**Three weeks before voters went to the polls, Independence County’s attorney told the Quorum Court he hoped their ballot measure would be struck down.**
—
On October 14, 2024, the Independence County Quorum Court held a regular meeting. County Attorney Daniel Haney addressed the court about the paper ballot initiative that would appear on the November 5 ballot. What he said, captured on audio recording obtained via FOIA from County Judge Kevin Jeffery’s office, reveals something voters deserve to know: the attorney paid to represent *all* citizens of Independence County was openly rooting against a citizen-initiated ballot measure before anyone had cast a vote.
## What the Recording Shows
At approximately 31 minutes into the meeting, Haney was recognized by the court to provide a legal update on the paper ballot initiative.
He informed the Quorum Court that the Arkansas Supreme Court would rule “this Thursday” on a challenge to a similar paper ballot measure in another county.
At the 32:19 mark, Haney explained the stakes: “And if the ruling is reversed, that means that the election commission or the election commissioners will not have to count those votes because those votes, it’s as if it should never have been on the ballot.”
Then, at 32:35, he said it plainly: **”So we’re hoping that it’s reversed.”**
“We’re hoping.”
Not “the court may rule.” Not “there is a possibility.” The county’s own attorney, speaking in his official capacity before the Quorum Court, expressed his personal hope that a citizen-initiated measure would be invalidated.
## Why This Matters
A county attorney serves all the people of the county, not just the officials who appointed him. When 8,309 voters (61.6% of those who cast ballots) approved the paper ballot ordinance on November 5, 2024, they were exercising a right guaranteed under Arkansas law. The attorney who was supposed to represent their interests had already declared which side he was on.
This was not a private remark. It was a statement made on the record, in open session, to the full Quorum Court.
## The Conflict Runs Deeper
As IndependenceWatch previously reported (see: “The Smoking Gun: Your County Attorney Was Working Both Sides”), Haney was not merely hoping for a reversal. He was actively working to achieve one.
At the time of his October 14 statement to the Quorum Court, Haney was serving as Appellant Counsel in *Evans v. Harrison* (Arkansas Supreme Court Case No. CV-24-656), a Cleburne County case arguing that paper ballot ordinances were unconstitutional. He simultaneously served as the civil attorney for Independence County, where voters were about to decide the same issue.
In other words: the attorney telling the Quorum Court “we’re hoping that it’s reversed” was the same attorney who had filed the legal brief asking the Supreme Court to reverse it.
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled 4-3 in *Evans v. Harrison* that the lower court lacked jurisdiction. That narrow ruling became the basis for the Quorum Court’s 9-0 vote on December 11, 2025, to repeal the voter-approved ordinance via emergency clause, blocking any possibility of citizen referendum.
## The Timeline
– **October 14, 2024:** Haney tells the Quorum Court “we’re hoping that it’s reversed”
– **November 5, 2024:** 8,309 Independence County voters approve paper ballots (61.6%)
– **2024-2025:** Haney continues litigating *Evans v. Harrison* to overturn paper ballot statutes
– **December 11, 2025:** Quorum Court votes 9-0 to repeal the ordinance, citing *Evans v. Harrison*
## A Note on the Source
The audio recording of the October 14, 2024 Quorum Court meeting was obtained through a FOIA request to County Judge Kevin Jeffery’s office. The transcript was generated using OpenAI’s Whisper large-v3 AI transcription model for legal-quality accuracy. The transcript was verified using multiple AI transcription models, with the higher-accuracy model (Whisper large-v3) correctly identifying Haney by name. The original audio is available for verification.
## What We Still Need to Know
1. **Did Haney ever disclose his conflict of interest to the Quorum Court?** Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 1.7) require attorneys to disclose concurrent conflicts and obtain informed consent. We have filed FOIA requests for any conflict disclosure or consent records. None have been produced.
2. **Who is “we”?** When Haney said “we’re hoping,” was he speaking for himself, for county leadership, or for someone else? The use of “we” suggests this was not an isolated personal opinion.
3. **Did any Justice of the Peace object?** The recording does not indicate that any member of the Quorum Court challenged Haney’s statement or asked why the county’s attorney was taking sides against a citizen initiative.
—
*Sources: Quorum Court meeting audio recording, October 14, 2024 (obtained via FOIA from County Judge Kevin Jeffery’s office); Whisper AI transcript; Arkansas Supreme Court docket CV-24-656 (Evans v. Harrison); Independence County Election Results, November 5, 2024; Ordinance 2025-27 (repeal ordinance).*
*The audio recording and full transcript are available upon request.*
—
## UPDATE: September 9 Meeting Reveals Weeks-Long Pattern
Legal-quality transcription of the September 9, 2024 Quorum Court meeting reveals that Haney’s October 14 remark was not an isolated comment. Five weeks earlier, he was already laying the groundwork against the paper ballot initiative before the full court.
At the September 9 meeting, Haney was introduced as “our county attorney” and made several key statements about the ballot initiative:
At [0:58:56]: He argued the ballot title was **”insufficient due to being misleading and omitting material information”**: the same legal argument he was simultaneously advancing in Evans v. Harrison in Cleburne County.
At [0:59:08]: He stated he was “happily walking through what I thought was the problem with the ballot initiative,” openly characterizing the citizen measure as problematic.
At [0:59:30]: He acknowledged that an appeal “is not going to do anything between now and the time that it would be voted,” showing awareness that legal challenges would not stop the election.
At [0:59:37]: He planted implementation doubts, stating “even if it was voted, there’s still some questions and issues that may prevent it from actually being implemented.”
This establishes that Haney was not merely expressing a passing opinion on October 14. He spent weeks building a case against the initiative before the Quorum Court while simultaneously litigating against it in another county’s court.
**The local control irony:** In the same September 9 meeting, Haney passionately argued for county authority over state mandates regarding crypto mining operations. He advocated for local control when it suited his position, while working to override local control when citizens exercised it through the ballot initiative process.
*Source: September 9, 2024 QC meeting audio (FOIA), transcribed with Whisper large-v3.*