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 Files Legal Statement on Behalf of Appellate Court Judge Wendell Griffen

ACLU of Arkansas Supports Judge Facing Discipline for Criticizing Bush Administration (7/10/2007)

ACLU Files Legal Statement on Behalf of Appellate Court Judge Wendell Griffen

LITTLE ROCK, AR – The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas filed a letter today with the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission in support of State Appeals Court Judge Wendell Griffen, who is facing disciplinary action by the commission for making public statements that are critical of the Bush administration. The ACLU said that any discipline by the commission would violate the judge's right to freedom of speech.

"The state cannot require judges to stand for election and then deprive them of  the ability to comment on important issues of the day," said Rita Sklar, Executive  Director of the ACLU of Arkansas. "If a litigant thinks a judge's views reveal a ground for recusal, then that is the way to handle questions of impartiality or  the appearance of impartiality. But an elected judge's First Amendment rights should  not be extinguished. As a prominent African American and Baptist pastor in a small  southern state, Judge Griffen is a community leader in a strong position to inform  public debate on today's social problems."

The ACLU said that Judge Griffen's speech is protected by the First Amendment  because the judge's comments were made on matters of great public concern or  importance, which cuts to the core values of the First Amendment, and that these  comments did not concern matters that are likely to come before him as a judge.  Furthermore, the ACLU says in its letter that forbidding judges from speaking on  matters of public concern would do nothing to ensure impartiality, but instead  would conceal partiality that they might otherwise reveal in their remarks.

The ACLU cited the United States Supreme Court decision in Republican Party of  Minnesota v. White, which held that Minnesota's policy of barring judges from  discussing political views was unconstitutional. That decision, written by Justice  Antonin Scalia in 2002, identified two ways for handling real or perceived  problems arising from judges speaking on public matters: disqualifying a judge  from hearing a case because of a potential conflict of interest, or voting to  remove a judge from office.

Judge Griffen faces discipline charges for the following incidents:

Criticizing President Bush's nomination of John Roberts for Chief Justice of the  United States Supreme Court in a September 8, 2005 speech at the National Baptist  Convention USA in Atlanta (Judge Griffen is a pastor and spoke as an official of  the convention);

Criticizing the Bush administration's handling of Hurricane Katrina, Vice  President Dick Cheney, the "Christian right," Supreme Court Ju stice Clarence  Thomas and the late President Ronald Reagan in a September 10, 2005 speech to the Arkansas Chapter of the NAACP;

Expressing "wholehearted support" for a minimum wage increase at a January 19,  2006 news conference on the steps of the Christ Episcopal Church in Little Rock as one of a group of state religious leaders;

Speaking out against the Iraq war and people who speak negatively of immigrants  and gay and lesbian people in an October 19, 2006 speech at St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Fayetteville, Arkansas;

Criticizing some of the Bush administration's policies in an October 26, 2006  opinion piece in the Arkansas Times.

In its letter to the commission, the ACLU asks the commissioners to consider  whether judges who have been supportive of governmental officials or their actions  would be subject to the same discipline as Judge Griffen, who has been critical of  government action. The ACLU also cites a 2004 Mississippi Supreme Court case,  Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Wilkerson, holding that discipline  of a Mississippi judge for public statements that "gays and lesbians should be put  in some type of mental institute" violated the First Amendment rights of that  judge.

The hearing before the commission, which the judge has asked to be open to the  public, will be held on July 20, 2007.

ACLU Arkansas Sues Department of Correction

ACLU of Arkansas Tells Prison: “Keep Curtains Open During Executions” 

ACLU Sues on Behalf of Journalists and Newspaper to Open Entire Execution Procedure to Public Viewing (July 25, 2007)

Little Rock, AR - The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas filed a lawsuit today in federal court in Pine Bluff demanding that the Arkansas Department of Correction allow those viewing executions to see the entire process from the moment the condemned person is brought into the room until the moment the body is taken out.

“America is an open society, and we do not carry on trials or carry out executions in secret,” said Rita Sklar, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “The freedom we treasure is based on the idea that the government acts with the permission of the people, and not the other way around. If we are going to give the state the power to execute people in our name, we have a right and responsibility to see exactly what goes on.”

The ACLU of Arkansas filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Northwest Arkansas Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, the Arkansas Times, Inc., and journalist Max Brantley. The ACLU contends that the First Amendment compels a right of public viewing for all phases of a lethal injection because the event is a matter of public concern and debate, and “Because the First Amendment guarantees the public and the press a qualified right of access to governmental proceedings … [preventing the press and the public] ... from viewing the execution from beginning to end violates their First Amendment right of access. ”The lawsuit asks the Court to require that “all phases of the execution be conducted in full and open view of the assembled witnesses to that execution.”

In Arkansas a limited number of people, including members of the media, are allowed to witness state executions. Under current execution procedure curtains in the execution chamber are opened only after the prisoner has been strapped to a gurney and the intravenous tubes inserted into the prisoner’s veins. The curtains remain open while the poison is injected and the prisoner dies, and then close again as technicians take out the tubes and do whatever else is necessary to remove the body from the room.

The ACLU complaint describes the execution procedure in more detail:

“The [prison] does not allow the public and media witnesses to view an execution in its entirety. Specifically,

witnesses are not allowed to see or hear the condemned take his final steps into the execution chamber;
the ADC personnel strapping the condemned prisoner to the gurney;
immobilizing his or her head;
spreading his or her arms away from his or her body;
strapping the hands to the board;
putting in place the leather breastplate;
placing the straps over the shoulders, waist, and thighs;
placing the leather shackles around the condemned’s ankles;
fastening to the gurney,
immobilizing the lower legs;
inserting the two IV lines into the condemned;
attaching an electrocardiogram monitor;
selecting alternate IV insertion points; or
the performance of more invasive or surgical procedures such as [surgically opening a vein in the neck to insert the tubing].

Further, microphones are not on during any of the execution procedures, other than to give the condemned a chance for last words or statements and to pronounce the condemned dead. Therefore, conversations with the condemned, or exclamations or statements by the condemned during the execution process cannot be heard.”

“Hiding from public view the manner in which the government puts people to death serves no one,” said ACLU cooperating attorney Jim Lingle, “and limits informed public debate. If our method of execution is humane, it must be open so that it will remain humane. If it is not humane, it must be open so that it can be changed.”

Click the link below to view the complaint: http://www.acluarkansas.org/content/files/complaint.pdf

<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next > End >>

Results 25 - 26 of 26