League of Women Voters of Arkansas v. Thurston

After the 2020 elections, the Arkansas State Legislature enacted four new laws that implemented new restrictions on voting processes.

1. Act 736 (“signature matching requirement”) required voters’ signatures on their absentee ballot applications to match those on their voter registration application. The law instructs election officials to reject absentee ballot applications if the signatures on the two forms are not ‘similar.’
2. Act 973 (“in-person absentee ballot return deadline”) requires that voters who return their absentee ballots in person to their county clerk’s office must do so by the close of business on the Friday before election day. Previously, voters were allowed to drop their absentee ballot off the day before election day.
3. Act 249 (“affidavit repeal") abolishes the option for voters without voter ID to sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury affirming they are eligible to vote when casting a provisional ballot at a polling place. Under Act 249, voters who cast a provisional ballot are required to present valid voter ID to election officials by noon on the Monday after the election. The same requirement also applies to absentee voters voting provisional ballots.
4. Act 728 (“voter support ban") forbids any person who is not a voter from coming within one hundred feet of a polling place entrance. Violation of this law potentially carries a fine of up to $2,500 and one year of imprisonment.

The League of Women Voters of Arkansas (LWV Arkansas), Arkansas United, and several Arkansas voters and League members, filed a lawsuit in the Pulaski County Circuit Court. The complaint asserted the four new laws violate the Free and Equal Elections, Equal Protection, and Voter Qualification Clauses of the Arkansas Constitution, as well as the rights of free speech and assembly it guarantees.

On March 24, 2022, the court issued an injunction enjoining the four acts from taking effect. The court found that based on the testimony presented at trial, the acts could potentially disenfranchise Arkansans in several ways. Voters might lack the time, money, and ability to obtain a compliant photo ID for voting. The court also found there was no proof of the fraudulent voting that Act 249 purported to prevent. Act 736’s signature match standard could erroneously disenfranchise otherwise eligible voters, given the lack of training and guidance for those checking signature matching.

The court also found Act 728 violated the Arkansas Constitution’s guarantees of freedom of assembly and speech, ruling defendants failed to present any evidence that giving water or comfort to voters waiting at the specified distance significantly disrupted elections.

Finally, the court ruled Act 973 violated the Arkansas Constitution’s protection of the right to vote. The court found that voters could be confused by the different deadlines, and potentially be faced with mailing their absentee ballot at the last minute, meaning it might arrive too late to be counted, or be forced to vote provisionally in person, defeating the purpose of an absentee ballot.

In response, the defendants appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court. On May 16, 2024, the court reversed the trial court's ruling in its entirety, deciding that: 

1. None of the challenged acts violated the state constitution's Equal Protection or Free and Equal Elections Clauses;
2. Acts 736 and 937 did not violate the Voter Qualification Clause because they only altered the mechanics of casting an absentee ballot;
3. Act 249 did not violate the state constitution because the legislature was not required to provide an affidavit as an alternative to valid voter photo ID, and; 
4. Act 728 did not violate the state constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech and assembly. 

The League was represented in this matter by Perkins Coie LLP, Kutack Rock, and the Eldridge Law Firm, PLLC.