Predictably, controversial legislation passed by Arkansas lawmakers this year is already fueling a spate of new federal litigation.
Separate lawsuits were filed within days of each other in U.S. District Court in Little Rock to challenge three different 2021 laws:
• Act 309, the Arkansas abortion law that is considered the most restrictive in the nation;
• Act 626, the state's ban on gender-affirming medical treatment for transgender youths; and
• Act 951, a law making the state's citizen petition process more difficult.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas filed the first two challenges, seeking to block those laws' implementation.
The third challenge came from Arkansas Term Limits; Liberty Initiative Fund of Woodbridge, Va.; U.S. Term Limits of Washington, D.C.; a Texas petition-circulating firm; and three individuals from Arkansas and Texas involved in circulating petitions.
Act 309
The law will ban abortion in all cases except to save the life of the mother. It would not penalize women who seek abortions but would make performing or attempting to perform an abortion an unclassified felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $100,000.
ACLU of Arkansas filed the abortion law challenge on behalf of Little Rock Family Planning Services, Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Dr. Janet Cathey.
State Sen. Jason Rapert, R-Conway, sponsored the Arkansas Unborn Child Protection Act, which was one of 20 restrictions on abortion passed this year in Arkansas.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker.
The law's passage, Rapert has said, was intended ultimately to give the U.S. Supreme Court opportunity to overturn the 1973 landmark decision in Roe v. Wade that upheld a woman's constitutional right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy.
Current state law permits abortions up until the 20th week of pregnancy.
Act 309, due to go into effect July 28 unless blocked in court, passed easily in both houses of the Legislature (28-7 in the Senate and 76-19 in the House). Gov. Asa Hutchinson signed the bill into law, although he said at the time it was unconstitutional as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the past.
That, of course, is Rapert's point. He and others intent upon seeing Roe v. Wade overturned expect the more conservative court sitting now to abandon a precedent set almost a half-century ago.
Act 626
ACLU of Arkansas' case against this law was brought on behalf of four transgender youths living in Arkansas, two medical doctors and their patients.
The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Robin Lundstrum, R-Elm Springs, prohibits providing surgeries and hormones to people under 18, although such surgeries are not currently done on children in Arkansas. The law will be effective July 28, unless blocked.
For the record, it, too, passed handily, clearing the House on a 70-22 vote and passing the Senate 28-7. Gov. Hutchinson vetoed the legislation, which he called a "vast government overreach" on April 5. Lawmakers in both chambers readily overrode the governor's veto.
Arkansas is the first state to enact such a law impacting health care for trans people under age 18.
It's one more blemish on the state's reputation for which to thank Arkansas' increasingly conservative Legislature.
Act 951
Unlike the other two acts that arise out of the culture wars, Act 951 makes petitioning for citizen initiatives more difficult.
It is also different from the others because the law became effective immediately upon passage. The governor signed the legislation on April 29.
This law changes the rules for collecting signatures on petitions for ballot initiatives.
Besides requiring canvassers to be Arkansas residents and prohibiting them from being paid per signature, the law would require a criminal background check of each paid canvasser at the sponsor's expense.
Sen. Breanne Davis, R-Russellville, was the lead sponsor of the bill, which passed the Senate 26-7 and the House 72-18.
She has said the intent of the law is to prevent out-of-state interests and money from influencing the Arkansas petition process.
The lawsuit contends that the new regulations violate the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. It also claims that financial burdens would force petitioners to use volunteer canvassers, reducing the pool of available canvassers.
Each of these laws certainly deserves scrutiny from the courts, as does some of the other work of this Legislature. These may just be the first cases on the dockets.