Representation on the lines
Good-government people were preparing in early March to begin their signature push. They hoped and intended to qualify, for the general election ballot, a constitutional amendment moving legislative and congressional redistricting from the hands of self-serving politicians to an independent commission.
Then the virus came, and, with it, social distancing, as well as the cancellation of large seasonal gatherings ripe for mass signature collection by hired canvassers.
So, this group—calling itself Arkansas Voters First and encompassing officials of the League of Women Voters and represented by citizens’ initiative guru David Couch—went into federal court in Fayetteville.
They argued they were being denied their constitutional right of political expression. They sought special relief owing to the unavoidable and extraordinary circumstance.
They asked that the signature requirement be reduced from 89,000.
In a ruling released to lawyers on Memorial
Day, U.S. District Judge
P.K. Holmes said “no” to a preliminary injunction on that.
They asked that the signature deadline be moved from July 3 to Sept. 3. Holmes said “no” on that as well.
They asked for special permission to collect electronic signatures. Holmes said that electronic signatures were widely legitimate and valid—for federal court purposes, in fact—and might be an eventual solution. But he said “no” to a specific hurry-up introduction of that option in this case.
The judge was as sympathetic as could be to the plight of the petitioners. He took pains to explain why the standard for a preliminary injunction was not met in those circumstances.
But then there was this section of his ruling: State law requires that canvassers witness each signature and attest to the validity of those signatures in the presence of a notary public, who must affix a stamp on petition sheets. Holmes ruled that the petitioners were specifically and unconstitutionally denied their right to execute their political effort when there were government policies discouraging large gatherings and advising people to stay home or at least six feet apart.
So the judge granted a preliminary injunction against the state’s enforcing that requirement for live, in-person witnessing of each signature. He explained that we have procedures and laws already that require checking the petitions for accuracy and criminalizing any fraud.
He advised the parties to try to figure out how to go forward under what was his 3-to-1 ruling for the state.
I read his order twice and decided the petitioners were sadly out of luck. Getting 89,000 signatures in a little more than a month without an electronic option, and while trying to design a novel mass process for handwritten signatures from an unseen distance … it seemed to me the ruling Republican politicians would get to draw their districts next year based on the new census data.
Couch and the other petitioners say otherwise. They may be engaging in the essential positivity of the college-try. Or I may be a pessimistic person.
Couch’s stated position is that the single point in his group’s favor counts more than the three losses. He said the petitioners can use that one vital concession to get the signatures. He has said he is 90 percent sure of it.
I wish him and his good-government associates all the luck. I support them to the extent that I will encourage readers to go to arvotersfirst.org to learn of ways to sign the petition or to download and print a form they could sign and mail in.
The group’s still-developing plan seems to be to activate a hurried multi-faceted process—downloaded and printable forms, mass emails containing printable forms, strategically placed signature sheets at shops or stores or eateries or other businesses, and some measure of conventional canvassing, with masks, of course.
All of this is based, remember, on a preliminary injunction. The state could appeal and carry out the lawsuit. But the effort could proceed in the meantime. It’s conceivable the group could get the issue on the ballot and win in November, and lose the lawsuit and have all that overturned.
But it’s the presence of that eventual possibility that makes it all the more reasonable to let the effort go forward. The petitioners could exercise their rights. The state could triple-check the petitions. The people could decide at the polls. And the courts could make a final binding ruling on the legal arguments.
Either way, this is a needed reform, and one that can only be executed at decade intervals. If denied this time by the bad luck of a virus, the petitioners would be forced to live for 10 years with the adverse outcome of politician-drawn districts for Congress and the state Legislature rather than independent ones emphasizing logical boundaries having nothing to do with incumbents’ self-service.
Yes, Democrats drew their own districts for decades and only now with new Republican control do these good-government types seek reform. That’s an understandable partisan whine. It’s a reason for Republicans to vote no. But it’s not remotely a substantial argument on merit.