Closed Doors in Benton County

I know a thing or two about how our leaders prefer to do business behind closed doors. We dealt with that at the University of Arkansas when His Highness, Chancellor John A. White sought to reform the student government. Judge Xollie Duncan ultimately ruled in favor of the U of A, but criticized the approach taken by the university.

Much more alarming that university task forces meeting in private is the prospect of Benton County JPs meeting in private to discuss public business. From The Morning News comes word that Dave Bisbee, a current state senator seeking election as Benton County Judge, supports these private meetings between JPs.

Arkansas law is clear that public business must be conducted in public. Imagine that. Senator Bisbee first stated that he would encourage JPs to meet privately but after being asked for clarification (because of what the law says), he said that he did not want decisions being made in "back room[s]." Which is it, senator?

JP Marge Wolf (R-Rogers) made it clear that the media only gets in the way of our elected officials doing what we elected them to do. From the article:

The media can get in the way of committees' discussions and prevent justices of the peace from mentoring those newly elected, Wolf said.

God forbid the media report on the actions and discussions of our elected officials. We may have our problems down here in Washington County but our elected officials generally understand the law governing the conduct of public business. Take note, Benton County. Arkansans don't like business being conducted behind closed doors. That's why, according to one study, we have the 4th best government transparency laws in the nation.

Vote AGAINST Arkansas Initiated Act 1

The Arkansas Family Council and its group of extremist Christian organizations is once again interjecting itself into the so-called culture war. As in the past, their goal is to demonize homosexuality but, if successful, the only effect would be to harm the children of the State of Arkansas.

The AFC is behind Initiated Act 1, the text of which can be viewed here, which would prohibit adoption and fostering by any couple cohabiting outside of marriage. Mind you, any single person (gay or straight) would still legally be permitted to adopt. So, what exactly is the point of this? As the Arkansas Times points out, what kind of sex policing will this require the state to do? What constitutes cohabiting and where is the line drawn?

The primary proponents of this measure are conservative Christian groups with no substance to their arguments other than Biblical pronouncements against homosexuality and premarital sex, etc. The opponents, on the other hand, are a powerful coalition of legislators, former members of the state judiciary, child advocacy groups and more moderate religious groups.

A group of retired judges recently signed a statement opposing the measure. The text of the statement is:

"By narrowing the qualifications required of people who seek to adopt children or to act as foster parents, proposed Initiated Act No. 1 would limit the ability of every Arkansas judge to choose custodial parents who would serve the best interests of vulnerable children. The choices available to neglected and abused children and to the judges who must find homes for them are already tragically limited by the children's circumstances. Instead of imposing a blanket rule that would apply to every case, the needs of these children, and the best means of satisfying their needs, should be left to elected judges to decide case-by-case. Any step, such as that proposed in Initiated Act. No. 1, to limit further the options for stable homes for these children would do them grave injustice. It is in the best interests of these children that Initiated Act. No. 1 be defeated."

That group of retired judges includes three former chief justices of the Supreme Court, three former associate justices, four former Court of Appeals judges and some former circuit and chancery judges. Let the judiciary use the power given to it to determine the best interest of the child and not arbitrarily cut out a significant number of perfectly suitable homes.

Some of the other groups fighting for the Act's defeat include the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, the Arkansas Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatricians - Arkansas Chapter and the Arkansas Psychological Association.

Far more information can be seen at the Arkansas Families First website. Early voting began a week ago and we only have 9 more days until election day. Whenever you vote, think about the children who will be harmed if Initiated Act 1 is approved. Vote AGAINST this measure.

Steve Clark for Mayor

I have been waiting for a campaign I could become passionate about, a candidate that I could honestly say I fully support, believe in, and would work to get elected. I have been sorely disappointed in the race for President, but I found a mayoral candidate who, I believe, will lead Fayetteville in the right direction. We have experienced a great period of growth, but the ideas of yesterday have failed to continue carrying us forward.

Yes, Steve has a colorful background. What is refreshing is that he does not shy away from it...rather, he wants you to know about his fall from grace and, more importantly, how he has righted his life. It was a long (and sometimes painful) journey, but the fire he has brought to this race show that the passion of the Steve Clark of old is still there, but with age (and more than his share of trials and tribulations) came the wisdom to lead once more.

Visit Steve's campaign site here.

Read a great article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette about Steve's return to public service here.

The Arkansas Scholarship Lottery Amendment

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. ~C.S. Lewis

There are many applications of Lewis' wisdom, but none so obvious to me at the moment than the fight being waged against Arkansas' lottery amendment by the Arkansas Family Council.

Arkansas is one of only 8 states that does not have a state-sponsored lottery. Some of the other seven are expected (Alabama, Mississippi, Alaska, Wyoming and Utah). The remaining two are more unexpected (Nevada and Hawaii). I suppose Nevadans are happy enough with tax revenues from Las Vegas.

In any case, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter and friends launched a campaign to establish a state lottery exclusively benefiting education. Jerry Cox and his cronies at the Arkansas Family Council have filed an eleventh hour Hail Mary challenge to the ballot initiative. It was first challenged in the Pulaski County Circuit Court, where the FC lost, and it is now being appealed. I'll go through the three arguments raised by the Family Council and provide rebuttals from the pro-lottery group and some of my own commentary.

I. Omission of Material Provision

The FC's first contention is that the ballot title is misleading fails to tell the voters that they are voting yes or no to repeal an existing constitutional provision and replace it with language permitting the state legislature to establish a state lottery. The basic premise of the argument is that it doesn't tell voters that they have a choice between the status quo (no lottery) or amending the constitution (to have a lottery).

Halter responds, in part, with the first three words of the popular title, which is likely the only thing a voter will read before casting his vote. Those three simple words are "A constitutional amendment..." I realize Arkansas may not boast the most intellectually gifted populace, but really. I honestly can't even wrap my mind around this point.

II. Failure to Define "State Lotteries"

The FC's second point is that because the proposed amendment does not expressly definite "state lotteries" it could open the door to (gasp!) casino gambling. The FC has a bit of help here because of a couple of Attorney General opinions recommending (not requiring, however) that the lottery proponents define the phrase in the text of the proposed amendment. They also cite cases in other jurisdictions in which "lottery" was construed to permit video lottery terminals (New York) and casino gaming (Rhode Island and Kansas).

Halter responds with Arkansas case law in which the Court held, inter alia, that voters "know" what a lottery is. The distinction in that case, as argued by the FC, is that the proposed "state lottery" in that context was readily understood without definition when it was listed along with various other forms of gambling. Halter further argues that when the previous constitutional prohibitions against lotteries were adopted by Arkansas voters (in 1836, 1861, 1864, 1868 and 1874) the voters weren't so unintelligent as to require a definition of "lottery." Additionally, Halter cites the laws of the 42 states which permit lotteries. Only 3 of them contain a definition of "lottery."

III. No Adequate Information About Casino Gaming

The FC's final main argument is that the ballot title does not adequately inform voters about the effects on casino gaming. This contention is beyond ridiculous because the proposed constitutional amendment has no effect on casino gaming. This point is related to point 2 insomuch as, because "state lotteries" is not defined, it must be some underhanded scheme to establish casino gaming in the Natural State. The FC cites the lottery laws of California and Georgia which expressly prohibit casino gaming within the text of the law.

Halter's rebuttal again focuses on the plain meaning of "lottery" and the fact that Arkansas courts have refused to give credence to challenges based on the imagined consequences of a proposed amendment. "No reasonable person would confuse a State lottery with 'casino gaming.'"

Conclusion

From Halter's brief: By authorizing State lotteries to fund college scholarships the people will not be permitting “casino gaming.” Based on the utter lack of support for this argument in Arkansas law, a cynic might conclude that this argument is presented in an eleventh-hour lawsuit in order to grab free publicity and to scare the electorate with a false claim. The Scholarship Lottery Amendment will not permit “casino gaming.”

The Arkansas Family Council plays on the fears and prejudices of Arkansas voters. This was done in the 2004 election with the Marriage Protection Amendment. It is being done again this election with the lottery amendment and the adoption amendment (to be discussed soon). As an attorney, I can admire the legalistic, technical arguments raised by the FC. I think they are utterly without merit, but as a member of the profession I understand the place for such challenges. As a voter and as a libertarian, I want to see the substantive arguments. If you don't want a lottery, challenge it on the merits, let both sides duke it out and let the democratic process work. There is no challenge to the liberty of the citizens of the state of Arkansas, economic or otherwise. This is one for the voters now. So accept your impending loss with grace, Family Council, though I seriously doubt that's possible.

Obama Youth = Hitler Youth?

I can't say I'd go so far as some by comparing these kids with the Hitler Youth, but good grief these videos are truly disturbing. I know Obama went through a phase of self-deification (and I'm not entirely sure that's over) but this is just over the top.

If... (Weeks 5 and 6)

I'm trying desperately to catch up but I've said that before. No telling if I ever will. But, here are Weeks 5 and 6 of the "If..." project started by Nick, followed by Jody, then attempted by me here. Nick seems entirely too together, posting regularly and all that. Jody is more my speed, falling behind then trying like hell to make up for the time lost. Anyway, here are the next eight questions...

Week 5

1. If you could inherit a comfortable home in any city in the world that you could use but not sell, where would you want it to be.

Terribly easy question. Right here in Fayetteville, Ark. Granted, it's not as cultured as it could be for a university town but it's just funky enough to make me feel at home. We've avoided much of the sprawl the rest of NW Ark has (thank you to Wal*Mart for being in Bentonville) but the growth has impacted Fayetteville in a good way I think. Plus, doing a search not long ago, I found we hit number 7 on Kiplinger's list of Best Places to Live, Work and Play.

2. If you could inherit a vacation home anywhere in the world in which you could spend one month a year, but that you could never sell, where would it be?

Sounds like an easy enough question but there are so many places to choose from. I'd definitely have to pick continental Europe near the Mediterranean. But do you pick the south of Italy, the south of France, Monaco or Spain? Because of my newfound love of wine, I would have to go with Nice, France. So near the coast, but also within close travel distance of some of the greatest vineyards and wineries in the world...not to mention the greatest food.

3. If you could suddenly possess an extraordinary talent in one of the arts, what would you like to to be?

I would be perfectly content being a badass at the acoustic guitar. I've never been terribly fond of crafts and making things (except money) but I've always wished I could play the guitar. I have a guitar, just not the time involved in learning to play it.

4. If you could be instantly fluent in one other language that you currently do not read or speak, which would it be?

Jody has it spot on by picking Mandarin Chinese, though my primary reason is only an afterthought for him. China is a huge, mostly untapped market and anyone who can handle business dealings in the native language is many leaps ahead of the competition.


Week 6

1. If you could have permanent possession of any single object in the world, what would you want it to be?

I have no clue on this one, actually...if I can be a bit sacrilegious I'd go with the Holy Grail. Partly because it would just be really cool, especially if it was actually Mary Magdalene's body (thank you Da Vinci Code), but mostly because nothing else is coming to mind.

2. If you could have the starring role in one film already been made, which movie would you pick?

Cheating only slightly, I'd pick Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. It's my favorite book series ever and they clearly didn't stop after the first movie. So the starring role in the first means guaranteed employment for at least six more. Plus it'd be really cool to be the guy who plays Harry Potter. I would, however, make the promise to my fans not to appear nude in any plays (*cough* Equus).

3. If you could return for one year to one age in your life, knowing what you know now, to relive that year as you wish, which year would you go back to?

I'd love to relive my senior year of high school. That was definitely a great time in my life - student body president, playing golf all the time and stuff you're supposed to do your last year of high school. Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't have been such an arrogant closed-minded conservative asshole. But at least I've (mostly) fixed that now!

4. If you had to identically repeat any single year of your life to date, without changing a thing, which year would you relive?

I really wish they'd randomize these questions in the book more. I suppose it's done so in a social setting you can pick and choose from related topics. As a lawyer, I can appreciate the fine distinctions between relatively similar questions but it's a bit annoying in the blog setting.

Back to actually answering the question, I can't think of a recent year that I would like to re-live moment by moment without changing a thing. I think I would have to go back further to my childhood. Maybe around 10, the same age as my niece. I catch myself every once in a while telling Abby something like "back when I was your age, we didn't have cell phones." And I get the blurry eyed stare of a techno-struck little girl who has been asking for a cell phone for every Christmas and birthday since she was 7.

Yes, those times were simple. My greatest responsibilities were taking out the trash and making sure my Dad always had a cold beer in his hand. Why do little kids have cell phones these days? They certainly shouldn't be far enough from their parents (or their friends' parents) to need a phone to stay in touch. Just another reason to feel old...