Connect with us

Midwest

Judge blocks key provisions of Arkansas law allowing criminal charges against librarians, booksellers

Published

on

Judge blocks key provisions of Arkansas law allowing criminal charges against librarians, booksellers

A Republican-backed Arkansas law allowing criminal charges to be pressed against librarians and booksellers for providing “harmful” or “obscene” materials to minors was blocked by a federal judge in a Monday ruling that declared some elements of the policy too vague and unconstitutional.

“The law deputizes librarians and booksellers as the agents of censorship; when motivated by the fear of jail time, it is likely they will shelve only books fit for young children and segregate or discard the rest,” U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks of the Western District of Arkansas wrote in his ruling.

Act 372, signed by Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders last year, would have established new avenues for challenging allegedly age-inappropriate library materials and requesting their removal.

OPINION: BANNED BOOKS WEEK ISN’T REAL. IT’S JUST PROPAGANDA FOR LEFTIST LIBRARIANS

An Arkansas law that would have criminalized making inappropriate materials available to minors faced challenges in court. (In Pictures Ltd./Corbis via Getty Images)

Advertisement

Brooks had previously blocked the law on a temporary basis, according to local reports, mere days before it was slated to take effect, but sided with the 18 plaintiffs who suggested two key provisions of the law were too vague and violated First Amendment protections this week.

A separate report stated Brooks took issue with one of the law’s provisions because it granted anyone the authority to challenge a library’s decision, including interest groups outside of Arkansas.

Section one, which was one of the provisions ruled unconstitutional, would have imposed a misdemeanor penalty of up to one year in jail for librarians, booksellers, etc. who make inappropriate media “available” to minors.

AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION CLAIMS ‘CENSORING’ SEXUALLY EXPLICIT BOOKS TARGETS LGBTQ+ COMMUNITY

Plaintiffs challenged sections one and five of Arkansas’ Act 372. (Fox News Digital)

Advertisement

Section five, the other contested provision, would have mandated “a new procedure for libraries, city councils, and county quorum courts to follow when evaluating a citizen’s request to move or remove a book from a public library’s permanent collection,” according to Brooks’ ruling.

Brooks believed the provision was too vague, particularly through its use of terms like “appropriate” and for not providing clearer requirements for restricting book access.

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin told the Associated Press in a statement that he “respect[s] the court’s ruling” but plans to appeal.

Fox News Digital reached out to the attorney general’s office for further comment, but did not immediately hear back.

Advertisement

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read the full article from Here

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

North Dakota

PHOTOS: Long Beach State vs. North Dakota State, Softball

Published

on

PHOTOS: Long Beach State vs. North Dakota State, Softball


The562’s coverage of Long Beach State athletics for the 2025-26 season is sponsored by Marilyn Bohl.

Long Beach State hosted North Dakota State on March 10 where they suffered a 5-2 loss. Freshman Nina Sepulveda had two hits in the loss. Long Beach State will resume Big West play this weekend when they travel to UC Riverside for a three-game series starting Friday, March 13.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Ohio

Far fewer Ohio women could vote if top election officer gets way | Opinion

Published

on

Far fewer Ohio women could vote if top election officer gets way | Opinion



The SAVE acronym should stand for Suppress American Votes Everywhere.

Advertisement
play

  • A proposed bill in the U.S. Senate, the SAVE Act, would require citizens to present a birth certificate or passport to register to vote.
  • Richard Topper argues this could prevent thousands of Ohioans from voting, particularly those who move, change their names, or lack access to these documents.

Richard Topper has been a trial attorney in Columbus for 45 years and is actively involved in voting rights efforts.

As chief election officer of our state, Frank LaRose should be focused equally, if not more, on how election laws affect Ohio citizens’ rights to vote as he does to the miniscule numbers of undocumented citizens who attempted to vote in our elections.

To support our right to vote, LaRose, a Republican candidate for Ohio auditor of state, should speak out against the SAVE Act pending before the U.S. Senate.

The SAVE acronym should stand for Suppress American Votes Everywhere.

Advertisement

The bill would require all U.S. citizens to present a birth certificate or passport in person when they register to vote. The act could prevent thousands of Ohio citizens from participating in a single election.

The number far outweighs the 167 noncitizens whom, according to LaRose, “have appeared to cast a ballot in (over 15 elections) since 2018.”

How will the Save Act affect you?

Let’s say you’ve lived and worked in Ohio all your life but decide to move.

To vote, you’d have to re-register in person at your county board of elections and show them your birth certificate or passport. If you have neither, you will be unable to vote. 

Advertisement

For Ohioans who’ve changed their name due to marriage or remarriage, it becomes even more difficult to prove your citizenship with a birth certificate.

This will affect Ohio women’s right to vote, since 70% change their name when they marry.

Every person who wants to vote in Ohio for the first time, who moves to Ohio, or who moves within the state will need to have a birth certificate or passport to vote.

In 2023, close to 1.2 million Ohioans moved within or to Ohio. Under the SAVE Act, every one of those Ohioans is considered a non-citizen until they prove otherwise.

Not everyone has or can get access to a birth certificate.

Advertisement

An argument that sinks

A study by the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement showed over 9% of voting-age citizens, or 21.3 million people in the U.S., cannot timely obtain a birth certificate or passport. In fact, only 37% of Ohioans own a U.S. passport.

The argument that too many non-citizens vote holds no water.

In 2024, Secretary LaRose required poll workers to challenge voters whose driver license read “non-citizen.”

Of the 5,851,387 people who cast ballots in 2024, only five alleged non-citizens attempted, but were not able to vote that day. One in a million. Nationwide, the figures are similar.  

Advertisement

Kansas legislators tried their own SAVE Act. The 67 non-citizens who registered to vote paled in comparison to the 31,000 Kansans who were denied their right to vote.

Ohioans need Frank LaRose to take a stand

LaRose should focus his attention on what the SAVE Act requires and how this will affect the average Ohioan.

In the past five years in his chief election officer position, LaRose decried costly and non-participatory August elections, then supported an August 2023 election that would have taken Ohioans’ longstanding right to amend our constitution by a majority.

He also voted in favor of unconstitutional gerrymandered Ohio legislative and Congressional districts which diminished the votes of 45% of Ohioans.

Advertisement

Recently, LaRose bowed to the Trump administration and supported an Ohio law which would nullify up to 7,000 legitimate Ohio mail-in ballots received during the four-day grace period after election day.

LaRose can redeem himself by supporting Ohio voters and taking a bold step to speak out against the voter suppressive SAVE Act.

Richard Topper has been a trial attorney in Columbus for 45 years and is actively involved in voting rights efforts.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

South Dakota

SD Lottery Mega Millions, Millionaire for Life winning numbers for March 10, 2026

Published

on


The South Dakota Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.

Here’s a look at March 10, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Mega Millions numbers from March 10 drawing

16-21-30-35-65, Mega Ball: 07

Check Mega Millions payouts and previous drawings here.

Advertisement

Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from March 10 drawing

03-27-43-45-49, Bonus: 04

Check Millionaire for Life payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

Are you a winner? Here’s how to claim your prize

  • Prizes of $100 or less: Can be claimed at any South Dakota Lottery retailer.
  • Prizes of $101 or more: Must be claimed from the Lottery. By mail, send a claim form and a signed winning ticket to the Lottery at 711 E. Wells Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501.
  • Any jackpot-winning ticket for Dakota Cash or Lotto America, top prize-winning ticket for Lucky for Life, or for the second prizes for Powerball and Mega Millions must be presented in person at a Lottery office. A jackpot-winning Powerball or Mega Millions ticket must be presented in person at the Lottery office in Pierre.

When are the South Dakota Lottery drawings held?

  • Powerball: 9:59 p.m. CT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
  • Mega Millions: 10 p.m. CT on Tuesday and Friday.
  • Lucky for Life: 9:38 p.m. CT daily.
  • Lotto America: 9:15 p.m. CT on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
  • Dakota Cash: 9 p.m. CT on Wednesday and Saturday.
  • Millionaire for Life: 10:15 p.m. CT daily.

This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a South Dakota editor. You can send feedback using this form.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending