Arkansas League of Women Voters speaks on lawsuit regarding changes voter referendum process
Kristin Foster with the League of Women Voters of Arkansas says the laws make the ballot initiative process more difficult.
'The people's power and voice in our ballot initiative process is so important to Arkansas that we cannot just let this lie,' Foster said.
Arkansas League of Women Voters files federal suit, calls changes to voter referendum process 'Unconstitutional'
The suit alleges the laws violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and a part of the state constitution.
'The restrictions they have placed go far beyond reasonable election security to the point of just preventing people from being involved in the process, from getting issues to the ballot at all,' Foster said.
The laws were highly debated during this session. Some people testifying against the bills believe they would wipe out the ballot initiative process.
When asked about that argument, Jester said in a statement, 'The laws in no way eliminate the process: instead, they keep fraud out and protect the voice of Arkansans. Under Arkansas's constitution, a signature on an initiative petition is your vote, and this office will always find voter fraud unacceptable.'
They require signature canvassers to check ID, read the ballot title out loud, warn signatories about fraud, live in Arkansas, file an affidavit and not collect additional signatures after they have filed the collected signatures.
'We want it to be safe and secure just like the legislature does, but it's just making sure this process is done without unnecessary barriers to the ballot,' Jester said.
Arkansas League of Women Voters resubmits ballot initiative reform proposal
The Arkansas League of Women Voters has also submitted a referendum for voters to roll back the referendum process changes on the 2026 ballot. The organization is working on a third submission to the Arkansas Attorney General.
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Kamala Harris says she's not running for California governor
Former Vice President Kamala Harris announced Wednesday that she will not run for governor of California in 2026, putting an end to speculation that she would seek her state's top executive role after her loss to President Trump in November. 'In recent months, I have given serious thought to asking the people of California for the privilege to serve as their Governor. I love this state, its people, and its promise. It is my home. But after deep reflection, I've decided that I will not run for Governor in this election,' Harris said in a statement. The former vice president said she spent time reflecting over the past six months since losing the election, after taking over the Democratic ticket when former President Biden dropped out of the race. 'I have extraordinary admiration and respect for those who dedicate their lives to public service—service to their communities and to our nation. At the same time, we must recognize that our politics, our government, and our institutions have too often failed the American people, culminating in this moment of crisis,' Harris said. 'As we look ahead, we must be willing to pursue change through new methods and fresh thinking—committed to our same values and principles, but not bound by the same playbook.' Harris was considering all her options before making her decision official and has made it clear she is not done with public service. She said Wednesday she will get more active in helping Democrats this cycle. 'For now, my leadership—and public service—will not be in elected office. I look forward to getting back out and listening to the American people, helping elect Democrats across the nation who will fight fearlessly, and sharing more details in the months ahead about my own plans,' Harris said in the statement. Her decision is sure to fuel further speculation that she's planning to mount another bid for the White House in 2028. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Biden's secretary of Health and Human Services, are among the Democrats running so far to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who is term limited. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Harris releasing book on presidential run: ‘107 Days'
Former Vice President Kamala Harris is set to release a memoir in September detailing her truncated, unsuccessful 2024 presidential campaign, she announced Thursday. Harris and Simon & Schuster announced the book, titled '107 Days,' will offer insights into the former vice president's losing campaign against President Trump. 'Just over a year ago, I launched my campaign for President of the United States,' Harris said in a video announcement of the book Thursday. 'One hundred and seven days traveling the country, fighting for our future — the shortest presidential campaign in modern history. 'Since leaving office, I've spent a lot of time reflecting on those days and with candor and reflection, I've written a behind-the-scenes account of that journey,' she added. 'I believe there's value in sharing what I saw, what I learned, and what it will take to move forward.' Harris launched her presidential campaign in late July 2024, days after then-President Biden announced he would no longer seek a second term amid intense Democratic scrutiny of his mental acuity and ability to win the election. The then-vice president rejuvenated the Democratic base and donors, but she ultimately lost to Trump by a decisive margin. The book announcement comes one day after Harris announced she would not run for California governor in 2026, leaving open the question of when or if she will seek elected office in the future. She said Wednesday she will get more active in helping Democrats this election cycle. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
USA Today
7 hours ago
- USA Today
Judges question whether Trump tariffs are authorized by emergency powers
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering the legality of "reciprocal" tariffs Trump imposed on U.S. trading partners. U.S. appeals court judges sharply questioned on July 31 whether President Donald Trump's tariffs were justified by the president's emergency powers, after a lower court said he exceeded his authority with sweeping levies on imported goods. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., is considering the legality of "reciprocal" tariffs that Trump imposed on a broad range of U.S. trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. In hearing arguments in two cases brought by five small U.S. businesses and 12 Democratic-led U.S. states, judges pressed government lawyer Brett Shumate to explain how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, gave Trump the power to impose tariffs. More: Trump's final stumbling blocks for countries hoping to avoid tariff hikes: Live updates Trump is the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs. "IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs, doesn't even mention them," one of the judges said. Shumate said that the law allows for "extraordinary" authority in an emergency, including the ability to stop imports completely. He said IEEPA authorizes tariffs because it allows a president to "regulate" imports in a crisis. The arguments - one day before Trump plans to increase tariff rates on imported goods from nearly all U.S. trading partners - mark the first test before a U.S. appeals court of the scope of his tariff authority. The president has made tariffs a central instrument of his foreign policy, wielding them aggressively in his second term as leverage in trade negotiations and to push back against what he has called unfair practices. Trump has said the April tariffs were a response to persistent U.S. trade imbalances and declining U.S. manufacturing power. More: Trade whiplash: Appeals Court allows Trump to keep tariffs while appeal plays out He said the tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to stop illegal fentanyl from crossing U.S. borders. The countries have denied that claim. "Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again," Trump wrote in a social media post on Thursday. "To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today." The states and businesses challenging the tariffs argued that they are not permissible under IEEPA and that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, and not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. The case is being heard by a panel of all of the court's active judges, eight appointed by Democratic presidents and three appointed by former Republican presidents. The timing of the court's decision is uncertain, and the losing side will likely appeal quickly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trade negotiations Tariffs are starting to build into a significant revenue source for the federal government, with customs duties in June quadrupling to about $27 billion, a record, and through June have topped $100 billion for the current fiscal year. That income could be crucial to offset lost revenue from Trump's tax bill passed into law earlier this month. But economists say the duties threaten to raise prices for U.S. consumers and reduce corporate profits. Trump's on-again, off-again tariff threats have roiled financial markets and disrupted U.S. companies' ability to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. Dan Rayfield, the attorney general of Oregon, one of the states challenging the levies, said that the tariffs were a "regressive tax" that is making household items more expensive. On May 28, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade sided with the Democratic states and small businesses that challenged Trump. It said that the IEEPA did not authorize tariffs related to longstanding trade deficits. The Federal Circuit has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while it considers the administration's appeal. The case will have no impact on tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as duties on steel and aluminum imports. The president recently announced trade deals that set tariff rates on goods from the European Union and Japan, following smaller trade agreements with Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam. Trump's Department of Justice has argued that limiting the president's tariff authority could undermine ongoing trade negotiations, while other Trump officials have said that negotiations have continued with little change after the initial setback in court. Trump has set an August 1 date for higher tariffs on countries that don't negotiate new trade deals. There are at least seven other lawsuits challenging Trump's invocation of IEEPA, including cases brought by other small businesses and California. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled against Trump in one of those cases, and no judge has yet backed Trump's claim of unlimited emergency tariff authority.
