Legislation - Pending

None.

Legislation - Enacted

SB 975 - Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Author/Sponsor: Senator J. Hutchinson
Date Enacted: 3 April 2015

Description:

• Another so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
• Gov't Summary: Amends Arkansas law concerning the free exercise of religion; enacts the religious freedom restoration act; declares an emergency.
• 3 April 2015, signed into law by the governor.

SB202 - AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ORDINANCES OF 10 CITIES AND COUNTIES BY CREATING THE INTRASTATE 11 COMMERCE IMPROVEMENT ACT; TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY; 12 AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Author/Sponsor:Senator Hester and Representative Ballinger
Date Introduced: 2 February 2015
Date Enacted: 24 February 2015

Description:

• This is a "license to discriminate" bill - according to the authors, it was brought to the legislature in direct reaction to the city of Fayetteville temporarily making it illegal to discriminate against a person based on sexual orientation or gender identity in the areas of housing, work and public accommodation. The bill forbids local municipalities from enacting anti-discrimination ordinances that are outside of what is already included in existing state law. 
• The bill is described: "TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ORDINANCES OF 17 CITIES AND COUNTIES BY CREATING THE 18 INTRASTATE COMMERCE IMPROVEMENT ACT AND 19 TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY."
• 13 February 2015, this bill passed the House although without having the emergency clause approved that would have allowed the Governor to neither veto or sign it to allow it to go into effect.
• 13 February 2015,  Arkansas House passes two bills critics say would sanction LGBT discrimination - Associate Press. 
• 13 February 2015, Arkansas Lawmakers Send 'Right To Discriminate' Bill To Governor's Desk - By David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement
• 13 February 2015, Arkansas Legislature Passes Bill Allowing LGBT Discrimination ~ Gov. Asa Hutchinson said he will allow the bill to become law, thereby preventing cities and counties from passing ordinances designed to protect LGBT people from discrimination in housing, jobs, and businesses - By Dominic Holden, BuzzFeed News. 
• 16 February 2015, ACTION ALERT - Tell Arkansas Governor @AsaHutchinson that SB202 (a bill to ban LGBTQ anti-discrimination laws) is BAD for Arkansas by calling at 501-682-2345 and emailing.
• 17 February 2015, Arkansas wants to attract businesses by allowing them to discriminate against gay people - By Jeff Guo, Washington Post
• 19 February 2015, Watch MBNBC's José Díaz Balart and AP's Andrew DeMillo Report on Arkansas' anti-gay bill SB 202
• 23 February 2015, in Arkansas, Gov. Hutchinson firm on allowing gay discrimination bill to become law - Posted By Max Brantley, Arkansas Blog, Arkansas Times

A non-binding resolution opposing marriage equality

Author/Sponsor: Sen. Jason Rapert (R-Bigelow)
Date Introduced: 16 May 2014
Date Enacted: Non-binding (vote was blocked on 16 May 2014)

Description:

• Expresses support for Amendment 83, the 2004 state amendment that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.
• Also asks the state Supreme Court to invalidate several hundred gay marriages issued after Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza ruled the state's bans unconstitutional in May 2014 and calls his decision "an abuse of his judicial authority."
•  Rapert's resolution, which was also signed by 58 other legislators, passed by a voice vote after about a half hour of discussion.
• Before the vote, Sen. David Johnson, D-Little Rock, said the resolution is "incorrect and false" and Rep. John Walker, D-Little Rock, called it a civil and human rights issue as he spoke against it.

Lawsuits - Pending

Jernigan v. Crane (Rita & Pam Jernigan et al. v. Crane et al.)

Case Number: 15-1022 (8th Circuit); 4:13−cv−00410−KGB (Federal District Court)
Court Level: 8th Circuit Court of Appeals - On Hold
Date Filed: 15 July 2013
Date of Appeal: December 2014

Description:

• A federal lawsuit was filed for 2 unmarried female couples and 1 already married male couple who seek same-sex civil marriages in AR. 
• 21 November 2013 the defendants responded and moved to dismiss the case.
• 14 February 2014 the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss.
• 16 July 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Motion For Summary Judgment.
• 17 October 2014, a stay was denied as moot.
• 20 October 2014, a motions hearing was scheduled for 20 November 2014 at 1:30pm CT in Little Rock.
• 18 November 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority.
• 19 November 2014, the plaintiffs filed an additional Notice of Supplemental Authority.
• 20 November 2014, report on today's hearing in federal court in this news story. Note: The reference to South Dakota's ban having been struck down is an error. The minute entry was docket text only: "(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kristine G. Baker: Motion Hearing held on 11/20/2014 re 24 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs, 17 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Dustin McDaniel, Richard Weiss, George Hopkins. Present for the Plaintiffs J. Wagoner, A. Mann, C. Maples, and K. Pike; Present for the Defendants N. Mahfouz, D. Fuqua and J. Cordi. After arguments by the parties, the Court took the matter under advisement. A separate order will follow. (Court Reporter Elaine Hinson.) (tmw) (Entered: 11/20/2014)"
• 25 November 2014, U.S. District Judge Kristine G. Baker struck down the Arkansas marriage ban! Woot! Her ruling is stayed until final resolution of any appeal to the 8th Circuit.
• 12 December 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Separate Attorneys' Fees and Costs. They also filed a Motion for extension of time to file the motion as they'd missed the deadline missed.
• 22 December 2014, defendant Pulaski County Clerk Larry Crane filed his Response to plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and costs, as well as a brief in support of his response.
• 7 January 2015, the Briefing Schedule was set in the 8th Circuit appeal. Opening Brief due 17 February 2015. Briefing due to be completed by early April 2015.
• 3 February 2015, In a docket text order, the 8th Circuit:
  - Granted the motion to expedite the South Dakota appeal and set a briefing schedule
  - Indicated its intention to set oral arguments in Rosenbrahn, Jernigan, and Lawson for the week of 11-15 May 2015.
  "CLERK ORDER: [4240177-2] [4240177-3] [4240658] [15-1186] The parties' joint motion to expedite this appeal is granted. The parties shall observe the briefing schedule set forth at paragraph 11 of the motion: Appellant's brief, addendum, and appendix due February 27, 2015; Appellees' brief and addendum due March 19, 2015; Appellant's reply brief due April 2, 2015. It is the court's intention to set the three same-sex marriage cases (No. 14-3779 Lawson v. State of Missouri; No. 15-1022 Jernigan v. McDaniel; and No. 15-1186 Rosenbrahn v. Daugaard) for oral argument during the week of May 11-15, 2015 in Omaha, NE. The parties will be advised of the date and time of the arguments when the May calendar is established."
• 17 February 2015, the Defendant-Appellants' filed their Opening Brief and an Addendum to the brief.
• 18 February 2015, the plaintiffs submitted an Expedited Motion asking the federal court to vacate the stay, and a brief in support of the motion. There is also a request pending in state court as to the stay of the state court ruling.
• 20 February 2015, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion and Brief asking to lift the stay.
• 24 February 2015, the Court issued an Order directing the defendants to respond to the motion to lift the stay by Monday, 2 March 2015.
• 2 March 2015, the State defendants filed their Opposition to lifting the stay.
• 4 March 2015, an Order was issued denying the plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay. Following this order, the Attorney General filed notice of the order with the 8th Circuit saying, "Accordingly, there is no need for a stay from this Court at this time."
• 20 March 2015, the plaintiffs filed their brief.
• 8th Circuit Calendar for May 11-15, 2015: 8th Circuit marriage cases listed on page 3.
• 29 April 2015, the Court, of its own accord, put the 8th Circuit oral arguments and all further proceedings on hold until SCOTUS rules in the marriage cases.
• 8 July 2015, the defendants filed their Suggestion of Mootness and Motion to Vacate the District Court’s Order and Judgment.
• 20 July 2015, the plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and Vacate Judgment.

Smith v. Wright

Case #: CV-14-427
Court Level: AR Supreme Court
Date Filed: 3 July 2013
Date of Appeal:

Description:

• A group of Arkansas county clerks filed their own petition for a stay in Wright et al. v. Arkansas (below), claiming that while Judge Piazza's ruling in that case overturned the state's constitutional ban on marriage equality, it did not address the state's statutory ban, therefore causing confusion and uncertainty.
• So, this is very confusing. The original state case is named Wright et al. v. Arkansas (see immediately below), but when the state appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court it caused the name to switch. Smith, the Interim Director of the Arkansas Dept. of Health, is listed first in the case. Updates are being listed under Wright et al. v. Arkansas (immediately below). 
• 15 September 2014, of interest is this amicus brief filed by Bishop Anthony B. Taylor, Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Little Rock, AR. From the brief: "The Diocese has a strong interest in protecting the traditional institution of husband-wife marriage because of the religious beliefs of its members and this institution's benefit to children, families, and society." 

Many of the Arkansas plaintiffs with their lead attorney Cheryl Maple

• 23 January 2015, the Arkansas Attorney General asked for new oral arguments before the Arkansas Supreme Court because there are new justices on the court who did not hear the arguments held on 20 November 2014.
• 27 January 2015, the plaintiffs opposed the state's request for new oral argument before the Arkansas Supreme Court.
• 5 February 2015, following the state's request for new oral argument and plaintiffs' objection to the request, the Court has called for parties' responses supporting their respective positions on which justices should preside over the case. Responses due in 30 days.
• 17 February 2015, the plaintiffs asked the Arkansas Supreme Court to immediately lift the stay.
• 17 February 2015, the plaintiffs also filed their Response to the Court's Feb. 5 order addressing the issue of which justices should reside over the case.
• 17 February 2015, State's Response to February 5 Order re: which justices should preside over the case.
• 27 February 2015, the State filed its opposition to lifting the stay.
• 4 March 2015, the County Defendants join the state in opposing the plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay.
• 7 May 2015, the Arkansas Supreme Court filed their determination as to which justices should preside over the marriage case; a Concurrence in Judgment was also filed.

Wright et al. v. Arkansas (Kendall Wright et al. v. AR Governor Michael Beebe, et al.) 

NOTE: Included below are updates for Smith v. Wright (immediately above).

Case Number: 60CV-2013-2662
Court Level: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: 2 July 2013
Appeal: 14 May 2014

Description:

• This was the first state marriage case filed following the Windsor ruling on 26 June 2013.
• The case's lead attorney is Cheryl Maples who represents 44 plaintiffs, the largest number on record to date.
• Both defendants’ motion to dismiss and plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction were denied. The State then filed an answer to plaintiffs’ 3rd amended complaint.
• 26 February 2014, cross-motions for summary judgment were filed.
• 19 March 2014, cross motions for summary judgement were responded to.
• 2 April 2014, cross motions for summary judgement were replied to.
• 17 April 2014, hearing was held.
• 9 May 2014 Judge Piazza ruled that the Arkansas ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.
• 14 May 2014, the state filed a petition for an emergency stay of Judge Piazza’s ruling.
• 16 May 2014, the stay was granted.
• 3 July 2014, a group of Arkansas county clerks filed their own petition for a stay with the AR Supreme Court. They claimed that while Judge Piazza's ruling in that case overturned the state's constitutional ban on marriage equality, it did not address the state's statutory ban, therefore causing confusion and uncertainty. This case is Smith v. Wright (see immediately above). Smith is the Interim Director of the Arkansas Dept. of Health.
• 30 July 2014, the Arkansas Supreme Court set 8 September 2014 as the deadline for the state's first brief in its appeal of the lower court's ruling overturning state's marriage ban.
• 10 September 2014, Supreme Court Justice Cliff Hoofman filed a recusal from considering the appeal of Judge Chris Piazza's decision striking down the state's constitutional and statutory ban on same-sex marriage. No explanation was given.
• 6 August 2014, the defendants filed a motion to stay this case. 
• 13 August 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to a stay.
• 9 October 2014, The AR Supreme Court refused to delay proceedings.
• 23 October 2014, the AR Supreme Court oral arguments were set for 20 November 2014 at 9:00am CT.
• 20 November 2014, oral argument at the Arkansas Supreme Court was live broadcast - the video is now archived here, listed as CV-14-427 Nathaniel Smith, MD, MPH et al. v. M. Kendall Wright et al., from Pulaski County Circuit Court, Second Division.
• 23 January 2015, the Arkansas Attorney General asked for new oral arguments before the Arkansas Supreme Court because there are new justices on the court who did not hear the arguments held on 20 November 2014.

Lawsuits - Resolved

Frazier-Henson v. Walther

Case #: 60CV-15-569
Court Level: County Circuit Court
Date Filed: 13 February 2015
Date of Ruling: 9 June 2015

Description:

• 13 February 2015, complaint filed in Pulaski County, Arkansas, Civil Division, seeking recognition of the marriages that took place in Arkansas May 2014 before the stay.
• The plaintiff is Allen W. Cox, a widow seeking death and survivor benefits through Social Security. He and his now deceased husband, Steven Hall Thomas, were married in Arkansas during the window. The defendant is Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, in her official capacity.
• From the complaint: "Plaintiffs’ marriages and their rights, privileges, protections and recognition are protected by Arkansas law, the Arkansas Constitution and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and are valid marriages regardless of the outcome of Wright or the pending federal case of Jernigan v. Crane [see immediately below] currently pending appeal in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals." The complaint seeks relief for couples "including Plaintiffs, who were legally married in Arkansas in May 2014 and whose marriages were valid at the time they were entered into."
• 2 March 2015, an Amended Complaint was filed.
• 29 May 2015, three of the five defendants were successful in getting the complaint against them dismissed, the case will go forward with the two remaining defendants.
• 9 June 2015, Judge rules: ""Plaintiffs' prayer for injunctive relief is HEREBY GRANTED in all respects." Plaintiffs win!
• 9 June 2015, Judge: Arkansas Must Recognize in-State Same-Sex Marriages - By Andrew DeMillo, AP via ABC News

John Moix v. Libby Moix

Case Number: CV-13-76
Date Filed: 7 November 2013
Date of Ruling: 21 November 2013

Description:

• The AR Supreme Court considered reversing a county judge’s restriction barring John Moix, represented by ACLU Arkansas, from letting his gay partner stay overnight when John’s son is visiting.
• 21 November, 2013, the AR Supreme Court ruled in favor of John Moix, and halted the statewide policy of always banning child visitation with any parent who lives with an unmarried partner, regardless of individual circumstances.

Ballot Initiatives - Pending

Repeal of the Arkansas Marriage Amendment

Ballot Measure: To repeal the 2004 state ban on same-gender civil marriage.
Type: Constitutional Amendment proposed by Arkansans for Equality
Date Filed: 27 June 2013

Summary:

• AFE proposed a constitutional amendment to only repeal the 2004 ban on same-gender civil marriage.
• On 13 August 2013, the AR attorney general approved the wording of the AFE proposal. 

The Arkansas Marriage Amendment

Ballot Measure: To repeal the existing ban on same-gender civil marriage and also to legalize such unions.
Type: Citizens’ initiative proposed by Arkansas Initiative for Marriage Equality
Date Filed: 7 November 2013

Summary:

• On 7 November 2013, AR Attorney General Dustin McDaniel approved the AIME ballot measure to repeal the existing ban on same-gender civil marriage and also to legalize such unions.
• On 18 January 2014, AIME began petitioning to repeal the 2004 constitutional ban against same-gender civil marriage, via the 2016 ballot. Valid signatures are needed from at least 10% of all 2014 voters and 5% of the voters in 15 counties.

Arkansas Ballot Initiative #3 (Name TBD)

Ballot Measure: To repeal ban on same-gender marriage as well as to legalize same-gender unions.
Type: Constitutional amendment proposed by Arkansas Initiative for Marriage Equality
Date Filed: 10 July 2013 

Ballot Initiatives - Passed

None.

Polls

• 1 May 2014, a Public Policy poll showed support for same-sex marriage among the general population at 27%, while voters under 30 actually support it 53/32. Poll Details
• In a statewide poll of 520 likely Arkansas voters conducted on 19 January 2014, when asked "Which of the following policy positions most closely resembles your own view regarding relationships between two people of the same sex?," 21.5% responded that gay couples should be allowed to legally marry; 24% responded that gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions or domestic partnerships, but not legally marry; 50% responded that there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship; and, 4.5% responded that they don’t know. Poll details.
• 24 October 2013, a poll run by the University of Arkansas showed that minds are changing. When it comes to the statement “There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship,” only 46% of Arkansans agreed, the first time the response dipped below 50%. University Newswire