When Independence County citizens gathered signatures for a paper ballot ordinance in 2024, they believed they were exercising a constitutional right. What they didn’t know was that a coordinated legal machine had already been assembled to stop them — funded, in part, by their own tax dollars.
Documents obtained through the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act reveal that the Association of Arkansas Counties (AAC) orchestrated a multi-county legal campaign to defeat paper ballot petitions across at least nine Arkansas counties. The effort was led by AAC Chief Counsel Mark Whitmore and involved county attorneys, deputy prosecutors, and AAC staff attorneys working together in real time through a shared email chain.
The Network
At the center of the campaign was Daniel Haney, who served simultaneously as Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for the 16th Judicial District and County Attorney for both Independence and Cleburne Counties. Haney coordinated directly with:
- Mark Whitmore, AAC Chief Counsel
- Lindsey Bailey French, AAC Attorney
- Colin Jorgensen, AAC Attorney
- County attorneys from Saline, Van Buren, Sharp, Conway, and other counties
The emails show these attorneys sharing legal briefs, drafting motions for each other, providing real-time feedback on court filings, and celebrating victories together.
“It’s Begun!”
On August 14, 2024, when the first lawsuit was filed challenging a clerk’s rejection of paper ballot petitions, Haney emailed the entire network: “It’s begun!”
From that point forward, the coordination intensified. AAC attorneys drafted what Jorgensen called “the winning brief” and distributed it to counties across the state. Whitmore described the petitioners’ legal effort as “a cookie cutter operation, and an extraordinarily sloppy one at that.” Haney mocked the petitioners’ attorney for owning a Porsche SUV.
When Independence County’s Tracey Mitchell received a press inquiry from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette about her rejection of the petition, Haney asked the AAC: “Is there a ‘collective’ statement from the AAC? Should we even respond?” Whitmore advised silence: “less is more for a county clerk.”
“Bogus Affidavits”
On August 8, 2024, Whitmore emailed Haney and French with the subject line “Bogus affidavits” — referring to sworn statements submitted by petition canvassers. The same day, Haney drafted a letter for clerks to use when recertifying that petition signatures were insufficient. He shared that draft not just with Independence County’s clerk, but with attorneys across the state.
When Saline County reported that addresses had been marked through on petition pages, Whitmore forwarded the information with commentary: “Tampering with the actual petitions. Suggests he’s less confident in the success of subsequent affidavits.”
Template Legal Strategy
The documents reveal that AAC attorneys created template legal documents — motions to dismiss, briefs in support, answer to complaints — that were distributed to multiple counties for use in their individual cases. Counties were not making independent legal decisions. They were executing a coordinated strategy designed in Little Rock.
Haney drafted the initial answer and motion to dismiss for Cleburne County. French edited it. Jorgensen added a section arguing the ballot title was “misleading and confusing.” Whitmore distributed the polished product to every county in the network.
Who Gave the “Marching Orders”?
Perhaps the most revealing moment came on September 20, 2024. After Judge Holly Meyer ruled that the paper ballot measure should go on the ballot, the AAC attorneys advised against appealing. French warned that “an unfavorable ruling at the appellate level would undo all of the favorable rulings in the other counties.”
But Haney responded that he had “marching orders” to appeal. He did not say who gave those orders. The appeal proceeded, and on February 18, 2026, the court ruled it had no jurisdiction — a result the AAC attorneys had predicted months earlier.
The Question of Taxpayer Funds
The AAC is funded by membership dues paid by Arkansas counties — which means taxpayer money. When AAC attorneys spend hundreds of hours coordinating a legal strategy to defeat citizen-initiated petitions, the citizens whose petitions are being fought are effectively paying for the opposition.
This raises fundamental questions:
- Should a taxpayer-funded organization fight citizen-initiated ballot measures?
- Should county attorneys use their public office to coordinate with outside organizations to defeat petitions?
- Should the same officials who administer elections also actively oppose ballot measures?
What Happens Next
The paper ballot ordinance passed by a vote of the people in November 2024. Despite the coordinated effort to keep it off the ballot, Independence County voters made their voices heard. The ordinance was subsequently repealed by the Quorum Court (9-0) through Ordinance 2025-27.
The case is now heading to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
IndependenceWatch.com will continue to publish the FOIA documents that tell this story. The people of Independence County deserve to know how their government works — and who it works for.
All quotes in this article come directly from emails obtained through the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act from the office of Daniel Haney, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, 16th Judicial District.
Documents are available for public review.