Arkansas grassroots organizations seek to intervene in lawsuit challenging direct democracy laws
Ann Hudson, Carrie Clay and Marcia Norman sort through thousands of petitions inside the Arkansas Public Policy Panel's Little Rock office on July 2, 2024. (Mary Hennigan/Arkansas Advocate)
Two Arkansas ballot question committees on Wednesday filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit challenging new direct democracy-related laws.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, Elias Law Group LLP and Shults Law Firm LLP filed the motion in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas on behalf of For AR Kids and Protect AR Rights. The former is a grassroots coalition that's received approval from the attorney general to gather signatures for its proposed education-focused constitutional amendment.
The latter plans to file its own proposed ballot initiative for the 2026 election to protect Arkansans' 'right to propose, sign, petition and campaign for ballot initiatives to improve their communities,' according to a Statement of Organization filed with the Arkansas Ethics Commission Friday.
Protect AR Rights is composed of several groups, including Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, Arkansas Appleseed, Arkansas Citizens First Congress, Arkansas Public Policy Panel, the Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP and For AR People.
'This case is about protecting core political speech,' ACLU of Arkansas Legal Director John Williams said in a statement. 'Arkansas voters have a constitutional right to speak out, organize, and propose laws through the ballot initiative process. The laws we're challenging are deliberate efforts to suppress that speech and silence the voices of ordinary Arkansans in favor of entrenched political power.'
Arkansas attorney general rejects first ballot measure under new law
The original lawsuit was filed last month by the League of Women Voters of Arkansas who alleges eight recently approved laws governing direct democracy violate the First and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The case is assigned to Judge Timothy Brooks.
Arkansans can propose new laws or constitutional amendments and put them to a statewide vote through the direct democracy process. Arkansas is one of 24 states that allows citizen-led initiatives, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The majority of the laws challenged in the lawsuit regulate the petition-gathering portion of the initiative and referendum process. New requirements include directing signature gatherers, known as canvassers, to sign a 'true affidavit,' to request a photo ID from potential signers and inform them that petition fraud is a criminal offense, among other things.
According to Wednesday's court filings, the intervenors want to challenge additional laws, including a 2023 law that requires petitioners to gather signatures from 50 counties instead of 15 counties and Act 602 of 2025, which prohibits ballot titles from being written above an eighth grade reading level. Attorney General Tim Griffin cited the new law for the first time when he rejected a proposed ballot measure from the League of Women Voters last week.
In Wednesday's filings, the plaintiffs argue that intervening in the League of Women Voters lawsuit is more efficient than filing a separate lawsuit, which they said would likely be consolidated with the League's complaint under federal court rules.
Legislators and supporters of the new laws have said they will bring integrity to the initiative and referendum process, while opponents argue they will make it nearly impossible for citizens' proposals to qualify for the ballot. Protect AR Rights spokesperson Bill Kopsky called the laws 'a blatant power grab by politicians trying to silence voters.'
'Direct democracy has been under attack in the Arkansas Legislature really since 2012,' he said. 'Passing just bill after bill, it's death by 1,000 paper cuts, making the process harder for people.'
For AR Rights formed in 2020 in opposition to Issue 3, a proposed constitutional amendment referred by the Legislature that would have changed the initiative and referendum process by requiring voter petitions to be submitted earlier and increasing the number of counties where signatures must be collected, among other things. Issue 3 failed with 56% voting against it.
Two years later, For AR Rights fought against Issue 2, another lawmaker-referred constitutional amendment that would have increased the percentage of votes required to pass constitutional amendments and citizen-proposed state laws from a majority to 60% of votes cast. Issue 2 failed with 59% of voters voting against it.
Arkansas AG certifies education coalition's 2026 ballot proposal
Kopsky is also part of For AR Kids, which submitted and received approval for its proposed constitutional amendment for the 2026 general election after failing to collect enough signatures for the 2024 election.
After the conclusion of the 2025 legislative session, Kopsky said the group assessed the new laws and volunteers tried collecting some signatures to learn how difficult it would be to comply with the new requirements. The regulations were 'so onerous that it's nearly impossible to collect signatures,' which is why the group decided to seek to join the League of Women Voters' lawsuit, he said.
'We just view ballot measures as a fundamental right in the Constitution, obviously, but we also see it as a way to cut through the partisanship that is caused by our politicians and special interests,' Kopsky said. 'Arkansans tend not to be super political, which I love about us. It's not about what camp you're in, it's what can we do to make our community better.'
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
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump asks Supreme Court to let him dismantle Education Department
By John Kruzel WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Donald Trump's administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday to permit it to proceed with dismantling the Department of Education, a move that would leave school policy in the United States almost entirely in the hands of states and local boards. The Justice Department asked the court to halt Boston-based U.S. District Judge Myong Joun's May 22 ruling that ordered the administration reinstate employees terminated in a mass layoff and end further actions to shutter the department. The Justice Department said the lower court lacked jurisdiction to "second-guess the Executive's internal management decisions," referring to the federal government's executive branch. "The government has been crystal clear in acknowledging that only Congress can eliminate the Department of Education. And the government has acknowledged the need to retain sufficient staff to continue fulfilling statutorily mandated functions and has kept the personnel that, in its judgment, are necessary for those tasks. The challenged (reduction in force) is fully consistent with that approach," the filing said. The department, created by a U.S. law passed by Congress in 1979, oversees about 100,000 public and 34,000 private schools in the United States, though more than 85% of public school funding comes from state and local governments. It provides federal grants for needy schools and programs, including money to pay teachers of children with special needs, fund arts programs and replace outdated infrastructure. It also oversees the $1.6 trillion in student loans held by tens of millions of Americans who cannot afford to pay for college outright. Trump's move to dismantle the department is part of the Republican president's campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. Closing the department long has been a goal of many U.S. conservatives. Attorneys general from 20 states and the District of Columbia, as well as school districts and unions representing teachers, sued to block the Trump administration's efforts to gut the department. The states argued that the massive job cuts will render the agency unable to perform core functions authorized by statute, including in the civil rights arena, effectively usurping Congress's authority in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Trump on March 20 signed an executive order intended to effectively shut down the department, making good on a longstanding campaign promise to conservatives to move education policy almost completely to states and local boards. At a White House ceremony surrounded by children and educators, Trump called the order a first step "to eliminate" the department. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon announced plans on March 11 to carry out a mass termination of employees. Those layoffs would leave the department with 2,183 workers, down from 4,133 when Trump took office in January. The department said in a press release those terminations were part of its "final mission." Trump on March 21 announced plans to transfer the department's student loan portfolio to the Small Business Administration and its special education, nutrition and related services to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which also is facing deep job cuts. Joun in his ruling ordered the administration to reinstate the laid off workers and halt implementation of Trump's directive to transfer student loans and special needs programs to other federal agencies. The judge rejected the argument put forth by Justice Department lawyers that the mass terminations were aimed at making the department more efficient while fulfilling its mission. In fact, Joun ruled, the job cuts were an effort to shut down the department without the necessary approval of Congress. "This court cannot be asked to cover its eyes while the department's employees are continuously fired and units are transferred out until the department becomes a shell of itself," the judge wrote. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields called the judge's ruling "misguided." The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on June 4 rejected the Trump administration's request to pause the injunction issued by Joun.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump asks Supreme Court to let him dismantle Education Department
By John Kruzel WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Donald Trump's administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday to permit it to proceed with dismantling the Department of Education, a move that would leave school policy in the United States almost entirely in the hands of states and local boards. The Justice Department asked the court to halt Boston-based U.S. District Judge Myong Joun's May 22 ruling that ordered the administration reinstate employees terminated in a mass layoff and end further actions to shutter the department. The Justice Department said the lower court lacked jurisdiction to "second-guess the Executive's internal management decisions," referring to the federal government's executive branch. "The government has been crystal clear in acknowledging that only Congress can eliminate the Department of Education. And the government has acknowledged the need to retain sufficient staff to continue fulfilling statutorily mandated functions and has kept the personnel that, in its judgment, are necessary for those tasks. The challenged (reduction in force) is fully consistent with that approach," the filing said. The department, created by a U.S. law passed by Congress in 1979, oversees about 100,000 public and 34,000 private schools in the United States, though more than 85% of public school funding comes from state and local governments. It provides federal grants for needy schools and programs, including money to pay teachers of children with special needs, fund arts programs and replace outdated infrastructure. It also oversees the $1.6 trillion in student loans held by tens of millions of Americans who cannot afford to pay for college outright. Trump's move to dismantle the department is part of the Republican president's campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. Closing the department long has been a goal of many U.S. conservatives. Attorneys general from 20 states and the District of Columbia, as well as school districts and unions representing teachers, sued to block the Trump administration's efforts to gut the department. The states argued that the massive job cuts will render the agency unable to perform core functions authorized by statute, including in the civil rights arena, effectively usurping Congress's authority in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Trump on March 20 signed an executive order intended to effectively shut down the department, making good on a longstanding campaign promise to conservatives to move education policy almost completely to states and local boards. At a White House ceremony surrounded by children and educators, Trump called the order a first step "to eliminate" the department. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon announced plans on March 11 to carry out a mass termination of employees. Those layoffs would leave the department with 2,183 workers, down from 4,133 when Trump took office in January. The department said in a press release those terminations were part of its "final mission." Trump on March 21 announced plans to transfer the department's student loan portfolio to the Small Business Administration and its special education, nutrition and related services to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which also is facing deep job cuts. Joun in his ruling ordered the administration to reinstate the laid off workers and halt implementation of Trump's directive to transfer student loans and special needs programs to other federal agencies. The judge rejected the argument put forth by Justice Department lawyers that the mass terminations were aimed at making the department more efficient while fulfilling its mission. In fact, Joun ruled, the job cuts were an effort to shut down the department without the necessary approval of Congress. "This court cannot be asked to cover its eyes while the department's employees are continuously fired and units are transferred out until the department becomes a shell of itself," the judge wrote. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields called the judge's ruling "misguided." The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on June 4 rejected the Trump administration's request to pause the injunction issued by Joun.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
Townhall of concerned Arkansans voice fears over Medicaid, SNAP cuts in Trump's proposed bill
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -In a packed town hall at the Hillary Rodham Clinton Children's Library and Learning Center, central Arkansans gathered to voice their concerns about the effects of proposed cuts to Medicaid and SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). The discussion centered on President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' currently under consideration in the U.S. Senate and its potential to impact those across the country with disabilities, the elderly and low-income families. Faith leaders protest 'big, beautiful bill' One of the most impassioned voices at the town hall was that of William Gerard, a SNAP beneficiary with cerebral palsy who also depends on Medicaid to survive. Unable to work due to his condition, Gerard shared his testimony about how these programs are 'literally life-saving' for him. 'If I didn't have Medicaid, I don't know how I would survive,' said Gerard, who is on a regimen of 10 to 12 medications, some of which cost thousands of dollars. 'Some of my seizure medications, for example, can be in the thousands. With Medicaid paying for it, I might have to pay $2, and that really helps me.' Gerard's story is a poignant reminder of how Medicaid and SNAP provide vital support for millions of Americans. Under the budget reconciliation bill that passed the House of Representatives, $600 billion in cuts to Medicaid could result in nearly 11 million Americans losing coverage over the next decade according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis released Wednesday. For Gerard and approximately 190,000 other Arkansans, these cuts would have catastrophic consequences. Beyond the cuts to Medicaid, the proposed bill also includes steep reductions to SNAP benefits, totaling an estimated $230 billion over the next ten years. Gerard, who receives just $60 in food stamps each month, expressed the challenges this would create. 'I only get $60 in food stamps. So, what's $60 going to buy me?' he asked. 'We need to get Arkansans more food stamps that deserve it, instead of taking it away from us and making us decide what can I eat?' This concern was echoed by others at the meeting, who worried that the cuts to both Medicaid and SNAP would place an even greater burden on already struggling families, according to the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. The bill proposes several requirements, including the potential for states to take on more financial responsibility for these programs. The town hall participants discussed the wider implications of these cuts, particularly the snowball effect they would have on the lives of Arkansans. The potential loss of Medicaid coverage alone could leave thousands of individuals without access to necessary healthcare, while the SNAP cuts could push more people into food insecurity, according to the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. According to the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, more than 97,000 people in Arkansas Congressional District 2 could be impacted by the proposed $109 million cut to SNAP. These cuts could devastate families, particularly those with children, since nearly 45% of SNAP enrollees in Arkansas are parents who rely on the program to feed their families, according to . Another significant concern voiced at the town hall was the proposed work requirements that would accompany these cuts. Gerard, who receives both Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), expressed his fears for those who, like him, are unable to work due to their disabilities. 'What about the elderly, the disabled, the people who can't work? How are they supposed to make a living?' Gerard asked. 'I went to a school for handicapped children, and I've seen kids who could barely feed themselves, let alone work.' Big, beautiful bill heads to the Senate For many at the town hall, these proposed cuts aren't just about numbers in Washington—they represent the erosion of a safety net for vulnerable citizens who have no other means of support. The bill, if passed, could force these individuals into even more precarious situations, with few options for survival. 'I'm not fighting for just me,' Gerard said. 'I'm fighting for all Arkansans who are struggling to make ends meet, for all of us who depend on Medicaid and food stamps to survive.' The town hall concluded with a clear message: for concerned Arkansans to contact their congressional representatives and 'make their voices heard.' 'Stop and think about what you're doing to Arkansans—those on disability, the elderly, the most vulnerable,' Gerard said. 'If these cuts go through, it's not just about money, it's about survival.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
