The Arkansas Attorney General’s Office rejected ballot language Monday for a proposed constitutional amendment to strengthen the state’s Freedom of Information Act.
In a letter to Arkansas Citizens for Transparency, the group behind the amendment effort, the attorney general’s office said the ballot language in the proposal suffers from a “lack of clarity on key terms,” among other issues.
Among the terms Arkansas Citizens for Transparency failed to clarify were “government transparency” and “notice, meetings and records,” the attorney general’s office said in its letter rejecting the proposed amendment’s ballot title, language intended to summarize the amendment for voters. .
“Your proposed text relies on ill-defined terms whose definition is likely to give voters serious ground for thought,” the Attorney General’s Office said in the letter.
Before any group can begin collecting signatures to get a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot, the attorney general first needs to approve its ballot language. Under Arkansas law, the Attorney General has the authority to approve, reject or rewrite a ballot title and common name.
Arkansas Citizens for Transparency responded in a press release, saying the U.S. and Arkansas constitutions do not provide definitions for the terms it uses.
“Since no citizen has asked what ‘government transparency’ means, we did not expect our Attorney General to ask for this definition,” Arkansas Citizens for Transparency said in a press release. “Constitutions grant rights in broad terms that people understand. Constitutions do not define freedom of speech, freedom to exercise religion, or the right to bear arms. Our Attorney General’s opinion suggests that the right to governmental transparency should be more restrictive than our right to transparency.” Other rights stipulated in the Constitution.”
If approved, the proposed constitutional amendment would give Arkansans a constitutional right to government transparency and a right for Arkansans to sue the government if it fails to comply with a legal records request. The proposed amendment would also make security-related records vulnerable to disclosure within three months.
It would also make it more difficult for the General Assembly to change the FOIA. If the state Legislature wants to make changes to the Sunshine Law, two-thirds of lawmakers in both chambers would need to approve the change, which would not go into effect until after Arkansans vote to approve it through a referendum in the next general election. If the Legislature wanted to make an immediate change to the FOIA, nine-tenths of lawmakers in both chambers would have to approve the change, which would take effect immediately upon its passage. However, voters will get a chance to veto and overturn the law through a referendum in the next general election.
Attorney General Tim Griffin said the ballot language for the proposed constitutional amendment also failed to meet other standards, such as failing to contain the full text of the existing laws that the amendment would change.
In support of his assertion, the Republican attorney general cited the 2020 North Dakota Supreme Court case, Haugen v. Geiger, in which the court struck down a proposed amendment to the state constitution because it referred to the laws it sought to change by quote rather than quotation. The laws are straightforward. Griffin cited the North Dakota case, as the state has a similar citizen-initiated constitutional amendment process to that in Arkansas, and the Arkansas Supreme Court has yet to rule on that specific case.
Unlike the North Dakota case, the proposed FOIA amendment does not mention the specific Arkansas state laws it seeks to change, but instead makes general references to the amendment that changes state laws about open meetings and records.
David Koch, of Arkansas Citizens for Transparency, said the group took the North Dakota case into account when crafting the amendment, saying that choosing to avoid specific references to changes in state law would help the ballot address comply with the ruling. Instead, the amendment generalized references to “provisions of law requiring disclosure of public records,” rather than citing a specific law such as the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act of 1967.
“The fact that you incorporate state laws into your proposal without citing the statutes does not insulate your proposal from the problems identified by the Hogan Court,” Griffin said in the letter.
Griffin’s office also rejected the proposed amendment for not clarifying how it would affect state laws related to open records and meetings. Griffin cites examples such as the 2020 law regulating open meetings, which allows public bodies to go into closed sessions for specific reasons such as discussing employment or taking disciplinary action against an employee.
The Attorney General’s Office said it was unclear whether the proposed amendment was intended to eliminate discretionary powers, such as those that allow some government meetings to be closed to the public.
“If it is your intent to eliminate discretionary exemptions, you must indicate that in the ballot title,” the Attorney General’s Office said in its letter. “But since your intent is not entirely clear at this point, I am unable to confirm that the ballot title is not misleading due to omission.”
Finally, Griffin’s office rejected the proposed common name for the amendment, the abbreviation used to refer to the proposal. He said Arkansas Citizens for Transparency used the common name “Arkansas Government Transparency Amendment,” which Griffin rejected as having a “partisan coloring,” because the term “transparency” has positive connotations that could unfairly influence voters.
“I’m surprised he didn’t agree to this, I’m so shocked [Griffin] “I found many reasons to say no,” Koch said.
The group also submitted a proposed bill to the Attorney General’s Office for approval, which would include more specific changes to the state’s Sunshine Law, such as creating an Arkansas Transparency Commission to help citizens obtain records or specify what types of meetings should be held. Open to the public. The Public Prosecutor’s Office has until December 18 to make a decision on the proposed law.
The campaign to strengthen Arkansas’ Freedom of Information Act began during a special session called by Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders in September to reform the state’s Sunshine Law. After attorney and blogger Matt Campbell requested communications and records on expenses spent by the Arkansas State Police in connection with Sanders’ security detail, the Republican governor called lawmakers to Little Rock, saying the Freedom of Information Act needs to be amended in order to better keep the governor safe. Concerns taken into account.
Sanders also said that the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act of 1967 — considered by many to be one of the most liberal open and transparent laws in the country — has slowed down the work of state government, with state officials often choosing not to discuss certain topics. , such as potential business agreements, via email for fear that the emails will be subject to a records request.
However, after receiving bipartisan opposition from the public, Sanders and the Legislature approved a mini-law that exempts “records that reflect the planning or provision of security services provided” to state constitutional officers.
The Attorney General of Arkansas has recently made a controversial decision to reject the proposed ballot language for a constitutional amendment aimed at bolstering the state’s Freedom of Information Act. This decision has sparked heated debate among supporters of the amendment, who argue that it is crucial for ensuring government transparency and accountability. The rejection of the ballot language has raised questions about the potential impact on the future of Arkansas’ Freedom of Information Act and has left many residents questioning why the amendment was not approved. This decision has cast a spotlight on the issue of government transparency and has prompted a statewide discussion on the importance of access to public information.