New! Guide to Religion in Schools
Bill of Rights Essay Contest

These links to initiatives from the ACLU National office can assist you with more information

 

Welcome to the ACLU of Arkansas

The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty. We work in the courts, the legislature and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Our job is to preserve America's original civic values - those enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty.”
-- Thomas Jefferson

ACLU Challenges Unconstitutional Arkansas Ballot Access Rule In Federal Court PDF Print
Latest News

ACLU Challenges Unconstitutional Arkansas Ballot Access Rule In Federal Court

State Illegally Barring Green Party Access To Ballot

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 27, 2009

LITTLE ROCK, AR – The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Arkansas filed a lawsuit today in a federal court in Arkansas challenging Arkansas Secretary of State Charlie Daniels’ decertification of the Green Party of Arkansas as a political party.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Arkansas voters and the Green Party, charges that the decision violates state law and the free speech rights of third parties.

“The First Amendment protects not only the right of third parties to compete in the political arena but also the right of individual voters to support the candidates who best reflect their political views,” said Bryan Sells, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project. “A lot of voters are dissatisfied with the choices offered by the major parties, and Secretary Daniels’ decision means that the voters of Arkansas could have even fewer choices on the ballot when they go to the polls in the next election.”

Daniels’ decision to decertify the Green Party stems from a state law requiring a political party’s candidates to earn at least 3% of the total votes cast in gubernatorial or presidential elections in order to retain access to the ballot in the next election cycle.

In the 2008 election, the Green Party’s candidates received hundreds of thousands of votes, far surpassing the 3 percent threshold. Green Party candidate Richard Carroll won a seat in the State House of Representatives, and several other Green Party candidates for the U.S. House and Senate earned over 20 percent of the vote. Daniels nonetheless decertified the Green Party because its candidate for president, Cynthia McKinney, did not earn more than 3 percent of the vote in the presidential race.

“The Green Party clearly represents the interests of a large number of Arkansans,” said Rita Sklar, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “But the Democratic and Republican parties have set up an unconstitutional system to deny ballot access to legitimate third parties that have substantial voter support in order to shield themselves from competition. That’s just not the way democracy is supposed to work.”

According to the ACLU, Arkansas’ party-recognition regulation also illegally forces political parties to compete in gubernatorial and presidential elections. Third parties like the Green Party do not always have gubernatorial or presidential candidates, making it impossible to earn 3 percent of the vote for candidates in those elections.

The ACLU of Arkansas has urged lawmakers to pass legislation that would bring Arkansas law in line with the U.S. Constitution, because without a legislative cure, parties and persons wishing to exercise their First Amendment rights are forced to file lawsuits to have those rights respected.

Attorneys on the case are Sells and Laughlin McDonald of the national ACLU Voting Rights Project and Holly Dickson of the ACLU of Arkansas.

The complaint in the case, Green Party of Arkansas et al. v. Daniels, is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/votingrights/access/40856lgl20090827.html

More information on the work of the ACLU Voting Rights Project is available at: www.votingrights.org

More information about the ACLU of Arkansas is available at: www.acluarkansas.org/

 
Federal Appeals Court Condemns Shackling Of Pregnant Prisoners In Labor PDF Print
Latest News

Federal Appeals Court Condemns Shackling Of Pregnant Prisoners In Labor

ACLU Client Shackled During Labor In Arkansas


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


October 2, 2009

NEW YORK - Ruling in the case of an Arkansas woman who was shackled to her hospital bed while in labor in 2003, a federal appeals court today said that constitutional protections against shackling pregnant women during labor had been clearly established by decisions of the Supreme Court and the lower courts. This is the first time a circuit court has made such a determination. The full Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals made the ruling today in the case of ACLU client Shawanna Nelson.

“This is a historic decision by a U.S. Court of Appeals that affirms the dignity of all women and mothers in America,” said Elizabeth Alexander, Director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Prison Project. “Correctional officials across the country are now on notice that they can no longer engage in this widespread practice.”

Nelson was a 29-year-old non-violent offender who was six months pregnant with her second child when she was incarcerated by the Arkansas Department of Corrections (ADOC) in June 2003. Three months later, after going into labor, she was taken to a local hospital where correctional officers shackled her legs to opposite sides of the bed. Nelson remained shackled to the bed for several hours of labor until she was finally taken to the delivery room.

The shackles caused Nelson cramps and intense pain, as she could not adjust her position during contractions. She was unshackled during delivery, but was immediately re-shackled after the birth of her son. After childbirth, the use of shackles caused her to soil the sheets of her bed because she could not be unshackled quickly enough to get to a bathroom.

“Restraining a pregnant woman can pose undue health risks to the woman and her pregnancy,” said Diana Kasdan, staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “Today’s decision reaffirms that pregnant women in prison do not lose their right to safe and humane treatment.”

Nelson filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against ADOC and several ADOC officials, and a federal district court judge ruled that a jury should decide whether her treatment violated the constitution. A three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, dismissed Nelson’s case by ruling that her shackling was not unconstitutional. The ACLU represented Nelson in a subsequent hearing before the full Eighth Circuit Court which found that legal precedent clearly establishes the constitutional protections against shackling pregnant women in labor, paving the way for Nelson’s lawsuit to go to trial.

“Shackling pregnant women is not only dangerous it is inhumane,” said Rita Sklar, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “The importance of this decision cannot be overstated.”

The National Perinatal Association, American College of Nurse Midwives, American Medical Women’s Association, the Rebecca Project for Human Rights and dozens of other public health and advocacy organizations that are dedicated to protecting the health and rights of women and their children also opposed the prison's shackling of Nelson.

A copy of today’s ruling by the Eighth Circuit is available online at:
www.aclu.org/prison/medical/41232lgl20091002.html
 
ACLU Asks Court To Strike Down Arkansas Parenting Ban PDF Print
Press Releases

ACLU Asks Court To Strike Down Arkansas Parenting Ban

Over A Dozen Families Affected By Act 1 Step Forward To File Lawsuit

LITTLE ROCK—The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit seeking to strike down a new law that bans any unmarried person who lives with a partner from serving as an adoptive or foster parent in the state of Arkansas.

At a press conference at the Arkansas State Capitol this morning, several of the plaintiffs described how Act 1, which is set to go into effect on January 1, impacts their families and why they decided to be part of the case.

Stephanie Huffman, who already adopted one child from the state in 2004, was one of the plaintiffs who spoke at today's press conference. Huffman and her partner of 10 years, Wendy Rickman, want to adopt another child or a pair of siblings through the Department of Children and Family Services, but now can't because of Act 1. "The state already knows we're good enough parents that they placed one child with us before Act 1 passed," said Huffman. "Who knows how many children are now cut off by this law from loving homes?"

In the lawsuit filed today, the ACLU argues that Act 1 violates the federal and state constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. Participating in the case are 29 adults and children from over a dozen different families, including a grandmother who lives with her same-sex partner of nine years and is the only relative able and willing to adopt her grandchild who is now in Arkansas state care, several married heterosexual couples who have relatives or friends disqualified by Act 1 who they want to adopt their children if they die, and a heterosexual woman who wants to be a foster or adoptive parent but can't because she lives with her partner of five years. The complaint was filed this morning in Pulaski County Circuit Court.

"Ever since the election, we've been hearing from all corners of the state from dozens of families who are panicking about how Act 1 impacts them," said Rita Sklar, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas. "This law hurts families and children in many ways – it takes away parents' right to decide for themselves who will adopt their children if they die, it denies the many children in Arkansas state care a chance at the largest possible pool of potential foster and adoptive homes, and denies couples who are living together but unmarried the chance to provide loving homes to children who desperately need them."

Among the plaintiffs and their families are:

Sheila Cole: Sheila lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma with Jennifer, her partner of nine years. Sheila's adult daughter from an earlier relationship had a baby girl in May of 2008 who was placed in the Arkansas foster care system when she was two months old. Sheila wants to adopt her granddaughter and is the relative best able to take in the baby. Every week she makes a four-hour round trip to Bentonville for two hours of visitation with her granddaughter. Sheila has taken foster parenting classes with Oklahoma's DHS and has passed a home study. She is now waiting for approval from Arkansas, but she's worried she might not be approved to adopt her own granddaughter because of Act 1.

Stephanie Huffman and Wendy Rickman: Stephanie and Wendy have been together for 10 years and are raising two sons together, one of whom is a 7-year-old with special needs whom Stephanie adopted from the state in 2004. Stephanie and Wendy want to adopt another child, or perhaps a pair of siblings, but can't because of Act 1.

Frank Pennisi and Matt Harrison; Meredith and Benny Scroggin: Frank and Matt have been together for eight years and live together in Little Rock and would like to become foster or adoptive parents. Matt's cousin, Meredith Scroggin, and her husband Benny want Frank and Matt to be able to adopt their two daughters in the event of their death.

Cary and Trina Kelley: Cary and his wife, Trina, have two young daughters and live across the road in Fayetteville from Cary's mother Vickie Kelley and her partner Sophia Estes. Sophia and Vickie have been together 16 years, and cumulatively have three children and six grandchildren. If anything were to happen to Cary and Trina, who held their wedding in Vickie and Sophia's backyard, they want Vickie and Sophia to be able to adopt their children. Trina, Cary's wife, spent many years of her childhood in state care and she feels very strongly that children who need homes shouldn't be cut off from loving relatives like Sophia and Vickie.

Kaytee Wright: Kaytee Wright lives on a farm in Cabot with her partner of five years, Alan Leveritt. Kaytee helps Alan raise his eight-year-old daughter from his previous marriage, of whom he has joint custody. Together she and Alan are also providing a home and financial assistance to a mother and her two young children through a Little Rock shelter for the working homeless. Kaytee was adopted from state care when she was just four weeks old, and she feels very strongly that good homes should be provided to children in the state system. Kaytee would like to adopt a child but cannot because she and Alan aren't married.

For a complete list of all the plaintiff families and more detailed profiles, please visit our site.

The plaintiffs are represented by Christine P. Sun, Rose Saxe, and Leslie Cooper of the American Civil Liberties Union, Stacey Friedman, Garrard Beeney, and Jennifer Sheinfeld of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, and Marie-Bernarde Miller and Daniel J. Beck of Williams & Anderson PLC on behalf of the ACLU Foundation of Arkansas.

The case is Cole, et al. v. Arkansas, et al. For more information on the case, including today's complaint, visit ACLU Parenting

 

 
Frequently Asked Questions About Arkansas Act 1 (2008) PDF Print
Public Education

Frequently Asked Questions About Arkansas Act 1 (2008)

Read more about Act 1 and its consequences...

Read more...
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next > End >>

Results 13 - 18 of 26

 

Stand Up With the ACLU

 

Designed by PixelBunyiP

www.acluarkansas.org is the website of the ACLU of Arkansas Union and the ACLU of Arkansas Foundation. Learn more about the distinction between these two components of the ACLU of Arkansas.


© 2010 Arkansas ACLU