Ark. Code Ann. » Title 7 Chapter 05
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-207 (2026)

Ballots — Names included — Draw for ballot position

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
    1. Except as provided in subdivision (a)(2) of this section, all election ballots provided by the county board of election commissioners of any county in this state for any election shall contain in the proper place the name of every candidate whose nomination for any office to be filled at that election has been certified to the county board of election commissioners and shall not contain the name of any candidate or person who has not been certified.
      1. Except as provided in subdivision (a)(2)(B) of this section, unopposed candidates for all offices, including school board positions, shall be declared and certified elected without the necessity of including those names on the general election ballot.
        1. In an election in which one (1) or more candidates are unopposed, the phrase “unopposed candidates” shall appear on the ballot, adjacent to a place in which the voter may cast a vote for all unopposed candidates by placing an appropriate mark.
        2. Votes received by an unopposed candidate in any election in this state may be counted or tabulated by the election officials for administrative purposes, but shall not be certified unless otherwise provided by law.
        3. Votes received by an unopposed candidate for the office of Governor, Mayor, Circuit Clerk, City Clerk, or the office of a nonjudicial state elected official shall be counted or tabulated by the election officials and certified according to law.
        4. The names of all unopposed candidates for the office of Mayor, Governor, Circuit Clerk, City Clerk, and the office of a nonjudicial state elected official shall be separately placed on the general election ballot, and the votes for Mayor, Governor, Circuit Clerk, City Clerk, and a nonjudicial state elected official shall be tabulated as in all contested races.
        5. All unopposed candidates, other than for the offices of Mayor, Governor, Circuit Clerk, City Clerk, and the office of a nonjudicial state elected official, shall be declared and certified as elected in the same manner as if the candidate had been voted upon at the election.
  2. No person's name shall be placed upon the ballot as a candidate for any public office in this state at any election unless the person is qualified and eligible at the time of filing, or as otherwise may be provided by law, as a candidate for the office to hold the public office for which he or she is a candidate, except if a person is not qualified to hold the office at the time of filing because of age alone, the name of the person shall be placed on the ballot as a candidate for the office if the person will qualify to hold the office at the time prescribed by law for taking office.
    1. The order in which the names of the candidates shall appear on the ballot shall be determined by lot at a public meeting of the county board of election commissioners not less than seventy-two (72) days before the general election.
    2. Notice of the public meeting shall be given by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county at least three (3) days before the drawing.
    3. For runoff elections, the ballot order for eligible candidates shall be the same as for the previous election leading to the runoff.
    1. Adjacent to the name of each candidate in the general election shall be:
      1. His or her party designation; or
      2. The term “INDEPENDENT” if he or she represents no officially recognized party.
    2. Subdivision (d)(1) of this section does not apply to a:
      1. Nonpartisan election; or
      2. Nonpartisan municipal election.

History. Acts 1969, No. 465, Art. 6, § 13; 1971, No. 224, § 1; 1971, No. 261, §§ 20, 22; 1971, No. 355, §§ 1-3; 1971, No. 725, § 1; 1979, No. 389, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 3-613, 3-615; Acts 1997, No. 451, § 12; 2007, No. 1049, § 15; 2009, No. 959, § 6; 2009, No. 1480, § 19; 2011, No. 1185, § 6; 2013, No. 1110, § 4; 2017, No. 730, § 1; 2019, No. 254, § 1; 2019, No. 597, § 7; 2019, No. 1013, § 1.

Amendments. The 2007 amendment substituted “no later than seventy (70) days before the election” for “prior to the printing of the ballots” in (a), and made related changes.

The 2009 amendment by No. 959 inserted “or as otherwise may be provided by law” in (b), and made related and minor stylistic changes.

The 2009 amendment by No. 1480 rewrote (a); substituted “placed” for “printed” twice in (b); and added (c) and (d).

The 2011 amendment substituted “seventy-two (72)” for “sixty-five (65)” in (c)(1).

The 2013 amendment substituted “Adjacent to” for “Beside or adjacent to” in (d)(1); substituted “does” for “shall” in (d)(2); and deleted “judicial” following “Nonpartisan” in (d)(2)(A).

The 2017 amendment substituted “subdivision (a)(2)” for “subdivisions (a)(2) and (3)” in (a)(1); substituted “all offices” for “municipal offices” in (a)(2)(A); inserted “governor, and circuit clerk” twice in (a)(2)(B); and deleted (a)(3).

The 2019 amendment by No. 254 inserted “city clerk” twice in (a)(2)(B).

The 2019 amendment by No. 597 inserted “including school board positions” in (a)(2)(A).

The 2019 amendment by No. 1013 rewrote (a)(2)(B).

Research References

ALR.

Validity, Construction, and Application of State Statutory Requirements Concerning Placement of Independent Candidate for President of the United States on Ballot. 33 A.L.R.6th 513.

Validity, Construction and Application of State Statutory Limitations Periods Governing Election Contests. 60 A.L.R.6th 481.

Construction and Application of Statutes and Ordinances Concerning Establishment of Residency, as Condition for Running for Municipal Office. 74 A.L.R.6th 209.

U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.

Annual Survey of Caselaw, Election Law, 26 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 904.

Case Notes

Election Contest.

Issue presented in the claimant's petition asserting that the candidate was ineligible was moot, because the claimant failed to pursue his petition expeditiously in order to obtain the remedy of removing the candidate's name from the ballot before the election and the claimant had offered no compelling reason for his delay in filing the petition, and waiting until the day before the election to file the petition rendered it impossible for the trial court to fulfill the requirement under Ark. R. Civ. P. 78(d) that the trial court hold a hearing no sooner than two and no longer than seven days thereafter. Oliver v. Phillips, 375 Ark. 287, 290 S.W.3d 11 (2008).

Candidate's appeal from an order granting a declaratory judgment and issuing a writ of mandamus in favor of a circuit judge on the basis that the candidate was not qualified or eligible for the office of circuit judge was moot because the supreme court could provide no relief; the circuit judge initiated a proper pre-election challenge to the candidate's qualification to stand for the office. Bailey v. Martin, 2014 Ark. 213, 433 S.W.3d 904 (2014).

Enforcement.

Where a Democratic candidate had challenged a Republican candidate's residency requirements, the trial court erred in dismissing the Democratic candidate's suit as the complaint was specifically authorized by subsection (b) of this section. Tumey v. Daniels, 359 Ark. 256, 196 S.W.3d 479 (2004).

Jurisdiction.

Appellee candidate's petition for writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment, which sought to have appellant candidate declared ineligible, was dismissed because appellee filed the petition postelection rather than preelection, appellee cited to subsection (b) of this section, and a circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider a preelection challenge filed postelection. Zolliecoffer v. Post, 371 Ark. 263, 265 S.W.3d 114 (2007).

Trial court had jurisdiction over the election contest and jurisdiction was not subsequently erased by the election, because the action was filed pre-election. Oliver v. Phillips, 375 Ark. 287, 290 S.W.3d 11 (2008).

Circuit court clearly had jurisdiction to hear a candidate's petition where she was challenging the eligibility of a competing Court of Appeals candidate. Barrett v. Thurston, 2020 Ark. 36 (2020).

Mandamus.

An action for mandamus and declaratory relief is the proper method of enforcing the right set out in this section. State ex rel. Robinson v. Craighead County Bd. of Election Comm'rs, 300 Ark. 405, 779 S.W.2d 169 (1989).

Appeal from a grant of a writ of mandamus was dismissed because the appeal was moot, as an appellate decision would have no practical legal effect as to an impending election, since no candidates were certified for the offices in question. Jefferson County Election Comm'n v. Hollingsworth, 2014 Ark. 431, 445 S.W.3d 504 (2014).

Preelection Challenge.

Candidate's petition was compliant with Arkansas law where she brought a preelection attack on a competing Court of Appeals candidate's eligibility. The verification requirement in § 7-5-801 was inapplicable because that section is a postelection procedure, while preelection attacks are brought under subsection (b) of this section, which does not have a verification requirement. Barrett v. Thurston, 2020 Ark. 36 (2020).

Qualification of Candidates.

Arkansas law is well settled that the party chairman and secretary do not have the judicial authority to determine that a candidate is ineligible to hold public office, nor can they refuse to place the candidate's name upon the ballot. Ivy v. Republican Party, 318 Ark. 50, 883 S.W.2d 805 (1994).

The General Assembly has provided no procedure for state and county party committees or conventions to make a judicial determination concerning whether a party nominee should be certified; to do so means the party officials would investigate, make factual determinations and determine whether those factual findings constitute “other good and legal cause” under former § 7-1-101(4), an undertaking which requires a judicial tribunal, not a political one. Ivy v. Republican Party, 318 Ark. 50, 883 S.W.2d 805 (1994).

Statutory right to challenge the eligibility of a candidate before the election is provided by this section; however, this statutory procedure only allows pre-election challenges to a candidate's eligibility. Pederson v. Stracener, 354 Ark. 716, 128 S.W.3d 818 (2003).

Candidate's post-election challenge to a state senate runoff election was properly brought within the circuit or district in which alleged voter fraud occurred; further, the Secretary of State and the state democratic committee were not indispensable parties for complete relief under Ark. R. Civ. P. 19 because the office of state senator was not a “state office” as that term had been differentiated in §§ 7-7-401 and 7-5-804, and Ark. Const. art. 5, §§ 3 and 4. Willis v. Crumbly, 368 Ark. 5, 242 S.W.3d 600 (2006).

Because a candidate did not comply with Ark. R. Civ. P. 78(d) and Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 6-1(b) in contesting a declaration that the candidate was ineligible to hold office under subsection (b) of this section, the lapse of time and the fact that the election had already been held rendered moot the issues presented on appeal. Fite v. Grulkey, 2011 Ark. 188 (2011).

Issue raised by appellant regarding appellee's eligibility as a candidate in a mayoral election under subsection (b) of this section was moot because the record demonstrated that the election was held. Appellant failed to address the mootness doctrine and whether the exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied to this case. Gray v. Thomas-Barnes, 2015 Ark. 426, 474 S.W.3d 876 (2015).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1989–2023 · leading case: Tumey v. Daniels, 196 S.W.3d 479 (Ark. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tumey v. Daniels, 196 S.W.3d 479 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 44× “Instead, Ark.Code Ann. § 7-5-207 (Repl. 2000) is the statutory procedure which appellant was required to follow.”
Gray v. Thomas-Barnes, 2015 Ark. 426 (Ark. 2015). · cites it 32× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-207 (b) (Supp. 2015).”
Clement v. Daniels, 235 S.W.3d 521 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 18× “In short, Clement is a voter and a life-long citizen of the state and of Hot Spring County, which gives him standing to bring this action challenging whether Halter, as a candidate for Lieutenant Governor, possesses the constitutional qualifications to hold that office, if…”
Jacobs v. Yates, 27 S.W.3d 734 (Ark. 2000). · cites it 14× “Id. In fact, our court established the procedure and manner to proceed under Ark.”
Willis v. Crumbly, 242 S.W.3d 600 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 13× “As stated earlier, two overarching issues are presented in these two appeals: (1) Does § 7-5-801 apply in these cases? And, (2) if so, is the state senate position a state office or a district office (which in turn determines which venue is proper)? We begin with the first…”
Zolliecoffer v. Post, 265 S.W.3d 114 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 10× “2d 169 (1989); and Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-207 (b) (Repl. 2000).”
Bailey v. Martin, 2014 Ark. 213 (Ark. 2014). · cites it 16× “Arkansas Code Annotated section 7-5-207(b) (Supp. 2013) provides the means for a voter to raise a pre-election attack on a candidate’s eligibility to stand for election and 7 Cite as 2014 Ark.”
State ex rel. Robinson v. Craighead Cnty. Bd. of Election Commissioners, 779 S.W.2d 169 (Ark. 1989). · cites it 4× “The right the appellant seeks to enforce is contained in Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-207 (b) (1987). That statute created a right in the people to the proper administration of election laws by prohibiting the inclusion of ineligible candidates on the ballot: No person’s name shall be…”
Allred v. McLoud, 31 S.W.3d 836 (Ark. 2000). · cites it 8× “Ark.Code Ann. § 7-5-207 (Repl. 2000)—no person's name shall be printed as a candidate for public office unless that person is qualified and eligible to hold office.”
Oliver v. Phillips, 290 S.W.3d 11 (Ark. 2008). · cites it 6× “A statutory right to challenge the eligibility of a candidate before the election is provided by Ark.Code Ann. § 7-5-207(b) (Supp. 2007); however, this statute only allows pre-election challenges to a candidate’s eligibility.”
Helton v. Jacobs, 57 S.W.3d 180 (Ark. 2001). · cites it 4× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-207 (b) (Repl. 2000).”
Nancy Carola Jacobsen v. Florida Sec'y of State, 974 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2020). “Code § 17-6-25 (alphabetical by candidate last name); Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-207 (c)(1) (random lottery); Ky.”
Show all 38 citing cases →
— Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-207(a)(l) — 1 case
Jefferson Cnty. Election Comm'n v. Hollingsworth, 2014 Ark. 431 (Ark. 2014).
— Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-207(b) — 15 cases
Tumey v. Daniels, 196 S.W.3d 479 (Ark. 2004). “Instead, Ark.Code Ann. § 7-5-207 (Repl. 2000) is the statutory procedure which appellant was required to follow.”
Gray v. Thomas-Barnes, 2015 Ark. 426 (Ark. 2015). “” Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-207 (b) (Supp. 2015).”
Clement v. Daniels, 235 S.W.3d 521 (Ark. 2006). “In short, Clement is a voter and a life-long citizen of the state and of Hot Spring County, which gives him standing to bring this action challenging whether Halter, as a candidate for Lieutenant Governor, possesses the constitutional qualifications to hold that office, if…”
Bailey v. Martin, 2014 Ark. 213 (Ark. 2014). “Arkansas Code Annotated section 7-5-207(b) (Supp. 2013) provides the means for a voter to raise a pre-election attack on a candidate’s eligibility to stand for election and 7 Cite as 2014 Ark.”
Oliver v. Phillips, 290 S.W.3d 11 (Ark. 2008). “A statutory right to challenge the eligibility of a candidate before the election is provided by Ark.Code Ann. § 7-5-207(b) (Supp. 2007); however, this statute only allows pre-election challenges to a candidate’s eligibility.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-207(c)(1) — 1 case
Dakota Nelson v. Mac Warner, 12 F.4th 376 (4th Cir. 2021).
— Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-207(d)(1)(B) — 1 case
Green Party of Arkansas v. Martin, 649 F.3d 675 (8th Cir. 2011).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.