A lawsuit filed to force a December special election to fill the vacant Arkansas Senate District 26 seat should be dismissed because it “failed to state a claim” that requires relief, according to the office of Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin.
Ryan Hale, senior assistant attorney general in Griffin’s office, filed Monday (Oct. 13) a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by attorney Jen Standerfer on behalf of Franklin County resident Colt Shelby.
Shelby’s lawsuit, filed Oct. 6 in the Pulaski County Circuit Court, lists Gov. Sarah Sanders and Arkansas Secretary of State Cole Jester as defendants. The filing seeks a special election in December for the Senate District 26 seat left vacant with the Sept. 2 passing of Sen. Gary Stubblefield, R-Branch. Griffin’s office is representing state officials in the hearing. A hearing has been set for Oct. 15[1], and Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge Patricia James is set to preside over the hearing.
Gov. Sanders set the primary election for March 3, 2026, with the special general election date set for June 9. In her election call, Sanders declared that it is ‘impracticable or unduly burdensome” to hold an election within 150 days of the declared vacancy in the district seat.
Shelby, through his attorney, alleges that a June 9 election will deprive district residents of representation during ongoing legislative committee meetings, and during the upcoming 2026 fiscal session. The lawsuit also alleges that Sanders is required to set an election within 150 days of a declared vacancy. The lawsuit filed by Shelby asks the court to set the special general election date for Dec. 9, 2025.
“While Petitioner, Colt Shelby, clearly does not like the date that Governor Sanders has set to fill the vacancy in the state senate seat for District 26, Shelby has failed to identify what he believes the Respondents have done wrong,” Hale noted in his motion.
Hale also cites sovereign immunity – a rule that does not allow a government to be sued unless it provides consent – as a reason the case should be dismissed. Also, Hale asserts in his 8-page motion, even if claims in the Shelby lawsuit are true, they aren’t illegal.
“The Amended Petition must also be dismissed because Shelby has not attempted to allege facts that, if coupled with a cognizable legal theory and if assumed to be true, would entitle Shelby to relief,” Hale noted. “The closest the Amended Petition comes to even a single allegation of ultra vires conduct are found in the final sentences of paragraphs 14 and 15, which allege that ‘The Governor’s designated election schedule prevents the people of Senate District 26 from having representation’ at committee meetings that occur between now and the election date and at the 2026 Fiscal Session. Even assuming those claims to be true, the Amended Petition never even attempts to allege why that is unlawful.”
Standerfer, in her response filed Tuesday morning (Oct. 14), said the government can’t simply avoid setting an election because it may be “inconvenient.”
“There is no circumstance where denying a timely election because it is inconvenient to the government can be constitutionally applied,” Standerfer noted. “Inconvenience to the government is not a compelling government interest, and ‘impracticable or unduly burdensome’ is not narrowly tailored to achieve any compelling government interest which they may attempt to evidence in a hearing on the merits.”
As to the lawsuit not providing evidence of “a cognizable legal theory,” Standerfer wrote that the delayed election violates the U.S. and Arkansas constitutional rights of Shelby and other residents in District 26.
“Again, Colt Shelby and the people of Senate District 26 are being systematically denied a bevy of constitutional rights including the rights to vote, to representative government, to equal protection, to free and fair elections, to due process of law, and a property interest in their tax dollars that will be spent by the 34 Senators who are not from their district during the 2026 Fiscal Session,” Standerfer wrote.
Standerfer also pushed back against the state’s claim of sovereign immunity, noting that such a claim is “inapplicable in a lawsuit seeking only declaratory or injunctive relief and alleging an illegal, unconstitutional, or ultra vires act.”
Related
References
- ^ set for Oct. 15 (talkbusiness.net)