Latest news with #ArkansasConstitution
Axios
16-06-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Direct democracy ballot reform push launches in Arkansas
Organizers of a proposed amendment to the Arkansas Constitution kicked off their petition signing campaign in Fayetteville on Friday. Why it matters: The measure, backed by Arkansas' League of Women Voters and Save AR Democracy, seeks to require a statewide vote before changing Arkansas' direct democracy process. It would also streamline legal reviews and prohibit the state Legislature from amending or repealing constitutional amendments. The big picture: Arkansas voters can change or reject laws enacted by the state Legislature through a citizen-initiated ballot process. Changes can be in the form of a proposed ballot initiative as a state statute (a change to a law) or a constitutional amendment (a more significant change to the state's constitution). They may also repeal legislation with a veto referendum. Yes, but: In recent years, lawmakers have made the process more difficult, passing laws that riddle it with technicalities and all but require a group to be well funded to gather petition signatures. State of play: The amendment's key provisions include: Prohibiting the General Assembly from amending a voter-approved constitutional amendment. Limiting challenges to the state Supreme Court to 45 days after the attorney general's office approves the language of ballot titles, and preventing challenges after signatures have been collected. Ensuring the names and titles of referendums align with those assigned by the General Assembly to the laws they seek to repeal. Requiring separate votes on legislation and its emergency clause, with at least 24 hours between. Barring the General Assembly from proposing amendments to the direct democracy process to voters, ensuring the people of the state initiate the process. Allowing canvassers to submit signatures under penalty of perjury, eliminating the need for notarization, streamlining the process.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Revising direct democracy ballot measure to meet Arkansas law balancing act, drafter says
Northwest Arkansas lawyer Jennifer Waymack Standerfer and Arkansas Appleseed Executive Director Bobby Howard discuss a proposed constitutional amendment from the Protect AR Rights coalition to preserve direct democracy in Arkansas during a press conference at the state Capitol on May 19, 2025. (Sonny Albarado/Arkansas Advocate) The authors of a proposed constitutional amendment to protect Arkansas' direct democracy process are still revising their measure following the attorney general's rejection of their original draft last week. Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin said he could not certify The Arkansas Ballot Measure Rights Amendment because it failed to meet the eighth-grade reading level standard set in a new law. Act 602, which became law in April, prohibits the certification of 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. During a virtual press conference Tuesday, Jennifer Waymack Standerfer, a Northwest Arkansas lawyer and drafter of the measure, said it's difficult to meet both the reading level provision and a requirement to not be misleading because the formula used to calculate the reading level assigns a higher grade to more complex words that she said are needed to properly convey the intent of the measure, such as 'fundamental right.' 'If I say right instead of fundamental right, there's a lot less syllables there and that drops my readability score, but I'm not being as transparent and open and honest with the public about what we're actually doing,' Standerfer said. 'The courts bounce around about rights and fundamental rights.' Sponsored by the Protect AR Rights coalition, the proposed measure 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. Second Arkansas ballot measure rejected for failing to meet reading-level standard Asked if breaking the proposal's several sections into separate ballot measures would make it easier to meet the reading level standard, Emma Olson Sharkey, a partner at the Elias Law Group who specializes in voting rights and citizen-led ballot initiatives, said it's not necessarily the amount of policies or changes that are involved. 'It is the way that they're described, and even just that simple change (right vs. fundamental right), which would mean a lot to the people of Arkansas, wouldn't meet the standard that the Legislature has set, which is, in my view, ridiculous,' Sharkey said. 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. Coalition members may consider removing some provisions and editing other language to meet the reading level requirement, Standerfer said. The drafting process has become a balancing act of meeting statutory requirements while also staying true to the intent of the measure, she said. 'All of the policies that we have in here are really, really crucial and really, really important, and if the Legislature is putting requirements on us that make us sacrifice content, then that is impeding upon the people's rights to legislate,' Standerfer said. 'They don't get to tell the people what content they get to legislate in law.' Various court interpretations of the Arkansas Constitution have said state lawmakers can amend an initiated act by a two-thirds majority vote, but not an amendment, Standerfer said. 'That being said, the case that says that essentially says 'well, we know what the Constitution says, but they couldn't have possibly meant that, that's crazy,'' Standerfer said. 'There are some lawyers who are concerned the current Supreme Court would reverse itself, and because of that and the concerns that have been raised, additional clarity to restate the law as it exists now is warranted and appropriate.' In an attorney general opinion issued in November, Griffin said the Arkansas Supreme Court in 1951 reasoned that the plain language of Amendment 7 gives the General Assembly the power to amend citizen-initiated constitutional amendments. But the court departed from the text because it didn't believe it was voters' intention to give lawmakers that power, he said. 'In my opinion, that decision employed an erroneous form of reasoning and was wrongly decided,' Griffin wrote. 'If this issue were raised today, I believe the Supreme Court would overturn that case and hold that the plain language controls.' During this year's legislative session, lawmakers proposed a bill that would have granted this authority to the General Assembly, but it died in the House. Legislators were successful, however, in passing several laws changing the state's initiative and referendum process, which prompted direct democracy-related ballot proposals from Protect AR Rights and the League of Women Voters of Arkansas. Direct democracy is the process through which Arkansans can 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. The League's measure was rejected three times, including once for failing to meet the eighth-grade reading level requirement. Griffin substituted and certified the popular name and ballot title so it met the reading level requirement on May 21. That means the League can begin gathering signatures to try to place their measure on the 2026 ballot. The nonpartisan group will officially launch its statewide signature collection campaign Friday in Fayetteville. Court filings reveal opposition to intervening motion in Arkansas direct democracy lawsuit The organization also filed a lawsuit in April that challenges several of the new direct democracy laws. Protect AR Rights filed a motion to intervene so the coalition can challenge additional laws not included in the original lawsuit, including the reading-level law. Both the League and the state argued in their responses to the motion that Protect AR Rights lacks standing and is not entitled to intervene in the case. In the meantime, drafters of Protect AR Rights' ballot measure are continuing to solicit public input and hope to resubmit their revised proposal in the next week or so, Standerfer said. The attorney general's office declined the coalition's request for a meeting for feedback because of the pending litigation, she said. While the proposed ballot measures from Protect AR Rights and the League of Women Voters of Arkansas have the same general goal of preserving Arkansans' rights to propose laws and constitutional amendments, they do conflict in some areas, Standerfer said. Because of that, if both qualify for the ballot and are approved by the voters, the one with the most votes would become law, according to the state Constitution, she said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Arkansas Corrections Board lawsuit against governor stays alive with Supreme Court ruling
Arkansas Supreme Court (Courtesy Photo) A lawsuit over who has the ultimate authority over the state prison system gained renewed life Thursday with the dismissal of a state appeal of a lower court preliminary injunction. The Arkansas Board of Corrections filed a lawsuit in Pulaski County Circuit Court on Dec. 14, 2023 against Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the secretary of state and Arkansas Department of Corrections, challenging the constitutionality of Act 185 and 659 of 2023. Act 185 requires the secretary of corrections to serve at the pleasure of the governor rather than the board, while Act 659 alters the reporting structure for the directors of the Division of Correction and Division of Community Correction, requiring them to serve at the pleasure of the secretary rather than the board. The board argued the laws violate Amendment 33 of the Arkansas Constitution, which protects the power of constitutional boards like the board of corrections from 'usurpation by the Governor or the General Assembly, or both,' according to Thursday's ruling. Arkansas judge sides with prison board in dispute with governor, corrections secretary A circuit court judge granted a preliminary injunction in January 2024, which Attorney General Tim Griffin appealed. The Supreme Court's ruling Thursday dismissed the state's motion to send the case back to the circuit court, order the preliminary injunction vacated and the case dismissed as moot. The high court also dismissed a motion to disqualify the corrections board's attorney from further participation in proceedings before the court. In its motion to remand, the state argues the controversy ended when the board fired former Corrections Secretary Joe Profiri. The firing was part of a dispute between the board and the executive branch that started in late 2023 over who controls the state's prison system. The board's refusal in November 2023 to approve a request to increase prison capacity by 500 beds prompted harsh public criticism from Griffin and Sanders. The board responded by hiring an outside attorney the following month to represent it in employment matters. Because Profiri was fired prior to the entry of the preliminary injunction, the lower court's finding of irreparable harm was erroneous, the state argued. The board said it wasn't seeking court confirmation of its right to fire Profiri, but relief from the legislation regarding the board's authority under Amendment 33. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Karen Baker said she agreed with the board's assertion that Profiri's termination doesn't resolve the ultimate question of whether the board controls the secretary or division directors, and therefore the dispute is not specific to the individual holding the secretary's office. 'The Board's complaint concerns the Challenged Legislation and the resulting changes to the Board's supervisory authority. This dispute exists notwithstanding the individual who holds the Secretary position and is not personal to Secretary Profiri,' Baker wrote. 'Further, because this case presents an existing legal controversy, it is not moot. Therefore, we deny appellants' motion to remand.' The state also filed a motion to disqualify the legal counsel obtained by the corrections board, arguing the firm was obtained illegally. The board didn't follow state law for securing outside counsel, and the board did not have the 'authority to hire special counsel because the Board is not a constitutional officer,' the attorney general's motion argued. The circuit court denied this motion, explaining that 'the Board is a constitutionally created board, making its members constitutional officers' who therefore had the legal authority to hire special counsel. The attorney general typically represents state agencies, but state law gives constitutional officers the ability to hire outside counsel when they disagree with the attorney general over a constitutional provision. In dismissing this motion, Baker notes the board correctly points out that 'an order denying a motion to disqualify adversary's counsel in a civil proceeding is not an appealable final order.' 'As a general rule, an appeal from an interlocutory decision brings up for review only the decision from which the appeal was taken, here, the granting of an injunction,' Baker wrote. The motion to disqualify the attorney is outside the scope of the Supreme Court's review of the preliminary injunction, she said. The high court majority affirmed the lower court's issuance of an injunction because its 'findings that there would be irreparable harm were not clearly erroneous.' The crux of the lawsuit, Baker wrote, is whether the board retains ultimate authority over the corrections secretary and directors or whether the challenged legislation constitutionally transfers that power to the governor and corrections secretary. 'The evidence presented to the circuit court demonstrates that, in the absence of the injunction, the dispute will be ongoing until the constitutionality of the Challenged Legislation is resolved,' Baker said. 'This, coupled with appellants' failure to even argue their likelihood of success on the merits, leaves us with little choice under our deferential standard of review. 'We hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Board demonstrated that irreparable harm would result in the absence of the requested preliminary injunction, and we affirm,' she added. Arkansas Supreme Court sends AG's FOIA lawsuit against prison board back to circuit court Special Justices Troy Braswell and Bud Cummins joined in the decision. Associate Justice Barbara Webb concurred in part and dissented in part. Associate Justice Shawn Womack dissented. Associate Justices Cody Hiland and Nicholas Bronni, both of whom were appointed by the governor, did not participate. Webb wrote that she agreed with the majority that the matter is not moot because Profiri's termination doesn't resolve the question of whether Acts 185 and 659 of 2023 are unconstitutional. She also agreed that it's not appropriate to disqualify the board's counsel at this time. However, she argues the board 'failed to demonstrate irreparable harm' and the circuit court therefore erred in enjoining the challenged acts. 'The crux of the Board's claim for irreparable harm was Secretary Profiri's alleged acts of insubordination, which were directly attributable to Act 185 requiring the Secretary to serve at the pleasure of the Governor rather than the Board,' Webb wrote. 'This harm is not irreparable…By definition, if a secretary may be terminated and his actions undone, then it cannot be said that any harm resulting therefrom is 'irreparable.'' In his dissenting opinion, Womack argues the court must vacate the preliminary injunction and dismiss the lawsuit because sovereign immunity bars the board's lawsuit against the governor, corrections secretary and Department of Corrections. Sovereign immunity, which Womack cites often in court opinions, is the legal doctrine that the state cannot be sued in its own courts. 'Even if that was not so, the Board would still lose because it failed to show irreparable harm — a necessary element to establish entitlement to a preliminary injunction,' Womack wrote 'Therefore, I also join the other dissenting opinion in this case.' Regarding the issue of the disqualification of the board's 'potentially illegally retained counsel, I again remind citizens of this state of their ability to protect themselves 'against the enforcement of any illegal exactions whatever,'' he said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Court filings reveal opposition to intervening motion in Arkansas direct democracy lawsuit
Efforts to collect signatures for two proposed ballot measures for the 2026 election will begin this fall, following the attorney general's approval of ballot language Thursday. (Mary Hennigan/Arkansas Advocate) The League of Women Voters of Arkansas and the state attorney general argued in federal court filings this week that two ballot question committees are not entitled to intervene in the League's lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of direct democracy laws. Protect AR Rights and For AR Kids filed a motion to intervene in the case on May 14, arguing that their interests aren't 'adequately represented' because the League's suit didn't challenge all the laws they intended to. The committees also argued that intervening is more efficient than filing a separate lawsuit, which they said would likely be consolidated with the League's complaint under federal court rules. Arkansas grassroots organizations seek to intervene in lawsuit challenging direct democracy laws In its response to the motion, which was filed by Little Rock attorney David Couch on Wednesday, the League of Women Voters of Arkansas and ballot question committee Save AR Democracy (SARD) argue the two ballot question committees don't have standing and have no right to intervene because they are not questioning LWVAR's ability to challenge the laws in the original complaint. LWVAR filed a federal lawsuit against the Arkansas secretary of state in April alleging that eight recently approved state laws governing direct democracy violate the First and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Direct democracy is the process by which Arkansans can propose new laws or constitutional amendments and place them on the ballot for a statewide vote. Arkansas is one of 24 states that allow citizen-led initiatives, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The motion to intervene from Protect AR Rights and For AR Kids seeks to challenge two laws not included in the League of Women Voters' suit — Act 602 of 2025, which prohibits ballot titles from being written above an eighth-grade reading level, and Act 236 of 2023, which mandates petition signatures must be collected from at least 50 counties instead of 15 as directed in the Arkansas Constitution, according to court filings. Protect AR Rights and For AR Kids also seek to add an additional defendant, Attorney General Tim Griffin, who is not a party to the pending litigation but is counsel for the secretary of state, which would further complicate the matter, according to LWVAR's response. In the defendant's response, also filed Wednesday, Griffin noted that when he certified For AR Kids' popular name and ballot title for a proposed education-related constitutional amendment on Feb. 26, the ballot title didn't need to meet the reading-level requirement because Act 602 was not yet in effect. The League and Save AR Democracy made the same point in their filing to argue that For AR Kids lacks standing to challenge the reading-level law. Protect AR Rights submitted its own proposed direct-democracy ballot title on May 19 that's still under review by the attorney general. LWVAR argues this group also does not have standing because its proposed ballot title has not been rejected because of Act 602. LWVAR argues that challenging Act 602 is further complicated because Griffin substituted and certified Save AR Democracy's ballot title on May 21 so that it would meet the eighth-grade reading level test. 'Even if Protect AR Rights had standing, the inclusion of that issue in the litigation would unnecessarily complicate this matter,' the response states. 'Nothing would prohibit Protect AR Rights from instituting litigation if it is denied a ballot title to meet the eighth grade reading level test.' Griffin argues that the motion to intervene should be denied because Protect AR Rights is the only party that can challenge Act 602. This is also the only claim that can be made against the attorney general, he said. State law requires the attorney general to certify or reject proposed ballot titles within 10 business days. The deadline for a response to Protect AR Rights' proposal is June 3. Because it is still under review, allowing the ballot question committee to intervene 'would require finding an injury in fact where such harm is hypothetical and not concrete,' Griffin wrote. 'Because Plaintiff SARD was able to satisfy the Act 602 requirement, the court has to resort to speculation to determine that Protect AR Rights' ballot title could never be at an eighth-grade reading level,' he said. 'For the same reasons, Protect AR Rights cannot bring a cause of action against Attorney General Griffin.' Regarding the proposed intervenors' challenge to the 2023 law requiring signatures from 50 counties, LWVAR's response notes that this law is already being challenged by the League in Pulaski County Circuit Court. The case has been fully argued, briefed and is awaiting the court's ruling. Plaintiffs argue there is no need for the claim to be pursued at this time and if it were allowed, it should be held in abeyance under the Pullman Doctrine, which provides that federal courts defer to state courts if the state ruling would resolve the federal issue. 'The issue before the Circuit Court is simply, can the Arkansas General Assembly amend the Arkansas State Constitution by statute? The League believes that it cannot, and a ruling in its favor would resolve the federal issue,' according to court documents. Griffin also cited the Pullman Doctrine and noted that the losing party in the case is expected to appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court. 'Thus, the [federal] Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over this claim, which is only being made by Movants to intervene,' he wrote. 'Standing alone, this claim cannot be a basis for Movants to be entitled to intervention.' LWVAR further argues that Protect AR Rights' proposed ballot measure 'would conflict with and be in direct competition with' Save AR Democracy's approved measure because both seek to amend Article 5, Section 1 of the state Constitution, which governs the state's initiative and referendum process. 'It would be improper for the Protect AR Rights to intervene in litigation filed by SARD to get a measure approved that directly competes with the measure already approved and being circulated by SARD, in that it would create unnecessary conflict,' according to LWVAR's response. Save AR Democracy also argues Protect AR Rights' proposed ballot measure contradicts with a claim made in the complaint — that the 'exhaustive list of disqualifying offenses' that prohibits individuals from collecting signatures is unconstitutional. 'The measure submitted by Protect AR Rights to the Attorney General for approval would enshrine this very prohibition in the Arkansas constitution,' the response says. 'This represents a core political and policy difference between SARD and Protect AR Rights and would inject unnecessary controversy and conflict into the litigation.' Protect AR Rights' proposal also sets forth a procedure regarding a legal challenge to the ballot title that 'differs substantially' from Save AR Democracy's procedure. Save AR Democracy's measure would require an approved ballot title to be submitted to the secretary of state who publishes notice of approval and the procedure for challenging the approval. The measure would establish a 45-day window during which a challenge could be filed with the Arkansas Supreme Court. The Protect AR Rights measure would require a challenge to be filed within 10 business days of the attorney general sending the sponsor a letter approving the ballot title, but it provides for no notice. Providing the public 'adequate notice and opportunity' is essential to due process, the response states. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Axios
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Push to protect ballot initiatives advances in Arkansas
A proposed amendment to the Arkansas Constitution could have a sweeping impact on voters' control over how future laws are shaped. Why it matters: The measure, backed by Arkansas' League of Women Voters and Save AR Democracy, seeks to require a statewide vote before changing Arkansas' direct democracy process. It would also streamline legal reviews and prohibit the state Legislature from amending or repealing constitutional amendments. Driving the news: Attorney General Tim Griffin's office on Wednesday approved the popular name and ballot title for the citizen-led constitutional amendment. His office rejected three previous drafts. The most recent rejection cited a 2025 law, Act 602, which requires the language to be at or below eighth-grade reading level according to the Flesch-Kincaid scale. The big picture: Arkansas voters can change or reject laws enacted by the state Legislature through a citizen-initiated ballot process. Changes can be in the form of a proposed ballot initiative as a state statute (a change to a law) or a constitutional amendment (a more significant change to the state's constitution). They also may repeal legislation with a veto referendum. Yes, but: In recent years, lawmakers have made the process more difficult, passing laws that riddle it with technicalities and all but require a group to be well funded to gather petition signatures. Acts 240 and 241, signed this year, require canvassers to submit an affidavit proclaiming they will follow Arkansas law and to check photo ID before a voter can sign a petition. Act 274 requires canvassers to certify a voter has read the ballot title summarizing the measure, or to read it aloud to the voter before they sign the petition. Flashback: Last year, three citizen-led initiatives collected enough signatures for the November ballot. However, the abortion amendment and the recreational marijuana amendment were eventually disqualified over paperwork. Only a measure to revoke a casino license and require voters to approve future licenses was included. Voters approved it by a wide majority. State of play: Supporters of the proposed amendment can now begin gathering signatures from registered voters. Signature requirements vary for each type of citizen-initiated proposal, based on a percentage of the votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election. Constitutional amendments require 10%, or 90,704 signatures. Due to a 2023 law, signatures must be gathered from 50 counties instead of the previously required 15. What they're saying:"This victory belongs to every Arkansan who believes in the power of the people to shape their own government," Bonnie Miller, president of the League, said in a statement following Griffin's decision. "Despite the challenges, we refused to give up because the right to direct democracy is worth fighting for." What we're watching: It will be telling to see how quickly or slowly Arkansas voters sign the petition.
