Judge allows two additional groups to intervene in Arkansas ballot referendum case
Protect AR Rights and For AR Kids will now be able to join in the League of Women Voters of Arkansas vs. Jester case. That complaint challenges a host of recently enacted laws by the Arkansas legislature, making it harder for Arkansans to file ballot referendums.
Protect AR Rights ballot title to overturn recent ballot title laws rejected by attorney general a second time
The motion to intervene was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, Elias Law Group LLP, and Shults Law Firm LLP.
'We're pleased that the court has granted our motion to intervene,' ACLU of Arkansas Legal Director John Williams said. 'This decision ensures that the voices of grassroots groups actively engaged in the ballot initiative process will be fully represented in this case.'
Williams added: 'Our clients are already feeling the impact of these unconstitutional laws, and now they'll have the opportunity to stand up in court and defend the First Amendment rights of all Arkansans who seek political change through direct democracy.'
Previously, Protect AR Rights had filed to place a question on the Arkansas general election ballot to overturn the new laws. It had been rejected twice by the attorney general's office due to the proposed ballot title being above an eighth-grade reading level, as required by one of the laws passed by the 95th General Assembly.
Appeals court reinstates Arkansas ban on teaching Critical Race Theory
Protect AR Rights is made up of a coalition of Arkansas Appleseed, Arkansas Citizens First Congress, Arkansas Public Policy Panel, For AR People, the Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP and the Arkansas Education Association.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
The UK triggers a global internet argument
The United Kingdom is testing the limits of how far a single country can go to enforce its laws in a borderless internet — and triggering transatlantic political and legal waves in the process. The UK's Online Safety Act was passed in 2023 to protect users, particularly children, from harmful online content. The law puts age verification limits on a whole range of material — pornography, hate speech, content promoting drugs and weapons, online harassment and depictions of violence. The act's verification provisions went into effect in late July. As soon as it did, UK internet users found themselves having to upload IDs and selfies to prove they were old enough to access certain content. Large platforms restricted everything from X posts on Gaza to subreddits on cigars, and blocked content entirely in certain cases. Quickly, the U.S. got involved as well. Online speech laws in other countries have long annoyed U.S. tech companies; now with the White House's ear, they've been pushing officials to press the matter in trade talks with the European Union, which seems to be working. And content moderation (especially the excesses of left-leaning content moderation) has been a bugbear for Republicans for years. Politically, it's already turning into a fertile issue. A bipartisan House delegation traveled to the UK last week to discuss the law's possible impact on the speech rights of Americans. It was led by House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, who has spearheaded the conservative 'free speech' case against numerous tech platforms in the U.S., but also included Democrats worried about First Amendment rights. 'When foreign governments try to export their speech codes to the United States, it undermines our First Amendment values,' Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Wis.), who was on the trip, told DFD in a comment. As my colleague Anthony Adragna reports, this diplomatic effort did not go entirely smoothly: UK Reform party leader Nigel Farage called Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) 'pig-headed' during one such meeting. The OSA has also triggered American-style arguments around chilling speech within the UK as well, POLITICO's Mizy Clifton, who's been covering the OSA from London, told DFD. 'Now the right-wing insurgent populist party Reform UK has taken up that argument,' he said. Does the law really have such global implications? Well, yes. The UK's Office of Communications, which is enforcing the OSA, has already sent letters to at least three websites operating outside the country, demanding that they conduct harmful speech audits. The letters note that failure to comply could result in 'imprisonment for a term of up to two years, or a fine (or both).' (The U.S.-based platform Gab, which hosts Nazi and other extremist content, responded by going offline in the UK.) Ofcom's initial enforcement efforts implicate one of the thorniest questions in internet law: How can a country impose its online speech standards beyond its territorial bounds? 'This is one of the first cases in which a national legislature of a major, important country really forced the issue,' said James Grimmelmann, a Cornell Law School professor who specializes in internet law. Since the rise of the internet, there have been other cases of governments extending their speech laws outward. Australia's highest court ruled in 2002 that its defamation laws applied to a suit that a citizen brought against Dow Jones over an online article. In 2017, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that Google had to remove a website selling counterfeit products from its worldwide search results, after its proprietors fled the country. Large U.S.-based websites have generally been willing to play ball for these one-off cases, either following courts' orders or sending lawyers to other countries to litigate. What makes the OSA different is that it imposes ongoing duties on websites to self-regulate according to its terms. And the law applies to more than just porn sites. So big platforms like Meta — as well as more freewheeling forums like Reddit and smaller discussion boards — are expected to more actively seek out hateful and violent content that needs to be age gated. A source familiar with the House Judiciary Committee's investigation into the matter told DFD on background that, based on conversations with platforms, it would be impractical for them to develop separate content moderation systems based on the country. If a U.S.-based site does violate the OSA, the act has measures to stymie websites without a presence on English soil. Ofcom has the authority to force third parties, like payment services or app stores, to stop doing business with the sites. For American tech companies, there are a few paths out — besides, of course, just obeying the law. One is political — asking the White House to pressure the UK in trade talks to just roll the rule back, as it's been doing with tech laws in the European Union. However, UK officials have said the OSA is not up for debate in tariff negotiations. Another runs through the courts. Preston Byrne, managing partner at the tech law firm Byrne & Storm, says he wanted to force the issue: He's planning to file a lawsuit soon on behalf of websites to get a U.S. federal court to declare that the Online Safety Act is unenforceable in the country. Obtaining such a ruling from an American court is rare: Yahoo previously mounted a similar effort, but the case was dismissed. Byrne says it's still worth trying. 'You could also get symbolic declarations from the court,' he told DFD. 'It communicates to other American companies that these orders that you get from Ofcom [...] they're just letters.' NASA wants a nuclear reactor on the moon Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, who is serving as NASA's interim administrator, is expediting plans to install a nuclear reactor on the moon, POLITICO's Sam Skove was the first to report. While NASA has previously floated such a project, Duffy is setting a concrete timeline in his first major action as the agency's administrator. His directive calls on NASA to solicit industry proposals for a 100-kilowatt nuclear reactor to launch by 2030, around the same time that China plans to send its first astronaut to the moon. Such a reactor could enable longer-term exploration by generating energy during lunar nights, when solar power isn't available. The initiative fits into the White House's ambitions to send astronauts to the moon by 2027, and Mars thereafter, despite major cuts to NASA's budget. The electricity industry wants in on AI The power sector is eager to capitalize on the AI boom, though it isn't a sure bet, POLITICO's Debra Kahn reports. Data centers require a huge amount of energy, presenting an opportunity for an industry that's seen underwhelming growth over the past two decades. However, the White House has sent mixed signals about its dedication to spur the infrastructure needed to power data centers. The administration is trying to prevent federal lands from being used for wind energy and is cancelling loan guarantees for transmission lines. Yet, the industry still has hope given President Donald Trump's proclamations about competing with China's rapid rate of electricity construction, and the growing energy needs of the AI industry. 'The size and the scale of what we're seeing now is unlike anything we've seen,' Pacific Gas & Electric executive Mike Medeiros told Kahn. post of the day THE FUTURE IN 5 LINKS Stay in touch with the whole team: Aaron Mak (amak@ Mohar Chatterjee (mchatterjee@ Steve Heuser (sheuser@ Nate Robson (nrobson@ and Daniella Cheslow (dcheslow@
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
L.A. agrees to pay $500,000 to reporters arrested at 2021 Echo Park protest
The city of Los Angeles has tentatively agreed to pay $500,000 to two Knock LA journalists who claim their constitutional rights were violated when police arrested them while covering a protest four years ago in Echo Park. Without admitting wrongdoing, the city agreed Monday to settle a lawsuit brought by the reporters, averting a federal civil trial just before jury selection was set to begin. The payout, which still needs approval from the City Council, would cover damages and attorney fees. Kate McFarlane, an attorney who argued the lawsuit on the pair's behalf, said the outcome felt somewhat hollow. The Los Angeles Police Department's treatment of journalists covering recent protests against the Trump administration shows that the department's culture has not changed despite the litigation, she said. 'We've been seeing journalists in the last few weeks being attacked by LAPD, either by less-lethal weapons or other weapons that LAPD uses to suppress their First Amendment rights to report,' McFarlane said. An LAPD spokesperson declined to comment. The Los Angeles City Attorney's office did not respond to questions. Another recent lawsuit filed by several news media advocacy groups after dozens were injured by police actions during protests in June led to a court order that bars officers from targeting reporters with hard foam projectiles and other crowd-control munitions. The Knock LA case stems from the evening of March 25, 2021. Jonathan Peltz and Kathleen Gallagher, both working for the online news nonprofit organization, were reporting on the removal of a homeless encampment from the banks of Echo Park Lake. Despite 'clearly identifying' themselves as reporters and being among other journalists 'engaged in similar conduct,' Peltz or Gallagher said in their lawsuit that they were arrested and booked after the LAPD declared an unlawful assembly. Under state law, journalists are generally allowed to cover police activity even after members of the public have been ordered to disperse. Among those detained were Times reporter James Queally, Spectrum News reporter Kate Cagle and L.A. Taco reporter Lexis-Olivier Ray. Unlike the two Knock LA journalists, they were were all released at the scene. Police, however, bound Peltz and Gallagher by the wrists with plastic zip ties. They also searched the pair and their phones, and confiscated their other belongings before placing them on buses with dozens of other arrested protesters. Both remained in custody for more than four hours. Peltz, the lawsuit claims, was later taken to the hospital, where medical staff said swelling in his arms and hands was the result of a pinched nerve from being held in the zip ties for so long. None of the more than 180 people arrested that night were charged. Attorneys for the two journalists argued that their arrests fit a pattern of LAPD officers 'obstructing, targeting, and retaliating against' journalists reporting on their actions — particularly those from smaller, nontraditional media outlets —dating to the 2000 Democratic National Convention. In a text thread disclosed during the litigation, then-LAPD Chief Michel Moore messaged some of his senior staff members on the night of the Echo Park protest, asking about Queally's detainment. Moore said he had been texted by another Times reporter asking for an explanation. The thread included former assistant Chiefs Daniel Randolph and Beatrice Girmala as well as deputy Chief Donald Graham, the incident commander that night. Moore wrote: 'Queally posted that he is being arrested. I've asked [the public information officer] to support and assist in any way possible. If Queally is in custody it will garner significant attention due to his status with the LAT.' Graham responded that he would send a spokesperson to the scene to 'to identify Queally.' Moore responded that he '[w]ould recommend you hold transports until figured out.' The LAPD later released an after-action report that acknowledged some missteps in dealing with members of the news media, but also defended the police response that night, arguing that officers felt threatened and arrests became necessary. The department said it stepped up its outreach to local media organizations and provided additional training for new sergeants and detectives for identifying journalists at mass demonstrations. McFarlane, the attorney for the Knock LA reporters, said their case was less about who the LAPD sees as a member of the media and more as a reflection of the department's ongoing efforts to thwart scrutiny. 'The broader theme is that it's clear that the LAPD is trying to hide their actions, especially when we know their actions are unlawful,' she said.
Fox News
10 hours ago
- Fox News
Federal judge blocks Arkansas Ten Commandments law in certain districts
A federal judge temporarily blocked some Arkansas districts from displaying the Ten Commandments in their classrooms as required under a new state law. The injunction from U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks – an appointee of former President Barack Obama – impacts four districts in northwest Arkansas and comes in response to a lawsuit filed by a coalition of multi-faith families who argued that the religious display requirement violates their religious freedom and parental rights. The law now cannot go into effect until further court action is taken, according to KUAR. "Why would Arkansas pass an obviously unconstitutional law?" Brooks wrote in his 35-page ruling. "Most likely because the state is part of a coordinated strategy among several states to inject Christian religious doctrine into public-school classrooms." "Act 573 is not neutral with respect to religion," he also was quoted by KUAR as saying, noting that the Ten Commandments law "requires that a specific version of that scripture be used, one that the uncontroverted evidence in this case shows is associated with Protestantism and is exclusionary of other faiths." The Arkansas law, signed earlier this year by Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, takes effect Tuesday and requires the Ten Commandments to be prominently displayed in public school classrooms and libraries. The lawsuit against it was filed on behalf of the families by the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Attorney General Tim Griffin, whose office defended the law, told the Associated Press he was reviewing the decision and assessing legal options. The lawsuit named four school districts in northwest Arkansas — Fayetteville, Bentonville, Siloam Springs and Springdale — as defendants. The plaintiffs were asking for a preliminary injunction to pause the implementation of the law while the lawsuit is pending, according to the ACLU. "Permanently posting the Ten Commandments in every classroom and library — rendering them unavoidable — unconstitutionally pressures students into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state's favored religious scripture," the lawsuit stated. "It also sends the harmful and religiously divisive message that students who do not subscribe to the Ten Commandments — or, more precisely, to the specific version of the Ten Commandments that Act 573 requires schools to display — do not belong in their own school community and pressures them to refrain from expressing any faith practices or beliefs that are not aligned with the state's religious preferences." Brooks' ruling only narrowly applies to four of the state's 237 districts. It is not immediately clear if the groups who filed the lawsuit would seek a broader block of the law beyond the four districts. ACLU of Arkansas Executive Director Holly Bailey told the AP through a spokesperson that "it is clear from this order and long-established law that all should refrain from posting" the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. Similar requirements enacted in Texas and Louisiana are also being challenged in court. A group of families and faith leaders filed a lawsuit seeking to block Texas' requirements days after it was signed into law. Last month in Louisiana — the first state that mandated the Ten Commandments be displayed in classrooms — a panel of three appellate judges ruled that the law was unconstitutional.
