Photo credit: abcnews.go.com

Arkansas Supreme Court Rules Against Abortion Rights Ballot Initiative

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — The Arkansas Supreme Court has upheld the decision to reject signed petitions for a proposed abortion rights initiative, effectively preventing it from appearing on the ballot in the upcoming November elections.

This ruling concludes the hopes of the initiative’s supporters that they would secure a constitutional amendment in a state characterized by strong anti-abortion sentiments among its leadership.

According to election officials, the group Arkansans for Limited Government did not follow procedural requirements, specifically failing to submit information regarding paid signature gatherers in a consolidated manner. They contended that they should have been granted additional time to present necessary documentation.

Justice Rhonda Wood, writing for the court’s majority, articulated that, “The Secretary correctly refused to count the signatures collected by paid canvassers because the sponsor failed to file the paid canvasser training certification in the prescribed manner,” underscoring the importance of procedural compliance.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Karen Baker expressed strong objections to the ruling, asserting that it undermines the rights of Arkansans and alters the state’s initiative laws without just cause. She challenged the majority’s motivations, questioning why they would seek to deny the public a vote on such a significant issue.

The backdrop of this legal battle is the post-U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2022, which revoked the federal right to abortion, igniting a renewed movement in various states to allow voters to weigh in on abortion rights directly.

Presently, Arkansas enforces a ban on abortion at any stage of pregnancy, with exceptions solely for medical emergencies threatening the woman’s life.

The proposed constitutional amendment aimed to bar prohibitions on abortion during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, offering allowances for later procedures in cases of rape, incest, serious health threats, or non-viable fetuses. However, it would not have established a constitutional right to abortion.

This initiative received limited support from national abortion rights organizations, with groups like Planned Parenthood voicing their disapproval, as the proposal would still lead to abortion bans that are stricter than those in other states where abortion remains legal.

With over 101,000 signatures submitted by the July 5 deadline, proponents believed they would meet the threshold of 90,704 valid signatures. However, the court determined that only signatures gathered by volunteers were eligible, leaving them below the required count.

Republican Attorney General Tim Griffin, representing the state, hailed the court’s decision as a victory for adherence to legal protocols in ballot initiatives.

Contentions have arisen over the interpretation of a 2013 state law that mandates campaigns to register each paid canvasser by name and confirm that all collection regulations are clearly communicated to them.

The campaign’s supporters argue they complied with these regulations, noting that there were discrepancies in how similar petitions from other initiatives were treated this election cycle.

In evidence submitted to the state, the abortion initiative included a signed affidavit that listed paid canvassers and confirmed the training procedures, but the compliance of this documentation was contested in court.

The majority opinion emphasized the necessity for documentation to be presented cohesively to facilitate the Secretary’s review process, indicating that the court found significant compliance issues with how the signatures were gathered.

Chief Justice Dan Kemp, in another dissent, argued for a thorough inquiry into the signatures collected, suggesting that the complexities of this case warranted a more detailed examination by a special master.

“This case presents an anomaly in Arkansas jurisprudence,” he noted, highlighting the unique challenges presented by the current legal landscape surrounding abortion rights in the state.

Source
abcnews.go.com