Growing up I always envisioned my dream wedding. I spent many years as a young girl dreaming of my wedding dress, the ceremony, the reception, etc. I never imagined the reality of my wedding involving a whirlwind two-day trip to Washington, D.C., a sudden snow storm, or having such an informal ceremony. My wife, Rhonda, and I just celebrated our 14^th anniversary; yet, we only married 11 months ago. It is not that we did not want to be legally married. Rhonda and I have been married in every way for over twelve years. We own property and vehicles together. We have joint bank accounts and joint credit cards. Everything we own is joint property. Yet, we never traveled to another state to legally wed.

The reason we waited so long to get married is because Arkansas does not permit or recognize gay marriage. Even if we traveled to another state to be married, it would have made no legal difference once we returned to Arkansas. We would have been married long ago if we lived in a state that recognized our union. Instead, we had to take precautions to protect ourselves and our relationship. Imagine this horrible scenario: Your spouse has a terrible accident and you rush to the emergency room to be told only family is allowed to go back with them or see them. You and your spouse have been together for five years, ten years, even fifty years, and it would not matter. Your relationship is not legally recognized; therefore, the hospital refuses to recognize your relationship as well. Even if you are the very person who should be making medical decisions for your partner, you could be prevented from doing just that simply because your state does not recognize your union. Let us take that scenario one horrifying step further. Imagine your partner dies. What happens to the life you have built together or all the things you accumulated together? Your partner’s family, blinded by grief, comes in and demands all of your partner’s belongings and property. You are then stuck in a legal battle trying to keep the things you purchased with your partner. Because Arkansas does not recognize same-sex unions many couples have to resort to legal means in order to protect their interests and rights in times of emergencies.

As soon we bought our first house in 2002, Rhonda and I had wills drawn up to ensure there would be no doubt as to how our estates would be distributed in the event one of us died. We never doubted our family would try to take anything from our partners but you never know how people will react in the midst of grieving and loss. We also prepared Powers of Attorney to ensure we could make health and financial decisions for one another. One of my biggest fears was something happening to one of us and the other not being able to make the necessary decisions due to the fact Arkansas does not recognize our relationship. Instead, we had to go through the expense of drafting legal documents in order to be afforded the same rights a married couple receives just by being married. A couple legally wed in Arkansas does not have to worry about these types of issues. They know they are able to make life decisions and know they do not have to worry about the distribution of property and belongings they bought together. Rhonda and I were not afforded that right simply because of the marriages laws of the state we call home. Luckily, we have never had to use the Powers of Attorney. We have both had surgery as well as our fair share of unplanned medical emergencies but we have never encountered any problem with medical professionals trying to exclude the other one. If a challenge had been made it would have added needless stress to an already stressful time. But, the simple fact is we have been lucky.

Rhonda and I will celebrate our one year wedding anniversary on December 21, 2014. We knew it was time for us to get married once the federal government began to recognize same-sex marriages once the Defense of Marriage Act fell. Our trip to Washington, D.C. was a hurried affair. We had to plan our wedding around our work schedules and my exam schedule. There is a three day waiting period to get a marriage license in D.C. Our officiant was luckily able to get our license for us so we only had to show up. Our flight into D.C. was delayed more than an hour, our shuttle detoured through several Virginia suburbs, and we had to push our dinner reservations back to 11:00 p.m. Despite all of this, the purpose of the trip was fulfilled the next day. We were married by a wonderful woman who specialized in officiating gay marriages. She is in an interracial marriage and she loves performing gay marriage ceremonies because her marriage was once illegal too. We had to return home twelve hours earlier than originally planned because a snow storm was headed right for us and we were running the risk of being stranded in D.C. for several days. Our entire trip lasted less than thirty-six hours. However, we took home the thing we wanted the most – a marriage recognized by the federal government.

Rhonda and I were able to file a joint federal tax return this year. Unfortunately, filing single, individual returns for the state was a huge pain. We hope that in the near future we will be able to join other married Arkansas taxpayers and file jointly for state purposes. In the meantime we feel somewhat more protected because we know the federal government recognizes our marriage. We know that we will get the same federal benefits as all married couples with a few big exceptions like Social Security benefits. However, we know we made the right choice for us. We still have precautions in place to ensure the distributions of our estate are honored if one of us were to die. We also still need Powers of Attorney for healthcare and finances in place in case something was to happen to one of us. We hope that Arkansas’s gay marriage ban will fall soon and our marriage will be recognized by the state. Until then, we will take the rights afforded to us by the federal government, keep our precautionary plans in place, and keep fighting for equality in the state we love.

[i] Jennifer Bearden is a part-time 3L. She anticipates graduating in May, 2015. Originally from Memphis, TN, she currently resides in Saline County with her wife. She has worked in the legal field for many years and plans to practice in the areas of family law, probate law, and LGBT law.

The post Married in Arkansas appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

In recent years, Western human rights activists, scholars, and politicians have worked to advance homosexual rights in Africa. Understandably, they have tended to frame their arguments in liberal, universalist terms. In 2011, President Obama instructed federal agencies to promote homosexual and transgender rights overseas. Last year, in Senegal, Obama argued that although different countries’ customs and religious beliefs should be respected, homosexuals must be treated equally. “And that’s a principle that I think should be applied universally,” he added. Since then, several European countries, the World Bank, and the United States have cut aid money in attempts to influence the development of African law on the issue.

This approach is intuitive, given successful reliance on liberal values of equality and autonomy to enhance the status of homosexuals in the West, including through adversarial legal proceedings. Moreover, liberal ideology has become fully entrenched in international law, and the language of constitutions of countries across Africa also reflects the influence of liberal philosophy.

I am sympathetic to the liberal perspective, but consideration of events and ideas outside the liberal legal paradigm suggests reasons for caution in following a liberal agenda to promote homosexual rights in Africa.

For example, some of the anthropological evidence about the significance of same-sex sexual intimacy in African cultures reinforces the claims of queer theorists, whose anti-essentialist arguments suggest that sexual identity is socially constructed, rather than the product of an immutable, biological imperative.

Although the anthropological record demonstrates geographically widespread behavior that modern, Western observers would characterize as homosexual, historical understandings of this behavior would frequently have confounded contemporary constructions of homosexual identity. Even today, many Africans who engage in what Westerners would term homosexual conduct consider that conduct a relatively insignificant component not only of their overall identities, but an unimportant component even of their sexual identities. This anthropological substantiation of anti-essentialism suggests significant obstacles for liberal nondiscrimination arguments. Likewise, the observation of queer theorists that essentialist arguments can be used as effectively as tools of oppression as of liberation provides reason for caution by liberals attempting to improve African lives by classifying them in essentialist terms.

Communitarian philosophy is also particularly salient in the context of any discussion of the legal status of homosexuality in Africa because of the deep communitarian roots of traditional cultures across the continent. Although African countries have tended to adopt constitutions that proclaim liberal rights, many of the societies in which those constitutions have arisen have lacked the profound cultural commitment to individualism that observers like Michael Sandel have noted in the United States. Instead, African cultures have tended to emphasize group welfare over individual rights. As a consequence, communitarian values have frequently explained the actual operation of law in African countries better than the liberal principles expressed in African constitutions. This communitarian perspective also suggests obstacles to advancement of homosexual rights in Africa through liberal arguments.

The context provided by consideration of the anti-essentialist claims of queer theorists, the African anthropological record, and communitarian philosophy offers potential insight on the likely depth of political resistance to liberal initiatives. Similarly, a more expansive appreciation of the history of efforts to influence African thought might alert liberals to the treacherous intellectual territory they inhabit. In advocating for universal rights, liberals would do well to recognize the sordid history of Western imposition of universalizing ideals to manipulate and subjugate African minds and bodies.

In the 19^th and 20^th centuries, at the height of colonialism, Westerners imposed a Victorian universalism on their colonial subjects. Victorian-era laws against homosexual conduct, applicable in the colonies as in the metropole, reflected the period ideology that heterosexuality was the natural norm, and that homosexuality was both biologically and morally deviant. British colonialists contended that homosexual activity in Africa was the product of an external menace, the morally licentious Arabs and Portuguese of Richard Burton’s infamous Sotadic Zone; today, their modern African intellectual counterparts point to the pernicious neocolonial influence of liberal Western culture.

Likewise, modern liberals assert their own universalizing rubric: Western-style homosexuality characterizes a subset of all populations, regardless of culture, and it must be accepted in accord with the liberal values of equality and autonomy. According to the implicit, and sometimes explicit, message of these liberals, the African politicians who make vitriolic public attacks on homosexuality are mere puppets of sinister outside forces—the lasting influence of colonial culture, and, often, contemporary, Western religious conservatives—and are incapable of possessing their own morally coherent perspective. An appreciation of this history might facilitate avoidance of the tropes of colonialism that could incite further backlash against policies aimed at enhancement of the status of people who engage in same-sex intimacy in Africa.

In the end, categorizing all Africans who engage in same-sex intimacies as homosexuals could make the intended beneficiaries of categorization easier targets for oppression by majorities in societies disinclined to accept such Western conceptions of sexual identity. Likewise, arguments based on equal protection or autonomy may be less likely to succeed in cultures in which group interests often take precedence over individual rights. Western liberals are correct to counter African claims that homosexuality is un-African by pointing out that European outsiders originally introduced religious intolerance and laws against sodomy to African cultures that had been more amenable to same-sex intimacy. But African leaders who insist on the Western origins of homosexuality are also correct, though perhaps in an unintended sense: the presence in many contemporary African cultures of some people who define their same-sex intimacies in terms congruous with Western conceptions of homosexuality may indeed be the consequence of outside influence.

The question, at this point, is how best to protect African homosexuals and the many Africans who engage in same-sex intimacies but resist Western characterizations of the significance of those intimacies. There will always be struggles within every society to define the past in order to shape the present and influence the future. When strangers with little understanding of the context for those struggles attempt to affect their outcomes, they may face unintended consequences. Without question, we have the right to express our opinions and the authority to condition the distribution of our aid money on compliance with liberal norms. Nonetheless, if we hope to have a positive impact on the lives of Africans who engage in same-sex intimacies, we might do better to structure our interactions with the cultures we hope to influence as conversations rather than as lectures or commands.

The post Western Universalism and African Homosexualities appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

In Arkansas, there are two ways for a proposed law or constitutional amendment to make it on the ballot. They can be placed on the ballot by the legislature or by petition of the public. The legislature is limited to three ballot issues per election cycle and the public may propose more ballot initiatives through signed petitions. This year there are five initiatives on the ballot – two from the public and three from the legislature.

Ballot Issue #1: The Arkansas Legislative Approval of State Agency Rules Amendment

Currently Arkansas law requires state agencies to submit changes to their administrative rules to the legislature, but it does not grant the legislature the power to approve or disapprove of those changes.[1] If approved by voters, this measure would amend Article 5 of the Arkansas Constitution by adding a new section to read as follows:

• 42. Review and approval of administrative rules.
• The General Assembly may provide by law:
• For the review by a legislative committee of administrative rules promulgated by a state agency before the administrative rules become effective; and
• That administrative rules promulgated by a state agency shall not become effective until reviewed and approved by the legislative committee charged by law with the review of administrative rules under subdivision (a)(1) of this section.
• The review and approval by a legislative committee under subsection (a) if this section may occur during the interim or during a regular, special, or fiscal session of the General Assembly.[2]

In other words, approval of this amendment would allow the Legislature to require by law that state agencies submit all proposed rules to legislative review before they take effect and would not allow the rules to take effect until legislative review and approval of all changes to state agencies’ administrative rules.[3]

Arguments in support of Ballot Issue #1:

Senators Jonathan Dismang and Uvalde Lindsey along with Representatives Gary Deffenbaugh and Debra Hobbs are all on record as being in support of this proposed amendment. Rep. Deffenbaugh has been quoted as believing this amendment is good for the State of Arkansas because “it keeps agencies from making their own rules.”[4] He also believes the approval of this amendment would give more legislative oversight. Rep. Hobbs understands the need to explain the importance of this issue to voters and has attempted to do so by explaining what she encountered when first serving on the Arkansas Legislative Council.[5] She was surprised to learn that legislators reviewed agency rule changes but did not have the authority to approve or disapprove them.[6] Further to this point, Sen. Lindsey believes this amendment “is a good thing, for it provides a check and balance between the executive and legislative branches of government.”[7]

Arguments in opposition of Ballot Issue #1:

Opponents rely on the separation of powers to make their strongest point as well. It is argued that the amendment will disrupt the separation of powers between legislators and day-to-day administrators who are charged with carrying out state law and serve the needs of Arkansans.[8] Additionally, it is feared that approval by the General Assembly would make the process to establish rules or change rules more difficult and time consuming due to the need of legislators to educate themselves about complicated legal or technical issues in order to approve or disapprove of a new rule.[9] Finally, it is argued that a few legislators could block implementation of a new law approved by the General Assembly by refusing to accept rules guiding how the law would be implemented.[10]

Ballot Issue #2: The Arkansas Ballot Measure Signature Requirements Amendment

Issue #2 is another legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. If approved by voters, this issue would amend Section 1 of Article 5 of the Arkansas Constitution as follows (underline text is being added and the struck through text is being removed):

(a)(1) If the Secretary of State, county clerk or city clerk, as the case may be, shall decide any petition to be insufficient, he or she shall without delay notify the sponsers sponsors of such petition, and permit at least thirty (30) days from the date of such notification, in the instance of a state-wide petition, or ten (10) days in the instance of a municipal or county petition, for correction or amendment.

(2) For a state-wide petition, correction or amendment of an insufficient petition shall be permitted only if the petition contains valid signatures of legal voters equal to:

(A) At least seventy-five percent (75%) of the number of state-wide signatures of legal voters required; and

(B) At least seventy-five percent (75%) of the required number of signatures of legal voters from each of at least fifteen (15) counties of the state.

(b) In the event of legal proceedings to prevent giving legal effect to any petition upon any grounds, the burden of proof shall be upon the person or persons attacking the validity of the petition.[11]

The amendment would require ballot issue groups to collect at 75% of the valid signatures required in order to receive additional time to gather extra signatures once the petition has been turned in to the Secretary of State. To be placed on the ballot, proposed constitutional amendments need at least 78,133 valid signatures, and proposed initiated measures require at least 62,507.[12]

Currently there is no threshold requirement to receive additional time to gather more signatures. Within 30 days of receiving petition signatures, the Arkansas Secretary of State verifies each signature up to 110% of the required number. Prior to counting, the Secretary removes any individual petitions that are formally deficient. If any individual petition appears, beyond a reasonable doubt, to contain 20% or more dubious signatures, initiative sponsors are then responsible for proving which of the signatures are valid. If the petition fails to meet the signature requirement, petitioners have 30 days to collect additional signatures or demonstrate that rejected signatures are valid.[13]

Arguments in support of Issue #2:

Supporters claim this measure is necessary to prevent ballot measure campaigns from false signatures so as to buy time in their attempt to bring their issue before voters. A large number of invalid signatures were submitted by supporters of casino and severance tax proposals.[14] It is argued the proposed amendment would set the bar high enough to avoid worrying about fraud and deception.[15]

Arguments in opposition of Issue #2:

Various groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, the Arkansas AFL-CIO and the Family Council, are opposed to this measure. Generally, the groups in opposition to this measure believe it will be difficult for citizens to bring issues before voters. Many believe the proposed amendment does nothing to address fraud but severely hampers the ability of the people to place an initiated measure on the ballot.[16] Rep. Bob Ballinger, also in opposition to Issue #2, believes “[t]his is one area where people can touch government and can affect government and the only reason for this is to make it harder for them to do that.”[17]

Ballot Issue #3: Arkansas Elected Officials Ethics, Transparency and Financial Reform Amendment

If approved, this ballot initiative will significantly alter sections of the Arkansas Constitution concerning campaign contributions, lobbying, salary setting for government officials, and term limits for members of the Arkansas Legislature.[18]

Campaign Contributions:

Currently, the Arkansas Constitution does not limit financial contributions to political campaigns. The major substantive change to Arkansas campaign finance law posed by Ballot Issue # 3 is that only the following entities could contribute to political campaigns: individuals, political parties, county political party committees, legislative caucus committees, and approved political action committees (“PACs”).[19] Corporations, businesses, and other entities excluded from this list could not directly contribute to political campaigns, but would instead have to contribute through PACs. If an individual violates these campaign finance rules, he or she is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.[20] Additionally, the Arkansas Ethics Commission may discipline him or her.[21]

Limitations on Lobbying:

Currently, members of the Arkansas Legislature must wait one year after their terms expire to register as lobbyists.[22] If approved, this initiative would expand that waiting period to two years.[23] Additionally, an individual who knowingly violates this provision is guilty of a class D felony.[24]

Members of the General Assembly may currently receive gifts valued up to $100 per day from lobbyists. If approved, this initiative would completely bar not only lobbying gifts to members of the General Assembly, but also to the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer of State, Auditor of State, Attorney General, Commissioner of State Lands, Member of the General Assembly, and members of the commission that will set government salaries created by the initiative.[25]

Salary Setting for Government Officials:

Currently, the Arkansas General Assembly may set the salaries of Arkansas justices, judges, constitutional officers, and even its own members.[26] If approved, an independent commission would set those salaries.[27] Lobbyists, elected officials, state employees, and their immediate family members may not be on the commission.[28] The commission could not adjust any salary by more than fifteen percent at once.[29]

Term Limits:

Since Arkansas voters amended the Arkansas Constitution in 1992, State House Representatives have been limited to three two-year terms or a total of six years, and State Senators have been limited two four-year terms or a total of eight years.[30] If approved, this measure would expand term limits for members of the General Assembly to sixteen years. This section of the bill is the most contentious, and special interest groups and local media sources have spilled a lot of ink over it.

Arguments in support of Ballot Issue # 3:

Representative Warwick Sabin, a Democrat who represents District 33 of Little Rock, Arkansas, sponsored the amendment commonly known as “Ballot Issue #3.”[31] There is widespread support for ethics reforms such as reforms to campaign contributions, lobbying, and the ability of members of the General Assembly to set their own salaries contained within Ballot Issue # 3.[32] However, this support does not extend to the provisions of the amendment that would expand term limits for members of the General Assembly.[33]

If approved, the campaign finance provisions would bring the rules that govern Arkansas elections to those that govern federal elections. Since 1907, the United States has banned direct corporate donations to candidates.[34] In 2010, widespread public outcry about the role of corporations in the political process followed the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United that expanded protections for political speech by corporations.[35] Ballot Issue # 3 would compromise the ability of corporations and other business entities to sway Arkansas elections.

Similarly, the limitations on lobbying could discourage corruption by limiting the influence of gifts and recent political retirees on the legislative process. The provisions of the amendment creating an independent commission to set salaries for government officials could discourage corruption by forbidding members of the General Assembly from setting their own salaries. Representative Sabin maintains that his intent in sponsoring the bill was to push ethics reforms, but that he included the terms limits provisions as a tactical decision to persuade other lawmakers.[36]

Arguments in opposition of Ballot Issue # 3:

According to a survey conducted by Talk Business and Hendrix College in April 2014, over half of Arkansas voters oppose Ballot Issue # 3.[37] This disapproval appears to be nonpartisan: The only significant difference across party lines is that only 49% of Democrats opposed the amendment, versus 57% of the general population.[38]

Public opposition to Ballot Issue # 3 does not seem to stem from substantive objections to ethics reforms or even term limits, but from the allegedly misleading manner in which Ballot Issue # 3 appears on the ballot. Opponents to Ballot Issue # 3 call it a “Trojan horse” because it both hides a change to term limits within a broader ethics reform measure, and because the ballot title claims to “establish” term limits rather than expand them.[39]

The official ballot title for Ballot Issue # 3 is as follows:

To amend the Arkansas Constitution concerning elected state officials; prohibiting members of the General Assembly and elected constitutional officers of the executive department from accepting gifts from lobbyists, and defining key terms relating to that prohibition; prohibiting members of the General Assembly from setting their own salaries and the salaries of elected constitutional officers of the executive department, justices, and judges; establishing a seven-member independent citizens commission to set salaries for members of the general assembly, elected constitutional officers of the executive department, justices, and judges; establishing the appointment process for members of the independent citizens commission, and prohibiting members of the independent citizens commission from accepting gifts from lobbyists; prohibiting certain contributions, including contributions by corporations, to candidates for public office; prohibiting a member of the General Assembly from registering as a lobbyist until two (2) years after the expiration of his or her term; and establishing term limits for members of the General Assembly.[40]

Ballot Issue #4: The Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Initiative

Issue #4 is an initiated constitutional amendment – meaning it was placed on the ballot by public petition. If approved, the Arkansas Constitution would be changed to make the sale, manufacture, distribution and transportation of alcohol legal statewide. It would end the practice of local elections on alcohol sales and the General Assembly would continue to have the ability to regulate the sale, distribution and transportation of alcohol, but could not prohibit it.[41] Al

Currently, Arkansas allows for county control over the prohibition of alcohol. The state is practically evenly split on a county basis with 27 counties being dry and 38 being wet or mixed.[42] Arkansas is one of ten states who currently allow dry counties.[43]

The map above shows dry counties in red, wet counties in blue and mixed counties in yellow.

Arguments in favor of Issue #4:

The initiative is primarily being supported by Let Arkansas Decide.[44] They argue the amendment would make alcohol regulations the same for all 75 Arkansas counties.[45] Additionally, allowing sales in previously dry counties would result in new jobs and additional revenue for those cities and counties.[46] Furthermore, they argue that the risk of drunk-driving accidents would be reduced because people would not have to drive as far to buy alcohol.[47]

Arguments in opposition of Issue #4:

The campaign in opposition to the initiative is being led by Let Local Communities Decide for Themselves.[48] They argue the amendment would take away a community’s ability to decide the issue of alcohol sales.[49] They fear that if passed, the amendment would create a dangerous situation of liquor sales being legal within 1,000 feet of a school, day care center or church.[50] Furthermore, opponents express concern over the numerous negative health and social effects of alcohol and how alcohol sales might impacts the rates of such effects in currently dry counties.[51]

Ballot Issue #5: The Arkansas Minimum Wage Initiative

This is the second initiated state issue included on the November 4th ballot.[52]   The passage of this issue means the state minimum wage will increase incrementally over the next three years to a final amount of $8.50 per hour.[53]   Currently Arkansas’ minimum wage ($6.50/ hr) is lower than the national minimum wage (at $7.25/ hr.) – effectively causing the national wage to prevail.[54] It is one of three states whose minimum wage is below the national minimum wage.[55] The first raise in the minimum wage will come on January 1, 2015, causing the state minimum to surpass the national minimum wage at $7.50/hr; a year later the wage would rise to $8.00/hr; finally, on January 1, 2017 the wage raise will rise to $8.50/hr. As Arkansas is one of four states with minimum wage increases on the ballot and the final amount of $8.50/ hr is less than any other state’s initiative, this is an issue that both businesses and workers in Arkansas feel strongly about and the whole nation is watching closely.

Arguments in Support of Issue #5:

This initiative is strongly supported by multiple groups, Give Arkansas a Raise Now (GARN), Arkansas Interfaith Alliance, the Arkansas chapter of the NAACP, the AFL-CIO and the Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance. This is an issue that Senator Mark Pryor[56], Representative Tom Cotton[57], and the Democratic[58] and Republican[59] gubernatorial candidates all support this initiative. Generally, supporters of the initiative claim (i) working Arkansans deserve a living wage to support their families, (ii) raising the minimum wage would benefit businesses by lowering employee turnover and improving productivity, and (iii) raising the minimum wage would bring families out of poverty.[60]

Arguments in Opposition of Issue #5:

This initiative has opponents in the Arkansas Hospitality Association[61], Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce[62], and Representative Bruce Westerman.[63] Opponents to the initiative claim that (i) increasing the minimum wage will result in fewer jobs, (ii) businesses would have two choices – raise prices or lay off workers, and (iii) raising the minimum wage will hurt the hospitality industry and first-time employees.[64]

A number of reports and analyses are available on this issue. The findings range from support, neutral, and opposition. A broader overview of the studies is available to help you determine where you stand on this issue.[65]

[1] , accessed Oct. 15, 2014.

[2] accessed Oct. 18, 2014.

[3] , accessed Oct. 15, 2014.

[4] , accessed Oct. 15, 2014.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] , accessed Oct. 7, 2014.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Arkansas Legislature, “SJR 16, 2013 Regular Session,” accessed Oct. 7, 2014.

[12] , accessed Oct. 7, 2014.

[13] accessed Oct. 7, 2014.

[14] , accessed Oct. 7, 2014.

[15] , accessed Oct. 7, 2014.

[16] Id.

[17] , accessed Oct. 7, 2014.

[18] Ark. H.J.R. Res. 1009, 89th General Assembly (2013).

[19] See id. at 2.

[20] Id. at 6.

[21] Id.

[22], accessed Oct. 8, 2014.

[23] Id.

[24] Id.

[25] Ark. H.J.R. Res. 1009, 89th General Assembly (2013).

[26] , accessed Oct. 8, 2014.

[27] Id.

[28] Id.

[29] Id.

[30] ARK. CONST. amend. 73, § 2.

[31] ,”accessed Oct. 8, 2014.

[32] ,” accessed Oct. 8, 2014.

[33] Id.

[34] ,” accessed Oct. 8, 2014.

[35] Citizens United v. Federal Election Com’n 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

[36] ”, accessed Oct. 8, 2014.

[37] ,” accessed Oct. 8, 2014.

[38] Id.

[39] , accessed Oct. 8, 2014.

[40] , accessed Oct. 8, 2014, (emphasis added).

[41] , accessed Oct. 7, 2014.

[42] , accessed Oct. 7, 2014.

[43] , accessed Oct. 7, 2014.

[44] accessed Oct. 7, 2014.

[45] , accessed Oct. 7, 2014.

[46] Id.

[47] Id.

[48] , accessed Oct. 7, 2014.

[49] , accessed Oct. 7, 2014.

[50] Id.

[51] Id.

[52] , accessed October 15, 2014.

[53] accessed Oct. 15, 2014.

[54] , accessed Oct. 15, 2014.

[55] accessed Oct. 14, 2014.

[56] accessed Oct. 14, 2014.

[57] , accessed Oct. 14, 2014.

[58] accessed Oct. 14, 2014.

[59] accessed Oct. 14, 2014.

[60] accessed Oct. 14, 2014.

[61] accessed Oct. 14, 2014.

[62] , accessed Oct. 14, 2014.

[63] accessed Oct. 14, 2014.

[64] accessed Oct. 14, 2014.

[65] , accessed Oct. 14, 2014.

The post A Review of the 2014 Arkansas Ballot Initiatives appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.