Four laws passed last year by the state General Assembly that placed restrictions on voting were reinstated Friday afternoon by the Arkansas Supreme Court, which overturned a permanent injunction handed down by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Wendell Griffen last month at the conclusion of a four-day bench trial.
When he granted the injunction March 18, Griffen said the laws violated the Arkansas Constitution by placing an undue burden on voters. He also noted that the defendants in the case had failed to produce evidence of the sort of voter fraud or voter intimidation the backers of the new laws said they needed to prevent.
"In the judicial sphere you don't prove something is illegal just because you're afraid something might happen," Griffen said in granting the injunction. "That's speculation."
The Supreme Court's unsigned, three-sentence order gave no reason for its decision. The order says only that it approved the state's emergency request for a stay of Griffen's ruling and granted the state's request for expedited consideration. The order did not set a timeline for reconsideration of the matter.
In the motion for an emergency stay, filed just before noon Thursday, the appellants contended that although the plaintiffs filed suit before the acts in question took effect, they did not ask for preliminary relief at that time. That resulted in all four laws taking effect almost a year ago, which the appellants said threatens to throw the upcoming elections into chaos. The motion said absentee ballots for the upcoming May primary election have already been printed and are due to be mailed out within days.
The motion called it "pure speculation" that anyone would be harmed by the new laws and that an injunction so close to the primaries would lead to "substantial confusion" over election regulations.
The motion asked for an immediate temporary stay of the injunction before ordering any briefing necessary to consider the matter fully, or to order the plaintiffs to respond no later than the following day at noon.
In an opposition motion filed just before noon Friday and barely three hours before the Supreme Court issued its ruling overturning Griffen's injunction, the plaintiffs argued in favor of strict scrutiny in reviewing the effect of the laws in question. They argued that granting a stay would create irreparable harm to themselves and the voters of Arkansas by infringing upon the constitutional rights of Arkansas voters by restricting access to voting "through arbitrary and confusing administrative burdens that serve no administrative benefit and do not improve election integrity."
The lawsuit, brought by the Arkansas League of Women Voters, Arkansas United, and five registered voters from around the state, was filed in May of last year naming Secretary of State John Thurston and the state Board of Election Commissioners as defendants.
At issue were four laws that were passed as part of election-related legislation passed last year by the Republican-controlled Arkansas General Assembly in the wake of repeated and unsubstantiated claims by former President Donald Trump that widespread voter fraud cost him the 2020 presidential election.
In the Nov. 3, 2020, general election in Arkansas, Trump carried the state with an overwhelming 62.4% of the vote in an election that Arkansas election officials have called one of the most secure in the state's history.
Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, whose office defended Thurston and the board in the lawsuit, said she was "thrilled" with the Supreme Court's stay of Griffen's order, which she called "erroneous."
"It is crucial that we uphold Arkansas' fair election laws to protect the integrity of the ballot box against those who threaten our democracy," Rutledge said.
The four laws at issue are:
• Act 249, which requires voters who fill out provisional ballots to submit photocopies of their IDs by noon on the Monday after Election Day for their votes to be counted. Those voters previously could give sworn statements when casting a provisional ballot to ensure their votes were counted.
• Act 728 prohibits people from standing within 100 feet of a polling site except to vote or for another lawful purpose. Critics have said the law would prohibit such activities as handing out water or snacks to voters standing in long lines waiting to vote.
• Act 736 introduced a requirement that a voter's signature on an absentee ballot be verified by checking the person's voter registration application. Before, state law allowed election workers to check multiple signatures. Several witnesses testified at the trial that the change could present obstacles for many Arkansans, particularly those with ailments like arthritis or nephropathy, which can make a voter's signature inconsistent.
• Act 973 moved the mail-in ballot deadline from the Monday before an election to the Friday before.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed the new laws deliberately make voting harder -- and sometimes impossible -- for minority voters, poor voters and voters with disabilities or some health issues.
The defendants argued that the laws were necessary measures intended to prevent voter fraud and make elections in Arkansas more secure.
In an 86-page opinion accompanying his written order issued a week after his ruling from the bench, Griffen noted that "despite misinformation and other concerns about voter fraud that were broadcast through social media and through certain news outlets," the defendants presented no proof of any occurrences of the types of fraud the laws are intended to prevent.
He agreed, however, that the effect of the laws will likely be to make voting difficult enough that the new restrictions run the risk of suppressing the vote among minorities, lower income voters, elderly voters or those who suffer from various health conditions.
Kevin Hamilton, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said in an email Friday that he believes the strength of the case brought against the state will eventually prevail.
"We are disappointed by the stay, of course, but remain confident that the Court will affirm the Circuit Court's decision once the full record is before the Court," Hamilton said. "The League is committed to defending the voting rights of all Arkansas voters."