HB1223
To Allow A Candidate For The Office Of Justice Of The Supreme Court Or Judge Of The Court Of Appeals Who Is Serving In That Position As An Appointee To Use The Title Of That Position As A Prefix On The Ballot.
AI-Generated Summary
This bill proposes to amend existing Arkansas law regarding the form of ballots and the use of prefixes for candidates in nonpartisan judicial elections. Specifically, it addresses the eligibility of appointees to judicial offices to use their official title as a prefix on the ballot. Currently, individuals serving in nonpartisan judicial offices as appointees are generally not permitted to use their title as a prefix unless they were elected to that position. This legislation seeks to alter that restriction. The bill would allow candidates for the offices of Justice of the Supreme Court or Judge of the Court of Appeals to use their title as a prefix on the ballot if they are currently serving in that role as an appointee. This provision is further qualified by a requirement that the appointee must have served in that position for at least twelve months. The proposed changes are outlined in Section 1 of the bill, which amends Arkansas Code § 7-7-305(c)(1)(B). The intent is to provide a specific allowance for certain appointed judicial officers to represent their current status on election materials.
Potential Impact Analysis
Who Might Benefit?
The primary beneficiaries of this bill would be individuals who are currently serving as appointees to the offices of Justice of the Supreme Court or Judge of the Court of Appeals and who meet the specified tenure requirement. If this bill becomes law, these individuals would be permitted to use their official title as a prefix on their ballots during an election. This could potentially enhance their name recognition and signal their current experience to voters, which might be perceived as an advantage in their electoral campaigns.
Who Might Suffer?
This bill does not appear to directly identify any specific groups or entities that would be negatively impacted. However, one could argue that voters who prioritize a distinction between elected and appointed officials might feel negatively impacted by the bill's allowance for appointees to use their titles as prefixes. This change could potentially blur the lines for voters trying to understand a candidate's electoral history or mandate, although the bill itself does not explicitly create such a negative outcome.