Thursday, April 16, 2015

No need to wait for city attorney opinion about Little Rock civil rights ordinance

Posted By on Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 7:10 AM

click to enlarge JOAN ADCOCK: She asks a question, I have an answer.
  • JOAN ADCOCK: She asks a question, I have an answer.
City Director Joan Adcock, a foe of equal rights for gay people (just as she was never happy about equal rights for black people, as demonstrated by her animus toward Little Rock Central anniversary celebrations), has asked Little Rock City Attorney Tom Carpenter for a legal opinion.

Is a proposed city civil rights ordinance, which covers sexual orientation and gender identity, in conflict with a state law that is to take effect in July?

I can provide  an answer to her question today:

If it is not in conflict with state law, there's no point in adopting the ordinance. But the answer is yes.

Carpenter has already given the answer, too, in a careful response at Tuesday's City Board agenda meeting to questions from Adcock and the Republican city directors Erma Hendrix and B.J. Wyrick aimed at the same point. He said he hadn't considered state law in drafting the ordinance. He was merely confident that federal law supported the constitutionality of what the city was setting out to do.

In other words, anybody who might suggest the state could pass a law preventing a city or county from barring discrimination against a particular class of people would lose to the U.S. constitution.

The state law is unconstitutional. A court decision will eventually render it so. That's why it was vital that the emergency clause for the law was defeated. That's why it's vital that Eureka Springs has passed a local civil rights ordinance, headed to the ballot in May. That's why it's important that Little Rock — and, we could hope, other cities — pass measures of their own devise.

Little Rock's effort is modest. It puts in law existing city employment policy. But it would add sexual elements to an existing non-discrimination policy for people who want to do business with the city. This edges the law into the area where the state might try to argue that the state law, when it takes effect, kills the city law. That's where I'm confident a court will prove them wrong. We need that issue to be decided, no matter how much city officials want to dance around it.

And let's call Joan Adcock's legal spade a spade. If she doesn't want to require businesses not to discriminate against gay people if they want city business, it also means she should vote to repeal the existing policy as it applies to black people, women, the elderly, the disabled and any other protected classes. Unless she really is just about discriminating against gay people. Because that's what the state law is about. And that's why such efforts have been ruled unconstitutional in other states.

Mayor Mark Stodola helps matters little with his so-called leadership. He insists federal law already protects gay people. In employment, it most certainly does not and there's little to support his position in public accommodations either. He diminishes the entire enterprise to try to pitch this as something merely symbolic, perhaps because he's had no meaningful role in advancing the cause of civil rights in this area, a woeful dereliction.

A vote is scheduled next week. A head count suggests more than the six votes needed were in hand last week. But the haters of the Family Council and the Republican Party are at work. (Wyrick has a high state job in the Hutchinson administration, working now, along with her daughter, directly supervised by an old Hutchinson ally. Does it matter? I hope not. Wyrick is usually independent, but her questioning isn't hopeful.)

It is possible that raising an alarm about a possible conflict with a discriminatory state law could make a couple of the soft votes go wobbly and one supporter, Ken Richardson, won't be in town to vote. So, based on recent comments, you start, at best, 7-3. And that puts Brad Cozart in the yes column, despite some recent negative remarks to me about passing a city ordinance.

In the 1950s,  a vote against a discriminatory and unconstitutional state law might have done wonders to prevent the tragedy that befell Little Rock and Arkansas. But cowardice prevailed — at least until the women stepped in. I see some irony in women of the city board leading the charge against equal rights under the law for all people.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,


Speaking of...

Comments (10)

Showing 1-10 of 10

Add a comment

Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-10 of 10

Add a comment

More by Max Brantley

  • Thursday's open line and the daily video

    Here's the open line and the daily video.
    • Oct 27, 2016
  • UPDATE: Ted Suhl gets seven years, $200,000 fine for bribery

    Ted Suhl was sentenced this morning by federal Judge Billy Roy Wilson on four counts of attempting to bribe a state official to help his mental health business supported by Medicaid money. He received 84 months and a $200,000 fine and is to report to prison in early January. He will appeal.
    • Oct 27, 2016
  • Question raised on Dallas Cowboy gift to NLR cops

    Blogger Russ Racop raises an interesting question, as he sometimes does, about Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones' gift of free tickets for North Little Rock cops to attend a Dallas Cowboy football game.
    • Oct 27, 2016
  • More »

Readers also liked…

  • Not everyone is in Tom Cotton fan club

    Conservative New York newspaper labels Tom Cotton and others "traitors" for injecting themselves into presidential diplomacy with Iran.
    • Mar 10, 2015
  • Foster family disputes key statements from Justin Harris

    Craig and Cheryl Hart were the foster parents of the two sisters who were adopted by Rep. Justin Harris and his wife Marsha and later "rehomed." The Harts say that the adoption was allowed to proceed over the objections of the foster parents and local DHS staff due to pressure exerted by Cecile Blucker, head of the Division of Children and Family Services, on behalf of Justin Harris.
    • Mar 7, 2015
  • Opposition organizes to school outsourcing bill

    Little Rock residents aren't happy about news of plan to to turnover the school district, its facilities and its tax base to private management companies for charter schools.
    • Mar 8, 2015

Most Shared

  • Issue 3: blank check

    Who could object to a constitutional amendment "concerning job creation, job expansion and economic development," which is the condensed title for Issue 3 for Arkansas voters on Nov. 8?
  • Little Rock police kill man downtown

    Little Rock police responding to a disturbance call near Eighth and Sherman Streets about 12:40 a.m. killed a man with a long gun, Police Chief Kenton Buckner said in an early morning meeting with reporters.
  • From the mind of Sol LeWitt: Crystal Bridges 'Loopy Doopy': A correction

    Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art is installing Sol Lewitt's 70-foot eye-crosser "Wall Drawing 880: Loopy Doopy," waves of complementary orange and green, on the outside of the Twentieth Century Gallery bridge. You can glimpse painters working on it from Eleven, the museum's restaurant, museum spokeswoman Beth Bobbitt said
  • Ted Suhl loses another bid for new trial; faces stiff sentencing recommendation

    Ted Suhl, the former operator of residential and out-patient mental health services, has lost a second bid to get a new trial on his conviction for paying bribes to influence state Human Services Department policies. Set for sentencing Thursday, Suhl faces a government request for a sentence up to almost 20 years. He argues for no more than 33 months.
  • Football and foster kids

    It took a football stadium to lay bare Republican budget hypocrisy in Arkansas.

Most Viewed

Most Recent Comments



© 2016 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation