Four new state voter laws, each of which was recently declared unconstitutional, could still complicate the upcoming May elections.
Pulaski County Circuit Judge Wendell Griffen recently ruled that the laws, all passed by the state Legislature last year amid a nationwide push for such measures, place undue burdens on voters, thus violating the Arkansas Constitution.
The laws, opponents contend, would disenfranchise voters who are poor, minorities, immigrants, elderly or suffering chronic health problems.
The 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.
Judge Griffen found them all unconstitutional.
Attorney General Leslie Rutledge has filed notice of appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Naturally, with these elections literally less than two months away, the situation presents challenges for election administrators.
The later the case makes it through review by the Supreme Court, the more difficult it will be for election officials to adjust to whatever changes result.
Democrats and Republicans will choose party nominees in preferential primaries on May 24. That's also when the general election will be held for nonpartisan judicial offices and for some school districts. But early voting begins May 9 and the deadline to apply to register to vote in that election is even sooner, on April 24. Ballots must be delivered to overseas and military voters still sooner, on April 8.
The May elections are particularly important because numerous seats in the Legislature will effectively be decided in the Republican primary. There are no Democratic candidates in some of those races. Nor are there alternative party candidates. Or, if there are other candidates, they're unlikely to pull enough votes to defeat the favored Republicans.
Consequently, laws that impact how easily people may vote in the May 24 election really could disenfranchise voters in those particular races.
The attorney general's office had nevertheless asked Judge Griffen, who issued a permanent injunction against the new laws, to allow them to stay in effect until the appeal is considered by the Supreme Court.
On Tuesday Griffen responded, denying the state's request with an 18-page order.
Griffen cited trial testimony, concluding it would be "absurd" to conclude that state officials are likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal. Nor, he wrote, is there evidence the state will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay.
"None of the factors that must be satisfied in order to justify a stay has been established," he concluded.
Granting the stay, however, would suppress voter turnout and infringe on the rights of registered voters, causing them irreparable harm, the judge said.
The injunction returns Arkansas voting to exactly what it was prior to enactment of the four challenged laws, Griffen emphasized, suggesting election officials and voters won't be confused by the reversal.
Unless the Supreme Court gets into really high gear to hear and decide the case, state and local election officials will need to follow the old law to reflect Griffen's ruling.
A stay had certainly seemed unlikely since Griffen's 85-page order in the case had been so pointedly against the state's argument for the four laws.
The lawsuit was filed by the Arkansas League of Women Voters and Arkansas United, an immigration advocacy organization as well as five Arkansas senior citizens. Two are from Little Rock, two from Fayetteville and the fifth from Springdale.
Those plaintiffs proved the new laws did more to harm voters than any good the measures might do to improve elections, according to the judge.
Attorneys argued on behalf of the government defendants -- Secretary of State John Thurston and the members of the state Board of Election Commissioners -- that they only needed to show that the laws were enacted on a "rational basis."
Judge Griffen said the laws must instead survive a "strict scrutiny" test because they directly impact the constitutional right to vote.
He said the attorney general's lawyers failed to present proof to justify the new voting laws.
Even the secretary of state, who Griffen noted holds the ultimate responsibility for election integrity in the state, testified that the 2020 election was "the most successful in Arkansas history."
Evidence presented in the four-day trial, Griffen wrote, demonstrated that the new laws "are based entirely on conjecture, speculation, surmise, misinformation and fear-mongering about allegations of voter fraud and election insecurity."
The Supreme Court will get the last word on all of this, of course, but that will take time, time the state and local election administrators don't really have before May voting is to begin.