The Arkansas Supreme Court issued a split decision Wednesday in a Republican primary ballot dispute that could reshape the race for Arkansas House District 92, affirming that candidate Casey Reed is ineligible to run while ordering reconsideration of attorney's fees for his challenger.
In *Casey Reed v. Ken Yang* (Ark. 2026), the high court affirmed the Pulaski County Circuit Court's ruling that declared Reed ineligible for the Republican primary and ordered that votes cast for him not be counted. However, the court reversed the lower court's denial of attorney's fees to Ken Yang, who successfully challenged Reed's candidacy.
The case centers on Reed's eligibility to appear on the Republican primary ballot for House District 92. Yang filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus challenging Reed's candidacy, naming as defendants the Grant County Board of Election Commissioners, Saline County Board of Election Commissioners, and several election officials including Arkansas Secretary of State Cole Jester.
Justice Barbara W. Webb wrote the court's opinion, which addressed three primary issues raised by Reed on appeal. Reed argued that the circuit court erred by finding Yang had standing to bring the lawsuit, by granting Yang's complaint finding Reed ineligible, and by requiring Prosecuting Attorney Teresa Howell to testify without allowing proper cross-examination.
The Supreme Court rejected all three of Reed's arguments on direct appeal. The court found that Yang had proper standing to challenge Reed's candidacy and that the circuit court correctly determined Reed's ineligibility for the House District 92 race. The ruling also upheld the lower court's handling of Howell's testimony, finding no error in the procedural decisions.
However, the court sided with Yang on his cross-appeal regarding attorney's fees. Yang had argued that Arkansas Code Annotated section 21-8-303(b)(2) required an award of reasonable attorney's fees, which the circuit court had denied. The Supreme Court agreed, reversing that portion of the lower court's ruling and remanding for reconsideration of the attorney's fees issue under Rule 54(e) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure.
The litigation involved multiple parties across several Arkansas counties. Named defendants included Grant County Circuit Clerk Geral Harrison, Saline County Clerk Doug Curtis, and Joseph Wood in his capacity as Chairman of the Republican Party of Arkansas. The case originated in Pulaski County Circuit Court under Judge Cathleen V. Compton, who initially ruled in Yang's favor on the eligibility question while denying his request for attorney's fees.
The Supreme Court exercised jurisdiction under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 1-2(a)(4), which covers cases involving specific election-related issues. The case was assigned number CV-26-61 and decided on Feb. 12, 2026.
The ruling creates a complex outcome that affects multiple aspects of the Republican primary process. While Reed's eligibility challenge was unsuccessful, Yang's partial victory on attorney's fees could influence how future election challenges are litigated in Arkansas courts.
The decision impacts election officials across multiple counties who must now implement the court's ruling regarding Reed's ballot status. The Grant County and Saline County Boards of Election Commissioners, along with their respective clerks, will need to ensure compliance with the court's mandate that votes for Reed not be counted.
For Arkansas Secretary of State Cole Jester, the ruling provides clarity on candidate eligibility procedures and may influence future ballot qualification processes. The involvement of Republican Party Chairman Joseph Wood also highlights the role of party officials in primary election disputes.
The case demonstrates the complex procedural and substantive issues that can arise in election law challenges. Yang's successful standing challenge establishes precedent for when candidates can challenge their opponents' eligibility, while the attorney's fees reversal may encourage more aggressive pursuit of such claims.
The remand on attorney's fees means the Pulaski County Circuit Court will need to reconsider Yang's request under the statutory framework outlined in Arkansas Code section 21-8-303(b)(2). This could result in Reed being required to pay Yang's legal costs in addition to losing his ballot position.
The timing of the decision, delivered in February 2026, suggests the case involved urgent election deadlines that required expedited Supreme Court review. The mixed outcome reflects the court's careful consideration of both the substantive eligibility questions and the procedural requirements governing attorney's fee awards in election litigation.
This ruling joins a growing body of Arkansas election law precedent as courts increasingly face challenges to candidate qualifications and ballot access procedures. The decision's impact will likely extend beyond House District 92 to influence how future primary challenges are handled across the state.