansas Supreme Court, "Ruling in Fairness for Arkansans v. Martin," October 13, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Arkansas Attorney General, "Initiative Petition," accessed September 29, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 University of Arkansas, "2016 Guide to Arkansas Ballot Measures," accessed September 28, 2016
- ↑ Arkansas Secretary of State, "2016 Ballot Issues," accessed September 20, 2016
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ 6.0 6.1 Arkansas Attorney General, "Opinion No. 2016-038," April 20, 2016
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Healthcare Access for Arkansas, "Homepage," accessed September 30, 2016
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 UALR Public Radio, "Arkansas Hospital, Medical Groups Endorse Proposed Issue 4 Tort Reform Measure," October 10, 2016
- ↑ UALR Public Radio, "Ballot Issue Asks Arkansans to Rule on Where Malpractice Awards Are Set, Courtrooms or the Capitol?" September 20, 2016
- ↑ Committee to Protect AR Families, "Homepage," accessed September 30, 2016
- ↑ Committee to Protect AR Families, "About," accessed September 30, 2016
- ↑ Arkansas Times, "Group forms to oppose effort to protect nursing homes from lawsuits," July 13, 2016
- ↑ Courier News, "Family Council opposing Arkansas medical lawsuits measure", September 7, 2016
- ↑ Insurance Journal, "Group Asks Arkansas Court Asked to Block Measure on Medical Lawsuit Caps", August 30, 2016
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 Arkansas Ethics Commission, "Local-Option/Ballot/Legislative Question Committee Filings," accessed October 22, 2016
- ↑ Arkansas News, "Groups submit signatures in support of ballot proposals," July 8, 2016
- ↑ Times Record, "Arkansas measure to cap jury awards in medical suits headed to November ballots," August 6, 2016
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedae - ↑ Talk Business & Politics, "Bar group files lawsuit against Arkansas tort reform ballot initiative," August 29, 2016
- ↑ Arkansas Supreme Court, "Original Action Complaint in Fairness for Arkansans v. Martin," August 29, 2016
- ↑ Arkansas Business, "Oral Arguments Set On Arkansas Medical Lawsuit Limits," September 2, 2016
- ↑ Arkansas Supreme Court, "Per Curiam Orders," September 8, 2016
- ↑ Arkansas Supreme Court, "Original Action Complaint in Committee to Protect AR Families v. Martin," September 9, 2016
- ↑ 24.0 24.1 Talk Business & Politics, "Special master: Arkansas tort reform measure could be disqualified," September 28, 2016
- ↑ Press Argus-Courier, "Group: Signatures on Arkansas medical lawsuit ballot issue incorrectly rejected," September 15, 2016
- ↑ Arkansas Supreme Court, "Ruling in Committee to Protect AR Families v. Martin," October 13, 2016
- ↑ The raw data for this study was provided by Dave Leip of Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.
 |
State of Arkansas Little Rock (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
