Arkansas Supreme Court: Fite ineligible for District 83 race

Tom Fite remains ineligible to be a candidate for Arkansas House District 83. The Arkansas Supreme Court on Monday (Nov. 1) upheld a Pulaski County Circuit ruling that Fite is ineligible to hold public office.

Greg Almand, Fite’s attorney, said Monday prior to the Arkansas Supreme Court ruling that Fite would continue to appeal the matter even if the Circuit Court ruling from Judge Collins Kilgore was upheld. Almand said he was prepared to file an expedited appeal to “address all the issues in the record.”

Fite (R) faced Leslee Milam Post (D) for the Arkansas House District 83 seat opened with the term-limited Rep. Beverly Pyle, R-Cedarville, unable to seek re-election.

Fite’s legal challenge to his ballot status came from Michael Grulkey, who filed a lawsuit in Pulaski County Circuit Court saying Fite has a 1984 criminal conviction that makes him ineligible for election. Fite faced a federal jury trial in February 1984 on several counts of medicaid fraud and bribery. The trial, held in the Eastern District of Arkansas, ended in a mistrial, and Fite eventually pleaded guilty to a lesser misdemeanor charge and was given three years probation.

“The plain language of the Constitution of the State of Arkansas prohibits one convicted of bribery from holding public office, and Mr. Fite has been convicted of aiding and abetting medicaid bribery,” Kilgore noted in the ruling issued Oct. 27.

Kilgore ordered that Fite’s name be excluded from election ballots and ordered election officials to not count the votes for Fite.

Fite’s appeal of Kilgore’s ruling did not directly challenge the ruling that he is ineligible, but it did challenge the technicalities of keeping Fite off the ballot and not counting his votes. Almand said during a 1:30 p.m., Monday conference call with the media that the matter has caused a “great deal of confusion.” He said the appeal filed Friday by Fite was meant to reverse Kilgore’s ruling on ineligibility so it could be heard on “a more calm date, where things are not so rushed.”

Specifically, Almand said it is impossible for election officials to follow Kilgore’s ruling because it requires Fite to be removed from the ballot, for the votes to note be counted, and for the Secretary of State to not certify any results for Fite.

In his response to Fite’s late Friday appeal, Brian Meadors, the attorney for Grulkey, disputed the alleged technical difficulties.

“Contrary to the doom-and-gloom of Fite’s petition, the order ‘precluding the counting of any votes for Mr. Fite’ is easy to comply with,” Meadors noted. “Election officials, by simply treating the District 83 race as unopposed and not disclosing the vote county provided by the machines, fully comply with Judge Kilgore’s order. And, of course, the mandamus to the Secretary of State to not certify Fite is an easy order to follow, too.”

Meadors also said the Fite appeal was an attempt “to use this Court’s limited resources in Fite’s attempt to politically save face by actually counting how many votes would have been cast for Fite had his criminal past not been exposed.”

As to the possibility of a successful appeal, Almand said the Fite case is different from the recent case in which Greenwood Mayor Kenneth Edwards was ruled ineligible to seek reelection. In that case, it was determined that Edwards’ conviction on theft of property for stealing yard signs was an “infamous crime” because it reflected dishonesty.

Almand said the Edwards matter is different because it was a “sin-is-sin” ruling, “that stealing a $2 yard sign is no different than stealing” a car. In Fite’s case, a pharmacist was busted for improper medicaid referrals. Because Fite was drug wholesaler to the pharmacist, he was charged with conspiracy.

Meadors, who was the successful attorney in the case against Edwards, told The City Wire that the arguments of dishonesty are “essentially the same” in both cases.

“They are both convicted criminals. … How is that a different argument?” Meadors said.

Not only did Meadors argue the response by Fite is without merit, Meadors asked the court to financially sanction Fite for making “material misstatements of the law,” “material misstatements of fact” and for other causes. The sanction was for Fite to pay attorney’s fees of $2,025. The court denied the sanction.