Ballot Battles: Lawsuit Targets Arkansas Election Safeguards

Elections,

On Thursday, two liberal groups filed a motion in court asking U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks to block anti-fraud safeguards the Arkansas Legislature has enacted regarding the ballot initiative process.

The groups For AR Kids and Protect AR Rights filed the motion challenging the following laws:

  • 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 to help prevent people from fraudulently signing someone else’s name.
  • Act 602 of 2025 by Rep. Ryan Rose (R — Van Buren) and Sen. Mark Johnson (R — Little Rock) requiring ballot initiative titles to be written at or below an eighth-grade reading level. A ballot title is supposed to accurately summarize a measure so voters can decide if they support or oppose it.

The groups are also opposing an anti-fraud law that requires paid canvassers to be registered with the state and a law requiring petition signatures to be collected from two-thirds of Arkansas’ counties in order for a measure to be placed on the ballot.

The lawsuit claims these laws make it too difficult to place constitutional amendments and initiated acts on the ballot.

We have said time and again that the Arkansas Constitution is for sale — and it’s cheap.

 The ballot initiative process that lets canvassers circulate petitions to place measures on a general election ballot has become the opposite of what it was intended to be. 

Instead of giving citizens a way to function as a “legislative body,” special interests have hired people to circulate petitions to place misleading, deceptive, and poorly written measures on the ballot in Arkansas.

Earlier this year, Arkansans testified before lawmakers about petition canvassers allegedly trying to provoke altercations and encouraging people to sign petitions multiple times.

Arkansas’ lawmakers have enacted good measures to safeguard the ballot initiative process. Now those safeguards are being challenged.

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin’s office is defending these good laws. We believe our federal courts ultimately will uphold them as constitutional.

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

IRS Finally Agrees Churches, Pastors Can Engage in Political Speech

Religious Freedom, , ,

On Monday the IRS filed a motion in federal court acknowledging that churches and ministers are free to address social and political issues from a biblical point of view.

The motion helps bring clarity to the First Amendment freedoms of pastors and churches.

Many people believe state and federal law prevents churches and pastors from addressing “politics,” but churches and ministers actually have always had tremendous leeway to talk about legislation, campaign issues, and even candidates.

Churches and ministers are free to address social and moral issues — even if some people consider those issues “political.”

That means they are free to stand up against abortion, promote biblical marriage, encourage responsible citizenship, support laws that protect children from sex-change procedures, and so forth. Churches can spend an insubstantial amount of money lobbying for or against legislation or ballot issues as well.

Historically, churches have hosted voter registration drives. They have been free to hold candidate forums and educate voters about candidates and elections.

Legal experts generally have agreed the IRS rules — also known as the Johnson Amendment — let ministers support or oppose candidates.

However, on Monday the IRS filed a court motion reinforcing that churches have tremendous leeway when it comes to free speech and religious liberty. The motion says,

When a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith, it neither “participate[s]” nor “intervene[s]” in a “political campaign,” within the ordinary meaning of those words. . . . Bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services, do neither of those things, any more than does a family discussion concerning candidates. Thus, communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted.

The IRS says this is in keeping with its traditional interpretation of federal tax rules governing churches.

Our friends at Liberty Counsel say this means that “if a house of worship endorsed a candidate to its congregants, the agency would view that not as campaigning but as a private matter, like ‘a family discussion concerning candidates.'”

All of this underscores that churches and ministers have tremendous freedom when it comes to talking about morality, social issues, candidates, and political campaigns.

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

READ MORE