Former Arkansas Congressman Opposes Alcohol at Little Rock Park

Public Drinking, ,
Photo Credit: City of Little Rock.

Former Arkansas Congressman Vic Snyder says he opposes a proposal to allow alcohol sales at Little Rock’s River Mountain Park.

In an opinion-editorial published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on Thursday, Snyder writes, “I am opposed to any kind of beer or alcoholic beverage sales at River Mountain Park.”

Snyder says a privately owned kayak and bike rental facility that operates on the park’s property has applied to sell beer for consumption at nearby tables. Snyder says that while he wants the rental facility to be successful, “alcohol and water sports do not mix.”

Snyder writes,

Many Arkansans and their families like having outdoor recreation without the presence of alcohol sales on our park property. Is it any great hardship for folks who want a beer to drive up to Cantrell Road? What’s wrong with supporting businesses that pay market rates for leases, water, electricity, plumbing, sewer, restrooms and rest-room maintenance?

Whatever you think, please let Little Rock officials know your views. And comments with an original signature can be mailed or dropped off at Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control, 101 E. Capitol, Little Rock 72201. Our recreation along the Arkansas River is too important not to be openly discussed.

We have written many times about how public drinking has been a problem in Arkansas.

In 2019 El Dorado became one of the first cities in Arkansas to authorize public drinking in an entertainment district. However, last year, the city council voted unanimously to shut down the district due to ongoing problems with fighting, vandalism, and other disorderly behavior.

As Snyder points out, authorizing alcohol in Little Rock’s River Mountain Park would have serious consequences for the area.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

READ MORE

Lawsuit Targets Arkansas’ Ballot Fraud Safeguards

Elections,

On Tuesday, a coalition of liberal groups asked a federal judge to block anti-fraud safeguards the Arkansas Legislature has enacted regarding the ballot initiative process.

The lawsuit specifically challenges the following laws:

  • Act 153 of 2025 by Rep. David Ray (R — Maumelle) and Sen. Kim Hammer (R — Benton) making it clear that petition signatures expire at the end of a General Election cycle.
  • Act 154 of 2025 by Rep. David Ray (R — Maumelle) and Sen. Kim Hammer (R — Benton) preventing the Arkansas Attorney General from certifying ballot titles for any measure that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution or federal law.
  • Act 218 of 2025 by Sen. Kim Hammer (R — Benton) and Rep. Kendon Underwood (R — Cave Springs) requiring canvassers to inform people that petition fraud is a crime before obtaining their signatures on a petition. 
  • Act 240 of 2025 by Sen. Kim Hammer (R — Benton) and Rep. Kendon Underwood (R — Cave Springs) requiring canvassers to verify a person’s identity via photo ID before obtaining the person’s signature on a petition to help prevent people from fraudulently signing someone else’s name.
  • Act 241 of 2025 by Sen. Kim Hammer (R — Benton) and Rep. Kendon Underwood (R — Cave Springs) requiring petition canvassers to file an affidavit with the Secretary of State verifying the canvasser complied with the Arkansas Constitution and all laws concerning canvassing, perjury, forgery, and fraud.
  • Act 273 of 2025 by Sen. Kim Hammer (R — Benton) and Rep. Kendon Underwood (R — Cave Springs) clarifying that the signatures a canvasser collects will not count if the Secretary of State finds the canvasser has violated Arkansas’ laws concerning canvassing, perjury, forgery, or fraud.
  • Act 274 of 2025 by Sen. Kim Hammer (R — Benton) and Rep. Kendon Underwood (R — Cave Springs) requiring people to read the ballot title – which is a summary of the measure – before signing a petition.
  • Act 453 of 2025 by Rep. DeAnn Vaught (R — Horatio) and Sen. Kim Hammer (R — Benton) requiring petition canvassers for ballot measures to be Arkansas residents who actually live in the state.

The motion filed Monday also argues the court should block Arkansas’ anti-fraud laws that require paid canvassers to be registered with the state, prohibit sponsors from paying canvassers per signature, and require paid canvassers to pass a background check.

We have written repeatedly about how Arkansas’ ballot initiative process has become the opposite of what it was intended to be. The Arkansas Constitution lets canvassers circulate petitions to place measures on a general election ballot. Its original intent was to give citizens a way to function as a “legislative body.” But instead of giving everyday people a way to enact their own laws, special interests have hired people to circulate petitions to place misleading, deceptive, and poorly written measures on the ballot in Arkansas.

Last spring Arkansans testified before lawmakers about petition canvassers allegedly trying to provoke altercations and encouraging people to sign petitions multiple times.

Arkansas’ legislators passed good measures this year to tighten the ballot initiative process. Now those laws are being challenged.

The groups suing the state are asking the federal court to strike down safeguards that the legislature passed to address petition fraud and help average voters understand the ballot measures.

We believe our federal courts ultimately will uphold these good laws as constitutional.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

READ MORE