Protect AR Rights ballot title to overturn recent ballot title laws rejected
The group has stated that the submission is intended to place before voters the chance to overturn ballot initiative laws passed during the most recent general assembly. Citing concerns about security, the legislature passed multiple laws tightening the requirements for ballot referendums to be accepted, including increased restrictions on signature gathering and referendum language.
Arkansas bill aims to let attorney general determine constitutionality of ballot initiatives
One of those laws requiring ballot titles to be at no more than an eighth-grade reading level was the primary reason Attorney General Tim Griffin rejected the Protect AR Rights submission.
'I must reject your popular name and ballot title because the ballot title does not comply with Act 602 of 2025,' Griffin wrote in his opinion. 'As explained above, Act 602 prohibits me from certifying ballot titles that are above an eighth-grade reading level under the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level formula. The ballot title you have submitted ranks at grade 11.5. Thus, your ballot title requires significant revisions before it complies with the Act.'
The attorney general also cited ambiguity in two parts of the ballot title's language.
Attorney general approves Arkansas League of Women Voters, Save AR Democracy ballot title for referendum roll-back
A statement from Protect AR Rights said the group expected its first submission to be rejected.
'We're not surprised by today's decision from the Attorney General because it's rare for a ballot measure to be approved on the first try,' the statement read.' This is simply the first step in a long process, and our coalition remains fully committed to protecting the rights of Arkansans to shape their own laws.'
The group also classified the reading requirement as being 'passed by politicians trying to limit access to the ballot' and a 'serious barrier to a fundamental right.'
Protect AR Rights has its policy position on its website.
Arkansas coalition speaks on proposed ballot measure process amendment
Griffin recently approved a ballot initiative with similar intent for the Arkansas League of Women Voters.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
a day ago
- New York Post
Scott Bessent's sudden visit to IRS office — with whistleblowers — sends strong message just days after sixth commish was ousted
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent made an impromptu visit to the IRS Thursday, six days after commissioner Billy Long was ousted by the president for unexplained reasons, the sixth tax chief to bite the dust this year. As acting commissioner, Bessent spent 45 minutes in the building to reassure the troops that he is hands-on and taking charge of the organization after a period of uncertainty. But the two visitors he brought with him sent an even stronger message: IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joe Ziegler, who testified to Congress last year about the corrupted investigation into Hunter Biden, strode into the building side by side with Bessent. IRS acting commissioner Scott Bessent spent 45 minutes in the building to reassure the troops that he is hands-on and taking charge of the organization after a period of uncertainty — six days after commissioner Billy Long was ousted by President Donald Trump. Mattie Neretin – CNP They are now advisers to the Secretary, focused on integrity and reform to ensure all taxpayers are treated the same. 'By visiting the building with Shapley and Ziegler, Secretary Bessent is sending a message to IRS Personnel that he is hands-on acting chief, focused on implementation of OBBB [tax cuts in the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Act] and long overdue modernization,' said a Treasury spokesperson. 'He has stated his goals are collections, customer service and privacy.' For Shapley and Ziegler, it was a sweet return to the organization that they felt had retaliated against them after they blew the whistle. Bessent introduced them to the senior leaders in the commissioner's office recently vacated by Long. It was due to the pair's protected whistleblower disclosures that Hunter's sweetheart deal with the DOJ blew up. It was their investigatory work that was ultimately used in the criminal charges against Hunter, who was found guilty of gun felonies by a jury in Delaware and pleaded guilty to tax fraud in California, but was granted a presidential pardon by his father, Joe Biden, before he was sentenced.
USA Today
a day ago
- USA Today
Supreme Court declines to block state law limiting kids' use of social media
NetChoice, which represents Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, X, YouTube and other sites, asked the Supreme Court to intervene. WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Aug. 14 declined to block for now a Mississippi law imposing age verification and parental-consent requirements on social media sites. NetChoice − which represents Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, X, YouTube and other sites – asked the Supreme Court to intervene after an appeals court said Mississippi could enforce its law while courts are deciding whether it's constitutional. It's one of several state laws aimed at curbing the effects of social media on young people. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 17 lifted a hold put on the law by a federal district judge who had ruled that it likely violates the First Amendment. U.S. District Judge Sul Ozerden had said the law is too broad, and parents have others way of monitoring their children's use of social media. The Supreme Court didn't explain its decision in the case. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that while Mississippi's law is likely unconsitutional, NetChoice didn't show that letting it be enforced during the legal challenge is sufficiently harmful. Mississippi's attorneys say the law is a targeted effort to regulate social media platforms that let predators interact with children. "The Act requires what any responsible covered platform would already do: make 'commercially reasonable' efforts to protect minors," they told the Supreme Court. They said the law was prompted by a 16-year-old boy taking his own life after someone he met on Instagram threatened to expose their sexual encounter unless he paid $1,000. And they said Ozerden's order blocking enforcement conflicts with the Supreme Court's June decision upholding Texas' age verification law for pornographic websites. NetChoice said the law forces every Mississippian – adults and minors alike – to surrender personal information to access online speech that's protected by the First Amendment. "Social media is the modern printing press − it allows all Americans to share their thoughts and perspectives," said Paul Taske, co-director of the Net Choice Litigation Center. 'Just as the government can't force you to provide identification to read a newspaper, the same holds true when that news is available online."
Forbes
2 days ago
- Forbes
Three Most Egregious Fabrications In EPA's Climate Rollback Proposal
WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 16: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) logo is displayed on a door at its headquarters on March 16, 2017 in Washington, DC. U.S. President Donald Trump's proposed budget for 2018 seeks to cut the EPA's budget by 31 percent from $8.1 billion to $5.7 billion. (Photo by) Getty Images The EPA's formal proposal to revoke the Endangerment Finding turned out to be worse than I imagined. After reading the text, I was struck not only by its intent but by the sheer scale of fabrication and distortion—of law, of science, and of economic analysis—crafted to serve one purpose: shielding the fossil fuel industry at the expense of public health, environmental protection, and America's economic future. This isn't a debate over policy preferences—it's a wholesale rewriting of reality. It's hard to imagine anything more Orwellian than watching EPA—the agency I worked at for 32 years—walk away from its duty to protect public health and the environment by distorting law and science and using outright falsehoods to rewrite history to protect polluters instead of the American people. Fabricated Law The EPA Administrator has questioned EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. He claims that the Clean Air Act applies only to 'local' pollution—not to global threats like climate change—repeating a long-standing fossil fuel industry argument. The Supreme Court rejected this in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), holding that greenhouse gases are 'without a doubt' air pollutants under the Act and that EPA must regulate them if they endanger public health—regardless of whether impacts are local, regional, or global. Given that the transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, accounting for nearly 30%, EPA acted to mitigate the risks to public health and the environment by regulating these emissions. Every subsequent court challenge—from the D.C. Circuit in 2012 to 2023—has upheld that authority. Fabricated Science The EPA's assertion that the Agency 'never studied CO₂' and relied on flawed science collapses under the weight of the agency's own extensive records. Having led the team that developed the EPA's clean car program relying on the Endangerment Finding, I was at the agency when the 2009 finding was finalized and immediately applied to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars. That determination was grounded in decades of peer-reviewed research—from NASA, NOAA, EPA scientists, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—and underwent one of the most rigorous scientific reviews in the agency's history. To further undermine that record, the EPA now claims it never sought public comment on the finding. That is another fabrication. The 2009 proposal included a 60-day public comment period, during which the agency received over 380,000 comments—written submissions and hearing testimony—that were reviewed and incorporated before the rule was finalized. Yet the EPA's current proposal discards that record in favor of a report from five climate change deniers, hand-picked by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former fossil fuel executive. This report bypassed the agency's scientific staff, ignored standard interagency review, and has never been subjected to recognized, scientific peer review. The hypocrisy is staggering, dismissing a deeply vetted, peer-reviewed record while elevating an unreviewed, clearly fossil fuel industry-aligned document. The proposal's suggestion that transportation contributes 'near zero' to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions is equally absurd. Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the nation—a fact documented for years in EPA's own data. To claim otherwise is like saying cigarettes contribute 'near zero' to lung cancer rates. Fabricated Economics The EPA's proposal leads with the claim that revoking clean car standards will lower gasoline prices and deliver net economic benefits. Yet its own analysis shows the opposite: gasoline prices will rise if clean car programs are revoked. The Department of Energy's modeling confirms this, and as former Energy Information Agency (EIA) Administrator Joseph DeCarolis wrote, if the government "disincentivizes electric vehicle purchases, more consumers will purchase gasoline vehicles resulting in higher gasoline consumption and high gasoline prices for everyone." Equally troubling, the proposal erases the $62 billion in annual fuel savings and it ignores the substantial public health gains these standards provide by reducing traditional air pollutants, which would prevent up to 2,500 premature deaths each year. By excluding these benefits, the EPA is effectively assigning no value to American lives saved, an indefensible position for EPA. This is not economic analysis—it's a deliberate distortion of the facts designed to hide higher consumer costs, job losses, and preventable deaths, all while protecting fossil fuel profits. The Stakes Couldn't Be Clearer This EPA proposal is crossing a line that even the most industry-friendly administrations never crossed. If we allow fabricated facts to replace scientific reality, nothing will stop future administrations from doing the same to food safety standards, workplace protections, or aircraft safety rules. As Ryan Gellert, CEO of Patagonia recently wrote 'It is truly Orwellian to see the EPA—an agency signed into existence by Richard Nixon to protect the public from environmental degradation—divesting itself of the responsibility to address the ravages of the climate crisis during a summer of extreme weather and following the hottest year in recorded history.' My granddaughter was born five days after we evacuated from the 2018 Woolsey Fire outside Los Angeles. As she grows up in a world that's struggling to combat climate change, I refuse to accept that her future should be sacrificed for fossil fuel profits. The stakes are too high, the science too clear, the moral imperative too strong. The EPA's stated mission has not changed in 55 years—to protect public health and the environment. What has changed is the willingness of its leadership to sacrifice that mission for political convenience and corporate gain. Climate change will not disappear because politicians deny it, and Mother Nature will not bend to the interests of the fossil fuel industry. The question is whether we will.
