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. 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
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
32 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Trump Tells Schumer to 'Go to Hell' as Talks Break Down
After hours of deliberation over President Donald Trump's stalled nominees, tensions between Senate Democrats and the White House reached a boiling point on Saturday evening. In a row that spilled over to social media, the President said that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer can 'go to hell.' In a post on Truth Social, Trump instructed Republicans not to make a deal with the Democrats, who he claimed were making 'egregious and unprecedented' demands in order to 'approve a small number of our highly qualified nominees.' 'Tell Schumer, who is under tremendous political pressure from within his own party, the radical left lunatics, to go to hell,' Trump said. 'Do not accept the offer, go home and explain to your constituents what bad people the Democrats are, and what a great job the Republicans are doing, and have done, for our country.' The stalemate is particularly poignant as the Senate has now embarked on its monthlong August recess. Democrats have largely denied fast unanimous consent votes regarding Trump's nominees, instead opting for roll calls. Addressing the Republican Party's complaints over this, Schumer said on Saturday: 'Historically bad nominees deserve historic levels of scrutiny. We have never seen nominees as flawed, as compromised, as unqualified as Trump's.' Schumer also addressed Trump's social media commentary, during which the President instructed Republicans to 'go home' and called for Schumer to 'go to hell.' 'Donald Trump attempted to steamroll the Senate to put in place his historically unqualified nominees, but Senate Democrats wouldn't let him,' Schumer said in a filmed address. 'In a fit of rage, Trump threw in the towel, sent Republicans home, and was unable to do the basic work of negotiating. Is this the 'art of the deal?'' 'Trump tried to bully us, go around us, threaten us, call us names, but he got nothing. He walked away with his tail between his legs.' Read More: In Averting a Shutdown, Schumer Ignites a Rebellion The lack of progress ahead of the August recess comes after Senate Majority Leader John Thune on Thursday accused Democrats of deciding 'to slow-walk every single civilian nomination from the President.' Thune said that in recent history, Presidents have had the majority of their nominees approved by unanimous consent or voice vote, but that 'zero' of Trump's civilian nominees had been confirmed by those means by Democrats this Congress. Thune vowed that Republicans would 'figure out a way to change it' if there's no progress moving forward. Shortly before Trump called time on the negotiations on Saturday, some GOP Senators aired ideas for alternative ways to advance Trump's nominees. Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas said: "The Senate should immediately adjourn and let President Trump use recess appointments to enact the agenda 77M Americans voted for.' Recess appointments refer to when a President can 'make temporary appointments when the Senate is not in session,' according to the Constitution. It enables a President to appoint their chosen nominees without Senate confirmation. Shortly after his election in November, Trump spoke out in favor of recess appointments. 'Any Republican Senator seeking the coveted leadership position in the United States Senate must agree to recess appointments (in the Senate), without which we will not be able to get people confirmed in a timely manner,' he said via a post on Truth Social. Later that same month, Thune said that 'all the options' would remain on the table to help the advancement of Trump's picks. Read More: Why Trump's Talk of Recess Appointments Is Dangerous There have also been reports that GOP Senators could, at some point, seek to change the Senate rules in order to confirm more Trump nominees. Amid discussion surrounding this earlier in the week, Sen. Alex Padilla of California, a Democrat and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, urged caution. 'We can and should have thoughtful, bipartisan conversations in the Rules Committee on updating the confirmation process for the future, but Republicans should keep in mind that if they choose to go nuclear—yet again—it will have consequences long beyond Donald Trump's presidency,' Padilla warned in an online statement.
Los Angeles Times
5 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Will Trump weaken the federal judiciary with specious accusations against judges?
Last week, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, who shows more fealty to President Trump than to the U.S. Constitution she swore to uphold, filed a complaint against the only federal judge who has initiated contempt proceedings against the government for defying his orders. U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, she alleged, had undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary by making 'improper public comments' about Trump to a group of federal judges that included Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. What is Boasberg alleged to have said? No transcript has emerged, but according to Bondi's complaint, at a March session of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Boasberg is alleged to have expressed 'a belief that the Trump Administration would 'disregard rulings of the federal courts' and trigger 'a constitutional crisis.' ' The Judicial Conference is the perfect place to air such concerns. It is the policy-making body for the federal judiciary, and twice a year about two dozen federal judges, including the Supreme Court chief justice, meet to discuss issues relevant to their work. Recently, for example, they created a task force to deal with threats of physical violence, which have heightened considerably in the Trump era. But nothing that happens in their private sessions could reasonably be construed as 'public comments.' 'The Judicial Conference is not a public setting. It's an internal governing body of the judiciary, and there is no expectation that what gets said is going to be broadcast to the world,' explained former U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel, who spent seven years as director of the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, a kind of think tank for the judiciary. I reached out to Fogel because he is part of a coalition of retired federal judges — the Article III Coalition of the nonpartisan civic education group Keep Our Republic — whose goal is to defend the independence of the judiciary and promote understanding of the rule of law. Bondi's complaint accuses Boasberg of attempting to 'transform a routine housekeeping agenda into a forum to persuade the Chief Justice and other federal judges of his preconceived belief that the Trump Administration would violate court orders.' You know how they say that every accusation is a confession in Trump World? A mere four days after Boasberg raised his concerns to fellow federal judges, the Trump administration defied his order against the deportation of Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador. You probably remember that one. A plane carrying the deportees was already in the air, and despite the judge's ruling, Trump officials refused to order its return. 'Oopsie,' tweeted El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele after it landed. 'Too late!' Thus began the administration's ongoing pattern of ignoring or flouting the courts in cases brought against it. It's not as if the signs were not there. 'He who saves his Country does not violate any law,' Trump wrote on social media in February, paraphrasing Napoleon Bonaparte, the dictatorial 19th century emperor of France. In June, Erez Reuveni, a career Department of Justice attorney who was fired when he told a Maryland judge the government had deported someone in error, provided documents to Congress that implicated Emil Bove, Trump's one-time criminal defense attorney, in efforts to violate Boasberg's order to halt the deportation of the Venezuelans. According to Reuveni's whistleblower complaint, Bove, who was acting deputy attorney general at the time, said the administration should consider telling judges who order deportations halted, 'F— you.' Bove denied it. And last week, even though other Justice Department whistleblowers corroborated Reuveni's complaint, Bove was narrowly confirmed by the Senate to a lifetime appointment as a federal appeals court judge. 'The Trump Administration has always complied with all court orders,' wrote Bondi in her complaint against Boasberg. This is laughable. A July 21 Washington Post analysis found that Trump and his appointees have been credibly accused of flouting court rulings in a third of more than 160 lawsuits against the administration in which a judge has issued a substantive ruling. The cases have involved immigration, and cuts to the federal funding and the federal work force. That record suggests, according to the Post, 'widespread noncompliance with America's legal system.' Legal experts told the Post that this pattern is unprecedented and is a threat to our system of checks and balances at a moment when the executive branch is asserting 'vast powers that test the boundaries of the law and Constitution.' It's no secret that Trump harbors autocratic ambitions. He adores Hungarian strongman Viktor Orbán, who has transformed the Hungarian justice system into an instrument of his own will and killed off the country's independent media. 'It's like we're twins,' Trump said in 2019, after hosting Orbán at the White House. Trump has teased that he might try to seek an unconstitutional third term. He de-legitimizes the press. His acolytes in Congress will not restrain him. And now he has trained his sights on the independent judiciary urging punishment of judges who thwart his agenda. On social media, he has implied that Boasberg is 'a radical left lunatic,' and wrote, 'This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges' I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!' Some of Trump's lapdogs in the House immediately introduced articles of impeachment (which are likely to go nowhere). Roberts was moved to rebuke Trump: 'For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,' he said in a statement. 'The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.' Some described his words as 'stern.' I found them to be rather mild, considering the damage Trump's rhetoric inflicts on the well-being of judges. 'It's part of a longer term pattern of trying to … weaken the ability of the judiciary to put checks on executive power, ' Fogel told me. He is not among those who think we are in a constitutional crisis. Yet. 'Our Constitution has safeguards in it,' Fogel said. 'Federal judges have lifetime tenure. We are in a period of Supreme Court jurisprudence that has given the executive a lot of leeway, but I don't think it's unlimited.' I wish I shared his confidence. Bluesky: @rabcarianThreads: @rabcarian
New York Post
a day ago
- New York Post
CT teacher put on leave for refusing to remove crucifix has still not settled lawsuit
A Connecticut teacher put in a 'rubber room' for refusing to remove a cross from her desk says she is still being crucified. Marisol Arroyo-Castro's case is being closely watched by both advocates of religious freedom and those seeking strict separation of church and state. On Wednesday, the grade-school educator and her lawyers participated in a three-hour mediation with the New Britain district's lawyers, superintendent and a judge, but weren't able to come to an agreement. Advertisement Her fate now rests in the hands of a judge, and Castro fears she could be fired or remain in a rubber room when the school year begins on Aug. 19. 'It's a little bit nerve-wracking, especially when school is starting again soon,' Castro, 62, told The Post on Thursday. 6 Marisol Arroyo-Castro has been teaching at DiLoreto Elementary and Middle School since 2003. Courtesy of Marisol Arroyo-Castro Advertisement The 33-year veteran teacher was taken out of her seventh-grade classroom at DiLoreto Elementary and Middle School in mid-December for refusing to remove the 12-inch wooden crucifix on a classroom wall by the side of her desk. Castro, a devout Catholic, had the cross displayed there for a decade. 'I had it for 10 years and never a problem . . . And then one day I got a message [from the vice principal] saying that I needed to take it down,' Castro said. 'He said that it was against the Constitution when I asked why.' Advertisement 6 Castro, a devout Catholic, had the cross displayed in her classroom for a decade. Courtesy of Marisol Arroyo-Castro The vice principal said he got a complaint from two people — never revealing who — and she was asked to move the crucifix to a new location under her desk. She did this for one day. 'I went home and cried for the whole night. And then I came back in the morning and I moved it' back to the classroom wall, she recalled. Advertisement The principal then told her she had until the end of the day to put it back under the desk, but she refused. 'When I came back the next day, somebody else removed it and put it in a box, and they told me not to return to the classroom,' she said. 'A representative from the union escorted me out of the building.' 6 Castro was asked to move the cross to a location below her desk. Courtesy of Marisol Arroyo-Castro In March, after over two months of being on paid administrative leave, she was sent to an administrative office, where she is assigned demeaning clerical tasks under the title 'curriculum information teacher.' 'They assigned me some work related to developing curriculum, which I'm not trained in. They gave me a computer and a cubicle and told me to sit down. They didn't introduce me to anybody or anything. No one talked to me,' she said. Castro has been working at DiLoreto Elementary and Middle School since 2003 — and has seen gay pride flags proudly displayed in the building, as well as personal items around other teachers' desks, including a photo of the Virgin Mary and a mug decorated with a Bible quote. 'They have pictures of their family, and to me, Jesus is my father,' she said. 'Pictures of their dogs. The Patriots sign. The Yankees sign. They even have Christmas trees. 'Somebody had a Baby Yoda. I think there's a Wonder Woman somewhere. All kinds of things,' added attorney Keisha Russell of the nonprofit First Liberty Institute, who is representing Castro. Advertisement 6 In Castro's complaint, she cites the Virgin Mary photo displayed by another teacher at the school. Obtained by the New York Post Russell cited the case Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Washington high school football coach Joe Kennedy praying on the field after games, as precedent for free religious expression in schools. Castro got emotional when she spoke about the support she's received from other teachers at the school as well as her former students. 6 Even if reinstated to her old job, the veteran teacher will have mixed feelings about it. 'Part of me is happy to go back and be with the students. Part of me is sad because those seventh graders didn't have me that year,' Castro said. Courtesy of Marisol Arroyo-Castro Advertisement 'I have had a lot of teachers get in touch with me secretly because they were told not to. And they have just said that they're praying for me. And even students have contacted me in church. They say they're praying for me.' She hopes President Trump weighs in on the situation. 'That would be wonderful because we know that our president is fully committed to religious liberty,' Russell added. Advertisement 6 DiLoreto Elementary and Middle School in New Britain, CT, serves grades K through 8. DiLoreto Elementary & Middle School/ Facebook The New Britain School District says it's just following laws separating church and state. 'Since last fall, the district has attempted to reach an accommodation with Ms. Castro that respects her personal religious faith, the diverse religious beliefs of our many middle-school students, and the commands of the Constitution,' Dr. Tony Gasper, district superintendent, said. 'From the start, this teacher has insisted on displaying a crucifix on a classroom wall, visible to children in class, during instructional time. 'While we regret the spectacle that this situation has caused, we look forward to a ruling from the court. Meanwhile, the district will continue to focus on providing an effective learning environment in which all students and staff feel respected and valued.'
