Appeals court issues administrative stay in Arkansas ‘wet signature’ lawsuit

Arkansas judge’s preliminary injunction blocked enforcement of law requiring voters to provide wet signature on absentee ballot

Lawsuit alleges law discriminates against voters with disabilities and violates Help America Vote Act

A federal judge in Arkansas blocked enforcement of a law requiring voters to provide a wet signature on absentee ballots, finding it discriminates against voters with disabilities. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has now issued an administrative stay of the preliminary injunction, allowing the state to enforce the law while the appeal is pending.

Background of the case

In 2021, the Arkansas legislature passed a law (Act 231) that required voters to provide a wet signature on absentee ballots. The law was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of several voters with disabilities, who argued that the law discriminated against them by making it more difficult for them to vote.

In May 2022, a federal judge agreed with the ACLU and issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law. The state appealed the ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Eighth Circuit’s administrative stay

The Eighth Circuit’s administrative stay means that the state can enforce Act 231 while the appeal is pending. The court did not rule on the merits of the case, but simply found that the state was likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal.

The court’s order is a setback for the ACLU and the voters with disabilities who brought the lawsuit. However, the case is still ongoing, and the Eighth Circuit could ultimately rule in favor of the plaintiffs.

What’s next in the case?

The Eighth Circuit has not yet scheduled oral arguments in the case. It is possible that the case could be decided by the end of the year, but it is also possible that it could take longer.

In the meantime, the state can enforce Act 231. However, if the Eighth Circuit ultimately rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the state will be required to change the law.

Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit’s administrative stay is a temporary setback for the ACLU and the voters with disabilities who brought the lawsuit. However, the case is still ongoing, and the Eighth Circuit could ultimately rule in favor of the plaintiffs.