A.G.: Local “Nondiscrimination” Ordinances Unenforceable

Legislation, , ,

Earlier this year the Arkansas Legislature passed Act 137 preventing city or county governments in Arkansas from creating protected classes of citizens not found in state law.

Despite Act 137, four cities along with Pulaski County have passed ordinances extending special protections on the basis of, among other things, sexual-orientation and gender-identity.

Today Attorney General Leslie Rutledge issued an opinion on the five local ordinances, saying,

“Act 137 renders unenforceable any ordinance that prohibits discrimination on a basis not already contained in state law. Because current state law does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, it is my opinion that Act 137 renders the five ordinances unenforceable in this respect. . . .

“This language indicates that the General Assembly intended Act 137 to ‘hold the field’ with respect to antidiscrimination law. The Act expressly prohibits localities from regulating in that field. More specifically, the Act effectively prohibits cities and counties from prohibiting discrimination in a way that varies from state law. . . . By removing the cities’ and counties’ ability to enact antidiscrimination laws at variance with state laws, Act 137 clearly holds the field and leaves no room for political subdivisions to act.”

With seventy-five counties and hundreds of cities and towns across the state, it makes sense that policies concerning civil rights and discrimination would be addressed at the state level rather than left up to each individual city council or quorum court.

The opinion comes as early voting begins in Fayetteville, where voters have been asked to weigh in on a so-called “nondiscrimination” ordinance. Even if passed, according to this opinion from the Attorney General, the ordinance would be unenforceable as it is currently written.

We have discussed before how these local ordinances carry a number of unintended consequences. Among other things, they threaten to infringe religious liberty, and some of them even inadvertently allow men to use women’s restrooms, locker rooms, showers, and similar facilities–and vice versa.

You can read the full A.G.’s opinion here.

READ MORE

A.G. Rejects Marijuana Proposals, Term Limits and Ethics Amendment

Current Events,

Yesterday Attorney General Leslie Rutledge’s office rejected two ballot proposals related to marijuana and a third proposal repealing Amendment 94 to the Arkansas Constitution.

Both marijuana proposals were offered by Robert Reed of Dennard. One proposal would legalize marijuana for any purpose statewide.

The other would legalize “hemp” and “medical cannabis.” The proposal distinguishes between hemp and “medical cannabis” by defining hemp as cannabis with relatively low levels of THC. The goal appears to be to legalize hemp for industrial use which we have written about before; however, even cannabis with low levels of THC might be used as a recreational drug, and presumably this measure could allow that.

You can read the A.G.’s opinions rejecting the two marijuana measures here and here.

A proposal by Tom Steele of Little Rock repealing Amendment 94 to the Arkansas Constitution was also rejected.

As you may recall, Amendment 94 was passed by voters last November as Issue 3; Issue 3 extends term limits in Arkansas, and coupled with Issue 1, which voters also passed last November, it gives the Arkansas Legislature a great deal of control over the ethics regulations that govern Arkansas’ elected officials.

Presumably, the goal of “repealing Amendment 94 to the Arkansas Constitution” is to restore Arkansas’ ethics laws and more stringent term limits laws that existed prior to 2014.

You can read the A.G.’s opinion rejecting Mr. Steele’s proposal here. You can read Amendment 94 in its entirety here.

READ MORE

Group Pushing to Undo Term Limits Extension in Arkansas

Current Events, ,

You may have seen recent news about a group in Arkansas working to repeal the term limits extension measure voters passed last November.

In a nutshell, the proposal would limit lawmakers to no more than three two-year terms in the Arkansas House of Representatives and two four-year terms in the Arkansas Senate, with no lawmaker permitted to serve more than ten years total.

We wrote about the new term limits amendment last November, after it was passed into law. To summarize, under the new term limits system, lawmakers may serve up to 16 years in the Arkansas General Assembly (House and Senate).

If the lawmaker’s sixteenth year in office happens to fall in the middle of his or her term, the lawmaker is allowed to finish the term; this means many lawmakers may actually serve up to 18 years in office.

Additionally, the new term limits system includes special exemptions for time in office as the result of a special election or an assignment resulting from redistricting. It’s a little complicated, but suffice it to say because of these exemptions, a state legislator could serve as many as 20 – 22 years in office under the right circumstances.

To be fair, most lawmakers will probably only serve 16 years in the legislature; but many will serve 18 years, and a few will get 20 – 22 years in office.

You can read more about Arkansas’ current term limits system here.

You can read more about the proposed changes to the term limits system here and here.

READ MORE