Proposed Arkansas legislation poses danger to citizens' direct democracy efforts
Arkansans protest several bills introduced by Sen. Kim Hammer, R-Benton, that would change the citizen-led ballot initiative process Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2025 at the Arkansas Capitol. (Tess Vrbin/Arkansas Advocate)
Eight anti-direct democracy bills sponsored by Rep. David Ray and Sen. Kim Hammer threaten Arkansans' fundamental right to self-governance.
Even one of these — HB1221, HB1222, SB207, SB208, SB209, SB210, SB211 and SB212 — threaten Arkansans' fundamental right to self-governance. Even one of these bills becoming law would severely weaken our direct democracy, affecting state, county and municipal levels.
During the Senate State Agencies & Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Hammer and his supporting citizens repeatedly mentioned 'abortion' in their commentary about these 'petitioning' bills. It appears the true aim of this legislation is to destroy the direct-democracy process to prevent abortion access from reaching the ballot, as it nearly did in 2024.
Further, the committee's actions, which included limiting the voices of Arkansans who traveled to the Capitol to share their concerns about the bills, reinforce a dangerous precedent set during the last legislative session.
This creates a potentially dangerous scenario of the Legislature versus The People.
Arkansas has long been a national leader in constitutionally protected access to direct democracy. These bills are part of a broader, coordinated effort across the country, with Arkansas being one of many states targeted by 171 proposed measures to restrict direct democracy.
The only beneficiaries will be legislators seeking to consolidate power, along with wealthy, out-of-state special interests that can afford to manipulate the system.
Unconstitutional emergency clauses: Many bills contain emergency clauses that violate Arkansas Supreme Court rulings.
Constitutional violations: Several bills attempt to bypass or weaken constitutional protections for direct democracy.
Unequal power structure: These bills would establish an unfair and unconstitutional imbalance of power between the Legislature and the people.
Exploitable loopholes: By adding unnecessary procedural barriers, these bills create new ways for opponents to easily block citizen-led ballot measures.
None of these bills improve the direct democracy process. I have repeatedly called for legislation requiring the Secretary of State, Attorney General and Ethics Commission to create clear, consistent administrative rules for ballot initiatives under the Arkansas Administrative Procedures Act. This would address issues caused by conflicting statutes and siloed agency responsibilities.
Arkansas currently ranks 50th in the nation in both civics education and civic engagement. Instead of restricting direct democracy, the Legislature should seize this moment to build on civic energy and create a more accessible, transparent process that strengthens our democracy.
Shackling direct democracy, restricting political speech and undermining our state motto are an affront to all Arkansans. Every legislator who values their oath of office and believes in protecting both Arkansas and the U.S. Constitutions should stand with the people and vote against these anti-democracy bills.
As a native Arkansan who has managed four grassroots ballot initiative campaigns in the past five years, I can attest that these eight bills are deliberately designed to discourage participation and price ordinary Arkansans out of the process.
Our state motto is 'Regnat Populus (The People Rule).' Let's ensure it remains true by rejecting these harmful bills and preserving our strong tradition of direct democracy. Arkansas should continue to lead the nation in empowering its citizens, not become a cautionary tale of democracy's erosion.
The Arkansas Public Policy Panel provides hands-on experience in civic participation by helping community groups organize, create infrastructure, set goals and develop action plans to reach those goals.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
37 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Arizona governor vetoes bill banning teaching antisemitism, calls it an attack on educators
PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs has vetoed a proposal that would have banned teaching antisemitism at the state's public K-12 schools, universities and colleges and exposed educators who violate the new rules to discipline and lawsuits. The proposal would have prohibited teachers and administrators from teaching or promoting antisemitism or antisemitic actions that create a hostile environment, calling for the genocide of any group or requiring students to advocate for an antisemitic point of view. It also would have barred public schools from using public money to support the teaching of antisemitism. Hobbs, a Democrat, said Tuesday that the bill was not about antisemitism but rather about attacking teachers. 'It puts an unacceptable level of personal liability in place for our public school, community college, and university educators and staff, opening them up to threats of personally costly lawsuits," she said in a statement. "Additionally, it sets a dangerous precedent that unfairly targets public school teachers while shielding private school staff." Hobbs described antisemitism as a very troubling issue in the U.S., but said students and parents can go through the state's Board of Education to report antisemitism. The measure cleared the Legislature last week on a 33-20 vote by the House, including a few Democrats who crossed party lines to support it. It's one of a few proposals to combat antisemitism across the country. Democrats tried but failed to remove the lawsuit provision and swap out references to antisemitism within the bill with 'unlawful discrimination' to reflect other discrimination. The bill's chief sponsor, Republican Rep. Michael Way, of Queen Creek, has said his proposal would create accountability when educators fail to protect students from the rise in antisemitism since the start of the Israel-Hamas war. Opponents said the bill aimed to silence people who want to speak out on the oppression of Palestinians and opened up educators to personal legal liability in lawsuits students could file. Students over the age of 18 and the parents of younger pupils would have been able to file lawsuits over violations that create a hostile education environment, leaving teachers responsible for paying any damages that may be awarded, denying them immunity and prohibiting the state from paying any judgments arising from any such lawsuits. Last week, Lori Shepherd, executive director of Tucson Jewish Museum & Holocaust Center, wrote in a letter to Hobbs that if the bill were approved it would threaten teachers' ability to provide students with a full account of the holocaust. Under the bill, 'those discussions could be deemed 'antisemitic' depending on how a single phrase is interpreted, regardless of intent or context,' she said. The bill would have created a process for punishing those who break the rules. At K-12 schools, a first-offense violation would lead to a reprimand, a second offense to a suspension of a teacher or principal's certificate and a third offense to a revocation of the certificate. At colleges and universities, violators would have faced a reprimand on first offense, a suspension without pay for a second offense and termination for a third offense. The proposal also would have required colleges and universities to consider violations by employees to be a negative factor when making employment or tenure decisions. Under the proposal, universities and colleges couldn't recognize any student organization that invites a guest speaker who incites antisemitism, encourages its members to engage in antisemitism or calls for the genocide of any group. Elsewhere in the U.S., a Louisiana lawmaker is pushing a resolution that asks universities to adopt policies to combat antisemitism on campuses and collect data on antisemitism-related reports and complaints. And a Michigan lawmaker has proposed putting a definition of antisemitism into the state's civil rights law.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Manchester school board warns language in budget trailer bill could cost city schools $10.2M
The Manchester school board is sending a letter to state legislators sounding the alarm about a small section — six lines, to be exact — in the state budget trailer bill (HB 2) that would cost the school district approximately $10.2 million next fiscal year. Page 70 of the bill includes language establishing what is essentially a cap on targeted aid for larger school districts. For districts with 5,000 or more students, the bill seeks to subtract from targeted state aid until the amount decreases to $3,750 per student. The cap would effectively cut Manchester's adequacy aid from $127.8 million under current law to just under $117.6 million — a cut of more than $10.2 million. By comparison, the city of Nashua would see its targeted aid jump by more than $1.2 million under the new language, from $83.2 million to $84.4 million. 'As far as we can tell, Manchester is the only municipality in New Hampshire that stands to lose money because of this cap on targeted aid,' the letter from Manchester's school board to the Legislature's Committee of Conference says. 'Such a loss would put at risk our ability to best serve the educational needs of our students.' The state's education aid formula was tweaked in response to Manchester getting a bonus from the introduction of the Extraordinary Needs Grant in 2021, a more than $30 million annual increase. The amendment limits that bonus and will lead to Manchester getting more than $10 million less than it gets now. The amendment received support from members of both parties, because the $10 million is being shared by other income- and property-poor communities like Berlin, Claremont and Franklin. Manchester Mayor Jay Ruais said Tuesday he has been in contact with some of the committee members, who will likely begin meeting later this week. "I am reaching out to the conferees to gather information and develop a course of action to address this issue," Ruais said. School board member Bob Baines, a former mayor and educator, said he spoke to Gov. Kelly Ayotte about the targeted cap last week. 'We've been in touch with various representatives, but this needs to be watched very, very carefully in the (Legislature's) Committee of Conference,' Baines said. 'Can you imagine the devastation that will occur in Manchester, the most significant devastation possible in our public schools. We all need to work on that with our representatives, because I think in any big government bill — no matter how big and beautiful it is — some people don't read it and don't understand. 'Why would Manchester be singled out as the only community in the state of New Hampshire that would lose funding? If you care about Manchester, we should get that funding — we planned on it.' School board member Sean Parr drafted the letter and gathered the signatures of fellow board members this week. 'We are hoping to reach out to the Committee of Conference to let them know that it has this particular effect only on Manchester,' Parr said. 'I think it would be good for us to at least explain the situation, tell them that it's a significant impact to our budget in its current form, and to ask that they reconsider that part of the budget proposal.' In the letter, school board members urge committee members to reconsider the 'targeted cap' portion of the bill, warning the proposed budget could lead to 'harmful cuts and reductions to student services.' School officials point out that despite being the largest school district in New Hampshire with nearly 12,000 students, Manchester ranks at the bottom of the state in per-pupil spending, with over 53% of students qualifying for free and reduced-price meals, 20% multilingual learners, and 23% special education students. 'The proposed reductions would therefore have devastating consequences for our students, our educators, and ultimately, the future of our city,' the letter says. 'We welcome the opportunity to engage in continued dialogue, and we hope that you will collaborate in crafting a budget that reflects the values, priorities, and long-term vision of a thriving state with excellent public schools.' pfeely@
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
State plans to decrease its payments to the needy
PIERRE, S.D. (KELO) — The South Dakota Department of Social Services has announced its intention to cut by 10% the amount of welfare aid paid to several thousand households receiving public assistance. DSS will hold a public hearing on Friday, June 20, at 11:00 a.m. CT at state government's new One Stop Center at 1501 S. Highline Avenue in Sioux Falls. The number of South Dakota families receiving payments from the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program varies month to month, according to DSS statistics. In April, the most recent month for which data was publicly reported, there were 2,487 families. That was down from a 12-month high of 2,567 in October. New Spring Creek owner shares golf course plans The department's proposed TANF cuts come at the same time that the Legislature gave state government employees a 1.25% pay raise that takes effect July 1. State aid to K-12 education and for health-care providers will rise 1.25% as well. DSS officials say the proposed cuts result from the Legislature reducing the department's general funding for the coming year by $5.3 million. Actually, then-Gov. Kristi Noem had recommended in her December budget proposal a $5,168,200 general-fund reduction for the economic assistance division in DSS that oversees TANF payments. The department, in turn, planned to use a similar additional amount of federal funds as an offset, according to page 20 of a presentation made on January 21 to the Legislature's Joint Committee on Appropriations. That presentation referred to the maneuver as 'Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Fund Swap.' The document made no mention of any proposed cut to TANF payments. The department's then-chief financial officer, Jason Simmons, didn't speak about it either. 'This year, in working with the governor's office and BFM (Bureau of Finance and Management), with revenues down and having to fund things like FMAP (federal medical assistance percentage) change and different things, our directive is to spend down some of that carryover. So this would be more of a temporary solution,' Simmons told the committee. He continued, 'This is not something that we're going to be able to do for many, many years, but it's something we can do in a pinch for a few years to get us through, to spend down that carryover and continue to deliver these services.' Five minutes later, DSS Secretary Matt Althoff expanded on those remarks. Responding to a question from Democratic Rep. Erik Muckey, Althoff said, 'We're going to examine our benefits and say, Is there a way we can reduce those as well? So we'll continue to look at that. We've got a preliminary plan that, as recommended, would take effect July first.' One of the panel's co-chairs, Republican Rep. Mike Derby, asked Simmons to go through the mechanics of the TANF fund swap one more time. Simmons explained that money left over from the federal block grant that the department receives each year can be placed in a carryover account. Simmons said the department gets $21.2 million of federal funds each year and state government puts in $8.5 million for a total TANF funding of $29.7 million. At the end of fiscal 2024, the department had $23.4 million of carryover funds available. Simmons said the plan was to tap the federal carryover to offset reductions in state general funds, spending the oldest layer of federal funds first. Noem's $34,665,498 recommendation of general funds for the new budget year that starts July 1 would have returned the division's general funding to roughly the $34,415,895 actually spent in 2024. State lawmakers in March ultimately appropriated $34,517,352 of general funds to the economic assistance division for the 2026 budget year. That was slightly more than the amount actually spent in 2024 and slightly less than the amount Noem had recommended. Asked Monday about the proposed TANF cuts, Republican Sen. Ernie Otten told KELOLAND News that he expects to see the department make reductions in other areas too. Otten and Derby co-chair the Legislature's Joint Committee on Appropriations that assembles state government's budget each year. DSS never came back to the committee with a detailed plan or a change from what they presented, according to information that Derby received from the Legislature's chief fiscal analyst Jeff Mehlhaff and forwarded on Tuesday to KELOLAND News. Mehlhaff told Derby, 'We have reached out to the Secretary of DSS multiple times with no response.' An average of 2,460 households per month received TANF payments during the 2024 budget year, according to the DSS fiscal note that was prepared for the proposed 10% cut. The average monthly amount was $518.06. Altogether, those payments totaled $15,293,131.20 in annual TANF costs, the department said, and a reduction of 10% from the current TANF payment standards equals $1,529,313.12. A statement signed by Secretary Althoff says the proposed financial cuts in TANF payments would have 'no impact' on small businesses. 'TANF is a needs-based program for families with children under age 18 (or under age 19 if the child is in high school) who need financial support because of the death of a parent; a parent is absent from the home; or the physical or mental incapacity or unemployment of a with serious financial needs may qualify for TANF monthly payments,' the statement says. Public comments at the June 20 hearing about the TANF reductions can be made in person at the Sioux Falls One Stop Center or by telephone at 1-605-679-7263 and using conference code 183 579 146 #. Written public comments can be sent through June 30 to Teresa Schulte, Administrative Rules C219, Department of Social Services, 1501 S. Highline Ave., Sioux Falls, SD 57110 or can be emailed to DSSAdminRules@ Many lawmakers also were upset during the 2025 legislative session after learning about the Noem administration's decisions to enter long-term leases for new One Stop centers in Sioux Falls and Rapid City. Most of state government's local offices including those of DSS in the two communities have since moved to the centers. Noem resigned as governor in January after she received U.S. Senate confirmation as the new federal Homeland Security secretary. After she left, the Legislature unanimously adopted a new law requiring lawmakers' approval of any lease longer than 15 years and costing more than $5 million in total or more than $50,000 per month. Leases for One Stop centers in Sioux Falls and Rapid City are for 30 years and will cost an estimated $200 million more during that time than had state government continued with previous leases for locations scattered throughout the communities. The new law however doesn't apply to any past lease agreements. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
