Attorney General Griffin calls challengers' decision not to seek U.S. Supreme Court review of Arkansas's successful defense of legislative map 'a win for Arkansas'

LITTLE ROCK – Attorney General Tim Griffin today issued the following statement after the NAACP and ACLU declined to seek U.S. Supreme Court review of the state’s landmark win before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment:

“Last year, the Eighth Circuit threw out a challenge to Arkansas’s legislative map and became the first federal court of appeals to make clear that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is not privately enforceable. The NAACP and ACLU’s decision not to ask the Supreme Court to review the Eighth Circuit’s ruling is a win for Arkansans as it ends that challenge, leaves Arkansas’s legislative map in place, and puts an end to similar meritless challenges in other states.

“For far too long special interests groups have used Section 2 to hijack redistricting decisions and dictate how states conduct elections. The Eighth Circuit’s decision put an end to that practice in Arkansas and six other states. It confirmed that decisions about how to enforce the Voting Rights Act should be made by elected officials, not special interest groups. And here, the Biden administration tellingly declined—when asked—to challenge Arkansas’s legislative map.

“It is important to remember that Arkansas’s redistricting process is handled primarily by three statewide constitutional officers who are answerable to Arkansas voters. I thank Solicitor General Nicholas Bronni and Senior Assistant Solicitor General Asher Steinberg for their excellent work on this case.”

For a printer-friendly version of this release, click here.

NAACP leader calls stabbing of Conway teen 'hate crime'

KUAR | By Maggie Ryan

The Faulkner County NAACP held a community meeting Monday night in response to a violent altercation that took place in Conway over the weekend.

According to the mother of one victim, who wishes to remain anonymous, a group of teenagers went to Maly’s, an entertainment facility in Conway, Saturday night. Soon after the group arrived, the mother received a phone call from her son who said he’d been stabbed in the face.

She described leaving her home in a rush as soon as she received the call. Once she arrived, she said the police had yet to arrest members of the group responsible for her son's injury.

NAACP leader calls stabbing of Conway teen 'hate crime'

Governor Hutchinson Allows Vaccine Mandate, Redistricting Bills to Become Law Without His Signature

LITTLE ROCK – Governor Asa Hutchinson won’t sign any of the bills that the members of the 93rd General Assembly sent to him last week, he announced today.

Senate Bill 739 and House Bill 1977 and Senate Bill 743 and House Bill 1982 will become law without his signature.

The vaccine bills “are unnecessary,” Governor Hutchinson said, and the debate hurt efforts to convince hesitant Arkansans to get vaccinated.

The Governor is concerned that the boundaries of new Congressional election maps, especially the division of Pulaski County, will harm minority populations, he said.

Governor Hutchinson’s full statements about his decision follow:

Senate Bill 739/House Bill 1977

“Today, I have on my desk Senate Bill 739 and House Bill 1977, which are similar bills passed by wide margins in the General Assembly.

“These bills are unnecessary, and the conversation has been harmful to our goal of encouraging vaccines. For those reasons I will not sign the bills into law with my signature. I will allow them to become law without signing.

“These two bills are designed to push back on President Biden’s vaccination mandate for federal contractors and employers with more than 100 employees.

“I am opposed to the current mandate by the Biden Administration, but the solution is not to place additional mandates on employers at the state government level. The solution is not to put employers in a squeeze play between state and federal law.

“Employers need the freedom to protect their employees and their customers, and government should not interfere with that freedom through mandates.

“While some Arkansans state they need the option to opt-out of the vaccine requirements and need to be provided reasonable accommodations if they choose not to take the vaccine, those protections are already in place.

“In fact, based upon the President’s announcement, it is anticipated that the federal mandate will allow for weekly testing for those individuals who do not wish to take the vaccine. Medical and religious exemptions are already in place for any vaccine requirements. Therefore, these bills are unnecessary and could interfere with the at-will employment status of the State of Arkansas and could be costly for employees.

“Further, SB739 and HB1977 create distrust and additional hesitancy regarding the COVID-19 vaccines. These vaccines are safe and have been carefully tested and evaluated.  The FDA has a rigorous approval process, which the vaccines have passed. The vaccines are safe, and Arkansans need to get vaccinated, but not through mandates.

“Finally, one factor in my decision not to veto the legislation is the fact that the General Assembly defeated the emergency clause. The extra 90 days before the bills become law allow critical time to assess the harm and for the Courts to review the bills as well.”

Senate Bill 743/House Bill 1982

“The United States Constitution gives the Arkansas General Assembly the sole authority and responsibility to formulate the redistricting plan every ten (10) years for the four (4) congressional districts. If challenged, the judicial branch, as it has done in past years, will determine the constitutionality of the map.

“I am concerned about the impact of the redistricting plan on minority populations.

“While the percentage of the minority composition of the proposed map for three of the four districts does not differ much from the current percentages, the removal of minority areas in Pulaski County into two different districts raises concerns. I have been contacted by many asking me to veto the legislation. I decided not to veto the bills but instead to let them go into law without my signature. This will enable those who wish to challenge this redistricting plan in court to do so.

“In 1990, I was counsel in a case with the NAACP in which we challenged the congressional redistricting plan. While the court in that case determined the map did not violate the vote-dilution section of the Voting Rights Act and the plan did not constitute intentional discrimination, I learned from that experience the real concerns of the minority population about their equal opportunity to have an effective voice in elections. Fair and equitable maps are necessary for the integrity of our democratic society.