FAYETTEVILLE -- City Council members are moving forward with new rules for local initiatives and referendums.
The proposed changes were prompted by debate last year over an ordinance prohibiting discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender residents. But the changes would apply to any public challenge to a local law.
Web Watch
Go to the online version of this story at nwadg.com to read the initial version of Fayetteville City Attorney Kit Williams’ proposed ordinance that would set new rules for local initiatives and referendums.
Source: Staff Report
Arkansas law details the process for county and statewide referendums, but it doesn't provide the same guidance on the city level.
For instance, with state and county ballot measures, language must be structured so residents vote for or against an issue at hand -- not "for repeal" or "against repeal," as was the case in a Dec. 9 special election in Fayetteville. State law also gives the Arkansas attorney general's office 10 days to vet proposed ballot language before petitions are circulated.
City Attorney Kit Williams suggested mirroring state law in many ways. "For repeal" and "against repeal" language would be prohibited going forward. And, in his initial proposal, the city attorney's office would have two days to approve ballot language before petitions are circulated.
Similar to how petitioners can appeal the attorney general's decision to the state Supreme Court, local petitioners could challenge the city attorney's ballot language in Washington County Circuit Court.
"I wasn't trying to invent anything new," Williams said at an Ordinance Review Committee meeting Wednesday. "I was just trying to rely on the good judgment of the Legislature and follow their requirements."
In a follow-up proposal distributed to members of the Ordinance Review committee, Williams said he was willing to remove the provision requiring review by the city attorney.
"The only reason I placed the responsibility to review and certify or correct a proposed referendum petition upon the city attorney is to hopefully prevent a legally improper petition from being circulated and later being either rejected by the court or having to be recirculated because of some mistake," he said in a Jan. 20 memo. "I do not try to obstruct a referendum, but instead help the applicants properly exercise their constitutional right for a referendum."
Williams wasn't willing to budge on his prohibition of "for repeal" and "against repeal" language.
His position drew criticism from Alderman John La Tour and several members of the public who came to speak at Wednesday's meeting.
Travis Story, general counsel for Repeal 119, the group that collected more than 4,200 signatures and successfully placed Fayetteville's Civil Rights Administration Ordinance on the Dec. 9 ballot, said it should be up to petitioners to decide how they want local ballot questions to read.
"If the city is putting forward the proposal or the ordinance, they have the right to control the wording (on the ballot)," Valerie Biendara, an opponent of the Civil Rights Administration ordinance, argued Wednesday. "If a people-led initiative is coming through, then those people should have the ability to control the language."
Story noted Circuit Judge Mark Lindsay in October ruled "for repeal" and "against repeal" language was legal in response to a lawsuit challenging the Dec. 9 special election.
The Ordinance Review Committee didn't make a recommendation on either of Williams' proposals Wednesday. The issue is up for further debate at the City Council's March 17 meeting.
It's also unclear what -- if any -- attempts will be made to pass another anti-discrimination ordinance in Fayetteville before Senate Bill 202 becomes law.
The bill, introduced by Sen. Bart Hester, R-Cave Springs, prohibits cities from enacting or enforcing ordinances that prohibit discrimination against classes of people who aren't protected under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993.
The state's Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of someone's race, religion, national origin, gender or disability, but it doesn't offer similar protections for gay, lesbian and transgender residents. If the act becomes law, it would take effect 90 days after the legislative session ends.
Fayetteville Alderman Matthew Petty, who sponsored the city's Civil Rights Administration ordinance, said Wednesday he was working with Williams to evaluate the constitutionality of Senate Bill 202 before deciding whether to pursue another anti-discrimination ordinance.
"I think we have to have stable ground to introduce something," Petty said. "Otherwise, it's pointless."
Fayetteville voters repealed the Civil Rights Administration ordinance 7,527 (52 percent) to 7,047 (48 percent) in the Dec. 9 special election after the City Council approved the ordinance by a 6-2 vote Aug. 20.
Alderman Justin Tennant, one of two City Council members to vote against the ordinance in August, said Wednesday he thought the measure would have had unintended consequences for local business owners.
But, he added, he doesn't support Senate Bill 202 either.
"I like the idea of giving municipalities the right to make certain decisions," Tennant said.
Tennant wouldn't say if he would support a scaled-back version of a local anti-discrimination ordinance.
"If someone brings something up, I'm happy to discuss it," he added.
Joel Walsh can be reached by email at [email protected] or on Twitter @NWAJoel.
NW News on 02/19/2015