Two additional groups ask to join Arkansas League of Women Voters suit against changes to referendum law
The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas filed the motion to intervene. It asked the court to allow Protect AR Rights and For AR Kids to challenge the changes to the referendum law made during the 95th General Assembly of the Arkansas legislature.
Arkansas League of Women Voters files federal suit, calls changes to voter referendum process 'Unconstitutional'
Arkansas law allows voter referendums to appear on the ballot if certain steps are taken. In the recent past, the referendum process has allowed voters to raise the state minimum wage and permit access to medical marijuana.
In the most recent legislative session, multiple bills were passed to make those steps more difficult to accomplish. Some of the recently passed provisions being challenged in the suit are:
A requirement that citizen initiatives pass a machine-generated reading test before petitioning may begin.
Rules that force circulators to recite specific warnings, verify IDs, and stop collecting signatures after an affidavit is filed.
Restrictions on who may serve as a canvasser, including prohibitions on non-residents and additional burdens for paid petition circulators, and when canvassers may collect signatures
Mandatory disclosures and procedures with the potential for harassment, including public release of canvasser addresses
A law that gives the Secretary of State authority to exclude all signatures collected by a canvasser when the Secretary of State unilaterally determines that the canvasser violated laws or committed even technical violations.
Both Protect AR Rights and For AR Kids are pursuing different referendums and are at different stages in the process.
Protect AR Rights is a coalition meant to safeguard the ballot initiative process. Its members include Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, Arkansas Appleseed, Arkansas Citizens First Congress, Arkansas Public Policy Panel, For AR People and the Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP.
Attorney General Tim Griffin rejects Arkansas League of Women Voters ballot title to overturn petition rules
For AR Kids is a coalition working to amend the education clause of the Arkansas Constitution. Its member organizations include the Arkansas Education Association, Arkansas Public Policy Panel, Arkansas Retired Teachers Association, Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP, Citizens First Congress and Stand Up Arkansas.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
6 days ago
- The Hill
Court rules Arkansas can enforce classroom ban on critical race theory
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday to allow Arkansas to enforce a classroom ban on critical race theory. The three-judge panel rejected arguments from students that the state was violating their First Amendment rights by restricting the teaching. 'Since the Free Speech Clause does not give the students the right to compel the government to say something it does not wish to, they cannot show a likelihood of success,' the judges wrote, vacating a previous preliminary injunction blocking the state from implementing the law. Critical race theory is an academic concept that contends racism is embedded in American institutions. Republicans have gone on a crusade to root it out of classrooms, but it is not always well-defined what qualifies as teaching it. The state of Arkansas celebrated the victory after over a year battling with students and teachers regarding the law. 'With its ruling today, the 8th Circuit continues to ensure that the responsibility of setting curriculum is in the hands of democratically elected officials who, by nature, are responsive to voters,' state Attorney General Tim Griffin (R). The attorneys for the students said the decision gives them 'pause and concern,' The Associated Press reported. 'It gives us pause and concern about a steady erosion of individual rights and protections in this great country,' attorney Mike Laux said in a statement. 'Nonetheless, major aspects of this lawsuit remain viable, and they will proceed in due course.'
Axios
01-07-2025
- Axios
AG Griffin rejects direct democracy ballot measure again
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin on Tuesday again rejected language for a proposed state constitutional amendment related to direct democracy through the referendum process. Why it matters: The state legislature has passed laws making the process of citizen-led ballot initiatives more burdensome in recent years, adding technical hurdles and effectively requiring groups to be well funded to gather petition signatures. Critics say many of these laws are counter to the state's motto: regnat populus, or "the people rule." 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. Driving the news: Griffin first rejected the proposed amendment in June, citing a 2025 law that requires the language to be at or below eighth-grade reading level according to the Flesch-Kincaid scale. Tuesday's rejection says the language ranks at ninth-grade level and that some proposed changes to the constitution are ambiguous. State of play:" The Arkansas Ballot Measure Rights Amendment" rejected by Griffin was filed by Protect AR Rights (PAR) and is the second proposal in Arkansas this year to address the referendum process. The first, named " An Amendment Concerning Constitutional Amendments, Initiated Acts, and Referendums" is backed by Arkansas' League of Women Voters (LWV) and Save AR Democracy. Griffin approved its language in May and organizers are gathering signatures. Both measures are nuanced, with differences and similarities but a few key points of note: While LWV's measure says any law dealing with the referendum process passed by the general assembly must be for a legitimate purpose, PAR's measure would give "the people the fundamental right" to make and repeal laws by the process. LWV's measure doesn't seek to reverse part of 2023's Act 236 that requires petition signatures to be collected in 50 counties rather than the previously required 15, but a lawsuit against the state in April seeks to address the issue. PAR's proposed amendment includes this provision. The measure by LWV automatically refers all new laws related to the referendum process made by the General Assembly to the voters for approval. PAR's doesn't. Yes, but: They're similar in that they both would eliminate some burdens for citizens in the process. Previously, canvassers signed an affidavit. The measures would change the affidavit to a declaration under penalty of perjury.
28-06-2025
Tech industry group sues Arkansas over new social media laws
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- A tech industry trade group sued Arkansas Friday over two new laws that would place limits on content on social media platforms and would allow parents of children who killed themselves to sue over content on the platforms. The lawsuit by NetChoice filed in federal court in Fayetteville, Arkansas, comes months after a federal judge struck down a state law requiring parental consent before minors can create new social media accounts. The new laws were signed by Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders earlier this year. 'Despite the overwhelming consensus that laws like the Social Media Safety Act are unconstitutional, Arkansas elected to respond to this Court's decision not by repealing the provisions that it held unconstitutional but by instead doubling down on its overreach,' NetChoice said in its lawsuit. Arkansas is among several states that have been enacting restrictions on social media, prompted by concerns about the impact on children's mental health. NetChoice — whose members include TikTok, Facebook parent Meta, and the social platform X — challenged Arkansas' 2023 age-verification law for social media. A federal judge who initially blocked the law struck it down in March. Similar laws have been blocked by judges in Florida and Georgia. A spokesperson for Attorney General Tim Griffin said his office was reviewing the latest complaint and looked forward to defending the law. One of the new laws being challenged prohibits social media platforms from using a design, algorithm or feature it 'knows or should have known through the exercise of reasonable care' would cause a user to kill themself, purchase a controlled substance, develop an eating disorder, develop an addiction to the platform. The lawsuit said that provision is unconstitutionally vague and doesn't offer guidance on how to determine which content would violate those restrictions, and the suit notes it would restrict content for both adults and minors. The suit questions whether songs that mention drugs, such as Afroman's 'Because I Got High,' would be prohibited under the new law. The law being challenged also would allow parents whose children have died by suicide or attempted to take their lives to sue social media companies if they were exposed to content promoting or advancing self-harm and suicide. The companies could face civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation. NetChoice is also challenging another law that attempts to expand Arkansas' blocked restrictions on social media companies. That measure would require social media platforms to ensure minors don't receive notifications between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. The measure also would require social media companies to ensure their platform 'does not engage in practices to evoke any addiction or compulsive behavior.' The suit argues that the law doesn't explain how to comply with that restriction and is so broadly written that it's unclear what kind of posts or material would violate it. 'What is 'addictive' to some minors may not be addictive to others. Does allowing teens to share photos with each other evoke addiction?' the lawsuit said.
