Committees requesting to join the abortion amendment case on two ballot questions

Little Rock, Arkansas – In an attempt to put an abortion amendment on the ballot, two ballot committee groups who were successful in getting their own issues in front of voters in November have asked to join forces with Arkansans for Limited Government.

Arkansans for Patient Access and Local Voters in Charge criticized Secretary of State John Thurston in a statement issued on Tuesday for his interpretation of the law, which has so far kept Arkansans for Limited Government’s initiative from being eligible for the November vote.

While Arkansans for Patient Access is pushing for more access to medical marijuana for Arkansans, Local Voters in Charge is supporting a resolution that calls for local approval of casino licenses and the revocation of a license allowed in Pope County.

The joint decision was a reaction to a decision issued by Secretary of State John Thurston, which sparked accusations of discrimination against the ALG community on the grounds of “inconsistent legal interpretation”.

The two groups that drafted the ballot questions said that Thurston’s decision “defies rules of statutory construction, contravenes well-established agency law, and even contradicts his (respondent’s) own policy and practice established over numerous election cycles, thereby leading to an absurd result.” They said this in a joint statement.

ALG said in a letter that was sent out last Thursday that the verdict was prejudiced and that there were double standards in place.

The party adds arguments in the joint brief explaining why the state Supreme Court ought to reject the respondent’s reading of section 601(b)(3).

One of the justifications given was that the revised interpretation ought to take effect following the 2024 election cycle.

Ark. Code Ann.7-9-601(b)(3) was mentioned in the brief, with the authors stating that it is “unambiguous” and “does not prohibit a sponsor from delegating its certification of paid canvassers to an agent.”

That was in reference to Thurston and AG Griffin’s stance regarding AFLG contractor Allison Clark.

Thurston was rejected even though Clark completed a sponsor declaration that AFLG needed in order to gather signatures.

“State officials shouldn’t be making political decisions based on their own agendas, and it’s their job to treat all initiatives like this the same, regardless of their content and whether or not they agree with it,” AFLG Director of Strategy Rebecca Bobrow writes in response to a letter from Thurston dated July 15.

According to the joint brief, Thurston (Respondent) and the Attorney General did not inform APA or LVC of their “change in position on who can act on behalf of a sponsor under 601(b)(3)” prior to the August 8 letter being delivered to APA.

A new standard’s implementation also contradicts the Arkansas Constitution’s due process guarantee.

They contend that because the interests of LVC and the APA in their respective initiatives are guaranteed by the constitution, due process has to be followed.

Not only is the sponsor in question a point of contention, but Thurston’s answer on the sponsor’s non-delegable duties and the timing of it are also under scrutiny.

Thurston approved a cure period after some Arkansans for Patient Access’s signatures were found to be invalid; nonetheless, the complete amount needed was still obtained, necessitating a 30-day window to gather further signatures.

In a letter dated July 31, an agent for the Respondent (Thurston) informed APA that the Secretary of State’s office had discovered “no less than 77,000 signatures.”

Secretary Thurston sent a letter to APA on day eight of the 30-day term that started this month, stating that his office “discovered” that the sponsor had not made the certification; rather, it was the canvassing business.

APA claims that the action was not novel and that this was indicated in all of their signature submissions.

The Secretary of State was immediately aware, according to the intervenors’ joint brief, that the certifications had been filed by Nationwide Ballot Access (NBA) to find, screen, employ, and prepare paid canvassers to gather signatures on behalf of APA.

While overseeing paid canvasser work for APA, NBA submitted 112 different forms claiming that the organization was acting as APA’s agent and that it intended to comply with Ark. Code Ann.7-9-601.

The Secretary of State’s office “accepted the submission by NBA and enrolled the individuals as paid canvassers for APA,” according to the joint brief.

On August 8, however, APA was notified that the signatures gathered by hired canvassers who were approved by APA’s agent would not be tallied.

Thurston’s agent confirmed that the previously authorized 77,000 signatures will remain valid despite the error that was discovered. However, any additional signatures obtained after the August 8 letter will not count “for any purpose” if the canvassing company submitted the necessary information for the paid canvasser. Thurston, his counsel, and AG Griffin reaffirmed their position.

The other two organizations’ cases, which chose to support AFLG, are now the focus of the new method for deciding who can submit the signatures.

The Local Voters in Charge Ballot Question Committee issued the following statement today, citing its decision to step in, its support for ALG, and its opinion on the group’s pro-abortion advocacy: “This legal step is required in order to protect the rights and due process of more than 116,000 State-verified signers of the LVC local voter rights petition from all 75 counties in the state, as well as the citizens of Pope County who have fought for six years for the voices of citizens to be fairly heard.”

“A legal procedure known as a motion to intervene enables a party who is not being sufficiently represented by current parties to join a lawsuit in which their interests may be affected. LVC specifically disputes one (among several) legal arguments raised by the State of Arkansas in opposition to the ALG petition, which could have an effect on LVC’s endeavors to safeguard local voters’ rights.”

ALG emphasized in their statement the significance of following the regulations.

As citizens, we personally disagree with the pro-abortion legislation that ALG is trying to implement. However, we also think that the government’s role is to enforce the law. Developing novel, blatantly conflicting interpretations of laws that have never been used before only puts the people of the State of Arkansas, the democratic process, and themselves at additional danger.”