Second Arkansas ballot measure rejected for failing to meet reading-level standard
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin on Monday said he could not certify a proposed constitutional amendment related to direct democracy because it violates a new state law that prohibits ballot titles from being written above an eighth-grade reading level.
Act 602, which became law in April, prohibits the attorney general from certifying a proposed ballot title with a reading level above eighth grade as determined by the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level formula. The test uses word complexity and sentence lengths to calculate what grade of education is needed to comprehend written material.
'The ballot title you have submitted ranks at grade 11.5. Thus, your ballot title requires significant revisions before it complies with the Act,' according to Monday's opinion, which was prepared by Assistant Attorney General Jodie Keener and approved by Griffin.
Monday's opinion identified additional issues with the proposal, including ambiguity regarding the Arkansas General Assembly's authority and how conflicting measures become law.
The Arkansas Ballot Measure Rights Amendment, sponsored by the Protect AR Rights coalition, would amend Article 5 Section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution, the section that governs the state's initiative and referendum process. It would designate as a 'fundamental right' the right of voters to propose laws and constitutional amendments that can be put to a statewide vote.
Among its various provisions, the measure would require petition signatures be gathered from at least 15 counties instead of 50 and would explicitly prohibit the Arkansas General Assembly from amending or repealing a constitutional amendment approved by voters.
This is the second ballot measure proposed this year in response to state lawmakers approving about a dozen direct democracy-related laws during the 2025 legislative session. Supporters of the new laws have said they will ensure the integrity of the initiative and referendum process, while opponents have argued it will make it more difficult for citizen-led initiatives to qualify for the ballot.
The direct democracy process allows Arkansans to propose new laws or constitutional amendments and put them to a statewide vote. Arkansas is one of 24 states that allows citizen-led initiatives, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Protect AR Rights spokesperson Bill Kopsky said in a phone interview that Monday's decision was expected because the attorney general often rejects the first draft of a proposed ballot title. The ballot question committee intends to request a meeting with Griffin's staff to gather feedback, Kopsky said.
In an emailed statement, Protect AR Rights noted this was 'the first step in a long process, and our coalition remains fully committed to protecting the rights of Arkansans to shape their own laws.' Griffin's rejection of the group's proposed amendment reinforces why it's 'so urgently needed,' according to the group.
'We're reviewing the AG's feedback and will revise and resubmit our amendment. But let's be clear: the new 8th grade reading requirement — passed by politicians trying to limit access to the ballot — is a serious barrier to a fundamental right,' the statement reads. 'We believe measures should be clear, accessible, and accurate. That's exactly why we're fighting this provision in court.'
Court filings reveal opposition to intervening motion in Arkansas direct democracy lawsuit
Protect AR Rights and For AR Kids, another ballot question committee pursuing an education-focused constitutional amendment, are trying to challenge Act 602 by intervening in a federal lawsuit that challenges several other new laws governing the state's direct democracy process.
The League of Women Voters of Arkansas filed the lawsuit against the secretary of state in April. The League proposed its own direct democracy-related ballot measure this year that was thrice rejected by the attorney general, including once for violating Act 602. Griffin substituted and certified the popular name and ballot title so it met the eighth grade-reading level requirement on May 21. That means the League can begin gathering signatures to try to place their measure on the 2026 ballot.
In response to the motion to intervene, both the League and the state argued in court filings last week that Protect AR Rights lacks standing and is not entitled to intervene in the case.
Protect AR Rights could file its own lawsuit if a judge dismisses the motion to intervene, but Kopsky said the court would likely freeze both lawsuits while deciding whether to consolidate them.
'We believe it would slow the process down substantially, which doesn't seem to be in anybody's interest,' he said. 'So we were surprised that they opposed the motion to intervene, but our legal team is going to respond to it in a way that's appropriate. The bottom line is we're committed to protecting the right to direct democracy and the right to have access to ballot measures in the state.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump and California: Court to decide legality of National Guard deployment to Los Angeles
A three-day bench trial will begin Monday over whether President Trump's National Guard deployment to Los Angeles violated a general prohibition on using federal troops as civilian law enforcement. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer will hear testimony from three military and immigration officials as the judge weighs whether sending in troops to combat immigration protests violated the Posse Comitatus Act. It marks a major legal confrontation between Trump and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who has condemned the deployment as political theater and broadly framed himself as the face of resistance against the president's agenda. Only 300 of the nearly 5,000 Guard members sent to Los Angeles in June remain, but the trial is moving ahead as Newsom urges Trump to send the remaining troops home. Marines were also deployed but were released last month. 'It reinforces the litigation strategy,' Newsom told reporters last week. 'Those things are not coincidental,' the governor continued. 'Had we not positioned ourselves, had we not postured with that litigation approach, we would not be in this position with that withdrawal.' Trial to focus on troops' operations Newsom sued Trump in June as the president federalized the California National Guard to combat immigration protests in Los Angeles that sometimes turned violent. The governor has been unsuccessful so far. Breyer ruled Trump illegally federalized the National Guard and ordered he hand back control to Newsom, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals quickly lifted the ruling until it resolves the administration's appeal. That decision is likely still months away. As the appeal over Trump's authority proceeds, it does not address what activities the troops may engage in while on the ground. That's the subject of this week's trial. Newsom asserts the deployment violates the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 federal law that generally bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement. Some of the troops have been stationed at several federal buildings in downtown Los Angeles, which is not at issue. But the state has taken aim at troops who have went elsewhere to accompany immigration agents, including during a violent raid at a cannabis farm last month that left one dead. The administration argues the Posse Comitatus Act provides no pathway for California to sue. Even if it did, the administration contends the law is superseded by another statute it argues expressly authorizes the National Guard's efforts. 'Accompanying federal law enforcement officials for their protection as those officials enforce federal immigration laws does not mean that the troops are themselves engaging in law enforcement,' the administration wrote in court filings. But California warned that the administration's position would give Trump unchecked power. 'It simply is not the law that Defendants may deploy standing armies to the streets of California while California is powerless to do anything about that clear violation of the most fundamental principles of our Nation's founding,' California wrote in court filings last week. ICE, military officials to testify The parties are expected to summon a total of three witnesses, court records show. Newsom plans to call Ernesto Santacruz Jr., who leads Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Los Angeles field office. The state also intends to call William Harrington and Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, leaders of an Army task force that has tactical control over the deployed federalized Guard troops. The Trump administration also will call Sherman but did not list any other witness. The parties estimated the combined testimony will last upward of eight hours, not including cross-examination. Breyer has indicated he expects the witnesses to conclude by Tuesday. Then, the judge will then hear legal arguments from both sides. The Justice Department insists the trial is unnecessary. It asked Breyer to forgo the proceedings and immediately toss Newsom's claims, but the judge declined to do so. 'Next week's trial is not cancelled. The Court expects to hear evidence beginning on Monday,' Breyer ruled last week. Among first trials challenging Trump policies This week's proceeding is one of the first full-fledged trials challenging one of Trump's actions since returning to the White House. His administration faces more than 300 lawsuits challenging major policies in total. But most plaintiffs have pressed their claims in truncated, emergency proceedings. Several judges have converted those emergency rulings into final judgments, sending the case to the appeals courts without going through an actual trial. Breyer's trial follows two others held this summer. Last month, a Boston-based federal judge conducted a bench trial challenging the Trump administration's arrests of pro-Palestinian activists on college campuses. He has not yet ruled. The same judge in June held a bench trial on Democratic states and health groups' bid to reinstate nearly $800 million in health grants the administration canceled over links to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. The judge ruled for the plaintiffs, and the Justice Department has filed an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court, which could rule at any time. This week's trial will unfold in Breyer's courtroom in San Francisco. The Justice Department has criticized California for filing its lawsuit there, 'hundreds of miles from the scene.' Breyer was appointed by former President Clinton and is the younger brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The trial marks a major moment for California Attorney General Rob Bonta's (D) office, which is suing alongside Newsom. Bonta has taken pride in the barrage of litigation he has brought against Trump. Last week, he touted that he is a plaintiff in 37 lawsuits against the administration and has restored more than $168 billion in funding to California. 'The moment the Trump administration stops breaking the law and violating the Constitution, we'll stop suing. Simple,' Bonta told reporters last week. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
Time Magazine
19 hours ago
- Time Magazine
What Is the Home Rule Act? The Law Trump Invoked in D.C. Takeover
To take control of the police force of Washington, D.C., President Donald Trump on Monday invoked part of the law that has given the nation's capital a greater degree of self-governance over the past five decades. Citing 'violent crime,' Trump declared a public safety emergency in D.C. and invoked section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973. The law 'is the result of the ongoing push by District residents for control of their own local affairs,' according to the Council of the District of Columbia. D.C. was previously directly governed by Congress—which the Constitution grants authority to 'exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever' over the district—and federal appointees. The Home Rule Act allowed city residents to elect a mayor and council starting in the fall of 1974, though it maintained a congressional oversight over D.C. Congress reviews all legislation that the Council passes before it can be enacted into law, and maintains authority over the city's budget. D.C. still doesn't have a voting member of Congress. Section 740 of the law allows the President to take control of D.C.'s police force in 'conditions of an emergency nature'—with certain limitations. The President can federalize the city's law enforcement agency for a period of up to 30 days under the Act, after which point both chambers of Congress must enact into law a joint resolution to extend the emergency control. The Executive Order that Trump signed on Monday says that the federal government shall maintain control of the city's police force 'for the maximum period permitted under section 740 of the Home Rule Act.' Read More: Trump Threatens to Federalize D.C. After Beating of 'Big Balls' Trump threatened to federalize D.C., decrying crime in the city, after the reported assault of a Trump Administration staffer—though data show that violent crime in the city is down significantly. For the federal government to fully take control of the city's governance, the Home Rule Act would have to be suspended or repealed. Some GOP politicians have expressed support for federalizing D.C., a heavily Democratic city, and pushed to repeal the law. Democrats, meanwhile, slammed Trump's move on Monday. D.C.'s Democratic non-voting representative in Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, called it 'an historic assault on D.C. home rule' and 'a counterproductive, escalatory seizure of D.C.'s resources to use for purposes not supported by D.C. residents.' Norton and Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland announced the same day that they plan to reintroduce legislation that would give the district full control over the D.C. National Guard and the city's police department when Congress convenes next month, saying those actions 'are needed more urgently than ever.' The bills, the lawmakers said, would repeal the section in the Home Rule Act that allows the President to federalize the city's police force. Norton and other Democratic lawmakers previously introduced similar legislation in 2021, soon after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. In announcing her intention to introduce the legislation at the time, Norton said that the attack on the Capitol 'highlighted more starkly than ever the risk to local D.C. public safety from the president's control over the D.C. National Guard and ultimate authority over the D.C. police department,' adding that 'the mayor should not be reliant on the president to deploy the National Guard to protect public safety in D.C., and D.C. should never have to worry that a president will take over its police force and use it how he or she sees fit.'
The Intercept
a day ago
- The Intercept
ICE Agent Caught on Camera Disguised as a Construction Worker
Despite their proclivity for wearing masks, the Department of Homeland Security denies that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents refuse to identify themselves in the field. 'I've been on a number of these operations,' Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said last month. 'They are wearing vests that say ICE or ERO, which is the enforcement arm of ICE or Homeland Security Investigations. They clearly verbally identify themselves.' But video from a confrontation in a New York state town that was reviewed by The Intercept contradicts her claims. In the footage, Juan Fonseca Tapia, the co-founder and organizer of the Connecticut-based immigrant advocacy group Greater Danbury Unites for Immigrants, questions a man dressed as a construction worker. 'What agency are you with?' asks Fonseca Tapia, filming through his car window. 'I'm not going to tell you,' responds the man, who is wearing a high-visibility construction vest, an orange helmet and glasses, with a camouflage mask covering most of his face. 'It's none of your business.' The construction worker getup was actually a disguise — ICE confirmed to The Intercept that the man in the hard hat is an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent. 'ICE New York City officers were conducting surveillance in Brewster, New York, August 2, when anti-ICE agitators followed them and attempted to disrupt their operation,' an ICE spokesperson told The Intercept by email. In the video – which was posted last weekend on social media by Greater Danbury Area Unites for Immigrants – the ICE agent said only that he is a member of 'federal law enforcement.' Neither 'ICE' nor 'ERO' is visible on his vest in the footage. That puts the lie to McLaughlin's claims that ICE agents identify themselves. Fonseca Tapia told The Intercept that he spotted a second man who was similarly disguised as a construction worker. 'I find it outrageous. It's indefensible. This is where we are crossing a dangerous line on immigration enforcement into these paramilitary type tactics with a secret police force,' said New York State Senator Patricia Fahy who last month introduced the Mandating End of Lawless Tactics (MELT) Act which would ban the use of face coverings and plainclothes by ICE and other federal enforcement agents during civilian immigration actions conducted in New York State. 'The first three words of the provision that we're adding into law are 'Masks and disguises prohibited,' period. And this video is Exhibit A. This is exactly what we are alarmed about.' On Tuesday, at a National Conference of State Legislators in Boston, Fahy joined colleagues from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania in condemning the use of 'paramilitary-type secret police' tactics by ICE agents. 'We started to reach out to all the states that have legislation concerning masked ICE agents and said, 'Let's do this jointly. Let's collectively bring attention to this,'' Fahy told The Intercept. 'We had a couple of dozen lawmakers all standing up to say 'This is not who we are' and calling out these authoritarian-type tactics.' The interaction with the disguised construction worker began when Fonseca Tapia spotted a group of people he believed to be ICE agents in downtown Brewster. He began alerting day laborers who congregate in the area, while driving in his car. Soon, Fonseca Tapia said, realized that he was being followed in a vehicle by the man in the construction worker get-up. Eventually, he found himself surrounded by several vehicles with dark tinted windows. Fonseca Tapia said that the man in the construction worker disguise confronted him and repeatedly tried to persuade him to roll down his window or get out of the car. He said he feared that he might be 'kidnapped' by ICE. After Fonseca Tapia stopped filming, he said that the masked agent issued a warning: 'More of my guys are coming and we're going to take care of you.' To Fonseca Tapia, that sounded like an act of intimidation. 'It's literally a threat,' said Fonseca Tapia. 'You have three vehicles with very tinted windows, so it's impossible to see inside. People are wearing masks and refuse to identify themselves and one of them tells you he is going to call more of them to 'take care of you?' This is for sure an intimidation tactic to instill fear in people who are working to alert the community when there is an ICE presence.' 'It's undermining all of law enforcement because they come across as impersonators.' An ICE spokesperson cited 'increased assaults toward ICE,' as the reason that the ICE agent confronted individuals who followed and filmed them in Brewster. 'The officer was concerned for the safety of himself and others,' the spokesperson wrote. 'I don't know what the concern was — because he was following me,' said Fonseca Tapia. 'If he thought I posed a threat, I don't think he would put himself in danger by following me.' Since President Trump's return to office, masked ICE agents carrying out immigration raids have become increasingly common. Across the country, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agencies working with ICE, launch operations wearing disguises or plainclothes and sometimes arrive in unmarked vehicles and arrest people without warrants. Often ICE agents don masks, balaclavas, neck gaiters or other facial coverings to conceal their identities. Lawmakers, veteran law enforcement officials, activists, and citizens have criticized the donning of masks by law enforcement as anti-American and for sowing confusion, chaos, and fear, while reducing accountability and undermining public trust. 'The failure of ICE officers and agents to promptly and clearly identify who they are and the authority under which they are acting has led witnesses of immigration enforcement operations to justifiably question the law enforcement status, authority, and constitutionality of ICE officers and agents and their operations,' wrote U.S. Senators Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) in a May letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, Tom Homan, the Executive Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, and top ICE officials. 'We remain deeply concerned that ICE's lack of transparency will lead the public to intercede in enforcement efforts, escalating an already tense interaction, and risking an entirely avoidable violent situation.' Fahy emphasized that she had a family member who served in law enforcement and that she saw the use of masks and disguises as a threat to law and order. 'It's undermining all of law enforcement because they come across as impersonators. There's no accountability and there's no transparency, so it erodes public trust and undermines decades of work and millions of dollars spent,' she told The Intercept. 'When they use disguises, these arrests – without presenting an arrest warrant, neither a judicial or even administrative warrant – come across as abductions or kidnapping. These are third-world tactics, and they should shock the collective conscience.' Read Our Complete Coverage The International Association of Chiefs of Police warns that 'members of the general public may be intimidated or fearful of officers wearing a face covering, which may heighten their defensive reactions.' An ICE spokesperson said the agency has no policy on masks, aside from pandemic safety requirements. The Department of Homeland Security has endorsed the agents' right to wear masks, citing attacks on agents or the doxing of law enforcement or their families. In an email, DHS specifically mentioned one Texas man's threat to shoot ICE agents as a reason to allow masks although it was unclear how a mask would protect an agent from a bullet. Nonetheless, DHS insisted that because of such fears, ICE would not discourage its agents from wearing masks during anti-immigrant raids. For almost two months, DHS has failed to respond to The Intercept's questions about escalating statistics quoted by government officials about supposed assaults of federal agents. In June, DHS told The Intercept that 'ICE law enforcement and their families are being targeted and are facing an over 400% increase in assaults.' ICE now claims that figure has jumped to 830 percent. ICE failed to answer The Intercept's questions about the use of disguises by ICE agents and if the agent who failed to identify himself in Brewster had been reprimanded. 'At no time did the officer attempt to make an arrest or detain anyone without being plainly marked as an ICE officer,' the spokesperson said. The New York City Bar Association has noted that secret police tactics are a gateway to further lawlessness. 'Allowing masked ICE agents to conduct detentions also makes it increasingly likely that third-party actors will impersonate federal agents and use their anonymity to subject vulnerable populations to harassment and violence under the apparent color of law,' the group said in a June statement. Bad actors have, indeed, masqueraded as ICE agents from coast to coast this year. Various people have reportedly impersonated ICE agents to commit or attempt robbery in Pennsylvania, kidnapping in Florida and South Carolina, scams in California, sexual assault in North Carolina, rape in New York, as well as acts of impersonation, intimidation and other offenses in California, Florida, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Washinton State. In Congress, Democrats have introduced several bills, including the No Secret Police Act, which would bar federal agents from concealing their faces with 'home-made, non-tactical masks' and require law enforcement officers and DHS agents engaged in border security and civil immigration enforcement to clearly display identification and insignia when detaining or arresting people 'If you uphold the peace of a democratic society, you should not be anonymous,' saidRep. Adriano Espaillat, D-NY, the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. 'DHS and ICE agents wearing masks and hiding identification echoes the tactics of secret police authoritarian regimes – and deviates from the practices of local law enforcement, which contributes to confusion in communities.' An ICE spokesperson claimed the persons filming the agent in Brewster presented 'a safety concern for the officers, the community and even the agitators themselves' and that the 'ICE officer contacted the local police.' The Village of Brewster Police Department, however, told The Intercept that it did not take part in any such interaction. The Putnam County Sheriff's Office refused to entertain The Intercept's questions. 'We don't have somebody that would handle even communicating that to the press if it was even for the press's knowledge,' said a person who replied to a request for her name with 'No, thank you,' before hanging up. A message left for the department's civil affairs division was not returned. Fonseca Tapia said that personnel from both the Brewster Police Department and the Putnam County Sheriff's Office were called to the scene and spoke with him. 'This is a call to action for people to understand that this is wrong and this is not normal. Nobody is coming to save us. We are all we got,' Fonseca Tapia told The Intercept. 'Now is the time for action. People need to get involved because today it's immigrants' rights but who knows what group it's going to be tomorrow?'
