ACLU representing two groups hoping to join Arkansas ballot bill lawsuit
The League of Women Voters of Arkansas has filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Cole Jester, and now the ACLU of Arkansas, representing For AR Kids and Protect AR Rights, wants to join the suit.
John Williams is the Legal Director for the ACLU of Arkansas.
'That's just a motion saying we have a similar interest in the lawsuit that the League of Women Voters does, asking the judge to allow us to participate in the lawsuit, rather than filing our own because we have similar claims,' Williams said.
Arkansas League of Women Voters speaks on lawsuit regarding changes voter referendum process
The ACLU argues that the new laws infringe on First Amendment rights. Some of the challenged laws include requiring canvassers to verify the IDs of petition signers, placing restrictions on who can canvass, and mandating that ballot initiatives be written at an eighth-grade reading level or lower.
The attorney general recently denied ballot language submitted by the League due to this law. Williams says one of their clients are concerned as they pursue their own ballot measure.
'It's sort of an artificial way to judge the ballot title and it makes it more difficult to get anything on the ballot,' he said.
Supporters of the laws say they are constitutional and help prevent fraud.
In a statement, Secretary of State Cole Jester said, 'We are proud to defend these common sense laws. I have promised from day one to protect Arkansas's electoral processes, and we will always fight to do so. I am thankful to have Attorney General Tim Griffin's excellent representation.'
Two additional groups ask to join Arkansas League of Women Voters suit against changes to referendum law
Williams said the parties have two weeks to look over the motion. Both of his clients, For AR Kids, and Protect AR Rights, are at different stages of the process.
'We're saying that we think it's an infringement on First Amendment rights of the folks who are trying to bring these petitions and that we're going to stand up for those First Amendment rights,' Williams said.
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
New York Times
7 hours ago
- New York Times
Judge Bars Trump Administration From Punishing 2 Law Professors for I.C.C. Work
A federal judge on Wednesday permanently barred the Trump administration from imposing penalties on two law professors over their involvement with the International Criminal Court, finding that the threat violated their First Amendment rights. In a 22-page opinion, Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that the president had used the threat of legal penalties to force Gabor Rona and Lisa Davis, both law professors in New York, to abandon their association with the international court in The Hague, which prosecutes cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The judge definitively barred the government from taking any action to follow through on the threat. Mr. Rona and Ms. Davis had each advised the I.C.C.'s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, or supported his office's work through its investigations and prosecutions, and have written and spoken extensively about international law. The United States is not among the 125 countries that are party to the Rome Statute, which created the International Criminal Court, but has supported a number of its investigations, including in cases involving Ukraine, Sudan and Myanmar. Under an executive order President Trump signed in February, the professors faced the possibility of criminal and civil penalties because of their association with the court. The I.C.C. has investigated the United States and Israel, and last year issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his former defense minister related to their handling of the war in Gaza. Mr. Trump's order carried the possibility of jail terms of up to 20 years for anyone supporting the International Criminal Court in its work. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
ISS, Glass Lewis sue Texas AG over state's newest anti-ESG law
This story was originally published on ESG Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily ESG Dive newsletter. Dive Brief: Glass Lewis & Co. and Institutional Shareholder Services filed a lawsuit against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton last week over the state's most recent anti-ESG law. The proxy advisory firms alleged in a July 24 complaint that the law is unconstitutional, and are seeking a preliminary injunction to stop it from going into effect, according to court records. The proxy advisors are looking to prevent the implementation of Texas Senate Bill 2337, passed by the state legislature in its most recent session and signed by Paxton June 2. The law would require proxy advisors who advise companies headquartered, incorporated in or re-domesticating to Texas to make that advice solely on financial interests and publish a disclosure if ESG or diversity, equity and inclusion concerns play a role in the advice, according to an analysis by law firm Foley & Lardner LLP. Glass Lewis and ISS are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from taking effect on Sept. 1 and claim the law violates their First Amendment right to free association and the First Amendment's prohibition on viewpoint discrimination, according to the complaint. Dive Insight: ISS and Glass Lewis, the two largest proxy advisors in the U.S., respectively, also said — in addition to alleging the First amendment violations — that SB 2337 violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the commerce clause and is 'unconstitutionally vague.' Under SB 2337, proxy advisors would be deemed to have considered non-financial factors if their advice is 'wholly or partly based on, or otherwise takes into account, one or more nonfinancial factors, including a commitment, initiative, policy, target, or subjective or value-based standard based on' ESG, DEI, sustainability or social credit metrics or membership or commitment to certain groups. Under the law, the advisory firm would have 24 hours to publish a disclosure statement that 'conspicuously states that the service is not being provided solely in the financial interest of the company's shareholders because it is based wholly or partly on one or more nonfinancial factors,' according to the bill text. Advisory firms would also be required to explain their rationale in depth. ISS said the bill is 'unlawful multiple times over' in a press release shared with ESG Dive. The firm said the law is based on a 'fundamental misunderstanding' of proxy advisories' role and incorrectly assumes that a proxy advisory giving 'different recommendations to two different institutional investor clients is a problem to be solved for.' 'Serving clients on their own terms is a core value proposition of ISS,' the firm said in the July 24 release. 'Further, complying with SB 2337's mandated warnings will force ISS to falsely state that ISS' advice to its clients 'subordinates the financial interests of shareholders.'' A Glass Lewis spokesperson similarly panned the law in an emailed statement to ESG Dive Friday and said Texas left the firm with 'no choice but to take swift legal action to seek to enjoin enforcement of the law before it takes effect.' 'Texas SB 2337 is an unprecedented and blatantly unconstitutional law that targets proxy advisors and their institutional investor clients,' the spokesperson said. 'It is unworkable and it exposes both our business and our clients to unwarranted legal and regulatory risk.' The firms list Paxton as a defendant in his official capacity. Paxton's office did not respond to a request for comment. Recommended Reading Federal court dismisses ExxonMobil lawsuit against activist shareholder Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
New York Post
13 hours ago
- New York Post
How bureaucrats torture the little guy — and trample our rights
Americans like licenses. People think they make us safer. We license drivers. We license dogs. But most government licensing is useless. Or harmful. It limits competition, raises costs, leaves consumers with fewer choices and blocks opportunity for people who want to work. Michelle Freenor, a tour guide in Savannah, Ga., gets good reviews from customers. But her business almost didn't get off the ground because local politicians said, 'No one can be a tour guide without first getting a government license.' Bill Durrence, a Savannah alderman at the time, told me why it's important. 'I hear a lot of tour guides saying things that make me cringe. The licensing and testing I thought was a good idea just to make sure people had the accurate information.' While they were at it, the politicians added other requirements. Anyone who wanted to give tours had to get a criminal background check including urine and blood samples, take a physical fitness test, pay fees to the city and pass a difficult history test. 'A college-level history exam with tons of obscure, gotcha questions,' Freenor told me. 'It could be three to five months of studying and studying. It was 120 pages!' Ironically, the test asked no questions about subjects covered by the most popular Savannah tours — ghost tours and 'Forrest Gump' tours (the movie's bench scenes were filmed in the city). Freenor complained to a city official: 'There's no ghost questions on this test!' His response: 'Ghosts aren't real.' Why would a city pass rules that block people merely from speaking? 'The city was making a nice amount of money for people failing this,' said Freenor. When I confronted Alderman Durrence about this, he admitted, 'There were a couple of points that maybe went a little too far in the licensing process. Having to have the physical exam periodically. Maybe the cost of the test.' But he's a big fan of regulation. 'Little by little,' he said, 'we've managed to get control of some things, but we still don't have control over a lot.' Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters What? They control much too much. With the help of the libertarian law firm the Institute for Justice, Freenor sued Savannah and won. Now Savannah has no licensing rule. Washington, DC, killed its rule after IJ sued, too. IJ also won in Philadelphia and Charleston, where a court ruled that the licensing requirement was unconstitutional because, as IJ attorney Robert McNamara put it, 'The First Amendment protects your right to speak for a living, whether you're a journalist, a comedian or a tour guide.' Good point. My point is we don't need most of these complex consumer protection laws. Competition alone protects customers. Freenor says it well: 'The free market is taking care of itself. Bad tour companies don't last.' Exactly: A competitive market helps consumers much more than licensing laws ever will. If such laws were once needed (they weren't), they definitely aren't needed now that the Internet exists, because it's so easy for consumers to learn about what's good and what's not. But politicians always want more control over us. Eight years have passed since the Institute for Justice fought Freenor's case. Despite their victories in court, cities like New Orleans and my home New York City still have tour-guide-licensing rules. New York guides are told to pass a 150-question exam. Many tour guides ignore the rules, knowing bureaucrats are not likely to enforce them. That expands the 'illegal' underground economy, inviting actual harm. Government's rules almost always have nasty unintended consequences. Licensing bureaucrats should regulate much less. We're supposedly free people. It should be up to us how we spend our money. John Stossel is the author of 'Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media.'
