Latest news with #MaryHennigan
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
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Arkansas to test surface waters for PFAS, identify contamination sources
Arkansas will begin testing surface waters for PFAS using $1.8 million in grant funding. (Mary Hennigan/Arkansas Advocate) The Arkansas Natural Resources Commission approved a $1.8 million grant to test surface waters for PFAS, the first known statewide effort to catalogue potential contamination from these 'forever chemicals.' PFAS, which stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of thousands of chemicals that don't break down naturally and have been linked to a number of health concerns, such as cancer. Revelations of PFAS' health implications — and how chemical companies knew for decades about the dangers they posed — have led to thousands of lawsuits, with many claiming it caused cancer. States, including Arkansas, have also sued. The Division of Environmental Quality will use the funding to test surface waters for contamination. DEQ submitted a pilot project proposal to the commission last year requesting funds from the emerging contaminants allocation of the state revolving loan fund, said Melony Martinez, Department of Energy and Environment spokesperson. The multi-year project will use a 'phased approach to evaluate potential sources of PFAS' along with how it enters state waters. 'DEQ proposes to evaluate the status of PFAS in Arkansas' waters before considering implementation of monitoring requirements, pretreatment requirements, or other permit conditions for PFAS as recommended by the EPA,' Martinez said. The Environmental Protection Agency under the Biden administration moved aggressively to regulate PFAS in drinking water and surface waters, and classified the chemicals as a hazardous substance under the federal Superfund law. The Trump EPA has begun efforts to roll back some of those policies. The EPA announced last week that drinking water limits on four PFAS chemicals would be scrapped, while limits on PFOA and PFOS — two of the most common chemicals in the group — would be kept, but would not go into effect until 2031, two years later than originally scheduled. However, the EPA also said in April that it plans to take extensive action on PFAS. 'We are tackling PFAS from all of EPA's program offices, advancing research and testing, stopping PFAS from getting into drinking water systems, holding polluters accountable, and providing certainty for passive receivers,' EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a press release. The EPA plans to list PFAS on the Toxic Release Inventory, a list of hazardous chemicals and substances, while making efforts to hold polluters responsible for PFAS contamination, according to the release. Arkansas, Tennessee, Wyoming and Washington D.C. do not have existing or planned PFAS standards or limits for drinking water, according to an April report by the Environmental Council of the States, a national nonprofit, nonpartisan association of state environmental agency leaders. Stacie Wassell, head of DEQ's Office of Water Quality, told commissioners Wednesday that identifying and addressing PFAS contamination at the source was more cost-effective than trying to do so during the drinking water treatment process. 'It would be much cheaper to prevent it from contaminating our waters of the state than to remove it on the backside after it's already been contaminated,' Wassell said. State regulators have suspected that sources of PFAS contamination exist in the state, outside of two known sites — the Little Rock Air Force Base in Jacksonville and a former BASF facility in West Memphis. 'There are likely numerous other AFFF contamination sites in Arkansas that are yet to be investigated,' according to a DEQ memo written in March 2023 that was obtained via an Arkansas Freedom of Information Act request. 'At present E&E has no information regarding dumping sites or industrial users of PFAs,' the memo reads. 'Industrial contamination sites likely exist in Arkansas, but due to lack of funding, equipment and human capital, no concerted, widespread investigation of PFAs contamination has occurred. … To date no field work has been done regarding PFAs.' AFFF is a type of firefighting foam used by the military and other entities due to its efficiency in putting out jet fuel fires, and is a leading cause of PFAS pollution.
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Attorney general again rejects proposed ballot measure to amend Arkansas' direct democracy process
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways Today is the last day for ballot initiative supporters to collect signatures to qualify for the November ballot. Petitions must be submitted to the Arkansas Secretary of State's office by Friday. (Mary Hennigan/Arkansas Advocate) Arkansas' attorney general on Tuesday rejected for a second time a proposed ballot measure to amend the state's initiative and referendum process. Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin noted in an opinion prepared by Senior Assistant Attorney General Kelly Summerside that while proponents had resolved several issues preventing certification of the initial proposal, one issue remained and others were created. Little Rock attorney David Couch submitted the revised proposed constitutional amendment on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Arkansas on March 31. State law requires the attorney general to approve or reject a proposed ballot measure within 10 business days, and Tuesday was the deadline. The League of Women Voters of Arkansas expressed disappointment in Griffin's decision in an emailed statement and reiterated its commitment to submitting a revised proposal. 'Protecting the people's right to propose and vote on laws is foundational to a healthy democracy,' LWV Arkansas President Bonnie Miller said. 'This amendment is necessary to protect and safeguard our constitutional right to direct democracy. We are not giving up.' Among other things, the initial proposal sought to change the attorney general's role in reviewing ballot titles, but the language of the proposed ballot measure ensured there would be times the AG would be unable to act, Griffin wrote. In an attempt to remedy the issue, the LWV Arkansas made a few edits to its proposal, including one that would require that the attorney general must only certify that the popular name is not misleading, rather than certify that both the popular name and ballot title are not misleading. This still did not resolve the problem, Griffin wrote. 'Your current submission runs into the same problem as your previous submission: it again misleadingly suggests that the Attorney General will always approve some version of a submitted ballot title, while creating a system that ensures the Attorney General will at times be unable to certify a ballot title,' the opinion states. Griffin's Tuesday opinion also noted issues with consistency with terms in sections of the state Constitution, as well as grammatical issues. There is no limit to how many times a group may submit a proposed ballot measure. The attorney general's office has already certified three other ballot title proposals that address education, government transparency and taxes on feminine hygiene products for the 2026 election cycle. The Legislature can also refer up to three constitutional amendments as ballot measures for 2026. It had not finalized its decisions as of Tuesday. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Arkansas attorney general rejects first ballot measure under new law
Arkansans sign petitions in support of proposed ballot initiatives in Little Rock on July 2, 2024. (Mary Hennigan/Arkansas Advocate) The League of Women Voters of Arkansas on Wednesday decried the attorney general's rejection of its proposed constitutional amendment under a new law that prohibits ballot titles from being written above an eighth-grade reading level. This is the third time Attorney General Tim Griffin has rejected the nonpartisan organization's proposal to amend the state's initiative and referendum process and the first time he has rejected any proposed ballot measure under Act 602, which became law last month. Sponsored by Rep. Ryan Rose, R-Van Buren, Act 602 prohibits the attorney general from certifying 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. The law cannot be retroactively applied to proposals that were already certified for circulation before the act's effective date. The attorney general's office has already certified three other ballot title proposals that address education, government transparency and taxes on feminine hygiene products for the 2026 election cycle. Because Act 602 had an emergency clause, it went into effect when the governor signed it into law on April 14. Legislation generally takes effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns sine die. The 2025 legislative session officially concluded Monday. The League of Women Voters of Arkansas expressed frustration with Griffin's decision in a statement issued Wednesday. 'Our ballot title has now been rejected three times, and each time we've addressed the Attorney General's concerns,' said Bonnie Miller, president of the League of Women Voters of Arkansas. 'This latest hurdle has nothing to do with accuracy or clarity. It is a technicality designed to keep citizens from having a say.' The organization is preparing a revised version of its proposal and is exploring legal options to challenge Act 602, according to the statement. 'We're not going anywhere,' Miller said. 'We've seen this kind of pushback before, and we know what's at stake. We will keep working to protect the right of Arkansans to bring issues directly to the ballot.' The League of Women Voters of Arkansas submitted its first proposal in March with the goal of strengthening direct democracy, according to a press release at that time. 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. Let us know what you think... If approved, the League of Women Voters of Arkansas' proposed constitutional amendment would prohibit the General Assembly from amending or repealing with a two-thirds majority vote a constitutional amendment approved by voters, which it currently has the authority to do. The group's proposal would also prohibit Article 5, Section 1 — the section of the state constitution that permits citizen-led initiatives and referendums — from being amended by a ballot measure referred to voters by the General Assembly. State lawmakers can refer up to three proposed constitutional amendments to voters each legislative session. This year legislators referred proposals concerning gun rights, economic development and affirming that only U.S. citizens can vote in Arkansas to the 2026 ballot. Additional provisions of the LWVA's proposed constitutional amendment include requiring a separate vote for an emergency clause to occur at least 24 hours after the passage of a measure, and to allow for the substitution or rejection of ballot measure language by the attorney general to be immediately reviewable by the Arkansas Supreme Court. In Monday's opinion, which was prepared by Senior Assistant Attorney General Kelly Summerside, Griffin said the League of Women Voters of Arkansas resolved issues identified with previous submissions, but he must reject their most recent submission because of Act 602. Griffin said the submitted ballot title 'ranks at grade level 12.2,' above the now required eighth-grade reading level, and therefore 'requires significant revisions' to comply with the new law. 'Any ballot title I could substitute would amount to a wholesale rewrite, but it is the sponsor's duty to craft a ballot title that complies with Act 602,' the opinion states. 'As a result, my statutory duty is to reject your popular name and ballot title because it does not comply with the requirements of Act 602 and instruct you to redesign the proposed ballot title in a manner that does not violate the requirements of the Act.' The opinion noted additional problems with the proposal, including grammatical issues and challenges to the measure's popular name. 'After the Secretary of State assigns a popular name, certain parties 'may contest the popular name.' But your proposed measure does not provide any standards for the popular name or basis upon which it can be challenged,' Griffin wrote. 'Thus, the ballot title misleadingly presents the matter as if there is some basis upon which the popular name could be challenged, even though your proposed measure includes no such basis.' In addition to its proposed constitutional amendment, the League of Women Voters of Arkansas is also addressing the state's initiative and referendum process through a lawsuit it filed last month that alleges eight new laws governing direct democracy are unconstitutional. Act 602 is not part of the lawsuit, which challenges another law that would expand the attorney general's existing authority to reject a proposal if it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes. The suit also challenges laws that affect the petition-gathering process by requiring canvassers to file a 'true affidavit' with the secretary of state, to request a photo ID from signers and inform them that petition fraud is a criminal offense, among other things. Following the 2023 legislative session, the League of Women Voters of Arkansas filed a lawsuit challenging a law that requires ballot initiative groups to gather signatures from 50 counties instead of 15. A final decision in the case is still pending. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal lawsuit challenges Arkansas' restrictions on citizen-led ballot initiatives
Canvassers collect petitions for proposed Arkansas ballot measures on July 3, 2024. (Mary Hennigan/Arkansas Advocate) The League of Women Voters of Arkansas filed a federal lawsuit Monday alleging that eight new laws governing direct democracy are unconstitutional. Direct democracy is the process by which Arkansans can propose new laws or constitutional amendments and put them to a statewide vote. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Arkansas is one of 24 states to allow this process, which involves collecting a minimum amount of signatures on petitions for proposed ballot language. The Republican supermajority in the Arkansas Legislature passed a slew of bills during the 2025 legislative session, which ended last week, placing new restrictions on the solicitation, collection and submission of signatures for citizen-led ballot initiatives. Democratic lawmakers and members of the public said the restrictions will have a chilling effect on the people's right to have a say in their own laws and Constitution. The legal complaint lists the eight laws the plaintiffs consider violations of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment right to freedom of speech and the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process under the law: Act 153 clarifies that the certification of ballot titles for initiatives, referendums and constitutional amendments as well as the signatures collected for those measures would only be valid for the next general election. Act 154 expands the attorney general's existing authority to reject a proposal if it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes and prevents the sponsor of a measure from submitting more than one conflicting petition simultaneously. Act 218 requires signature gatherers, known as canvassers, to inform potential signers that petition fraud is a criminal offense. Act 240 requires canvassers to request a photo ID from potential signers. Act 241 requires canvassers to file a 'true affidavit' with the secretary of state, the executive branch office that oversees elections, certifying they complied with the Arkansas Constitution and state laws related to canvassing, perjury, forgery and fraudulent practices in the procurement of petition signatures. Signatures submitted without the affidavit would not be counted. Act 273 disqualifies signatures collected by canvassers if the secretary of state finds 'by a preponderance of evidence' that they violated state law collecting the signatures. Act 274 requires potential signers to read a petition's ballot title or have it read to them; failure to ensure this would result in a misdemeanor charge against the canvasser. Act 453 requires canvassers who are paid to collect signatures to be permanent residents of Arkansas. A sponsor of a ballot measure would be fined $2,500 per paid canvasser hired who does not meet this requirement. The plaintiffs also ask the court to block defendant Secretary of State Cole Jester from enforcing four of the challenged laws — Acts 218, 240, 241 and 274 — due to the Arkansas Constitution's provision that ensures the right to direct democracy. The complaint also asks the court to declare portions of existing ballot initiative law adopted since 2013 unconstitutional under the state and federal constitutions. Supporters of the new laws said during the legislative session that they will protect the integrity of the ballot initiative process and discourage sloppy, misleading or illegal behavior by canvassers. Instead, the laws 'weaponize bureaucracy to suppress citizen participation and violate the fundamental rights guaranteed by both the Arkansas and U.S. Constitutions,' said David Couch, the plaintiffs' lead attorney and a sponsor of multiple past direct democracy efforts, in Monday's news release from the League of Women Voters announcing the lawsuit. The laws also 'will permanently dismantle the ballot initiative process in Arkansas' if they are not struck down in court, Couch said. Six of the eight laws went into effect immediately upon Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders' signature due to their emergency clauses. Acts 153 and 453 will go into effect in August, 90 days after the Legislature adjourns sine die in May. Sen. Kim Hammer, R-Benton, was the Senate sponsor of all eight laws being challenged. He announced in January that he will run next year for secretary of state; Jester cannot run for the position because he was appointed, not elected. Named as plaintiffs in addition to the League of Women Voters of Arkansas are its President Bonnie Miller, its Benton County chapter President Danielle Quesnell, and Save AR Democracy, a ballot question committee seeking to collect signatures for a proposed constitutional amendment for next year's ballot. 'Let's be clear: these laws spell the death of direct democracy in Arkansas,' Miller said in the news release. 'For decades, Arkansans of all political persuasions have utilized the ballot initiative process to pass popular reforms in our state. Now, the legislature wants to kill the process.' The League of Women Voters of Arkansas is a frequent participant in direct democracy efforts and 'cannot qualify a measure for the ballot without the use of paid canvassers,' according to the complaint. 'The statutes sought to be declared unconstitutional have and will substantially restrict the ability of LWVAR and its members to participate in the initiative and referendum process,' the complaint states. Acts 218, 240 and 274 in particular 'impose significant barriers on sponsors' ability to recruit canvassers — who may not want to risk potential criminal penalties resulting from an inadvertent failure to comply with the acts' arduous and technical rules — and canvassers' ability to gather signatures,' according to the plaintiffs. complaint from LWV Couch has twice submitted ballot language on behalf of LWVAR and Save AR Democracy to amend the state Constitution's initiative and referendum processes. Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin rejected the effort for a second time last week, calling the ballot language misleading. Griffin's office will represent Jester and is 'reviewing the lawsuit and stand[ing] ready to defend the state,' spokesperson Jeff LeMaster said. U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks of the Western District of Arkansas has been assigned to the case. State lawmakers have previously sought voter approval for changes to the direct democracy process. In 2020, roughly 56% of Arkansas voters rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that the Legislature referred to the ballot in 2019. It would have required canvassers to gather signatures from at least 45 counties, and it would have moved up several petition deadlines, among other things. Then in 2022, roughly 59% of Arkansans voted down an amendment put forth by the Legislature in 2021 to require a 60% majority to pass most statewide ballot initiatives. The League of Women Voters of Arkansas publicly opposed the 2022 ballot measure. Rep. David Ray, R-Maumelle, introduced that measure and was the House sponsor of this year's Act 153 and Act 154. In 2023, the Legislature passed and Sanders signed a law increasing the number of counties where ballot initiative supporters must gather signatures from 15 to 50. Couch and the League of Women Voters challenged this law in Pulaski County Circuit Court, where the case is still pending. Rep. Kendon Underwood, R-Cave Springs, was the House sponsor of this law and of five of the eight new laws being challenged. Arkansas judge will allow amended complaint in challenge to new ballot petition law The higher threshold for secretary of state approval did not stop reproductive rights advocates from collecting more than 102,000 signatures in 53 counties in an attempt to put a proposed limited right to abortion on the November 2024 ballot. Citizen-led constitutional amendments require 90,704 signatures. The proposed abortion amendment did not end up on the ballot after then-Secretary of State John Thurston's office disqualified more than 14,000 signatures on a technicality and the state Supreme Court upheld this decision. Supporters of the amendment accused Thurston of abusing his power, while supporters of this year's fleet of bills from Hammer publicly alleged fraud and misconduct by canvassers for the abortion amendment. After Thurston was elected state treasurer in November, Sanders appointed Jester to succeed him, and Jester took office Jan. 2. In February, he expressed support for Hammer's bills and claimed a 'top-to-bottom security review' of Arkansas' election procedures found 'thousands of fraudulent signatures' on petitions for ballot measures. Hammer sponsored an additional bill that would have created an enforcement agency within the Secretary of State's office to investigate the validity of submitted ballot initiative documents. The bill died in a Senate committee after being voted down twice. On Wednesday, the final day of the session, the House voted down a bill that would have placed a 500-word limit on ballot titles and given the Legislature the authority to overturn voter-approved constitutional amendments. Hammer supported the bill but was not one of its sponsors. Hammer was among the 20 sponsors, including Ray and Underwood, of a new law not included in the League of Women Voters' lawsuit. Act 602 requires ballot titles to be at an eighth-grade reading level or lower. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
