In a significant legal decision, a circuit court judge has granted a writ of mandamus ordering County Clerk Shawndra Taggart to issue a payment of $53,052 to County Judge Gerald Robinson.
The ruling, delivered on Friday, by Circuit Judge William R. Wright, who was appointed by the Arkansas Supreme Court to preside over the case in the Eleventh West Judicial Circuit of Jefferson County, follows a legal dispute between Robinson and the county clerk.
The case was brought before the court by Robinson, represented by his attorney Kenneth P. “Casey” Castleberry. The respondent, Taggart, appeared in her official capacity as county clerk, and was represented by her attorney, Bobby McCallister, according to the order.
The court’s decision stems from a Jefferson County court order issued on Oct. 22, which directed the payment to Robinson. Despite the prior order, the payment had not been made, prompting Robinson to file a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel compliance.
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
Last week, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin attempted to clarify the constitutionality of Act 24 of 2025, which addresses the payment of county judges and justices of the peace in the absence of an annual appropriation ordinance passed by the quorum court.
The opinion, prepared by Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson, concludes that both the county judge and justices of the peace are entitled to back pay once the ordinance is adopted.
The inquiry was initiated by prosecuting attorney Kyle Hunter, who sought clarification on whether Act 24 of 2025 conflicts with the Arkansas Constitution. The act stipulates that county judges and justices of the peace will not receive their salaries or per diem compensation until the quorum court passes an annual appropriation ordinance.
This situation arose when Robinson was not paid for 11 pay periods due to the Quorum Court’s delay in passing the budget ordinance. Robinson subsequently filed a claim in the county court and issued an order directing the county clerk to pay his claim.
The central issue revolved around whether withholding pay until the ordinance is passed violates Section 5 of Amendment 55 to the Arkansas Constitution, which prohibits the reduction of a county officer’s compensation during their current term. Griffin’s reading of the law provides clarity on this matter.
The attorney general said Act 24 of 2025 to prohibit back pay for county judges would render the act unconstitutional under Amendment 55, as it would effectively reduce the judge’s compensation during their current term. Instead, the act must be interpreted to allow back pay once the annual appropriation ordinance is adopted. This interpretation ensures compliance with the constitutional provision and avoids any legal conflict, he said.
Earlier this month, Robinson filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against Taggart regarding her refusal to issue payment for his unpaid salary.
According to court documents, Robinson filed a claim for payment on Sept. 10 with the Jefferson County Court, seeking $53,052 in unpaid salary for the year. The claim was approved by the County Court on Oct. 22 following a hearing. The County Court issued an order directing Taggart to make the payment, with a 30-day window for any appeals to be filed.
The appeal period expired on Nov. 21, without any valid appeals being filed.
In an email exchange dated Nov. 24, Taggart formally refused the request, arguing that issuing the payment would violate Senate Bill 182.
“Please be advised that, pursuant to SB182, issuing payment on your claim would constitute a violation of state law,” Taggart wrote to Robinson.
She acknowledged that Robinson likely views SB182 as unconstitutional regarding the reduction of his salary, but asserted that the “county court system is not the appropriate venue for constitutional challenges.” Taggart insisted Robinson must file a lawsuit in a court with proper jurisdiction before her office could take action that conflicts with state statutes.
Robinson’s petition asserted that Taggart has no legal authority to refuse payment and that her duty to issue the warrant is ministerial, not discretionary. Arkansas law, specifically Arkansas Code Ann. §14-24-101(a), mandates that a county clerk must issue payment for claims approved by a county court.
Robinson’s petition further stated that Taggart had provided no legal justification for her refusal to comply with the County Court’s order. The petition argued that Robinson had no adequate remedy at law other than seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Taggart to perform her statutory duty.
Robinson’s petition outlined the legal basis for the writ of mandamus, emphasizing that the county clerk’s refusal to issue payment violates Arkansas law and deprives him of a right conferred by a final judicial order. The petition cites multiple legal precedents, including Norman v. Swift and Smith v. State, which establish that appeals must be timely and properly filed to be valid.
The petition requests expedited consideration under Arkansas Code Ann. § 16-115-103 and asks the court to issue a writ of mandamus directing Taggart to immediately issue a warrant or check for $53,052.45.
After reviewing the filings, hearing arguments from both parties, and considering the applicable law, the court ruled in favor of Robinson. The judge ordered Taggart to issue a check for the specified amount without delay. The court also retained jurisdiction to ensure enforcement of the order.
The legal representatives for both parties approved the order as to form, signaling their acknowledgment of the court’s decision, according to the order. Castleberry, representing Robinson, prepared the order, while McCallister, representing Taggart, approved its form.