SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
arkansas
Judge Strikes Down Unconstitutional Parts of Arkansas Law Targeting Librarians
"The court has safeguarded the right of every Arkansan to access ideas and information without fear of censorship or prosecution," said the ACLU of Arkansas legal director.
Dec 24, 2024
In a blow to right-wing efforts to ban books and criminalize librarians, a federal judge on Monday struck down key provisions of an Arkansas law as unconstitutional—though the fight is far from over, with the Republican state attorney general planning to appeal.
Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed Act 372 in March 2023. A few months later, U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks temporarily blocked implementation of Sections 1 and 5 of the law—and on Monday, he ruled against them in a 37-page order.
Section 1 threatened Arkansas librarians and booksellers with up to a year in jail for providing minors with access to "harmful" materials. Brooks wrote that "if the General Assembly's purpose in passing Section 1 was to protect younger minors from accessing inappropriate sexual content in libraries and bookstores, the law will only achieve that end at the expense of everyone else's First Amendment rights."
"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. For these reasons, Section 1 is unconstitutionally overbroad," added the judge, who also found the provision "unconstitutionally vague."
Section 5 created a process for challenging books in public libraries that critics called burdensome. Brooks found the provision unconstitutional because it is problematically vague and "unnecessarily imposes content-based restrictions on protected speech."
The state's Republican leaders plan to keep pushing for the law. Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin said in a statement to The Associated Press that "I respect the court's ruling and will appeal," and Huckabee Sanders vowed to work with him on that effort.
"This victory over totalitarianism is a testament to the courage of librarians, booksellers, and readers who refused to bow to intimidation."
Meanwhile, the broad coalition that took on Act 372—including booksellers, librarians, patrons, and professional associations—celebrated their latest legal victory, which comes as right-wing policymakers in other states work to force through similar policies.
"This was an attempt to 'thought police,' and this victory over totalitarianism is a testament to the courage of librarians, booksellers, and readers who refused to bow to intimidation," ACLU of Arkansas executive director Holly Dickson said in a statement. "Arkansans deserve a state where intellectual freedom thrives, and this ruling ensures that libraries remain sanctuaries for learning and exchange of ideas and information."
John Williams, the group's legal director, declared that "this ruling reaffirms what we have said all along—Act 372 is a dangerous and unconstitutional attack on free expression."
"Our libraries and bookstores are critical spaces for learning, exploration, and connection," Williams added. "By striking down these provisions, the court has safeguarded the right of every Arkansan to access ideas and information without fear of censorship or prosecution."
Democracy Forward also represented some members of the coalition battling the law, including the Arkansas Library Association.
"Laws like Arkansas' that seek to threaten librarians and booksellers with jail simply for doing their job are dangerous for people, communities, and our democracy," said Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman in a statement. "Our team is honored to represent librarians in Arkansas to stop this attempt to impede the freedom to read and we will meet further attempts in Arkansas and elsewhere with legal challenge."
Leaders of the American Booksellers Association, Association of American Publishers, Authors Guild, Freedom to Read Foundation, Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, WordsWorth Books, Pearl's Books, and WordsWorth Books said in a joint statement that "together with librarians, authors, publishers, booksellers, and readers everywhere, we applaud the court's carefully crafted decision upholding the constitutional right to access books."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Infuriating': Arkansas Supreme Court Disqualifies Abortion Amendment From Ballot
"This effort has generated a wave of fiercely engaged Arkansas women," said one organizer. "We are outraged. We will not back down. And we will remember this in November."
Aug 22, 2024
Abortion rights defenders in Arkansas said Thursday it was "a dark day" after the state's Supreme Court ruled a ballot measure that would enshrine stronger reproductive rights protections for people in the state was ineligible for November election ballots.
The court ruled 4-3 in favor of arguments presented by Republican officials including Secretary of State John Thurston and Attorney General Tim Griffin, who said organizers with Arkansans for Limited Government (AFLG)—which submitted more than 101,000 signatures to secure the amendment for the ballot—had failed to correctly submit paperwork verifying that paid canvassers had been properly trained.
AFLG strategy director Rebecca Bobrow expressed agreement with Justice Karen Baker's dissent, which accused Thurston of making up statutory requirements "out of whole cloth" and of being "determined to keep this particular vote from the people" at all costs.
AFLG proposed an amendment that would have allowed people in Arkansas to obtain abortion care up to 18 weeks after fertilization, with additional exceptions for incest, rape, and fetal anomalies that would make it impossible for a fetus to survive after birth. Arkansas currently has one of the strictest abortion bans in the U.S., with abortion care allowed only in medical emergencies.
When Thurston rejected the group's petition last month, saying it had failed to submit an official statement regarding the training of its paid canvassers, AFLG sued to force the state to count all the signatures, which surpassed the 90,704 that were needed for the ballot initiative to be approved.
About 14,000 of the group's signatures were collected by paid canvassers, so the number of signatures gathered by unpaid volunteers—87,675—fell below the threshold.
As the Arkansas Times reported, the secretary of state's handbook on petitions states that an affidavit certifying that canvassers received training is a requirement for submitting petitions—but the three dissenting justices on Thursday wrote "that the actual statutory language appears to show that the paperwork oversight should not be fatal to the group's effort. And the handbook cannot overrule the law."
"Despite collecting signatures from more than 100,000 Arkansans—and despite the fact that the plain language of the statutes appeared to show that the review process for the petition should have continued—the court ruled that paperwork omission was fatal to the group's effort," wrote David Ramsey and Matt Campbell at the Arkansas Times. "For those following the case, this has always been the fear: Even if the law was on their side, the majority of the court opposes abortion. Ultimately the law is what the Supreme Court says it is. Among the grab-bag of flimsy arguments offered by Attorney General Tim Griffin, they found a couple they could stretch to suit the purpose of disqualifying the abortion petition."
Baker wrote in her dissent that "the majority has succeeded in its efforts to change the law in order to deprive the voters of the opportunity to vote on this issue, which is not the proper role of this court."
Compared to other ballot initiatives, she added, Thurston and the court's right-wing majority treated the abortion right amendment "differently for the sole purpose of preventing the people from voting on this issue."
Ramsey and Campbell wrote that AFLG could theoretically file a lawsuit in federal court challenging the ruling.
"But for procedural and timing reasons, that is extremely unlikely to help," they wrote. "In all likelihood, it's over: Citizens will not have the opportunity to vote to restore abortion rights in November."
Arkansas state Sen. Greg Leding (D-30) called the ruling "maddening and heartbreaking" and urged voters to consider abortion rights when they cast their ballots in November, regardless of whether the amendment is on ballots.
Bobrow told supporters that AFLG's fight "isn't over" despite the "infuriating" decision.
"We can't—and won't—rest until Arkansas women have access to safe, standard healthcare and the autonomy to make decisions about their bodies free from governmental interference," said Bobrow. "This effort has generated a wave of fiercely engaged Arkansas women. We are outraged. We will not back down. And we will remember this in November."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Arkansas Supreme Court Orders State to Count Abortion Rights Signatures
The limited ruling was called "a good start" by one pro-democracy group, as advocates hope to include an abortion rights amendment on November ballots.
Jul 24, 2024
Abortion rights advocates in Arkansas were cautiously optimistic Tuesday evening that the state government would count the signatures of more than 100,000 residents who signed petitions in support of an anti-forced pregnancy constitutional amendment, after the Arkansas Supreme Court issued a limited order calling on the secretary of state to begin the process.
Secretary of State John Thurston, a Republican, moved earlier this month to disqualify the petition that advocates had spent months gathering signatures for, claiming organizers had failed to provide information about paid signature-gatherers who had worked on the campaign run by Arkansans for Limited Government (AFLG).
On Tuesday evening, the court ruled that Thurston must begin "the initial count of signatures collected by volunteer canvassers according to A.C.A. 7-9-126(a)," but said nothing about whether signatures gathered by paid workers needed to be counted.
The order did not indicate whether Thurston is required to begin the second stage of the tallying process, in which his team would verify that the signatures are accurate and belong to Arkansas voters.
That stage would begin a "cure" period during which AFLG would be allowed to continue collecting signatures.
"We are heartened by this outcome, which honors the constitutional rights of Arkansans to participate in direct democracy."
AFLG turned in more than 101,000 signatures in time for the July 5 deadline, including an estimated 87,382 that were collected by volunteers and 14,143 gathered by paid workers, according to the Arkansas Times.
The state requires a petition for a constitutional amendment to have at least 90,704 signatures to qualify for the November election ballots—so if Thurston is required to count only the signatures collected by volunteers and does not have to initiate the cure period, AFLG's petition may fall short.
The state Supreme Court did leave open the possibility of an additional ruling on the matter, saying the panel "reserves the right to issue further orders and proceed in accordance with state law."
Despite the uncertainty, AFLG said in a statement that "the will of the people won" this round of the fight to ensure Arkansas residents can vote for abortion rights in November.
"On behalf of 101,000 Arkansas voters, 800 volunteers, and the AFLG team, we thank the court for upholding democracy in Arkansas," said the group. "We are heartened by this outcome, which honors the constitutional rights of Arkansans to participate in direct democracy, the voices of 101,000 Arkansas voters who signed the petition, and the work of hundreds of volunteers across the state who poured themselves into this effort."
The amendment proposed by AFLG would state that the Arkansas government "shall not prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion services within 18 weeks of fertilization" or in the cases of rape, incest, or "fatal fetal anomaly."
The pro-democracy group For AR People said the court's ruling was "a good start" and noted that at least three of the court's seven judges—Justices Courtney Hudson and Karen Baker and Chief Justice Dan Kemp—seemed "favorable to AFLG's arguments" that the count, the verification process, and the cure period should commence.
Matt Campbell of the Arkansas Times pointed out that AFLG could legally continue gathering signatures as they would during the cure period, before one officially begins.
"Just because a cure period was not explicitly granted doesn't mean AFLG cannot currently be gathering signatures," said Campbell. "The cure period just officially starts the clock, but signatures can be collected before that clock starts and still be valid."
AFLG said that although the matter is not entirely resolved, the court's decision was "reflective of our state motto: 'The People Rule.'"
"We look forward to that principle guiding the rest of the signature verification process," the group said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular