Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders speaks during the Republican National Convention in July 2024 (PBS NewsHour/YouTube).
A judge ripped into Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders” decision to delay a special election until next summer, finding that such an action would deprive citizens of their representation.
Sixth Judicial Circuit Judge Patricia James’ eight-page order centers on the special election for the late state Sen. Gary Stubblefield, who represented Arkansas’ District 26 until his death last month. After certifying the vacancy of the office, Sanders scheduled a special election for June 9, 2026, to fill the seat.
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
The judge maintained that this date is too late — past the 150-day time frame accorded by state law and beyond the state’s 2026 fiscal session running from April to May.
“Should the special election take place on June 9, 2026, the citizens of Senate District 26 are left without a senator for the entire 2026 Fiscal Session of the General Assembly,” she wrote in her order this week. “The citizens of Senate District 26 would be unconstitutionally impaired if this were to occur.”
James went on, warning of “far-reaching ramifications” if Sanders was enabled to act according to her desire. Of the citizens of the state’s District 26, the judge wrote:
They would not be able to fully and effectively participate, nor would they be able to have an effective voice in the election of members of their state legislature. To allow the special election to take place after the conclusion of a legislative session would indeed result in an infringement of a constitutional right based on the fundamental democratic principle of ‘no taxation without representation.’ There would be far-reaching ramifications if the Governor were allowed to deny duly elected representation for the citizens of the State of Arkansas and any action resulting in the denial of adequate representation for any Arkansas citizen conscience of this court.
At the conclusion of this year’s fiscal session, the Arkansas Senate outlined its plans to “consider spending bills” during next year’s convention.
There are 256 days between June 9, 2026, and Sept. 26, 2025, the day Sanders set that June date for the special election. An Arkansas governor can set a special election outside of the 150 days if scheduling one within that time frame would be “impracticable or unduly burdensome,” state law says.
However, James wrote that “the analysis does not stop there” — the General Assembly has stated “the special election shall be held as soon as practicable after the one-hundred-fiftieth day following the occurrence of the vacancy.”
Sanders has maintained that she has the “discretion” to set dates for special elections and that the court does not have the authority to overrule her. On this point, James was especially clear: “Although this court agrees that the Governor has the sole ability to set dates for a special election, that authority is not absolute.”
“The court has the ability and authority to determine whether the application of such statute is applied constitutionally,” the judge went on. “The Supreme Court of Arkansas has specifically held that ‘a state official who acts unlawfully does so without the authority of…the state in its sovereign capacity.’ Especially when such authority by the Governor runs the risk of circumventing a constitutionally protected right.”
The lawsuit was filed by Colt Shelby, a farmer in Franklin County who is registered to vote in Senate District 26, according to the Arkansas Times. He asked the court “to find the Governor failed to follow the law concerning the calling of special elections to fill vacancies.”
James ultimately sided with Shelby, ruling that the date for the special election “shall be set as soon as practicable after the one-hundred-fiftieth day following the occurrence of the vacancy in accordance.”
Sanders and Arkansas Attorney General Ryan Hale promptly appealed her ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court. Shelby’s attorney subsequently cross-appealed, seeking “expedited proceedings” because “time is of the essence” and the citizens “suffer direct harm during each day of disenfranchisement.” He wants a decision “as soon as possible” but no later than Nov. 23.
