Statue’s fate in voters’ hands
Referendum slated for general election
The Union County Quorum Court met Thursday. With social distancing measures in place, the third-floor courtroom at the county Courthouse was as full as it could be, with an overflow crowd positioned in the lobby outside the courtroom.
In June, a local resident asked the Quorum Court to consider removing the Confederate monument on county Courthouse grounds. The body formed a monument committee made up of three Justices of the Peace — Carolyn Jones, Cecil Polk and Greg Harrison — and one at-large member, Bishop George Calloway.
The committee met on June 23, where they asked attorneys for the county Gary Burbank and Jeffery Rogers, who also serves as the Prosecuting Attorney for the 13th Judicial District, to research the legalities involved in the monument’s potential removal or relocation. They also asked the public to weigh in with letters containing their thoughts on the matter to be sent to Union County Judge Mike Loftin; Loftin later agreed to accept petitions as well.
Several demonstrations in favor of both keeping and removing the monument were held earlier this month and in late June. The matter was originally to be voted on by the full Quorum Court in August after learning more about the legalities and public opinion. However, they instead addressed the matter during their regular meeting Thursday.
“The committee had agreed to discuss this in August. We got about 1,900 letters through my office,” Loftin said. “There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue, and I think
it’s best if we try to take care of that today rather than wait until next month.”
Burbank said that Union County had contributed $1,000 to the construction of the monument in 1910. In 1913, he said, the Arkansas Supreme Court considered a case related to the monument, and “all of the parties apparently considered the monument to be the property of Union County,” according to the legal memorandum Burbank wrote from his research.
In 1995, the county granted a Deed of Conservation Easement to the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, which gave the program the right to maintain the buildings and monuments on Courthouse grounds, which Loftin said extend to the concrete blocks that surround the building and its grounds, for historical purposes.
Because of the easement, any modifications to the monument, including potentially relocating it, must be approved by the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, which is administrated by the Arkansas Department of Parks, Heritage and Tourism, Burbank said. Both the Courthouse and the monument are separately on the National Register of Historic Places, as well; Burbank said the county would potentially also need permission from the National Park Service for that reason.
“It’s a property interest that the state has in it, it’s not simply a regulatory thing. It’s an easement, like applies to highways,” Burbank said. “In terms of who has the authority to make the decision about the control of the monument, the basic rule is the county judge is the custodian of all county property … But on this kind of decision, I feel like the Quorum Court has a role, because the legislative authority, the statutes give the Quorum Court.”
He explained that per Arkansas law, the Quorum Court has the authority to provide for historical and cultural site services, which includes the power to exercise regulatory powers in conjunction with the services provided.
The county has received some grants for the maintenance of the Courthouse and its grounds, Burbank said, adding that while it is possible the county could potentially be asked to pay them back, it is not probable. However, moving the monument could affect grants applied for in the future.
“I think that if the decision were made to move it and all of the procedural requirements and applications were submitted to the state and approved, I don’t think that would become an issue of repaying it,” Rogers added.
Jones, who chairs the Monument Committee, said she believed the issue should be referred back to the voters of Union County.
“I still feel like the silent majority has not spoken, and the only way we can be sure that everybody’s voice has been heard would be to put this on the ballot,” she said.
Of the letters and petitions submitted to the Quorum Court, 1,329 were in favor of keeping the monument where it was, while 575 were in favor of relocating it, said executive assistant to the county judge Jody Cunningham; however, she noted that on petitions to remove the monument from Courthouse grounds, some that signed were unable to be verified as Union County residents, and other signatures were illegible and therefore not counted. Some petitions that did not explain what they were for above the signature lines were also unable to be counted, she said.
She said letters and signatures were verified by checking the names and addresses against property tax and voter registration records.
Jones said that since the majority of public opinion distributed to the JPs was in favor of keeping the monument on Courthouse grounds, she would move to adopt an ordinance to keep the monument on Courthouse grounds. The motion was seconded and the 10 JPs present voted unanimously in favor of it.
She then moved for the body to adopt a resolution that would allow the voters of Union County to vote whether to adopt the ordinance to keep the monument on Courthouse grounds. The resolution was also unanimously approved by all present JPs.
“I thank the Lord for touching your hearts to remember you’re serving the people … You’ve put it back in the hands of the people,” committee member Calloway said after the resolution was approved. “No matter how it turns out, we need to all love one another, treat each other right and accept whatever final outcome.”
Cunningham noted that since the issue was referred to the ballot, petitions and letters wouldn’t be relevant to future proceedings regarding the monument. Loftin said he was pleased with the decision by the Quorum Court to refer the issue to the voters of Union County.
“I’m proud of the Quorum Court,” he said. “In my opinion, the best way for any elected official — whether it’s me, the Quorum Court, or whoever — the best way for an elected official to serve the people who put us in office is to let them vote. That is the most fair way to take care of any situation, including the monument.”
Larry and Linda Hale, Huttig residents, attended Thursday’s meeting. Linda Hale said she would be glad to move the monument onto her property if the vote later this year does turn out in favor of its relocation. She said she gathered petition signatures in favor of keeping the monument on Courthouse grounds earlier this month.
“Now we’ve got to turn around and fight to get out the vote,” Linda Hale said. “We fought the good fight. We won, I want everyone to know, the ones who sent in the letters and all, we won by a large majority as far as that was concerned. … They feel like it’s best to just put it out there so they can say the people voted on it, the Quorum Court didn’t, because they would hold it against the Quorum Court. They know how they should vote because of the letters that came in.”
She said she didn’t think it was right for the Quorum Court to refer the issue back to the voters; however, she said she planned to work to get out the vote and inform others of the issue before the next election.
“I know they have their reasons, that’s fine,” she said. “We just want it all done right. … (We’ll) let the people know what the vote is and what the vote’s about so people don’t get confused; don’t skip over anything, make sure you read it.”
Keith Coggins, an El Dorado resident who was in favor of the monument’s removal, said he was also disappointed in the Quorum Court’s decision.
“I pretty much expected how it was gong to turn out. I feel like, being part of when this first started and all the hard work that me and my fellow citizens put in to make a peaceful stand and let our voice be heard, I feel like it fell on deaf ears,” he said, adding that he does plan to vote on the issue in November.
“At the end of the day, if you want change, that’s the only way we can really have true change is by voting,” he said.
Jacarllus Hill, another El Dorado resident who helped to gather petition signatures earlier this month, but for the monument’s removal, said he plans to help local residents register the vote in anticipation of the election, and added that he hopes to continue organizing politically even past the monument issue.
“We’re not even hesitating,” Hill said. “To anyone who wants to join us, anyone who wants to get in on this fight, we’re not going to be stopping at all. … This isn’t a movement for a moment; this is a movement for our lives.”
Registered voters in Union County will have the opportunity to vote on whether to keep the Confederate monument on Courthouse grounds or relocate it in the November 3 general election. According to the Arkansas Secretary of State, the deadline to register to vote in the election is October 5.
The election is also a presidential election, and several of Arkansas’ federal delegates, including Sen. Tom Cotton (R) and Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR4), who represents Union County in the United States House of Representatives, are up for reelection. Local and state candidates, as well as statewide referendums, will also be on the ballot. The News-Times will continue to provide information about the election.