Connect with us

Arkansas

Government transparency group sues Arkansas AG over rejection of proposed amendment – Arkansas Advocate

Published

on

Government transparency group sues Arkansas AG over rejection of proposed amendment – Arkansas Advocate


Arkansas government transparency advocates sued Attorney General Tim Griffin on Tuesday, claiming his repeated rejection of a proposed amendment to the state Constitution is a misuse of his powers.

The nonpartisan Arkansas Citizens for Transparency (ACT) has been trying since November to gain Griffin’s approval of language for two proposed ballot measures: an initiated act to alter the state Freedom of Information Act and a constitutional amendment that would create the right to government transparency and restrict the Legislature’s ability to limit it.

Griffin has until Wednesday to approve or reject the third iteration of the proposed amendment and until Thursday to approve or reject the third iteration of the proposed act.

ACT’s complaint to the Arkansas Supreme Court alleges that Griffin’s refusal to certify previous versions of the Arkansas Government Transparency Amendment was based on personal disapproval and an attempt to prevent the group from having enough time to gather signatures in support of the measures. Proposed amendments require 90,704 signatures from registered voters by July 5 to qualify for the November ballot.

Advertisement

“The power to initiate an amendment is specifically reserved to the people of this state,” ACT wrote in the complaint. “The Attorney General is using his statutory duty to review and approve a ballot title to prevent the people from proposing the text of the amendment they want, denying approval of a popular name and a ballot title unless the text of the proposed amendment is written as directed by him, and using the ballot title process to prevent the petitioner from collecting signatures on the petition.”

The first two amendment proposals said the state Legislature “shall not make a law that diminishes public access to government” without the approval of the people of Arkansas. The third proposal did not include this clause or a definition of the phrase “diminishes public access to government” in response to one of Griffin’s continuing concerns.

It is not the Attorney General’s right to effectively decide the fate of this measure by denying approval of a popular name and ballot title.

– Arkansas Citizens for Transparency, CV-24-40

Advertisement

Griffin rejected the first draft of the amendment Dec. 11, saying it lacked clarity in its use of specific terms, including “government transparency,” which he claimed had “partisan coloring” and “seems more designed to persuade than inform” potential voters.

ACT submitted a new draft, which included four potential ballot titles, on Dec. 20 with a definition of government transparency as “the government’s obligation to share information with citizens.”

Earlier this month, Griffin rejected the second draft and wrote in his opinion that a definition was not enough because the existing Arkansas Freedom of Information Act does not use the term “government transparency.”

Advertisement

“The Attorney General again refused to approve and certify any of the proposed popular names and ballot titles submitted by the Petitioner and failed to substitute and certify a more suitable and correct ballot title and popular name,” ACT’s complaint states. “Instead, he issued a condescending and improper opinion chastising the Petitioner for not following his previous opinion in not writing the text of the measure as he wanted it written and not as the Petitioner wanted.”

David Couch, one of the five attorneys on ACT’s seven-member drafting committee, said after the second rejection that a lawsuit was “imminent” and that Griffin’s decisions violated the people’s constitutional rights.

“I am confident in our review and analysis of ballot submissions and look forward to the Arkansas Supreme Court’s review in this case,” Griffin said in a statement through a spokesperson.

ACT lawsuit CV-24-40

Advertisement

Reasons for rejection

The Arkansas AG’s office had long reviewed ballot titles and popular names until the General Assembly, with support of then-Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, shifted ballot title certification responsibility to the State Board of Election Commissioners in 2019. 

Early last year, Act 194 of 2023 shifted this power back to the attorney general’s office. 

The attorney general may reject a ballot title and popular name if they “would be misleading or designed in such manner that a vote “FOR” the issue would be a vote against the matter or viewpoint that the voter believes himself or herself casting a vote for, or, conversely, that a vote “AGAINST” the issue would be a vote for a viewpoint that the voter is against,” according to Act 194.

This was not the case regarding ACT’s first two submissions of the proposed amendment, the complaint states.

Advertisement

“Because he did not find the ballot title was designed in a misleading manner, he is required to either approve and certify the ballot title submitted or to substitute and certify a ballot title,” the complaint states.

Griffin cited the “lack of the full text” of the amendment as reasons to reject both proposals. He clarified in his second rejection that this meant an “attempt to incorporate key provisions of the FOIA into the constitution by referencing the FOIA’s key terms” without specifically referencing the law or defining those terms. He also wrote that the proposed amendment did not clarify the impact it would have on state statutes.

ACT wrote in the complaint that these reasons did not merit a rejection of the ballot title and popular name.

“The Attorney General’s rejection of the ballot title and popular name demonstrates that he has either a complete lack of understanding of his role in the initiative process or he is intentionally thwarting the effort of the petitioner to get this amendment approved for the ballot so that the voters of the state can decide its merits,” the complaint states. “It is not the Attorney General’s right to effectively decide the fate of this measure by denying approval of a popular name and ballot title.”

State law allows petitioners to appeal to the Supreme Court if they believe a measure has been unfairly rejected. ACT’s complaint asks the court to “compel the Attorney General to approve or rewrite the popular name and ballot title for each measure.”

Advertisement

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Advertisement



Source link

Arkansas

Part of Arkansas book ban law is unconstitutional, federal judge rules

Published

on

Part of Arkansas book ban law is unconstitutional, federal judge rules


A federal judge ruled on Monday that sections of an Arkansas law, which sought to impose criminal penalties on librarians and booksellers for distributing “harmful” material to children, were unconstitutional.

The law, known as the Arkansas Act 372, was signed into law last year by Republican governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders. It was challenged by a coalition of organizations in the state, leading to a lengthy legal battle that concluded this week.

Two sections of Act 372 subjected librarians and booksellers to jail time for distributing material that is deemed “harmful to children”. Proponents of the law, including Sanders, said the law was put in place to “protect children” from “obscene” material.

“Act 372 is just common sense: schools and libraries shouldn’t put obscene material in front of our kids,” Sanders said in a statement to KATV-TV. “I will work with Attorney General Griffin to appeal this ruling and uphold Arkansas law.”

Advertisement

The governor signed the bill into law in March 2023, and a coalition of organizations in the state, including the Central Arkansas Library System in Little Rock and the ACLU of Arkansas, challenged it last year, saying the law was vague, overly broad and that the fear of criminal penalties would have a chilling effect on librarians across the state. A federal court temporarily blocked the enforcement of the two sections in question, while the law was being challenged in court.

The two sections that were struck down on Monday had established a criminal misdemeanor for “furnishing a harmful item to a minor”, and would have required local governments to create oversight boards to review challenged material. The organizations opposing the law argued that local officials, at their own discretion, could censor whichever books and material they pleased.

“This is a significant milestone on a long, sometimes rocky road we were obligated to travel after the passage of Act 372,” said Nate Coulter, executive director of the Central Arkansas Library System, in response to Monday’s ruling.

“We took that path to protect our librarians from prosecution for doing their jobs and to prevent some local elected officials from censoring library books they did not feel were ‘appropriate’ for our patrons to read.”

skip past newsletter promotion
Advertisement

In 2004, a federal judge struck down a similar law. The year prior, the state passed a law that required booksellers and librarians to hide materials deemed “harmful to minors”. It was deemed unconstitutional after legal challenges.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Arkansas

Awash in Christmas’ glow | Arkansas Democrat Gazette

Published

on

Awash in Christmas’ glow | Arkansas Democrat Gazette


Editor’s note: This is a revised and updated version of a column first appearing Christmas Eve 2015.

On a Saturday morning that spring, I sat alone, having breakfast at Leo’s in Hillcrest. A text came in from Gwen Moritz, then editor of Arkansas Business and regular estate-scale scavenger.

She said she was at that moment looking quite possibly at the very item I’d written longingly about in a Christmas column.

She was at an estate sale at a house maybe five blocks away. I hurried over and went upstairs.

Advertisement

Indeed, she’d found it, or, more precisely, one very much like it.

There was a brief discussion of estate-sale strategy. You could take a chance that the item wouldn’t sell, in which case you could get it for less on Sunday afternoon.

I took no chance. Full price. Right now. Into my Jeep. Then into the attic, until it was time.

And now it is time.

If all goes according to recent tradition this evening, at or about midnight, I will sit in a comfortable chair next to a deeply warming splash of Jameson whiskey.

Advertisement

I will turn off all lamps, overhead lights, smartphones, laptops and television sets. I will gather the beagles Roscoe and Sophie at my feet. Shalah will be nearby, pleased to behold my rare serenity.

In the darkness, I will gaze upon, and lose myself in, the vintage 6-foot aluminum Christmas tree, circa ’65, in the corner, a wonder of glorious nostalgia and tackiness.

I will watch the slow-circling color wheel transform the shiny tinfoil of the tree to a calm deep blue and then a peaceful yellow and then a shining green and then an understated red, and back around.

I will listen for the brief grinding sound each time the wheel reintroduces blue.

I will escape to childhood, to life at 10 to 12 in that flat-topped, four-room house at the end of a graveled lane in southwest Little Rock. I will recall a tree like this one, and a permanently creaking color wheel a little bigger and better than this modern online discovery.

Advertisement

I will be returned to that hardwood floor of the mid-1960s, flat on my stomach, eyes fixed, deep in my happy certainly that this exotic aluminum tree–framed by a picture window outlined in blinking lights–was surely the most magnificent among all monuments of the season.

I will remember the happiness and safety of those 1960s Christmases–of, in fact, an entire childhood.

I will be thankful for the hardworking low-income parents who provided that happy and safe childhood, and the little fundamentalist church that nurtured it, and the public school that educated it, and the community that encouraged it, and the backyard that was a field of dreams–a baseball park, a football stadium, a basketball arena, a golf course.

It was there I threw and caught the passes, even punted high and ran to make the fair catch.

It was there I provided the roar of the crowd and the play-by-play announcing and color commentary.

Advertisement

I concocted a baseball card for myself, one with impressive statistics and a brief biography that included the nickname: “Fly Ball Brummett.”

My dad told me that you don’t want to hit fly balls, boy, because they get caught for outs. And I explained that fly balls sent airborne by “Fly Ball Brummett” arced like gentle bombs to distant places no outfielder could reach.

He said I was talking about line drives. I said these soar higher than that.

We’d argue that way, and more seriously, for a few more years, and then each of us would realize that the other was smarter than we had thought. Then we got along fairly well.

Cigarettes took him much too young, younger by seven years than I am now. My mom gave me his cufflinks and tie clasp that first Christmas without him. I fled the room teary, much as he’d fled the room that Sunday afternoon years before when I coaxed enough Okinawa memories out of him that he mentioned “Sarge.”

Advertisement

After a half-hour of Jameson sips and color-wheel hypnosis, I will head to bed. And I will think about Mom, gone now three years, after four years in a nursing home for what they call “cognitive decline.” I will wonder if she remembered at the end, if but for a fleeting moment, that aluminum tree and color wheel of our cozy, happy little home.

It’s more likely that she remembered instead in those last years the very thing I’d spent those moments remembering–the safety and happiness of childhood, her own, which is where she spent her final days.

There are far worse places to be.


John Brummett, whose column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, is a member of the Arkansas Writers’ Hall of Fame. Email him at jbrummett@arkansasonline.com. Read his @johnbrummett feed on X, formerly Twitter.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Arkansas

Applications available to catch gar | Arkansas Democrat Gazette

Published

on

Applications available to catch gar | Arkansas Democrat Gazette


Today at 7:00 p.m.

Advertisement

Arkansas Game and Fish



Arkansas Game and Fish Commission biologist Chelsea Gilliland works with a 187-pound alligator gar.
(Courtesy photo/Arkansas Game and Fish)

Advertisement

Anglers interested in hooking an epic-sized trophy fish can apply for a 2025 alligator gar tag through Dec. 31.

Many Arkansas anglers travel all the way to the Gulf of Mexico each year in search of trophy fish like tarpon and sailfish. Most don’t know they are passing up a similar opportunity right here in Arkansas.

While not truly a dinosaur, the alligator gar was alive during the Cretaceous period. Individual gar take decades to reach 6 feet long. They are the second largest species of freshwater fish in North America, only topped by the white sturgeon. They frequently grow longer than 7 feet and weigh more than 200 pounds. The largest fish ever caught in Arkansas was an alligator gar in the Red River that weighed 241 pounds, more than 100 pounds heavier than the state’s next largest Arkansas catch, a 116-pound blue catfish that once held a world record.

Anyone may fish for alligator gar on a catch-and-release basis with an alligator gar permit, but a trophy tag is required to keep an alligator gar longer than 36 inches.

Interested anglers can enter the free online drawing through Dec. 31 for one of 200 alligator gar trophy tags for the 2025 season. Applications are available under the “Fishing License” section of the Game and Fish online license system at https://ar-web.s3licensing.com.

Advertisement

The drawing will occur Jan. 2. Applicants will be notified of the results by email.

Upcoming Events



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending