The debate was hardly over when the results were tabulated in Fayetteville's December election over a controversial city ordinance.
The measure was the famed Ordinance 119, passed by the City Council last year to provide anti-discrimination protection for the city's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.
City voters repealed it after opponents to the measure successfully petitioned for a special election.
The vote was close, 52 percent to repeal and 48 percent to keep it; so there was never a doubt the issue would come up again. And it has.
Last week, two members of the City Council, Aldermen Adella Gray and Matthew Petty, unveiled the latest anti-discrimination measure, what they are calling the Uniform Civil Rights Protection Ordinance.
It is not the same as the old Ordinance 119. The changes, its advocates contend, may be enough to ease concerns that kept some citizens from supporting the earlier measure.
Importantly, if a majority of the council approves the new ordinance, the council itself will also refer it directly to voters for a Sept. 8 special election.
So what's different about the new ordinance? A lot is different, actually.
First, consider their origins.
Alderman Petty, who sponsored Ordinance 119, drew language from a national organization, the Washington D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign.
This time, he and Gray got help from local lawyers and others to draft the new proposal, which would prohibit private employers and places of public accommodation from discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.
A "place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage or amusement" is defined as "any place, store or other establishment, either licenses or unlicensed, that supplies accommodations, goods or services to the general public."
Violators of the ordinance would face fines of up to $100, but the list of potential violators is considerably reduced.
Notably, the new draft specifically exempts churches, religious schools and daycare facilities. It further exempts lodging establishments with no more than five rooms for rent and private clubs that are not open to the public. Also, "employer" is defined as someone who employs nine or more people in the state, which follows language in the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993.
Obviously, a lot of entities that might have been affected by Ordinance 119 won't be by the newly proposed ordinance. That should calm a lot of concerns.
The process for handling complaints is different, too.
Complaints would go initially to the city attorney's office but would be investigated by a seven-member Civil Rights Commission if mediation does not resolve it. The commission, which would be appointed by the City Council, could refer cases to the city prosecutor's office.
That process is quite different from the old one, which would have put the responsibility in the hands of a single civil rights administrator. The city attorney had agreed to temporarily take on the role before the ordinance was overturned.
The bigger question is how this local ordinance is possible, given the Legislature's action earlier this year to prohibit cities and counties from enacting or enforcing an ordinance, resolution, rule or policy "that creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in state law."
The prohibition is contained in Act 137, which will take effect in late July. State Sen. Bart Hester, R-Cave Springs, filed the bill, which is call the Intrastate Commerce Improvement Act.
Lawmakers thought they had snuffed out local anti-discrimination laws.
They clearly thought there was no state law that included sexual orientation or gender identification as a classification.
But, as a Little Rock city attorney has since noted, there is language in an existing state law that prohibits bullying on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.
Both Little Rock and Hot Springs have since enacted anti-discrimination ordinances that impact municipal employees and contractors who do business with the city.
Eureka Springs went a bit beyond that last month as voters there approved an anti-discrimination ordinance that applies more broadly to private employers, landlords and more.
One or all of the ordinances will eventually be challenged in court, but it sounds as if Fayetteville may get back in that game.
Aldermen Gray and Petty will ask that their new civil rights ordinance be read for the first time at the City Council's June 16 meeting.
So the debate in Fayetteville begins again, with city voters expected to get another chance to enact a local civil rights law in September.
Brenda Blagg is a freelance columnist and longtime journalist in Northwest Arkansas. Email her at [email protected].
Commentary on 06/07/2015