concurring. I agree with the majority opinion on the merits but write because I question the lateness of Mr. Clement’s petition.
Mr. Halter filed for lieutenant governor on March 21, 2006. Forty-five days later, Mr. Clement filed his petition for writ of mandamus on May 5, 2006, and it was heard by the circuit court on May 9, 2006. On May 10, 2006, the circuit court entered its order. This court expedited the appeal on May 12, 2006, at the request of both parties, and asked for simultaneous briefs, which were filed on May 15, 2006. The election will be held six days from this writing.
Absentee voting under Ark. Code Ann. §§ 7-5-401 through 7-5-417 (Repl. 2000 & Supp. 2005) is well underway. Early voting under Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-418 (Supp. 2005), began on May 8, 2006. To abruptly halt the process or prevent the counting of ballots already cast for Mr. Halter at this late date would necessarily disenfranchise many voters. All of this is to say that Mr. Clement’s petition should have been filed earlier.
This court said recently in a case where the eligibility petition was filed eight days before the election:
Simply stated, Ball’s petition was untimely. The candidates’ names were certified on or before August 6, 2004. Ball offers no compelling reason for waiting thirty-eight days to file her petition for writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment to remove Jones’ name from the ballot. If Ball had filed her suit within this thirty-eight day period (or, including the eight days following the [sic] September 13, 2004, the forty-six day period), there would have been ample time in which to resolve all relevant issues raised by Ball prior to the September 21,2004 election.
Ball v. Phillips County Election Comm’n, 364 Ark. 574, 577-78, 222 S.W.3d 205, 207 (2006).
In the future, this court should examine the desirability of granting expedited review at such a late date, when no compelling reason has been given for the delay. As we have said in other election cases, albeit not eligibility cases, “to grant review at this late hour would not only be unfair to the adverse parties, but it would not give this court a sufficient amount of time necessary for meaningful deliberation of the issues presented.” Ward v. Priest, 350 Ark. 462, 464, 88 S.W.3d 416, 417 (2002). See also Stilley v. Young, 342 Ark. 378, 28 S.W.3d 858 (2000).