In December, when Fayetteville rejected an anti-discrimination ordinance, it was pretty obvious city voters would get another chance at the issue.
That chance comes Tuesday, when a special election is scheduled on a different ordinance but one with a similar anti-discrimination goal at its heart. It prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, although not as broadly as the earlier version.
The issue is still steeped in controversy because it is aimed at extending equal protections enjoyed by other minorities to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. And, despite national trends supporting such basic rights, a stout religion-based contingent opposes these protections.
Fayetteville's last try at LGBT protections failed in a poorly attended special election and by a comparatively small margin. The outcome was heavily influenced by attacks on the measure, including opposition from businesses and Chamber of Commerce leaders.
This time, the proposed ordinance has the endorsement of the chamber and of hundreds of Fayetteville businesses and a notable list of local clergy members.
There is still strong opposition, but Fayetteville is broadly expected to soon join the list of cities and counties that have anti-discrimination ordinances in place.
More than 3,500 had voted by 2 p.m Friday by taking advantage of early voting, and a line extended out the door of the county clerk's office at that time. Early voting concluded Friday. No voting will take place Monday due to the Labor Day holiday. Thousands more will vote Tuesday in a election that is, in some respects, aimed at restoring Fayetteville's long-held reputation as a tolerant town.
Those who oppose this new Uniform Civil Rights Protection ordinance would disagree that the city's reputation took a hit with that December vote. Nevertheless, some thought the rejection seemed to sanction discrimination against gays in housing, employment and places of public accommodation.
Post-election, Fayetteville became the city that rejected protections from discrimination for the city's LGBT community.
Granted, that fact was heralded in some quarters, most notably among state lawmakers who stepped in immediately to try to stop all Arkansas cities and counties from adopting their own anti-discrimination measures.
But other localities jumped into the void, enacting -- and enforcing --their own anti-discrimination ordinances in spite of the passage of the state law.
Reports on any of the other cities' efforts mentioned the Fayetteville rejection and darkened the city's reputation as a welcoming and tolerant town. That impact apparently wasn't lost on community leaders who have since lined up to support the new proposal.
Also, city and business leaders worked together to remove some of the major complaints about the earlier ordinance.
The newer version brought criticism, too; and, the proposal is seen as seriously flawed by some in the LGBT community. A national LGBT organization, for example, that contributed to the first campaign, isn't supporting this one.
Details on the ordinance are available online at http://www.nwaonline.com/civilrightsproposal/.
Understand, voters should vote for or against the measure, believing that it will be local law. But the truth is no one knows for sure if the ordinance will be enforceable.
That controversial state law to prohibit such local laws is in full effect now and Attorney General Leslie Rutledge opined last week that such local ordinances are unenforceable under it. It's just an opinion, of course. Other attorneys think existing law provides a work-around.
Bottom line: The validity of the state law, and consequently the validity of the local laws, must be resolved in court.
Opponents have tried, so far unsuccessfully, to throw a monkey wrench into Tuesday's election.
Circuit Judge Doug Martin on Thursday denied a motion from Protect Fayetteville, the group leading opposition to the ordinance, for a temporary restraining order and allowed the election to continue.
The plaintiffs, who filed the lawsuit the day before early voting began, were too late to stop the vote, according to the judge.
They were trying late Friday to appeal his decision, but it is unlikely they can stop the vote.
Importantly, there are other allegations in their lawsuit -- including the argument that Act 137, the state law restricting local anti-discrimination ordinances, should prevail. Those will eventually be resolved.
Meanwhile, there's an election on Tuesday. Registered voters may go to any of 17 polling places in the city to weigh in on the issue -- and define this city's reputation going forward.
When it is over, Fayetteville will either be the latest Arkansas city to extend equal protections to more of its people or it will be the city that twice rejected laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
That's the choice, whether the law proves ultimately enforceable or not.
Commentary on 09/06/2015