## Facts

- Arkansas enacted Act 595 of 2013, requiring most voters to present “proof of identity” in the form of photo identification before casting a ballot.
- The Arkansas Constitution, art. 3, § 1 sets voter qualifications: U.S. citizenship, Arkansas residency, age eighteen or older, and lawful registration.
- Registered voters challenged Act 595, alleging the proof-of-identity requirement added a qualification to vote not authorized by the Constitution.
- The circuit court declared the proof-of-identity provisions facially unconstitutional and enjoined state election officials from enforcing Act 595 and related rules.
- State election officials appealed, disputing both the constitutional ruling and the propriety of injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether Act 595’s photo-identification requirement imposed an additional qualification to vote beyond those specified in Ark. Const. art. 3, § 1, rendering the Act facially unconstitutional.
2. Whether the circuit court properly granted injunctive relief barring enforcement of Act 595’s proof-of-identity provisions and implementing rules.
3. Whether alleged procedural defects in enactment under Ark. Const. art. 19, § 22 provided an alternative basis to invalidate the Act.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment.
- The court held Act 595 was facially unconstitutional because it imposed an additional qualification to vote outside Ark. Const. art. 3, § 1.
- The court upheld the injunction preventing enforcement of the proof-of-identity provisions and related administrative rules.
- The court resolved the case on art. 3, § 1 grounds and did not rely on the alternative procedural theory as the basis for the holding.

## Legal Principles

- Ark. Const. art. 3, § 1 enumerates exclusive voter qualifications; the legislature may not add substantive prerequisites to voting beyond those listed.
- Election laws may regulate the manner of conducting elections, but a requirement that operates as a precondition to casting a ballot is an impermissible voter qualification if not constitutionally authorized.
- Facial invalidity is established where a statute’s operative requirement directly conflicts with constitutional voter qualifications.
- Injunctive relief is appropriate to prevent enforcement of a facially unconstitutional election statute where enforcement would impair the right to vote and plaintiffs show irreparable harm and likelihood of success.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated Act 595’s photo-ID requirement as an unconstitutional additional qualification to vote under the Arkansas Constitution and affirmed an injunction prohibiting state election officials from enforcing the statute’s proof-of-identity provisions and implementing rules.


Martin v. Kohls, 444 S.W.3d 844 (Ark. 2014)