The Arkansas Capitol Arts and Grounds Commission agreed Tuesday to recommend that the Secretary of State approve its proposed location for a “monument to the unborn” on the Capitol complex.

Act 310 of 2023 authorizes the Secretary of State to decide where to place “a suitable monument commemorating unborn children aborted during the era of Roe v. Wade.” The law states that Arkansans had at least 236,243 abortions while Roe v. Wade was in place from 1973 to 2022.

Lakey Goff, the artist behind the idea of a “living wall” of flora and fauna for the monument, proposed placing the monument in the grassy space behind the Capitol and to the north of the Supreme Court building, near a set of picnic tables. Goff and the commission spent last month’s meeting debating two other possible locations before deciding to compromise.

The monument is likely to occasionally draw crowds, such as the annual March for Life led by abortion opponents, so the monument should be placed in a highly accessible space, commissioner Michael Harry said.

“I think this new location can accommodate that, whereas the other two locations could not have,” Harry said. “It would have been a logistical nightmare.”

Several areas of the Capitol grounds are “no-monument zones,” but Goff said she ensured the space is legally available for a new monument before proposing it.

Commission recommends design for ‘monument to the unborn’ at Arkansas Capitol

Goff also said the land is important “spiritually” because it was once the site of a prison that housed both Union and Confederate soldiers during the Civil War.

“We are anointed to redeem this land by preaching the good news of Jesus, finding the broken part and setting the captives free,” Goff said. “…People will be set free from this living wall monument.”

Secretary of State John Thurston will have the final say on the monument’s location.

The commission chose Goff’s design in December from a pool of nine monument designs submitted for consideration. Goff said the idea was partially inspired by a similar installation at New York City’s Liberty Park, which overlooks the National September 11 Memorial and Museum.

The state will not use public money to construct the monument because Act 310 established a trust fund to raise money via gifts, grants and donations. Fundraising for the wall began last month, and Goff said she is aware of someone who has promised to be a monthly contributor.

Construction is not allowed to begin until 10% of the necessary funds have been donated, Harry said.

Goff told the commission she estimates construction will cost “very roughly” between $250,000 and $500,000.

Little Rock contracting firm Nabholz will be the project manager for the monument, and landscape architects from Development Consultants, Inc. of Little Rock will work on the project, Goff said.

Some commissioners expressed concern about whether the trust fund will accumulate enough money to complete the monument, which will include waterfall sounds from an underground sound system. Republican Sen. Kim Hammer of Benton, who co-sponsored Act 310 in the Legislature, said he would give the commission a “personal commitment” that construction would not begin until the trust fund has enough money for completion.

Bill to create anti-abortion monument at Arkansas Capitol heads to governor’s desk

Rep. Mary Bentley, R-Perryville, also sponsored Act 310 and was also present at Tuesday’s meeting.

In 2019, Bentley sponsored the state’s near-total abortion ban that went into effect upon the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in June 2022.

Hammer co-sponsored a 2015 law authorizing the construction of the Capitol’s Ten Commandments monument, which has been the subject of ongoing federal litigation. Several plaintiffs have claimed this monument violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government entities from favoring an establishment of religion.

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — There are 11 weekends remaining until the return of Arkansas football.

The Razorbacks open the 2024 season in Little Rock against UAPB. Kickoff is set for 6:30 p.m. (ESPNU) on Thursday, Aug. 29.

Arkansas is coming off a disappointing 4-8 campaign that saw offensive coordinator Dan Enos get fired midseason and the eventual departures of KJ Jefferson and Raheim ‘Rocket’ Sanders, two faces of the program.

In response, the Hogs hired Bobby Petrino and hit the transfer portal, bringing in plenty of newcomers for what feels like an all-important season for head coach Sam Pittman.

More: Taylen Green shines as Arkansas football closes spring with Red-White Game

More: Tyrone Broden caps off sensational spring in Arkansas football’s Red-White Game

Over the next month, the Southwest Times Record will run positional previews twice a week, asking two questions and providing one bold prediction.

Here’s a look at the quarterbacks entering 2024.

Is there a clear starter at quarterback for Arkansas football?

Pittman had fans and media members expecting a wide-open competition this spring, but in reality, the job always belonged to Taylen Green.

The Boise State transfer threw for 3,794 yards and ran for 1,022 across 26 games with the Broncos. He exclusively took reps with Arkansas’ first-team offense this spring and completed 17 of 22 passes for 243 yards and three touchdowns in the annual Red-White Game. He was able to blend explosiveness with efficiency and leave a lasting impression heading into the fall.

Green was Bobby Petrino’s top target in the transfer portal, and it’s a safe bet the offense will be catered to the redshirt junior’s strengths. Look for Arkansas to be aggressive hunting big plays and trying to make the intermediate passing game as easy as possible for Green.

Who is next in line?

Pittman and Petrino will hope that Green stays healthy, lives up to expectations and limits the backup quarterbacks to mop-up duty in garbage time this season.

Jacolby Criswell transferred back to North Carolina after spring practices, leaving the No. 2 job to redshirt freshman Malachi Singleton. The former four-star prospect impressed coaches during the spring and usurped Criswell before his eventual transfer.

Singleton will compete with true freshman KJ Jackson to become the Hogs’ next starting quarterback whenever Green leaves the program. Jackson is a dynamic athlete who was a priority recruit during Petrino’s first high school cycle.

Fall practices and any game reps could play a factor in future quarterback competitions, but both players are ideally a year away from making a major impact on the field.

One bold prediction: Green rushes for 700 yards and 10 touchdowns

Lamar Jackson ran for 3,172 yards across his final two seasons under Petrino at Louisville. Green isn’t as dynamic a player as the former Heisman Trophy winner, but he does possess elite athleticism for a quarterback, and Petrino’s shown a willingness to turn his running quarterbacks loose.

KJ Jefferson was a terrific runner, but he never crossed the 700-yard threshold at Arkansas. The most rushing touchdowns Jefferson scored in a season were nine in 2022.

Green didn’t get to show off his abilities in the run game this spring. Pittman and Petrino saw enough on film to withhold that part of the playbook and make sure they avoided any preseason injuries to their most important player.

Come fall, the training wheels will come off, and Green will be one of the top rushers on the team.

What the coaches said this spring

“(Green) has a pro type of mentality the way he goes about his business, and he’s a good person. Let’s just start there and once you go on the field, he runs like a gazelle. He can run, run and he’s throwing the ball, he’s got some accuracy on his throws. Glad he’s on our team, but it starts with the person that he is and the work ethic that he has. Very pleased with what I’ve seen out of him.”

— Defensive coordinator Travis Williams on what it’s like to go against Taylen Green in practice.

Advertisement

Projected depth chart

• Taylen Green, redshirt junior
• Malachi Singleton, redshirt freshman
• KJ Jackson, freshman
• Blake Boda, redshirt freshman
• Austin Ledbetter, redshirt freshman

A group of Arkansas citizens has asked a Pulaski County circuit judge to stop what they say is the state’s unconstitutional Educational Freedom Account that provides taxpayer funding for tuition and other private and home school costs.

The four plaintiffs — Gwen Faulkenberry, Special Renee Sanders, Anika Whitfield and Kimberly Crutchfield, who are represented by Richard H. Mays — filed suit late Friday against Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the Arkansas Department of Education, the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, Education Secretary Jacob Oliva, secretary of the Department of Finance and Administration Jim Hudson and eight of the nine-member state Board of Education. One board position is vacant.

The plaintiffs argued to Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge Morgan Welch that the voucher program is unconstitutional and void. The plaintiffs seek an injunction from the court to prohibit state defendants from further implementing the voucher program and a declaration from the court that state officials have acted beyond their constitutional authority.

If the court finds that the funding and payment provisions of the LEARNS Act relative to the voucher program are unconstitutional, the plaintiffs in the 37-page lawsuit ask to “be allowed to add all recipients of the Voucher Program funds as Defendants for purposes of recovery all such funds illegally expended.”

The lawsuit notes that the Arkansas Revenue Stabilization Act allocates $97,487,318 for the voucher program for the coming 2024-25 school year, a 300% increase of the allocation for the past year.

State education leaders anticipate that more than 14,000 students will participate in the Educational Freedom Account program this coming year.

An effort to reach Kimberly Mundell, spokesperson for the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education, by text message about the lawsuit late Monday afternoon was not successful.

The plaintiffs in the case are three educators/parents of school-age children and a guardian of a school-age child.

Faulkenberry, who lives in the Ozark School District, is a university teacher and has been a Sunday columnist for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Sanders, who resides in Drew County, is a public school teacher. Crutchfield is a Little Rock School District teacher. Whitfield, of Pulaski County, is a legal guardian and longtime community activist.

The lawsuit over the vouchers is the latest in a series of lawsuits challenging different aspects of the LEARNS Act. The most recent case is pending in federal court and centers on prohibitions in the law against indoctrination of students. An earlier case challenged the validity of the emergency clause that was attached last year to the LEARNS Act.

The Educational Freedom Account program was enacted last year by lawmakers as one component of the 145-page Arkansas LEARNS Act, or Act 237, that was initiated and championed by the governor to overhaul education in the state. The Educational Freedom Account program greatly expanded a smaller Succeed Scholarship voucher program that had been for students with special education needs.

The taxpayer-funded Educational Freedom Account program that started this just-ended school year based on emergency rules provided at least $6,672 for about 5,000 students who met eligibility requirements to use the taxpayer-funded accounts at some 94 private schools.

The accounts will provide at least $6,856 per student for this coming school year. The dollar amount is 90% of the minimum state and local funding per public school student. As of last month, 106 private schools had been approved for receiving the state funding with 13 more awaiting approval.

To qualify for the taxpayer-funded accounts in the first year, students had to be kindergartners, recipients of the previous Succeed Scholarships, attend an F-graded public school, be the child of an active military service member or experience foster care or homelessness.

In this coming school year, the eligibility requirements have expanded to include students who attended a D- or F-graded public school or be the child of military veterans or emergency responders.

While there are student eligibility requirements in place for the first two years of the vouchers, all Arkansas students will be eligible to access Educational Freedom Accounts for tuition and other private and home school costs beginning with the 2025-26 school year, according to the LEARNS Act.

Mays, the plaintiffs’ attorney, argued in the lawsuit that Article 14 of the Arkansas Constitution directs that no money or property belonging to the public school fund or to the state for the benefit of schools and universities “shall ever be used for any other respective purpose to which it belongs.”

Article 14 further reserves certain property taxes to local school districts and Article 16 states that no money arising from a tax levied for any purpose shall be used for any other purpose.

“The LEARNS Act violates these constitutional principles,” Mays wrote. “The LEARNS Act transfers from taxes belonging to the state for the use and benefit of public schools the amount of money calculated by the State as the cost of that student’s education to the private school, home school or other private provider.”

The lawsuit also states that the Arkansas Supreme Court “has consistently upheld the constitutional requirement that public school funds may not be used for non-public school purposes.”

The LEARNS Act is not the state’s first attempt at funding of private schools, according to the lawsuit. Mays cites unsuccessful efforts by the state to provide public money to private schools in response to the court-ordered racial desegregation of Little Rock schools in 1958.

“The LEARNS Act represents a radical and unconstitutional departure from a public school system that endured since the establishment of the state of Arkansas,” the suit also states.

“If implemented, the LEARNS Act will drain valuable and necessary resources from the public school system and create a separate and unequal dual school system that discriminates between children based on economic, racial and physical characteristics and capabilities,” the suit continues.

Mays, the attorney, noted that no tax or other revenue source was created by lawmakers to support the Educational Freedom Accounts.

He called the voucher program “a shell game.”

“The funding mechanisms and incentives for vouchers reduce the number of students in traditional public schools, and effectively fund the state vouchers in part with funds which formerly were distributed to traditional public schools,” he wrote in the lawsuit.

“This scheme results in the local school tax funds generated by the 25-mill uniform rate of taxation being shuffled to the state, and then used to fund school vouchers,” he said.