Fayetteville voters will decide on Tuesday whether to keep or repeal an anti-discrimination ordinance that is steeped in controversy.
There is little clue how the vote will go, although both sides are working to turn out their respective supporters, largely through snail mail and social media.
In this closing round of debate, those for the ordinance, and therefore against repeal, include the same people who lined the stairwells and packed the meeting room when the Fayetteville City Council approved it.
For many of them, the ordinance is an answer to real-life discrimination they have experienced and which they shared publicly during hour after hour of public comment before a mostly sympathetic City Council.
The ranks of those for the ordinance also include a less vocal population in Fayetteville who oppose discrimination in any form. While others are slicing and dicing the ordinance to find flaws in it, these folks are likely to vote to keep it on principle.
Some may have questions about particular aspects of the ordinance, but they tend to favor amendment over repeal of the ordinance.
Matthew Petty, the councilman who sponsored the ordinance and secured its passage by the council back in August, notably offered a defense of the ordinance in this newspaper's editorial pages recently.
Meanwhile, some of the more vocal opposition to the ordinance has come from the city's business base, led by the local chamber of commerce, or at least its director, Steve Clark, and voting members of the chamber's board.
Clark also offered his reasons for opposing the ordinance in an op-ed piece in the newspaper on Nov. 30, the same day Petty's argument for the ordinance appeared. Those countering arguments are as good a place as any to see the two sides.
The chamber board's decision to oppose the ordinance, and therefore to support its repeal, reportedly came in August soon after the council vote. But the chamber's official opposition wasn't revealed until early November, prompting a strong reaction from some ex-officio members who were left out of discussion.
Notably, among them were Lioneld Jordan, the Fayetteville mayor, and David Gearhart, chancellor of the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, both of whom wrote letters criticizing the decision.
The chamber position nonetheless is that the city ordinance is vague and incomplete and should be repealed because its interpretation could hurt local businesses and slow development in the city.
Early opposition to the ordinance came from other quarters, including some churches and high-profile individuals like Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar of reality show fame. They want the ordinance gone and are actively supporting its repeal.
Importantly, not all in the religious community are against the ordinance. Some members of the clergy are among the strongest voices for it.
Also, for those just tuning in to the discussion, here's a caution. The ballot question doesn't actually explain details of the ordinance. It asks voters simply to vote "for repeal" or "against repeal" of Ordinance 5703.
The ordinance is described in the ballot title as "an ordinance to amend the Fayetteville Code by enacting Chapter 119 Civil Rights Administration to protect the civil rights of Fayetteville citizens and visitors and to create the position of civil rights administrator for the City of Fayetteville."
That's all that is on the ballot itself.
The ordinance prohibits discrimination based, among other characteristics, on sexual orientation, which isn't covered by existing state and federal laws. Most of the arguments for the ordinance, the first of its kind in Arkansas, cite the fact that a gay or transgender person can now be denied a job or housing because of their sexual orientation. The ordinance includes other classifications, but most of the attention has been on the prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The issue is going to a special election because people against the ordinance petitioned to refer it to the Fayetteville electorate.
Gathering the signatures to put the question on the ballot proved relatively easy, although part of the push relied on misinformation about what the ordinance might allow.
Most commonly heard was the unfounded idea that sexual predators could use it to gain access to public restrooms. Predatory acts in a restroom would still be subject to criminal law. A city ordinance can't override that. Period.
Certainly, that idea is still floating around out there. But there are more rational arguments to be found, both for and against repeal of this ordinance.
However this election turns, here's hoping that the dialogue continues and that Fayetteville, by law or by practice, does not discriminate among its citizens.
If voters repeal the ordinance, the council should write another one that resolves any legitimate concerns about this one.
If voters choose to keep this ordinance, the council should monitor its implementation and be prepared to fix any real flaws.
Whatever the results of the election, the work must go on.
BRENDA BLAGG IS A FREELANCE COLUMNIST AND LONGTIME JOURNALIST IN NORTHWEST ARKANSAS.
Commentary on 12/07/2014