Timeline: Abortion amendment lawsuit in Arkansas

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. (KNWA/KFTA) — The group Arkansans for Limited Government has been fighting to get an abortion amendment on the November 2024 ballot, which has become a legal battle between it and Secretary of State John Thurston.

Below is a timeline of events detailing the abortion amendment process.

June 24, 2022 — Abortion is banned in Arkansas when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade leading to the certification of a 2019 trigger law in Arkansas on the same day.

The legislation effectively bans abortion in the state, with the lone exception of saving the life of the mother. The legislation included a provision that would activate the law whenever the Roe v. Wade decision was overruled in whole or in part.

Nov 27, 2023 — The nonprofit For AR People announces the creation of Arkansans for Limited Government to propose an amendment that would prevent the state from restricting access to abortion up to 18 weeks after conception.

The amendment would also allow for abortions after 18 weeks in the case of rape, incest, fatal fetal anomaly or to save the life of the mother.

If the ballot language is approved by Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, the group would have to collect 90,704 signatures to place the amendment on the November 2024 ballot.

Nov. 28, 2024 — Griffin rejects the ballot title and language for the amendment.

An opinion issued by Griffin’s office found fault with the language and technical details of the ballot proposal.

The opinion cited “ambiguities” in the proposal that prevented him from approving it, including its use of the words “access” and “health” in several places, which the opinion stated lacked clarity in the way the words were used.

A second component of the ballot title that was intended to restrict the state legislature in passing laws restricting abortion access was also unclear, the opinion stated.

The “18th week” was also an issue because, per the opinion, it was based on 18 weeks after conception, but the legal standard for fetus age is gestational age, which begins at the date of the woman’s last menstrual cycle.

The opinion also claimed the popular name of the proposal, “The Arkansas Reproductive Healthcare Amendment,” is “tinged with partisan coloring.”

Another reason for rejection stated in the opinion was a failure by the ballot language to describe its impact on existing laws, including Constitutional Amendment 68.

Amendment 68 was created in 1988 and states that “The policy of Arkansas is to protect the life of every unborn child from conception until birth, to the extent permitted by the Federal Constitution.”

AFLG then has to resubmit a proposal that addresses the issues found in Griffin’s opinion.

Dec 19, 2023 — A second version of the proposal is submitted to Griffin’s office.

The updated proposal is said to more clearly define the effort to provide access to abortions up to the 18-week mark of pregnancy.

The popular name of the ballot proposal was also changed from Arkansas Reproductive Healthcare Amendment to Arkansas Abortion Amendment.

Jan 5, 2024 — Griffin rejects the revised ballot language.

A letter sent by Griffin and prepared by Deputy AG Ryan Owsley stated the proposed ballot title and language addressed several issues from the earlier draft.

The letter went on to claim that the latest revision, which specifies that the government would not block abortions that endanger the mother’s life or physical health, is misleading since the definition of “physical health” provided in the ballot indicated the presence of disorders, illnesses or injuries caused by pregnancy.

Griffin said this confusion was the reason for the rejection but noted that the group could “redesign” the ballot language to be resubmitted.

Jan 23, 2024 — Griffin certifies the amendment’s second revision of its ballot language and title.

The group now begins collecting the 90,704 signatures needed to place the amendment on the ballot. The signatures need to be collected by July 5 and turned in to Griffin’s office for certification.

Jun 19, 2024 — The Arkansas House passes a resolution during its special session opposing the amendment.

The resolution passed on a voice vote, but not before some lawmakers spoke out against it. Rep. Andrew Collins (D-Little Rock) said he was against the resolution and said the decision on the amendment should be left to voters.

Jul 5, 2024 — AFLG submits its signatures and believes it has enough to put the amendment on the ballot.

The group says it delivered more than 100,000 signatures from 54 counties for the ballot initiative to the office of Arkansas Secretary of State John Thurston. The number of signatures exceeds the minimum 90,704.

Jul 10, 2024 — Thurston rejects the petitions submitted by AFLG.

Officials with the secretary of state’s office said there was a technicality regarding canvassers that led to the submissions being disqualified.

In a letter sent by Thurston to Arkansans for Limited Government, the secretary said the group had failed to submit a statement identifying paid canvassers by name and a signed statement noting that they had given paid canvassers documents outlining rules before they started gathering signatures.

Thurston rejected more than 14,000 of the signatures that he said came from paid canvassers, stating that AFLG had not turned in the legally required paperwork alongside the signature submissions. The rejection puts the number of signatures below the threshold to put the amendment on the ballot.

These requirements became part of Arkansas law in 2013. The law was overturned by a circuit judge in 2014 before mostly being restored later that year by the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Because of these issues, Thurston said the signatures his office saw as valid dropped by 14,143, pushing the total submitted below the necessary threshold of 90,704.

AFLG says it followed all instructions from the Secretary of State’s office.

Jul 11, 2024 — AFLG says it is “outraged” after Thurston rejected the petition signatures.

Gennie Diaz with AFLG says it is relying on its legal team to counsel it on the best path forward.

Diaz said AFLG has “provided the state with everything that is required.”

Diaz said when AFLG dropped off their signatures on Friday, they were told by the secretary of state’s office that they had everything they needed. She said in the past with other ballot initiatives AFLG have submitted, if something was missing, the secretary of state’s office would inform them. She said they didn’t this time.

In a response letter, AFLG maintained the law was followed and that Thurston’s office misinterpreted state law and had “unlawfully rejected the petition parts in question.”

The group continued that the signatures gathered by paid canvassers should be counted by law, regardless of how paid canvassers were referenced in accompanying paperwork.

The group cites the same law that Thurston referenced in the rejection, stating that it submitted a list of “266 paid canvassers, which your staff explicitly told AFLG was not required.”

The AFLG letter continues that it submitted the paid canvasser information required by state law, including their names, and that they had reviewed “the information required.”

This was the specific violation Thurston cited in rejecting the submission.

AFLG included a restatement of the group’s following of legal requirements, citing Arkansas law that allows a correction to be submitted. It added that the state law “does not have a ‘do not count’ penalty associated with it,” meaning the rejection based on discounted signatures violated state law.

The letter concludes by asking Thurston to confirm by July 15 that the required number of signatures, including signatures gathered by paid canvassers, has been submitted.

Jul 16, 2024 — AFLG sues Thurston over the petition rejection.

The group filed suit asking the Arkansas Supreme Court to override Thurston’s decision to reject the signatures submitted by the group to place the issue before voters on the November 2024 ballot.

The suit asks the court to overturn Thurston’s decision, citing Arkansas law that AFLG maintains shows it followed state law in its submission. It is requesting an expedited hearing so its ballot question will be before voters on the November ballot.

Thurston maintains his rejection of the signatures saying “My position remains unchanged.”

Jul 19, 2024 — Griffin files a motion asking the Arkansas Supreme Court to dismiss the lawsuit.

Griffin’s motion states that Thurston was correct in rejecting the submission and that AFLG’s representation to the court that it had followed state law is incorrect.

Jul 23, 2024 — The Arkansas Supreme Court orders Thurston to perform an initial count of the signatures given to him.

Thurston has until July 29 at 9 a.m. to finish the count and has until 3 p.m. to present the findings to the Supreme Court.

The order says the Supreme Court has the right to issue further orders and “proceed in accordance with state law.”

Chief Justice John Dan Kemp, Justice Karen R. Baker and Justice Courtney Hudson expressed their interest in granting AFLG emergency relief and a 30-day provisional cure period. This would give the group 30 days to collect signatures they believe they will need to get the amendment on the ballot.

AFLG says the ruling does not clarify anything regarding the rest of the process. It says it is unclear whether the group has met the threshold to qualify for the cure period and what the cure period would entail. The group anticipates additional legal challenges during the next steps of the process given what it sees as ambiguity.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to KNWA FOX24.