A fantastic result, and a show of a promising turnaround since last December:
In a reversal of a similar special election last year, Fayetteville voters resoundingly ratified the city’s Uniform Civil Rights Protection ordinance Tuesday.
Final but unofficial results from the Washington County Election Commission showed 7,666, or 52.8 percent, of voters cast ballots in favor of the contentious anti-discrimination law, and 6,860, or 47.2 percent, voted against it.
The ordinance is scheduled to take effect Nov. 7, provided it withstands a legal challenge from Protect Fayetteville, the group that has advocated against the pro-LGBT law.
“I think this says that Fayetteville voters really are fair and inclusive folks,” said Kyle Smith, president of For Fayetteville, shortly after election results were announced. “I think we proved tonight that this is the Fayetteville we all know and love.”
The Uniform Civil Rights Protection ordinance prohibits discrimination in employment, housing and places of public accommodation on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It creates a seven-member, City Council-appointed Civil Rights Commission to review complaints. Violators are subject to fines of up to $100 for the first offense.
There may be a problem with enforcing it, as it may conflict with SB 202, which prohibits municipalities from enacting anti-discrimination laws on bases not contained in state law. However, a legislative oversight during its drafting and passage may allow it to slip through the cracks.
From ThinkProgress:
Protect Fayetteville, the conservative group that opposes the nondiscrimination ordinance, may not be done fighting it. Last week, they filed a suit challenging its legality under the Arkansas’ Intrastate Commerce Improvement Act (Act 137). This disingenuously named legislation, which Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) allowed to become law without signing it, bans local municipalities from passing nondiscrimination protections that extend beyond what the state offers. Because Arkansas offers no state-level LGBT protections, the law effectively guarantees the entire state continue to allow discrimination against LGBT people.
That, at least, is state Attorney General Leslie Rutledge’s (R) interpretation of the law. “It is my opinion that Act 137 renders the five ordinances unenforceable in this respect,” she wrote in an advisory opinion last week. The five ordinances refer to Fayetteville’s, along with similar laws passed in Little Rock, Hot Springs, Eureka Springs, and Pulaski County.
Officials in those municipalities are committed to enforcing their laws, however. They disagree with Rutledge’s interpretation, pointing out that Arkansas does have a state law that protects sexual orientation and gender identity — its anti-bullying statute. Rutledge argues it doesn’t count because it only covers public school students, but Act 137’s wording seems open to interpretation. Municipalities may not create a law, it reads, “that creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in state law.” It doesn’t specify where in state law that classification must be found.
It's true the law could theoretically be amended to say "on a basis not contained in state anti-discrimination law", but this would require revisiting the issue. Arkansas may not want to do that after a close call with their RFRA and seeing what happened to Indiana earlier this year.