Arkansas coalition submits proposal to protect ‘fundamental right' to direct democracy
Arkansas Public Policy Panel Executive Director Bill Kopsky discusses a proposed constitutional amendment to preserve direct democracy in Arkansas during a press conference at the state Capitol on May 19, 2025. Kopsky's organization is a member of Protect AR Rights, the ballot question committee that submitted its proposal to the attorney general's office on Monday. Other coalition members, including Kymara Seals (right) stand behind him. (Sonny Albarado/Arkansas Advocate)
An Arkansas ballot question committee announced Monday it had submitted a proposed constitutional amendment to protect voters' right to direct democracy.
The Arkansas Ballot Measure Rights Amendment, sponsored by Protect AR Rights, would amend Article 5 Section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution, the section that governs the state's initiative and referendum process, to designate voters' right to propose laws and constitutional amendments that can be put to a statewide vote as a 'fundamental right.'
This is the second such effort 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.
Members of the six organizations that comprise the coalition behind Protect AR Rights gathered inside the Capitol to formally announce their ballot measure Monday. During the press conference, Arkansas Public Policy Panel Executive Director Bill Kopsky said their proposal 'strengthens three fundamental citizen rights' in the state Constitution — the right to propose ballot measures, the right to gather signatures on petitions and the right to sign a ballot measure petition.
'Sadly some politicians don't trust voters…and they've stripped the right to the ballot measure process away from us,' Kopsky said. 'They are rigging the rules to make it nearly impossible for everyday Arkansans to propose ballot measures to ask their fellow citizens to sign and support measures and to even sign one themselves. We must stand up to this unprecedented power grab.'
Arkansas grassroots organizations seek to intervene in lawsuit challenging direct democracy laws
The Arkansas Ballot Measure Rights Amendment would make several changes to the state's initiative and referendum process, including prohibiting the General Assembly from amending or repealing constitutional amendments that voters approved; current law allows lawmakers to do so by a two-thirds majority vote. The proposed measure would only grant that authority for initiated acts.
The measure would also make changes to the signature-gathering process by prohibiting a requirement that signatures be collected from more than 15 counties. A 2023 law, which is being challenged in court, increased the threshold to 50 counties.
If a qualified voter's signature is deemed insufficient and therefore will be disqualified and not counted, the proposed measure would require the elector to be notified and given at least 10 business days to correct 'any identified insufficiency.' Notification and a minimum cure period of 10 business days would also be required for the sponsors of a measure if there is a filing error.
The proposed constitutional amendment would also require a ballot title challenge to be filed within 10 business days of the title's approval and be 'tried at once with expedited review if appealed.'
Additionally, the measure defines petition fraud and declares it a criminal offense.
The League of Women Voters of Arkansas is also pursuing its own proposed constitutional amendment aimed at protecting voters' right to direct democracy. Attorney General Tim Griffin has rejected the measure three times.
In his most recent rejection earlier this month, Griffin cited a new law that prohibits ballot titles from being written above an eighth-grade reading level. This was the first time he rejected a proposed ballot measure under Act 602, which became law in April.
Protect AR Rights tried to make its proposal 'as readable as possible,' but Kopsky said he doesn't think it's possible to meet the eighth-grade reading level and the clarity standard. For that reason, Protect AR Rights last week filed a motion to intervene in a League of Women Voters of Arkansas lawsuit challenging new state laws, he said.
'We believe we'll get injunctive relief,' Kopsky said. 'If we don't, we'll have to rethink our strategy.'
The League of Women Voters of Arkansas' lawsuit alleges eight recently approved laws governing direct democracy violate the First and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Protect AR Rights noted in its motion to intervene that the committee wants to challenge additional laws not included in the lawsuit, including Act 602 of 2025.
Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families is a member of the Protect AR Rights coalition. Executive Director Keesa Smith-Brantley said Monday that the group's goal is for the proposals from Protect AR Rights and the League of Women Voters of Arkansas to work together.
'We do not want there to be any confusion. We believe that they have critical components,' she said. 'There were things that we felt like we needed to equally add to make sure that we enshrine the rights of Arkansans in the Constitution, but we are hopeful to be able to work together in this process and talk about ways that we can make sure that both of the measures that we're working on get passed.'
Under state law, the attorney general's office has 10 business days to approve or reject the proposed ballot measures. The League of Women Voters submitted the latest version of its proposal May 7 and is owed a response from Griffin by Wednesday. The deadline for a response on Protect AR Rights' measure is June 3.
The attorney general's office does not have any other pending ballot title proposals, Griffin's communication's director Jeff LeMaster confirmed Monday.
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
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Legislative recap for Thursday, June 5
The dome of the Maine State House in Augusta. Sept. 5, 2023. (Photo by Jim Neuger/ Maine Morning Star) With a citizen-led campaign to impose voter ID requirements heading to the ballots, lawmakers discussed the issue at length Thursday before rejecting a legislative proposal mirroring the ballot initiative. Several Republican members of the Maine House of Representatives said if returning clothes and buying cigarettes requires photo identification, so should voting. They alleged rampant voter fraud by noncitizens, which Maine's Secretary of State has said is not the case. Democrats pushed back, saying Maine already has a robust system to prevent fraud, and that requiring voter ID would disadvantage students, seniors and people with disabilities. With a 72-69 vote, the bill, LD 38, was rejected. 'There is a fundamental difference between having to show an ID to buy alcohol or tobacco products or returning an unwanted item to a store,' said Rep. Kelly Noonan Murphy (D-Scarborough).'None of those things are sacred rights granted to us in the Constitution. And therefore, imposing barriers on that right … is un-American.' With papers shuffling between chambers this week, Maine Morning Star has compiled a slightly more pared down roundup again for Thursday, focusing on the biggest items of debates as well as legislation and issues that we've followed all session. Here's an overview of what happened Thursday. Both chambers have now passed an amended version of LD 1726, which seeks to improve planning for the future of the energy grid. The House supported it with a 75-69 vote, and the Senate followed suit passing the bill 19-13 Thursday afternoon. After LD 1928 squeaked through the House with a 72-70 vote, the Senate passed it 17-15. This bill would ban single-use plastic containers — such as mini shampoo bottles — at lodging establishments starting in 2030. Although Rep. Michael Soboleski (R-Phillips) said the well-intentioned legislation overlooks sanitation concerns and poses challenges for businesses, others praised it for its potential to chip away at plastic use in the state. 'A conservative estimate is that this bill could eliminate as many as 73 million single-use plastic bottles per year from Maine's waste stream as we struggle to recycle our way out of the catastrophe of microplastics, that is meaningful action,' said Rep. Vicki Doudera (D-Camden). Although the proposed net energy billing reform that could save ratepayers more than $65 million has yet to hit the floors, the Senate and House passed an amended version of LD 839, which would create a fund to offset transmission and distribution costs associated with the policy that would otherwise be passed onto ratepayers. Additionally, lawmakers backed a bill requiring internet providers to treat all broadband internet traffic equally, a concept commonly referred to as 'net neutrality.' LD 536 passed the House 79-66, while the Senate gave its approval Thursday. With a 74-67 House vote, both chambers supported LD 246, which asks courts to consider a sentence other than imprisonment for primary caregivers. Rep. Adam Lee (D-Auburn) said the bill is needed because 'the research is clear, children with incarcerated parents are more likely to face mental health challenges, exhibit behavioral problems, experience social isolation and suffer from economic hardship. These children are also more likely to perform poorly in school and have higher absentee rates.' With a 73-69 vote, the House also passed LD 1859, a bill that would offer regional hubs for childcare, which can serve as access points in communities, tailored to the needs of those families. The Senate approved it Wednesday. Both chambers have now rejected LD 1476, which sought to impose a new lodging fee to help fund homeless shelters in the state. A heavily amended version of LD 1787 passed in the Senate after the House gave approval Wednesday. The bill initially sought to allow candidates for district attorney, sheriff and county commissioner to participate in the Maine Clean Election Act, but the version now being considered was amended to increase the contribution limits for gubernatorial seed money donations. (Read more about other proposals related to changing Maine's clean elections here.) Legislation (LD 1900) to grant authority to certain Wabanaki Nations to develop tribal power districts and recognize the authority for child support enforcement passed the House 75-67 on Wednesday and Senate 20-12. There was also bipartisan support for LD 1886, which would extend the current penalties applied when a motor vehicle violation results in death to violations that result in serious bodily harm. Lawmakers killed a proposal (LD 1461) to prohibit school boards from adopting a mask mandate unless directed by a health agency. So far, the Legislature has only supported modest refinements to the state's paid family and medical leave. That approach continued Thursday, when two more bills looking to amend the program were rejected. LD 1169, which would allow employers to get a refund for any premiums paid into the state's plan if they are approved to use a private substitute plan, was voted down 73-68 by the House and 18-14 by the Senate. Both chambers also rejected LD 1400, which looked to exempt certain public school employees from the program. And the Senate cast a final enactment vote for LD 588, which would give agricultural employees the right to engage in certain concerted activity, which includes talking about wages, working conditions and other employment matters with other employees or the employer. (Read more about that here.) After the Senate narrowly voted it down, the House passed LD 1535, which would require the Public Utilities Commission to gather a group of municipal, police and fire officials to discuss the high electricity usage related to illegal cannabis grows in the state. During discussions Wednesday, Sen. Craig Hickman (D-Kennebec) said the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee is carrying over legislation into the next session that could provide a more comprehensive approach, including this sort of study. The Senate insisted on its original vote Thursday night. Leaving it in limbo, the House did not again take up LD 810, the bill seeking to modify the law born out of a 2021 referendum question requiring the Maine Legislature to approve any new high-impact transmission lines. It fell shy of passage in the House with lawmakers voting 72-75 before ultimately killing the bill under the hammer. However, the Senate passed the bill 18-16 Wednesday. During an evening session, the Senate rejected LD 1036, which would prohibit landlords from refusing to rent to tenants solely because they rely on programs such as General Assistance or housing vouchers. Since the House passed the proposal 72-70 on Wednesday, the lower chamber will need to take it up again. Sen. Chip Curry (D-Waldo) said this is an important issue, but asked the Senate to reject the measure simply because the Judiciary Committee is carrying a similar bill into the next session to allow more time to work on it. Although the House rejected LD 1236 earlier in the day on Thursday, the Senate voted 22-10 in favor of its passage after a failed 16-16 vote to reject the bill and impassioned floor speeches about the importance of addressing the presence of fentanyl in the state. The amended version of the bill seeks to create a Class A crime for aggravated trafficking of fentanyl when it results in an overdose. While no one refuted that fentanyl poses a crisis, Curry said the state can't incarcerate its way out of it. Senate Minority Leader Trey Stewart said he supports a multipronged approach to solving the substance use crisis including access to treatment and other supports, but argued that this bill could bolster that. The Senate advanced two bills that aim to support mobile home park residents in purchasing their parks. (Read more about that here.) Maine is one step closer to joining its New England peers who all have so-called food waste bans on the books now that the Senate has approved a slightly amended version of LD 1065. The bill would prohibit significant generators of food waste, which could include schools, hospitals, food producers and others, from disposing of food waste if they are close to a facility that could compost or otherwise dispose of the waste. The House passed a bill (LD 1078) expanding access to needle exchange programs in a 74-65 vote. The bill would allow certified programs to operate additional locations within the same county. (Read more about our syringe service program coverage here). SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
an hour ago
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
BOSTON -- Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially." Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
BOSTON (AP) — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially." Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'
