A federal judge has permanently blocked laws that placed restrictions on Arkansas' ballot initiative and referendum processes, declaring them unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks ruled Friday that Arkansas laws requiring canvassers to be state residents, mandating that paid canvassers live in Arkansas, and banning pay-per-signature methods violate the constitutional right to free speech. His written decision concludes a lawsuit filed in 2025 against Secretary of State Cole Jester by the League of Women Voters of Arkansas, with two advocacy groups, Protect AR Rights and For AR Kids, later joining the case.
“This is a good day for the voters of Arkansas,” said Kristin Foster, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Arkansas. “The power to make our voices heard belongs to the people. The ballot initiative process gives Arkansans a direct say in their government, and we’re proud to stand with voters and defend that right.”
Advocates for the lawsuit argued that the challenged laws made it unduly difficult for Arkansas citizens to propose constitutional amendments or laws, jeopardizing Arkansans’ democratic participation. Secretary Jester and supporters of the laws, however, contended the measures were designed to safeguard the integrity of the petition process and prevent fraud.
The court’s ruling comes shortly after the Arkansas Supreme Court rejected a request by Protect AR Rights to reinstate their disqualified petition for the November ballot. Jester deemed the group’s signatures invalid after a naming error on their petitions, while other groups involved in the case were unable to collect sufficient signatures.
Brooks, appointed to the federal bench by former President Barack Obama, first issued a preliminary injunction in November that temporarily restrained some of the challenged laws’ enforcement. His Friday ruling followed a July trial and subsequent legal filings, during which the court examined evidence and arguments about the laws’ constitutionality.
In his 45-page decision, Brooks criticized the residency requirements for canvassers, stating that they impede free speech by restricting participation to a small pool of in-state individuals. “Americans have the right to speak about and advocate for political change in all states, not just the one where they live,” Brooks wrote. He explained that these restrictions limited groups’ ability to hire the most experienced professionals and forced them to work with less effective canvassers, increasing campaign costs and reducing efficiency.
The judge also struck down the ban on pay-per-signature compensation for canvassers, citing insufficient evidence that such payments increase the risk of fraud. “The state provided no evidence connecting payment on a per-signature basis to even a single instance of fraud,” Brooks wrote, adding that the ban imposes content-based restrictions on political speech.
State officials plan to appeal the ruling. Jeff LeMaster, a spokesperson for Attorney General Tim Griffin, confirmed the state’s intent to challenge the decision in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which will also hear the state’s appeal of the earlier preliminary injunction this fall. Ten of the 11 active judges on the Eighth Circuit are appointees of Republican presidents.
“This case is far from over,” said Samantha Boyd, a spokesperson for the secretary of state’s office. “These petition laws are basic safeguards to prevent fraud. Without them, it makes our electoral system vulnerable to bad actors.”
Advocates for ballot initiatives lauded the decision as a victory for voter freedom. Protect AR Rights issued a statement calling the ruling “a major win for Arkansas voters and the First Amendment,” adding that it “preserves a vital path forward for Arkansas voters to make important decisions and hold politicians accountable.”
Brooks' decision emphasized the importance of protecting political speech, even when evidence on both sides is inconclusive. “Where doubt exists, the court must err on the side of safeguarding free expression,” he concluded.
The case highlights ongoing disputes over Arkansas' initiative process, which has been a flashpoint in debates about direct democracy, voter access, and election integrity.