The ruling came Thursday from Chief Judge Kristine Baker (Arkansas Department of Education) AR Kids v. Rosebud Town (paragraph numbers omitted):
AR Kids formed a ballot issue committee in December 2023 under Arkansas law with the goal of placing its Educational Rights Amendment of 2024 on the November 2024 ballot. The proposed amendment would amend Section 14 of the Arkansas Constitution to, among other things, require all schools that receive public funds to meet the same standards and require universal pre-K….
You can view the text of the proposed amendments here .
[P]The plaintiffs challenged Town Ordinance No. 2024-03, which was passed and adopted by the Town on June 17, 2024.[The Ordinance] It states in part that “Any commercial or religious or political entity wishing to solicit business, membership or signatures for any purpose must rent a booth or space of the City of Rosebud, Arkansas’s choosing at any such event and may only conduct such Collection activities.
The ordinance was first introduced at the Town Council meeting on June 13, 2024, after a member of the Ballot Issues Committee asked about seeking petition signatures at Summerfest.
Mayor Gorham stated at the June 13, 2024 meeting that Summerfest was happy to host party speeches but would not accept ballot committee speeches because “this is a family environment, this has nothing to do with politics, this is not that You want to go somewhere, be bombarded, be asked to sign a petition, read about it or something like that.
Mayor Gorham clarified that the law cannot ban lobbyists entirely. He said:”[i]I don’t believe they should have been there, that they shouldn’t have been allowed to be there, or that what they were doing was right. I want everyone to know this because I don’t think 98% of the town agrees with what’s on their ballot, but there’s nothing we can do except vote for the right people in November and get the right people on board.
The plaintiff applied to rent a booth at the Summer Music Festival on Saturday, June 22, 2024.
At the hearing, the defendants agreed that Ordinance No. 2024-03 did not provide for the plaintiffs’ petition to seek signatures on the public rights-of-way surrounding Summerfest, including Ballpark Road and School Road.
Defendants maintain that plaintiffs are prohibited from soliciting signatures for their petition on town-owned property outside the entrance to Summerfest because it is town-owned property….
The plaintiff has established a likelihood of success based on court records…. The plaintiffs also established a threat of irreparable harm based on the First Amendment interests involved and the plaintiffs’ inability to collect a sufficient number of signatures by the July 5, 2024 deadline.. Based on the court record at this stage of the proceedings, the equity balance favors the protection of the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights through the grant of a temporary restraining order….
The court did not explain its First Amendment reasoning, but it was the plaintiff’s argument, which the court found at least partially persuasive. This is a unilateral An emergency temporary restraining order was issued, so the city did not present written arguments, but its attorneys participated in oral arguments. According to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (John Ellis),
Searcy attorney Don Rainey, who represents the city of Rosebud, argued at Thursday’s hearing that the purpose of the ordinance is simply to ensure festival-goers have a good time and don’t have to deal with lobbyists.
“Everybody supports free speech,” Rainey said, “but sometimes there’s a right to free speech.”
(Note, of course, that this is just an excerpt of Rainey’s argument; I’m afraid I don’t have a full record to share.)
John C. Williams of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation represents the plaintiffs. Thanks to Professor Robert Steinbuch for his guidance.
