Bryan Norris v. Independence County, Arkansas
This text of 2026 Ark. 41 (Bryan Norris v. Independence County, Arkansas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Cite as 2026 Ark. 41 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-26-116
Opinion Delivered: February 27, 2026 BRYAN NORRIS ET AL. APPELLANTS APPEAL FROM THE INDEPENDENCE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 32CV-26-55]
HONORABLE TIM WEAVER, JUDGE INDEPENDENCE COUNTY, ARKANSAS ET AL. DISSENTING OPINION. APPELLEES
NICHOLAS J. BRONNI, Associate Justice
This appeal presents a narrow jurisdictional question: Does the underlying case
belong in circuit court or the court of appeals? But ultimately, this case is about how
Independence County conducts elections. That makes it an election dispute, and just like
any other election dispute, we should resolve it quickly—not months in the future. See
Dean v. Williams, 339 Ark. 263, 264, 5 S.W.3d 37, 38 (1999) (discussing this court’s
“authority to expedite matters concerning elections” and concluding that we were
“unaware of any reason why we should not proceed [quickly]”). And that’s what I’d do
here. I’d grant expedition; rely on the parties’ expedited filings; and immediately resolve
the narrow jurisdictional issue presented on this appeal. Anything less leaves the parties in
limbo.
But the majority doesn’t do that. Instead, it grants expedition and then sets a briefing
schedule that ensures this appeal won’t be resolved until well after any potential runoffs. That doesn’t make sense. If the election warrants expedition, then we should resolve this
appeal as quickly as possible—not set a schedule that guarantees we won’t resolve it until
well after the primary election cycle concludes.
Nor is it clear why the majority needs more filings or time to resolve the narrow
jurisdictional issue presented on this appeal. Federal courts routinely resolve similar disputes
in hours—not months. See Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (elaborating on the quick
timeline on which several decisions were made); Respect Maine PAC v. McKee, 622 F.3d 13,
14 (1st Cir. 2010) (issuing a decision the same day as argument); Ohio Republican Party v.
Brunner, 543 F.3d 357, 360 (6th Cir. 2008) (opinion just four days after plaintiffs filed
underlying case); Libertarian Party v. Dardenne, 294 Fed. App’x 142, 144 (5th Cir. 2008)
(issuing decision the day after a district court stayed its proceeding); Democratic Nat’l Comm.
v. Bostelmann, 447 F. Supp. 3d 757, 761 (W.D. Wis. 2020) (issuing opinion same day);
Hoffman v. Sec’y of State of Maine, 574 F. Supp. 2d 179, 182 (D. Me. 2008) (issuing decision
the day after argument). There’s no reason we cannot do that here and resolve this appeal
now.
I respectfully dissent.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2026 Ark. 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryan-norris-v-independence-county-arkansas-ark-2026.