*How Daniel Haney simultaneously attacked paper ballot laws in one county while serving as legal counsel to the county whose voters approved them*
—
On May 22, 2025, attorney Daniel Ross Haney stood before the Arkansas Supreme Court and argued that the statutes allowing citizens to petition for paper ballots were unconstitutional.
He won. The Court ruled 4-3 in his favor on October 30, 2025, striking down ACA 14-14-918 and 14-14-919 in the case of Evans v. Harrison (CV-24-656).
Forty-three days later, on December 11, 2025, that same ruling was used to justify repealing Independence County’s voter-approved paper ballot ordinance.
Here is the part that should concern every citizen of Independence County: Daniel Haney is your county attorney. He was being paid by Independence County the entire time he was building the legal case that would be used to overturn what 8,309 of you voted for.
## The Dual Role
Court records from the Arkansas Supreme Court docket (CV-24-656) show the following filings by HANEY, DANIEL ROSS as Appellant Counsel:
– **October 1, 2024:** Record lodged, appellate coversheet filed, $165 filing fee paid
– **November 12, 2024:** Appellant’s Brief filed (one week after IC voters approved paper ballots)
– **January 30, 2025:** Reply Brief filed
– **March 18, 2025:** Supplemental Brief on mootness filed
– **May 21, 2025:** Additional cases cited filed
– **May 22, 2025:** Oral argument before the Supreme Court
– **July 2, 2025:** Supplemental Brief on Article 5, Section 1 filed
– **September 4, 2025:** Final submission
During this entire period, from October 2024 through September 2025, Haney was simultaneously serving as civil attorney for Independence County. He attended Quorum Court meetings. He provided legal counsel to the body that would eventually use his ruling to repeal the ordinance.
The July 2025 QC meeting minutes record that Haney “spoke about another county’s paper ballot appeal.” That was his own case. He was briefing the QC on litigation he was personally conducting in Cleburne County.
## The Conflict
Under Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.7, an attorney shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict exists when “there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client.”
Haney’s obligation to zealously advocate for striking down the paper ballot statutes in Cleburne County was in direct tension with his duty to impartially advise Independence County about those very same statutes.
Consider what happened from the perspective of Independence County voters: Your county attorney was working to destroy the legal foundation of your voter-approved ordinance, and you had no way to know it. The case was filed in a different county. Haney’s name appeared on the court docket, but how many Independence County citizens monitor Cleburne County circuit court filings?
## The Timeline Matters
The timeline tells the story:
– **August 22, 2024:** Independence County Clerk certifies the paper ballot petition
– **October 1, 2024:** Haney files the appellate record in Evans v. Harrison
– **November 5, 2024:** 8,309 Independence County voters approve paper ballots (61.6%)
– **November 12, 2024:** One week later, Haney files his Appellant’s Brief attacking the statutes that enabled that vote
– **October 30, 2025:** The Supreme Court rules 4-3 in Haney’s favor
– **December 11, 2025:** The Quorum Court, advised by Haney, votes 9-0 to repeal
Haney filed his brief attacking paper ballot statutes just seven days after Independence County voters used those same statutes to approve paper ballots.
## The Narrowest Margin
The Evans v. Harrison decision was 4-3. Three justices dissented. This was the narrowest possible majority, and it was used to justify the broadest possible action: overturning a 23-point voter mandate.
A 4-3 ruling is not settled law. It is a conversation that is not over.
## What We Still Need to Know
Several questions remain unanswered:
1. **Did Haney disclose his Evans v. Harrison role to the Independence County Quorum Court?** If he disclosed and they consented, the conflict argument changes. If he did not, it raises serious concerns under Rule 1.7.
2. **Who paid for the Evans v. Harrison litigation?** If Independence County taxpayer money funded any part of it, that means voters unknowingly paid for the legal case used against them.
3. **What legal advice did Haney give the QC about the repeal?** The minutes show he “spoke about” the case, but no verbatim record exists.
We have filed FOIA requests seeking conflict disclosures, billing records, and communications between Haney and the JPs regarding Evans v. Harrison. The answers to these questions matter.
## The Public Record
Every factual claim in this article is sourced from official public records:
– Arkansas Supreme Court docket, Evans v. Harrison, CV-24-656 (searchable through Arkansas Judiciary Case Search)
– Independence County Quorum Court meeting minutes
– Independence County election results, November 5, 2024
– Ordinance 2024-18 (approval) and Ordinance 2025-27 (repeal)
– Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.7
The docket entries speak for themselves. Daniel Haney filed the case. Daniel Haney briefed the case. Daniel Haney argued the case. Daniel Haney won the case. Then Daniel Haney advised Independence County to use his victory to repeal what voters approved.
That is not a matter of opinion. That is a matter of public record.
—
*Bryan Norris is a 21-year U.S. Army veteran, First Sergeant, and project manager. He led the Independence County paper ballot petition drive and is the lead plaintiff in Norris et al v. Independence County (32CV-26-55). He is a Republican candidate for Arkansas Secretary of State.*
*All source documents referenced in this article are available for public inspection. FOIA requests for additional records have been filed.*