Eureka Springs continues to challenge state authority.
Voters there overwhelmingly opted earlier this month to prohibit discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity -- despite a state law intended to prevent such local laws.
Voters in the small Carroll County tourist town endorsed an ordinance first approved in February by the Eureka Springs City Council. It broadly protects residents and visitors who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender against discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations.
The vote was 579 for the ordinance and 231 against it. That may not sound like a lot of votes, but think again. Eureka's entire population is barely more than 2,200, so a significant part of the city's permanent population showed up for the vote.
Mayor Robert "Butch" Berry and other supporters called the 71 percent approval nothing short of historic in a town that already had a solid reputation for inclusiveness.
The vote, said Alderman James DeVito, "left no uncertainty about how Eureka Springs feels about civil rights."
Randal Christy, who is chief executive officer of the Great Passion Play near Eureka Springs, would argue otherwise.
He suggested after the vote that the city's Christians were "afraid to get out of their homes today." They were intimidated by "vile, radical, vicious people in this town," said Christy, who is himself from Ada, Okla.
Apparently, he thought again about what he was saying, and assured a reporter that Eureka Springs is still a wonderful place for people to visit.
"I don't think tourists have anything to worry about at all," Christy said.
The small town and its businesses, including the Great Passion Play, depend on the many thousands of tourists who visit annually. The town's residents can't afford to let internal disputes, even of this magnitude, affect the tourism draw.
Nevertheless, despite the strength of the win, the effect of the recent vote is unclear.
The local law may only be good until that controversial state law, Act 137, becomes effective later this summer.
The conflict is all about timing, nuance in other state law and an expected court challenge to sort everything out.
First, consider the timing. The Eureka Springs City Council, then the electorate approved the local ordinance after state lawmakers passed and Gov. Asa Hutchinson signed Act 137 but before the new state law becomes effective.
Even Eureka's Mayor Berry has said he believes the city cannot enforce its law when the state law is in place.
The state law was proposed after Fayetteville City Council passed a similar anti-discrimination law -- and voters there rejected it.
Fayetteville's December 2014 election, which attracted opposition from beyond the city as well as within, triggered the political battle that continues now.
State lawmakers were reacting to the Fayetteville vote when they came up with the legislation that would become Act 137. The legislators, at least a majority of them, contended anti-discrimination policy should be uniform statewide, ostensibly in the interest of interstate commerce.
What has followed is a spate of local decisions to thwart that state law, mostly passed by city governing bodies, although Pulaski County is also considering such a measure. A vote is expected there later this month on an expanded local ordinance prohibiting discrimination.
Again, Act 137 bars -- or will, once it becomes effective -- any local government from banning discrimination on a basis not contained in state law.
That's where the nuance comes into play. At least a couple of local governments have crafted their anti-discrimination laws to apply only to city employees and vendors, arguing that some other laws include protections for sexual orientation and gender identity.
Notably, Little Rock's attorney contends there is protection for LGBT people in the state's anti-bullying and domestic violence shelter law and in federal employment law. At least that's how he's planning to defend the capital city's anti-discrimination law.
Eureka Springs' ordinance reaches beyond that arguable protection, however, and could well be the one that forces a bigger court test.
That test really needs to come sooner rather than later to resolve some of these questions.
But, there is also the chance that statewide voters will ultimately decide this one.
An ongoing petition drive seeks to gather roughly 51,000 signatures to refer Act 137 to a statewide vote in November 2016.
Presented as "Arkansans to Protect Local Rights," the petitioners are honing in on the battle over authority between the state and local governments.
But make no mistake, the real issue is civil rights.
Commentary on 05/20/2015