Court filings reveal opposition to intervening motion in Arkansas direct democracy lawsuit
Efforts to collect signatures for two proposed ballot measures for the 2026 election will begin this fall, following the attorney general's approval of ballot language Thursday. (Mary Hennigan/Arkansas Advocate)
The League of Women Voters of Arkansas and the state attorney general argued in federal court filings this week that two ballot question committees are not entitled to intervene in the League's lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of direct democracy laws.
Protect AR Rights and For AR Kids filed a motion to intervene in the case on May 14, arguing that their interests aren't 'adequately represented' because the League's suit didn't challenge all the laws they intended to. The committees also argued that intervening is more efficient than filing a separate lawsuit, which they said would likely be consolidated with the League's complaint under federal court rules.
Arkansas grassroots organizations seek to intervene in lawsuit challenging direct democracy laws
In its response to the motion, which was filed by Little Rock attorney David Couch on Wednesday, the League of Women Voters of Arkansas and ballot question committee Save AR Democracy (SARD) argue the two ballot question committees don't have standing and have no right to intervene because they are not questioning LWVAR's ability to challenge the laws in the original complaint.
LWVAR filed a federal lawsuit against the Arkansas secretary of state in April alleging that eight recently approved state laws governing direct democracy violate the First and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Direct democracy is the process by which Arkansans can propose new laws or constitutional amendments and place them on the ballot for a statewide vote. Arkansas is one of 24 states that allow citizen-led initiatives, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The motion to intervene from Protect AR Rights and For AR Kids seeks to challenge two laws not included in the League of Women Voters' suit — Act 602 of 2025, which prohibits ballot titles from being written above an eighth-grade reading level, and Act 236 of 2023, which mandates petition signatures must be collected from at least 50 counties instead of 15 as directed in the Arkansas Constitution, according to court filings.
Protect AR Rights and For AR Kids also seek to add an additional defendant, Attorney General Tim Griffin, who is not a party to the pending litigation but is counsel for the secretary of state, which would further complicate the matter, according to LWVAR's response.
In the defendant's response, also filed Wednesday, Griffin noted that when he certified For AR Kids' popular name and ballot title for a proposed education-related constitutional amendment on Feb. 26, the ballot title didn't need to meet the reading-level requirement because Act 602 was not yet in effect.
The League and Save AR Democracy made the same point in their filing to argue that For AR Kids lacks standing to challenge the reading-level law.
Protect AR Rights submitted its own proposed direct-democracy ballot title on May 19 that's still under review by the attorney general. LWVAR argues this group also does not have standing because its proposed ballot title has not been rejected because of Act 602.
LWVAR argues that challenging Act 602 is further complicated because Griffin substituted and certified Save AR Democracy's ballot title on May 21 so that it would meet the eighth-grade reading level test.
'Even if Protect AR Rights had standing, the inclusion of that issue in the litigation would unnecessarily complicate this matter,' the response states. 'Nothing would prohibit Protect AR Rights from instituting litigation if it is denied a ballot title to meet the eighth grade reading level test.'
Griffin argues that the motion to intervene should be denied because Protect AR Rights is the only party that can challenge Act 602. This is also the only claim that can be made against the attorney general, he said.
State law requires the attorney general to certify or reject proposed ballot titles within 10 business days. The deadline for a response to Protect AR Rights' proposal is June 3. Because it is still under review, allowing the ballot question committee to intervene 'would require finding an injury in fact where such harm is hypothetical and not concrete,' Griffin wrote.
'Because Plaintiff SARD was able to satisfy the Act 602 requirement, the court has to resort to speculation to determine that Protect AR Rights' ballot title could never be at an eighth-grade reading level,' he said. 'For the same reasons, Protect AR Rights cannot bring a cause of action against Attorney General Griffin.'
Regarding the proposed intervenors' challenge to the 2023 law requiring signatures from 50 counties, LWVAR's response notes that this law is already being challenged by the League in Pulaski County Circuit Court. The case has been fully argued, briefed and is awaiting the court's ruling.
Plaintiffs argue there is no need for the claim to be pursued at this time and if it were allowed, it should be held in abeyance under the Pullman Doctrine, which provides that federal courts defer to state courts if the state ruling would resolve the federal issue.
'The issue before the Circuit Court is simply, can the Arkansas General Assembly amend the Arkansas State Constitution by statute? The League believes that it cannot, and a ruling in its favor would resolve the federal issue,' according to court documents.
Griffin also cited the Pullman Doctrine and noted that the losing party in the case is expected to appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
'Thus, the [federal] Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over this claim, which is only being made by Movants to intervene,' he wrote. 'Standing alone, this claim cannot be a basis for Movants to be entitled to intervention.'
LWVAR further argues that Protect AR Rights' proposed ballot measure 'would conflict with and be in direct competition with' Save AR Democracy's approved measure because both seek to amend Article 5, Section 1 of the state Constitution, which governs the state's initiative and referendum process.
'It would be improper for the Protect AR Rights to intervene in litigation filed by SARD to get a measure approved that directly competes with the measure already approved and being circulated by SARD, in that it would create unnecessary conflict,' according to LWVAR's response.
Save AR Democracy also argues Protect AR Rights' proposed ballot measure contradicts with a claim made in the complaint — that the 'exhaustive list of disqualifying offenses' that prohibits individuals from collecting signatures is unconstitutional.
'The measure submitted by Protect AR Rights to the Attorney General for approval would enshrine this very prohibition in the Arkansas constitution,' the response says. 'This represents a core political and policy difference between SARD and Protect AR Rights and would inject unnecessary controversy and conflict into the litigation.'
Protect AR Rights' proposal also sets forth a procedure regarding a legal challenge to the ballot title that 'differs substantially' from Save AR Democracy's procedure.
Save AR Democracy's measure would require an approved ballot title to be submitted to the secretary of state who publishes notice of approval and the procedure for challenging the approval. The measure would establish a 45-day window during which a challenge could be filed with the Arkansas Supreme Court.
The Protect AR Rights measure would require a challenge to be filed within 10 business days of the attorney general sending the sponsor a letter approving the ballot title, but it provides for no notice. Providing the public 'adequate notice and opportunity' is essential to due process, the response states.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What to know about new Democratic legislation to push back on Trump cuts in Wisconsin
MADISON – A set of proposals backed by Democratic lawmakers would push back against the Trump administration if it unlawfully withholds federal funds designated for Wisconsin. Here's what to know about the bills: Since Republican President Donald Trump began his second term in January, thousands of federal employees have been fired, and states and organizations have seen disruption in millions of dollars in grant funding. On June 3, Trump submitted an official request to Congress to claw back $9.4 billion in federal funds to codify cuts made by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. The proposal "contains BILLIONS in wasteful foreign aid and federal funding for NPR and PBS," the White House Office of Management and Budget wrote on X. "These bills … are proactive measures to protect Wisconsinites," Rep. Renuka Mayadev, D-Madison, said during a June 4 news conference. "We, all of us, believe in the rule of law, and since Trump and his billionaire buddies don't, we need to speak the only language they understand — and that's money. For every dollar the Trump administration holds back from Wisconsin illegally, Wisconsin will hold back a dollar until they correct their actions." The proposals are "about protecting our neighbors from extreme overreach and broken promises from the federal government," said Sen. Chris Larson, D-Milwaukee. The package includes four bills: The first proposal would allow the state to hold back payments to the federal government if the administration fails to provide funds that have been approved by Congress. As federal dollars are given to the state, the state funds would be released to the federal government. A second bill would allow the state to place a temporary lien on federal properties within Wisconsin if the administration blocks congressionally approved funds from going to the state. The lien would be lifted when those federal funds are given to Wisconsin. Another proposal would expand Wisconsin residents' ability to sue for "violations of rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or law or those under the state constitution and laws." The final bill would bar the state government from sharing personally identifiable information with the federal government, unless necessary to comply with the law or to carry out the administration of a government program. Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, has joined other states' attorneys general in several lawsuits against the Trump administration. Those lawsuits are challenging Trump actions, including massive staffing cuts at the U.S. Department of Education, cuts to funding streams for public libraries and museums, withholding transportation and emergency preparedness funding, cutting funding for scientific research, and freezing federal grants and loans. Mayadev told reporters she ran the legislation past Kaul's office. Spokespeople for the state Department of Justice declined to comment on the bills. The state's 2023-25 budget, which ends June 30, includes $28 billion in federal dollars. Nearly two-thirds of that money goes to the state Department of Health Services, primarily for Medicaid programs. Asked what the proposals' fiscal effect would be on the federal government, Mayadev said the secretary of the Department of Administration would be in charge of keeping a ledger tracking money flowing in and out of the state. The state sends $69 billion a year to the federal goverment, said Rep. Andrew Hysell, D-Sun Prairie. Republicans hold a majority in the state Legislature, making it unlikely these bills will progress beyond their introduction. Similar legislation has been introduced in at least one other state; a bill that would allow the state of New York to withhold federal payments was introduced in March. Jessie Opoien can be reached at This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin Democrats offer bills to push back on possible Trump cuts
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
Arkansas ranks first-place in election security, according to conservative group
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – From number eight to number one, Arkansas has moved up in the Heritage Foundation's Election Security Scorecard. Secretary of State Cole Jester says it's all due to eight recent key changes, including policies from his office. 'We're partnering with the federal government to get DHA, Homeland Security data on illegal immigrants who might be on our rolls and using credit agencies to flag addresses that may be industrial or just don't exist,' Jester said. Arkansas coalition submits proposed ballot initiative to overturn legislative changes to referendum law Arkansas is now sharing voter registration data with other states to check for people registered in multiple states, along with implementing other new policies. Recently passed laws have also contributed to the new ranking. 'One, getting data from federal juries so we can eliminate people who shouldn't be on our voter registration list, two, requiring a witness for absentee ballots,' Jester said. Gennie Diaz, with the democracy rights advocacy group Protect AR Rights, said they would like to see policies that make democracy more accessible, not less. 'It's a really interesting contrast, if you will, from where we rank in voter participation and then this declaration that our state is number one in voter integrity. I think there is a big chasm there,' Diaz said. While the Heritage Foundation does not have a ranking category dedicated to the petition process, Jester said one of the eight changes includes mandating a photo ID for signing initiative petitions. There are 100 factors that determine the ranking based on a point system. Arkansas League of Women Voters files federal suit, calls changes to voter referendum process 'Unconstitutional' Protect AR Rights is proposing the Arkansas Ballot Measure Rights Amendment, which aims to block existing laws they believe interfere with the right to sign petitions and collect signatures. 'How can we find ways to, of course, protect the voting process and the petition process, but also make it easier for people to vote? Because in our state it's just incredibly difficult, and often fewer than half of our registered voters turn out for elections,' Diaz said. Jester said these are common-sense laws and policies, while Diaz questioned the practical benefit of the ranking for voters. 'What does this number one ranking for election integrity actually mean for the voters of this state? Is this just simply a ranking that we get because we check off certain boxes with this particular think tank, or is this something we're actually working toward as a state?' Diaz said. 'Things like when a ballot is damaged and remade, procedural checks to make sure it's done correctly, things like nursing homes requiring two witnesses, two assisters when you're helping someone fill out their ballot, just common-sense steps everyone can get behind,' Jester said. Lawmakers seek to rein in citizen ballot initiatives with new requirements for petitions To view the scorecard, please visit Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
Luzerne County concludes write-in vote tally, slowed by names written in jest
Jun. 4—"Bruce Springstein!," Luzerne County Election Board Vice Chairwoman Alyssa Fusaro announced to the room of county workers and board members processing May 20 primary election write-in votes. A few minutes later, another voter write-in selection of Bart Simpson for a school board seat was shouted out by someone else. To break the monotony of reviewing more than 20,000 write-in votes and illustrate the scale of the problem of write-ins submitted in jest, the group decided to log the questionable ones on a dry-erase board. The board eventually had to be flipped to the other side to squeeze them all in. A second board would have been needed if the group had recorded off-color write-ins, participants said. It was funny but not funny. Fusaro said many voters also write in their own names or those of friends or family, even though none of them want the seat. Unlike the ones on the dry-erase board, these potential real contenders must be made part of the official record in races that have no candidates appearing on the ballot. Some voters also go out of their way to write the same name for every single race on the ballot — local, county and statewide offices. Write-ins that are not serious slow down completion of the write-in tallying while the public is pushing to see the write-in results as fast as possible, Fusaro said. In addition to the usual cartoon characters, celebrities both dead and alive, classic figures from fiction, national-level politicians and random criminals, there were these verbatim selections in the county primary: "someone different," "no one else," "anybody else," "anybody honest," "unknown," "none of you," "all suck," "stop stealing," "someone new," "why I pay," "I've no kids," "anyone represent taxpayer," "none," "no buddy," "not me," "not you" and "not any of these clowns." Other voters tried to convey a broader message by writing in "the U.S. Constitution," "life," "liberty," "justice," "property," "corruption," "sleaze," "racist," "connected" and "Free Palestine." Also worth mentioning were selections of "box of paper," "baloney and ham sammich" and "box of rocks." County officials started observing a marked increase in write-in votes in 2006 when the county switched to electronic ballot marking devices, with some theorizing the write-in option was more noticeable than it had been on the old lever machines. The May 20 primary election tallying group spent six days at the county's Penn Place Building in downtown Wilkes-Barre adjudicating write-in votes and ballots that had been flagged due to extraneous marks and other issues. Around 3 p.m. Tuesday, county Election Director Emily Cook alerted everyone that there were 39 ballots remaining for review. "We can do this," someone yelled. A collective countdown erupted when the last ballot review was underway about 10 minutes later. Cook said a report on the write-in winners will be posted on the election page of the county website at Letters will be sent to write-in winners asking them to accept or decline the nomination by a certain deadline. Those accepting will be required to submit paperwork. The election board is set to certify the primary results at 10 a.m. Monday in the county courthouse on River Street in Wilkes-Barre, said Election Board Chairwoman Christine Boyle. Reach Jennifer Learn-Andes at 570-991-6388 or on Twitter @TLJenLearnAndes.
