The Arkansas attorney general signed off on the popular name and ballot title of a referendum aimed at blocking a law enacted in February that would prevent local governments from enacting their own anti-discrimination laws.
Late Thursday afternoon, Republican Leslie Rutledge announced her approval of "A Referendum To Approve or Reject The Arkansas Intrastate Commerce Improvement Act," also known as Act 137, which has prompted opposition from officials in Little Rock and Eureka Springs who say the law allows for discrimination.
Supporters argue it allows for uniformity in Arkansans' legal protections and provides consistent standards for businesses across the state.
Act 137, which was adopted without an emergency clause and will go into effect in July, says that cities and counties cannot "adopt or enforce an ordinance, resolution, rule or policy that creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in state law."
The law does not prohibit a local government from establishing its own nondiscrimination policies for government employees.
The referendum's sponsor, Little Rock attorney David Couch, said that he has 90 days to get about 51,000 signatures submitted to the secretary of state's office.
If that happens, Couch said, Act 137 "shall remain in abeyance until such a vote is taken." In November, voters would then decide whether to keep or reject Act 137.
"We're doing a big poll right now to poll the issue and find where we stand with support [in the state]," Couch said. "We've been getting minor contributions."
In addition to needing 51,000 or more valid signatures from state voters, Couch said canvassers would have to collect an amount of signatures in 15 counties equal to 3 percent of the amount of voters who cast ballots in the gubernatorial race.
Couch said there is a statewide volunteer apparatus ready to help, but he hopes that donors supportive of anti-discrimination ordinances will come forward to help pay for canvassers.
"We think we have a good enough network that we'd be able to collect [the signatures] volunteer-wise," he said. "But it'd be much better to get professionals involved."
Act 137, originally Senate Bill 202, was created by Sen. Bart Hester, R-Cave Springs, after the city of Fayetteville passed an ordinance last year that treated sexual orientation as a protected class, a protection that does not exist under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act.
Hester did not answer or return messages for comment Thursday night.
That bill, along with an earlier, more controversial version of the state's new Religious Freedom Restoration Act, House Bill 1228, drew criticism that culminated in protests at the state Capitol at the end of the session.
Opponents of Act 137 argue that the laws allow for discrimination and strip local control from city and county governments.
Voters in Fayetteville ultimately repealed the city's gay-rights protections in December in a citywide vote.
Earlier this week, Little Rock passed a nondiscrimination ordinance that prohibits city employees, as well as parties doing business with the city, from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Eureka Springs' City Council passed an ordinance similar to Fayetteville's in early February. An opposition group formed and forced a special election in May to decide the ordinance's fate.
Jerry Cox, the founder of the conservative Family Council, said he doubted the measure would get the requisite signatures in 90 days without an expensive canvassing effort.
Even then, Cox said, he doubted the referendum would turn out the way critics of Act 137 envision.
"We supported [Act 137] because we don't believe civil rights ought to vary from one town to the next. ... What this law prevents is that type of chaos from one city to the next," Cox said. "If this discussion is going to be held, it needs to be held in the halls of the state Capitol."
Metro on 04/24/2015