Arkansas coalition submits proposal to protect ‘fundamental right' to direct democracy
An Arkansas ballot question committee announced Monday it had submitted a proposed constitutional amendment to protect voters' right to direct democracy.
The Arkansas Ballot Measure Rights Amendment, sponsored by Protect AR Rights, would amend Article 5 Section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution, the section that governs the state's initiative and referendum process, to designate voters' right to propose laws and constitutional amendments that can be put to a statewide vote as a 'fundamental right.'
This is the second such effort proposed this year in response to state lawmakers approving about a dozen direct democracy-related laws during the 2025 legislative session. Supporters of the new laws have said they will ensure the integrity of the initiative and referendum process, while opponents have argued it will make it more difficult for citizen-led initiatives to qualify for the ballot.
The direct democracy process allows Arkansans to propose new laws or constitutional amendments and put them to a statewide vote. Arkansas is one of 24 states that allows citizen-led initiatives, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Members of the six organizations that comprise the coalition behind Protect AR Rights gathered inside the Capitol to formally announce their ballot measure Monday. During the press conference, Arkansas Public Policy Panel Executive Director Bill Kopsky said their proposal 'strengthens three fundamental citizen rights' in the state Constitution — the right to propose ballot measures, the right to gather signatures on petitions and the right to sign a ballot measure petition.
'Sadly some politicians don't trust voters…and they've stripped the right to the ballot measure process away from us,' Kopsky said. 'They are rigging the rules to make it nearly impossible for everyday Arkansans to propose ballot measures to ask their fellow citizens to sign and support measures and to even sign one themselves. We must stand up to this unprecedented power grab.'
Arkansas grassroots organizations seek to intervene in lawsuit challenging direct democracy laws
The Arkansas Ballot Measure Rights Amendment would make several changes to the state's initiative and referendum process, including prohibiting the General Assembly from amending or repealing constitutional amendments that voters approved; current law allows lawmakers to do so by a two-thirds majority vote. The proposed measure would only grant that authority for initiated acts.
The measure would also make changes to the signature-gathering process by prohibiting a requirement that signatures be collected from more than 15 counties. A 2023 law, which is being challenged in court, increased the threshold to 50 counties.
If a qualified voter's signature is deemed insufficient and therefore will be disqualified and not counted, the proposed measure would require the elector to be notified and given at least 10 business days to correct 'any identified insufficiency.' Notification and a minimum cure period of 10 business days would also be required for the sponsors of a measure if there is a filing error.
The proposed constitutional amendment would also require a ballot title challenge to be filed within 10 business days of the title's approval and be 'tried at once with expedited review if appealed.'
Additionally, the measure defines petition fraud and declares it a criminal offense.
The League of Women Voters of Arkansas is also pursuing its own proposed constitutional amendment aimed at protecting voters' right to direct democracy. Attorney General Tim Griffin has rejected the measure three times.
In his most recent rejection earlier this month, Griffin cited a new law that prohibits ballot titles from being written above an eighth-grade reading level. This was the first time he rejected a proposed ballot measure under Act 602, which became law in April.
Protect AR Rights tried to make its proposal 'as readable as possible,' but Kopsky said he doesn't think it's possible to meet the eighth-grade reading level and the clarity standard. For that reason, Protect AR Rights last week filed a motion to intervene in a League of Women Voters of Arkansas lawsuit challenging new state laws, he said.
'We believe we'll get injunctive relief,' Kopsky said. 'If we don't, we'll have to rethink our strategy.'
The League of Women Voters of Arkansas' lawsuit alleges eight recently approved laws governing direct democracy violate the First and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Protect AR Rights noted in its motion to intervene that the committee wants to challenge additional laws not included in the lawsuit, including Act 602 of 2025.
Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families is a member of the Protect AR Rights coalition. Executive Director Keesa Smith-Brantley said Monday that the group's goal is for the proposals from Protect AR Rights and the League of Women Voters of Arkansas to work together.
'We do not want there to be any confusion. We believe that they have critical components,' she said. 'There were things that we felt like we needed to equally add to make sure that we enshrine the rights of Arkansans in the Constitution, but we are hopeful to be able to work together in this process and talk about ways that we can make sure that both of the measures that we're working on get passed.'
Under state law, the attorney general's office has 10 business days to approve or reject the proposed ballot measures. The League of Women Voters submitted the latest version of its proposal May 7 and is owed a response from Griffin by Wednesday. The deadline for a response on Protect AR Rights' measure is June 3.
The attorney general's office does not have any other pending ballot title proposals, Griffin's communication's director Jeff LeMaster confirmed Monday.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
3 hours ago
- Vox
Brett Kavanaugh says he doesn't owe the public an explanation
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Justice Brett Kavanaugh defended the Supreme Court's recent practice of handing victories to President Donald Trump without explaining those decisions, while speaking at a judicial conference on Thursday. For most of its history, the Supreme Court was very cautious about weighing in on any legal dispute before it arrived on its doorstep through the (often very slow) process of lawyers appealing lower court decisions. There are many reasons for this caution, but one of the biggest ones is that, if the justices race to decide matters, they may get them wrong. And, on many legal questions, no one can overrule the Court if the justices make a mistake. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Beginning in Trump's first term, however, the Republican justices started throwing caution to the wind. When Trump loses a case in a lower court, his lawyers often run to the Court's 'shadow docket,' a once-obscure process that allows litigants to skip in line and receive an immediate order from the justices, but only if the justices agree. Unlike in ordinary Supreme Court cases — argued on the 'merits docket' — the justices do not often explain why they ruled a particular way in shadow docket cases. Before Trump, the Court was hypercautious about granting relief on the shadow docket, because doing so often required them to decide high-stakes matters without much deliberation, full briefing, or an oral argument. Now, the Supreme Court hands down 'emergency' orders benefiting the Trump administration so often that it's just a regular part of the justices' work. (The Court was much more reluctant to grant similar relief to former President Joe Biden, a Democrat.) As law professor Steve Vladeck pointed out in late June, the Court granted, at least in part, 'each of the last 14 [shadow docket] applications filed by the Department of Justice.' Since then, the Court handed Trump two more victories on its shadow docket, including a major decision permitting the Trump administration to fire close to half of the Department of Education's workforce. Though the Democratic justices frequently dissent from these shadow docket decisions, the Court's Republican majority rarely explains why they cast their lot with Trump. At a judicial conference last week, Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, said that these silent decisions are a mistake. 'Courts are supposed to explain things,' Kagan argued. 'They're supposed to explain things to litigants. They're supposed to explain things to the public, generally.' And that brings us back to Kavanaugh's remarks on Thursday, which seemed to be a direct response to Kagan and others who've offered a similar criticism of the Court's unexplained pro-Trump decisions. Kavanaugh's argument for silence is pretty good — but only if you assume that the Court needs to fast-track every request from Trump Kavanaugh's case for deciding Trump cases without an explanation is fairly straightforward. The shadow docket is often the Court's first opportunity to weigh in on a particular lawsuit, but it will not be the last. Typically, when the Court grants shadow docket relief, that relief is only temporary — lasting while the case is being litigated to a final decision. Once a federal appeals court reaches its final decision on the matter, the losing party can seek Supreme Court review of that final decision. And, if the justices decide to take up the case at this later stage, it will receive the full deliberation, briefing, and oral argument that Supreme Court cases have traditionally received. Kavanaugh warned that there is a 'risk,' if the Court releases a majority opinion when the case reaches them on the shadow docket, 'of a lock-in effect, of making a snap judgment and putting it in writing, in a written opinion that's not going to reflect the final view.' If the majority explains itself, the argument goes, then the justices may become entrenched in a position that is incorrect — and that they would not have reached if they had considered the case for the first time after full briefing and argument. Lower courts, meanwhile, are bound by Supreme Court opinions, even when those opinions are handed down on the shadow docket. So if a majority of the justices hand down a half-baked opinion that is riddled with errors and unworkable legal standards, every other court in the country will have to apply those standards to similar future cases. Viewed through a narrow lens, Kavanaugh makes a pretty good argument. If you assume that the Supreme Court cannot simply tell Trump to wait until after the lower courts are done considering his cases before the justices get involved, as it did for nearly all litigants for most of its modern history, then Kavanaugh is right that these hastily decided cases should often be decided without an opinion. The justices should, at the very least, be briefed on all the downside risks of deciding a case in a particular way before they issue a binding opinion that makes those risks a reality. But the justices do not need to drop everything and race to hand down a decision every time that Trump's lawyers ask them to do so. The Court used to have a way of screening shadow docket petitions to ensure that only the ones that required their immediate attention received it. It could go back to doing things the way they were done before Trump's rise to power. Nken v. Holder, briefly explained The Supreme Court explained how the shadow docket is supposed to work in Nken v. Holder (2009), which was handed down roughly a decade before the Court turned its shadow docket into a fast-track complaints department for Donald Trump. Nken explained that, when a litigant asks an appellate court to block a lower court's decision while the case is still ongoing, it is not enough for that litigant to demonstrate that they are likely to prevail on appeal. Someone seeking shadow docket relief (or its equivalent in a lower appeals court) must also show that they 'will be irreparably injured absent a stay.' Often, appeals courts must also ask whether blocking the lower court's decision would 'substantially injure' any third parties, or otherwise harm 'the public interest.' Think of it this way: Imagine that Pepsi sues Coke, wrongly claiming that it is illegal to sell Coke products in the state of Indiana. Now imagine that a trial judge issues an injunction prohibiting Coke from selling anything in that state. This injunction is illegal, and an appeals court should eventually reverse the trial court. But, under Nken, Coke may not be entitled to immediate relief before the appeals court reaches its final decision. The ban on Coke sales in Indiana, while illegal, probably won't cause any irreparable harm to Coke. When it wins on appeal, Coke can calculate how much money it would have earned if it had been allowed to do business in Indiana while the injunction was in place. And a court can potentially order Pepsi to reimburse Coke for this amount of money. Now imagine a different version of Pepsi v. Coke, where Pepsi convinces a trial judge to force Coke to reveal its secret formula for Coca-Cola syrup. Once a secret is out, it is out. So, under Nken, Coke should be entitled to an immediate appeals court decision allowing it to keep its most precious trade secret confidential. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explained in a pair of dissents earlier this year, however, the Republican justices appear to have abandoned Nken, at least when the Trump administration asks for shadow docket relief. In Social Security Administration v. AFSCME (2025), for example, the Republican justices ruled that DOGE, the enigmatic White House office that was once led by billionaire Elon Musk, may have immediate access to sensitive information kept by the Social Security Administration. Notably, however, when a judge asked one of Trump's lawyers what harm the government would experience if DOGE's access to this information were delayed, the lawyer did not answer — saying instead that the Trump administration would 'stand on the record in its current form.' Similarly, in the Trump administration's brief to the justices in AFSCME, Trump's lawyers did not even attempt to argue that it faced irreparable injury without shadow docket relief. That brief devoted only one paragraph to the question of irreparable harm, and it did not identify any injury to the government that could not be unraveled by a future court order. Instead, it merely complained that the lower court order blocking DOGE's access 'impinges on the President's broad authority.' And yet the Republican justices voted with Trump, violating Nken in the process. Restoring Nken would not mean that shadow docket relief was never available, or even that it would not be available to the federal government in particularly pressing cases. To understand why, consider Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's infamous decision attempting to ban the abortion drug mifepristone by rescinding the Food and Drug Administration's approval of this medication. The Supreme Court blocked Kacsmaryk's decision on the shadow docket, and it was right to do so because cases involving pregnancy are a classic example of a time-sensitive matter where people will be irreparably harmed if the courts do not act quickly. If Kacsmaryk's order had remained in effect, many women seeking abortions would have been unable to obtain the medically recommended treatment. Some might have undergone much more invasive procedures, such as a surgical abortion. Others may have been forced to carry their pregnancy to term. These are irreparable harms. Once a woman undergoes a surgery, it is not possible to unoperate on them, and then go back in time to give them the medication that they should have received in the first place. On the other end of the spectrum, consider the Republican justices' decision in Trump v. CASA (2025), which held that lower court orders blocking Trump's attempt to strip citizenship from some Americans may have been too broad. Though CASA was the unusual shadow docket case where the Republican justices actually produced an opinion that discussed Nken, they brushed off the question of how, exactly, the government is irreparably harmed if someone remains a citizen while this case is being litigated. That was wrong. Nken should have required Trump to demonstrate why these Americans couldn't just be stripped of their citizenship at some later date if he somehow prevails in this litigation. In any event, restoring Nken would address Kavanaugh's concern about hastily drafted opinions in nearly every case. If the Court started applying Nken to Trump, most of his shadow docket petitions would simply be dismissed for seeking relief prematurely — so there would be no need for the Court to issue a rushed opinion explaining whether Trump is likely to prevail once the case is fully litigated. If Nken were still applied, the risk that lower courts would then be bound by those rushed opinions would also disappear in most cases, because there would be no opinions. There would still be occasional shadow docket decisions blocking a lower court's order — like the Court's very brief order in the mifepristone case, where the justices blocked Kacsmaryk without fully explaining themselves. But those decisions would be rare. There would no longer be more than a dozen decisions handed down in just a few months, all of which favor a Republican administration, and few of which contain any legal reasoning whatsoever.
Gizmodo
3 hours ago
- Gizmodo
El Salvador's Crypto President Could Stay in Power for Decades After Changes to Constitution
El Salvador's Legislative Assembly approved changes to the country's constitution on Thursday that will extend presidential terms from five years to six and abolish term limits. That means President Nayib Bukele, a far-right crypto enthusiast who's allied with President Donald Trump, could potentially stay in power for the rest of his natural life. First elected in 2019 on a promise to crack down on gangs, Bukele was supposed to be prohibited from running for re-election in 2024. But the country's Supreme Court of Justice ruled in 2021 that one of the articles in El Salvador's constitution allows a president to run for re-election once. Bukele's New Ideas Party removed magistrates in the Supreme Court who had opposed the president, clearing the path for Bukele to rule the country with an iron fist and make any constitutional changes necessary to remain in power indefinitely. Bukele was re-elected in 2024 under those extremely dubious circumstances, and his term was scheduled to end on June 1, 2029. But lawmaker Ana Figueroa from the New Ideas Party has suggested moving up Bukele's re-election to June 1, 2027, to put it more in line with congressional elections, according to the Associated Press. With the new changes and Bukele's popularity, it would presumably allow the president to consolidate even more power now that he could be re-elected again and again, both without term limits and for a longer term each time. The vote to strip term limits for the president and extend the length of each term passed by 57 to 3. And one of the three dissenters, Marcela Villatoro of the Nationalist Republican Alliance, warned that democracy would be weakened with the changes, according to the AP. 'You don't realize what indefinite reelection brings: It brings an accumulation of power and weakens democracy … there's corruption and clientelism because nepotism grows and halts democracy and political participation,' Villatoro is quoted as saying in an English language translation. Bukele, a fan of Elon Musk and frequent user of X, hasn't tweeted about the changes yet. But guys like Musk and Trump are no doubt excited that their buddy in Central America is going to get even more power. Trump met with Bukele in the White House back in April when the U.S. president was shipping migrants to the U.S. to El Salvador's torture prison. The men sent there, some of whom have been released into Venezuela, have told horror stories about being beaten, given dirty water, and sexually assaulted. Bukele rode into office and remains popular because he promised to crack down on gangs. But recent reporting from the country's El Faro news outlet claims Bukele's government signed a secret pact in 2019 with gang leaders to dial back violence in the country. Part of the deal, according to the news outlet, was providing financial incentives. Bukele has taken credit for reducing violence by insisting it's all part of his brutally violent crackdown. Bukele has invested his country's money heavily in crypto, holding nearly $550 million of its foreign exchange reserves in bitcoin, according to Reuters, which amounts to about 15%. And while that may seem like a fine thing to do when bitcoin is soaring, it's extremely risky for any government when the price of crypto is so volatile. Bukele's government made reassurances to the International Monetary Fund that it would scale back its crypto project in exchange for a $1.4 billion bailout from the IMF. But as the Council on Foreign Relations pointed out in May, the country is still buying bitcoin. As CoinTelegraph reported in June, El Salvador has added at least 240 BTC since Dec. 19, 2024, right after the agreement with the IMF was announced. That's more than $27 million at the current bitcoin price, which is hovering around $114,500, near the record high of about $123,000. It's not clear what the IMF may do since El Salvador violated its agreement, but whatever happens, the government needs to hope the price doesn't plummet.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Former President Joe Biden tells lawyers convention in Chicago: ‘We need new heroes'
CHICAGO — Former President Joe Biden called on attorneys to lead the fight to uphold the Constitution during the Trump administration in a speech at a downtown Chicago hotel on Thursday in which he also reflected on his more than five-decade career in politics and beginnings as a young lawyer. 'It's not enough to honor the heroes who came before us. We need new heroes now,' Biden said at the convention of the National Bar Association, a group of predominantly Black American lawyers and judges. It was Biden's second public appearance in Chicago since leaving office, as he takes on a smattering of speaking engagements, confronts a cancer diagnosis and works on his memoir. During his more than 20 minute speech, Biden spoke about his career and the country with a long lens, noting at one point next year's 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and calling the founding document 'just words on pages, if we the people don't uphold it.' The administration of President Donald Trump is 'doing its best to dismantle the Constitution,' Biden said later, without mentioning the president by name. 'I'm being deadly earnest, man.' The lawyers' association honored Biden for his work in office, including his appointments of Black U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and a diverse slate of federal judges. Biden disclosed in May he was diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer that had spread to his bones. He has not provided updates this summer about the disease but in May said he felt optimistic about his treatment. Prior to the announcement of his diagnosis, the former president this spring spoke before an audience of national advocates in Chicago, his first major appearance since leaving office in January. At that event, he also criticized the Trump administration, saying it was creating fear among the elderly over potential cuts to disability benefits. The oldest president in U.S. history at the end of his term, Biden has so far led a mostly quiet life after leaving office. He shared at a conference in San Diego about a month ago that he's working on a memoir, and a source familiar with his activities said Thursday he's spending time writing and meeting with friends and former staff. In Chicago, he reminisced before the audience of attorneys on his decision to leave a 'prestigious' law firm in his 20s to become a public defender, and eventually seek public office to become one of the country's youngest-ever U.S. senators. 'Can't sugarcoat this: these are dark days. But you all are here for the same reason that I left that prestigious law firm,' Biden said. 'It's because our future is literally on the line.' The former president, who is 82, moved carefully and had few verbal stumbles during his more than 20 minute speech. He joked about his age, saying at one point that 'it's hell turning 40 twice.' Biden for more than a year has faced questions about his physical and mental decline while in office, both from opponents in the Trump administration and from some members of his own party who have looked back unfavorably at his decision to run for re-election last year — a legacy that's expected to dog national Democrats into the 2028 race. Biden stayed in the running until last July, leaving Democrats without a competitive primary field and Vice President Kamala Harris with only a few months to campaign against President Donald Trump. Harris recently shared that the title of her memoir is taken from the length of her abbreviated campaign, which ended in a loss to Trump: '107 Days.' Gov. JB Pritzker, widely seen as an potential Democratic presidential contender, publicly stood behind Biden until the former president dropped out of the race, though he later added he had some concern about Biden's electoral chances following his debate performance last year. Pritzker's office said he had a separate event Thursday night. Mayor Brandon Johnson delivered brief remarks preceding the former president. The National Bar Association also honored civil rights leader the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. at its convention. Jackson, who was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease a decade ago, didn't speak at a small press conference but at one point put his arm around his son, U.S. Rep. Jonathan Jackson, when the younger Jackson knelt down beside his wheelchair. ____
