Attorney General Rutledge dodges key points on civil rights ordinances | Arkansas Blog

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Attorney General Rutledge dodges key points on civil rights ordinances

Posted By on Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM

Interesting. An attorney general's official opinion, generally a long and learned recitation, today is a short, succinct "no" to the question of whether local ordinances can supersede the gay-discrimination act passed by the legislature to prohibit local governments from passing their own civil rights ordinances. Of course not, but …..

The opinion is glaringly — and admittedly — deficient in discussing many pertinent points. One: The state pro-discrimination law prevents adoption of ordinances that add protections not extended in state law. As City Attorney Tom Carpenter of Little Rock has noted, several elements of state law extend protections on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Thus, new ordinances that do this are legal. There is also the huge question of the Arkansas Constitution's declaration of rights section that prohibits discrimination in the most sweeping language. And yes, there's a new U.S. Supreme Court ruling on marriage that suggests legalization of discrimination against gay people has, for at least the third time, been viewed unfavorably by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Anyway: here's the opinion. It's meaningless. It has no force of law. Local ordinances in Eureka Springs, Little Rock and Garland County, among others, provide grounds for deciding the question of whether discrimination is legal or not in Arkansas. It asks only a timing question, not the real question. Some court will decide, not anti-gay Attorney General Leslie Rutledge.

Opinion No. 2015-054

July 1, 2015

The Honorable Mickey Gates
State Representative
377 North Highway 7
Hot Springs, Arkansas 71901

Dear Representative Gates,

You have asked for my opinion on the following question:

If a county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state—prior to Act 137 of 2015 going into effect—adopts an ordinance, resolution, rule or policy that creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in state law, does Act 137 prohibit the county, municipality, or other political subdivision from enforcing it?

RESPONSE

For the sake of clarity, I want to highlight the question I have been asked to address here. The question is not about what is meant by the phrases “protected classification” or “on a basis not contained in state law.” Nor is the question about whether any particular rule or ordinance of a political subdivision conflicts with Act 137 of 2015. Rather, the question is whether a local ordinance or rule can be enforced when (1) it was enacted before Act 137 and (2) it conflicts with Act 137.

The answer to this question is “no.”

Section 1 of Act 137 prohibits the enforcement of a conflicting local rule or law: “A county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state shall not…enforce an ordinance, resolution, rule, or policy that creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in state law.” (Emphasis added.) When a state and a local law conflict, the latter yields.[1] Therefore, if a political subdivision enacted an ordinance, rule, or resolution that conflicted with Act 137, then the local law could not be enforced.

Assistant Attorney General Ryan Owsley prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve. Sincerely, Leslie Rutledge
Attorney General
LR/RO:cyh

Tags: , , , ,

From the ArkTimes store

Favorite

Comments (4)

Showing 1-4 of 4

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-4 of 4

Add a comment

More by Max Brantley

  • An open line for Sunday

    An open line.
    • Sep 24, 2017
  • City plans more spending on 30 Crossing

    The Little Rock City Board meets Tuesday to set an agenda for the following week and among the "consent" items is a new $175,000 with Nelson/Nygaard consultants to "assist with a comprehensive review" of the 30 Crossing project, otherwise known as the bigger concrete ditch the Department of Transportation wants to tear through the heart of Little Rock.
    • Sep 24, 2017
  • NFL owners rise to defense of players against Trump and false patriots

    Many football team owners have risen to the defense of players against Donald Trump criticism as yet another racially fraught issue seems likely to gain increasing heat thanks to Trump's rhetoric.
    • Sep 24, 2017
  • More »

Readers also liked…

  • Super Bowl line

    Over to you.
    • Feb 7, 2016
  • Campus gun bill clears committee

    The so-called compromise amendment that will allow anyone 25 or older with a training certificate carry a concealed weapon on public college campuses was approved in a Senate committee this afternoon.
    • Feb 21, 2017
  • Auditor Lea caught not telling the truth

    State Auditor Andrea Lea, who began her tenure in statewide office with a degree of competence unseen in some other Republican counterparts (think Treasurer Dennis Milligan particularly), is becoming more deeply mired in a political scandal.
    • Mar 4, 2016

Most Shared

  • Bad health care bill, again

    Wait! Postpone tax reform and everything else for a while longer because the Senate is going to try to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act one more time before September ends and while it can do it with the votes of only 50 senators.
  • Sex on campus

    Look, the Great Campus Rape Crisis was mainly hype all along. What Vice President Joe Biden described as an epidemic of sexual violence sweeping American college campuses in 2011 was vastly overstated.
  • The inadequate legacy of Brown

    LRSD continues to abdicate its responsibility to educate poor black students.

Most Recent Comments

Blogroll

 

© 2017 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation