One might need a scorecard sometimes to keep up with the legal horoscope of court proceedings. Late Thursday, the state's top court said it wouldn't allow the Arkansas government to enforce a ban on mask mandates. For now. It was an injunction barring the enforcement of a ban on mandates.
So what happened? Was the ruling pro-mask, anti-mask, or French? Let's see, it's a triple negative, which wouldn't allow a non-allowable, and carry the two . . . .
Suffice it to say that your school district can still require masks. Legally. For now. And those in the Arkansas Ledge who've been trying so hard to get to the right of Texas have lost again. To the benefit of the rest of us.
To rewind the thing out of legalese and into plain English: There's a pandemic still on. Some school districts (and other public entities) might want to require masks while we're still in said pandemic.
The Ledge, in its wisdom, passed a law this summer banning such mask mandates on the local level. And this week the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that an injunction, against the Legislature's plans, could stay in place until they all get together to talk about it come November. So we'll have to wait for that November hearing before anything is even remotely permanent.
Some school districts used the earlier injunction to require staff and students to wear masks at school. Some districts did not. That's how it should be. If there's an outbreak in Prescott, why should students be masked up in Piggott? Leave it to the locals.
The sticking point with the vaccine--well, one of the sticking points--is that none of them have been approved for the younger crowd. So even though elementary kids aren't likely to get as sick as their grandparents with this covid-19, they still can get it.
And still get sick. And still pass it to others. And still keep the virus going strong, giving it a chance to mutate further. Repeat: The pandemic is still on.
As far as the legal action goes ... .
First, nobody believes the law was intended to promote vaccinations. Lawyers will make claims if they feel some of them might help their clients. Even claims like these.
Second, the state's legal representatives argued in court that there should be a "uniform" rule for the whole state when it comes to masks. We don't understand everything we know about that argument. Dress codes change from school district to school district. Budget priorities change from district to district. School schedules change from district to district. Safety procedures change from district to district. Discipline changes from district to district. Even teacher pay changes from district to district.
But now the people are told that they'll be confused if mask policy comes from the local school board? We don't buy it.
This law might have been harmless political pandering several months ago, a way for lawmakers to prove to the folks back home that they dislike masks, too. (Doesn't everybody?) And give legislators something to talk about at the stump speech for their re-election efforts.
But the Delta variant has clobbered the country since then. And this pandering for political purposes is no longer harmless.
Let the schools protect their children. It's easier to do that from home than from Little Rock.