Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Bryan Norris v. Independence County, Arkansas

Supreme Court of Arkansas

• Citations: 2026 Ark. 41

• Docket Number: Unknown

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined 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.

2