The courts can move quickly after all.
The Arkansas Supreme Court proved it last week, reinstating four state voting laws within days of their being found invalid by a lower court.
Pulaski County Circuit Judge Wendell Griffen on March 29 blocked enforcement of the four laws pending their appeal to the Supreme Court.
He had ruled the laws unconstitutional on March 18, after a four-day bench trial in a lawsuit brought by the Arkansas League of Women Voters and Arkansas United, an immigration advocacy organization, as well as five Arkansas senior citizens.
Pardon this week's return to the subject, but the high court's action totally reversed Griffen's rulings and will impact voting in the upcoming party primaries and nonpartisan judicial elections.
The attorney general's office, representing the defendants, Secretary of State John Thurston and members of the state Board of Election Commissioners, tried to get Griffen to allow the laws to remain in effect until the case could be appealed. The judge denied the request.
Then the attorney general's office last week filed an emergency motion asking the Supreme Court to block Griffen's order. The state's lawyers argued that the judge had abused his discretion by applying a strict scrutiny standard to the laws and by claiming that the laws were overly restrictive.
These laws, like many others passed nationwide last year, were designed to restrict voting. Proponents say such laws are needed to address voter fraud and make Arkansas elections more secure. Opponents contend the laws will disenfranchise the poor, minorities, immigrants, elderly or those suffering chronic health problems.
The Arkansas laws are Acts 249, 728, 736 and 973 of 2021. Respectively, they impact voter identification, strictly regulate campaigning within 100 feet of the polls during voting, affect how ballots are validated and move up deadlines for mail-in absentee ballots.
All four are back in effect with the Supreme Court's action on Friday.
The court gave no reason for the decision in its unsigned, three-sentence order that approved the state's request for a stay and for expedited consideration of the lawsuit.
Notably, in his lengthy orders, Judge Griffen cited testimony in the trial to explain why he applied the strict scrutiny standard and said the state defendants had failed to prove their allegations of voter fraud.
Nonetheless, an attorney for the League of Women Voters and other defendants expects their side will eventually prevail.
The plaintiffs were disappointed by the stay but are confident the Supreme Court will affirm Griffen's decision once the full record is before the high court.
The attorney didn't mention it, but there could also be pertinent experience from the upcoming May 24 elections.
That assumes that the Supreme Court's idea of "expedited consideration" of the lawsuit, as granted in its recent order, does not mean the case will be heard and decided before Election Day in May.
With the preferential primaries for partisan elections and the general elections for nonpartisan judicial elections less than two months away, both state and local election officials may have breathed a sign of relief when the Supreme Court ruled as it did.
They can proceed, as they had planned, to administer the new laws during these upcoming elections, mailing out already-printed ballots by Friday to overseas and military voters, then meeting all the other critical deadlines between now and Election Day.
Those elections may actually provide fresh arguments related to this lawsuit, illustrating how these four challenged laws actually impact voting in Arkansas this year.
Will the new laws' enforcement restrict voter access to the polls or won't they?