Arkansas LEARNS Act lawsuit plays out in packed courtroom

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Lawmakers, state officials and citizens packed a courtroom Tuesday for a highly anticipated hearing regarding Arkansas’s new sweeping education law.

A Little Rock attorney is challenging parts of the Arkansas LEARNS Act in a lawsuit that played out in court.

A Pulaski County circuit judge issued a temporary injunction against the LEARNS Act a few weeks ago, though the Supreme Court overruled that just last week, allowing it to start going back into effect as it awaits a final ruling.

Both sides started and finished their arguments Tuesday after calling a handful of witnesses.

Attorney Ali Noland, who filed the lawsuit against LEARNS, said the concern in this challenge is over the timing of the law, rather than the law itself.

Noland argued that the emergency clause passed with the LEARNS Act was done unconstitutionally. She pointed back to an amendment that directs the state legislature to take a separate vote on emergency clauses, adding that lawmakers did not follow it with this law.

“The legislature did not take separate votes,” she said. “The state should not be able to then apply LEARNS Act illegally.”

Noland added that the emergency clause does not give citizens time to repeal the law, and prematurely allowed the Marvell-Elaine School District to enter a transformation contract with the Friendship Education Foundation.

“We feel very confident in this process,” Noland said after the hearing. “The evidence today unequivocally showed that the emergency clause was not passed with a separate roll call vote.”

Attorneys representing the state and the Board of Education showed where the law was passed according to the decades-long practice of the general assembly. Two witnesses were called to the stand who have worked in the Capitol, noting that this vote was standard procedure, despite concerns one said he had. The House of Representatives parliamentarian added that it was automatically passed with a separate vote because it received 2/3 support.

Noland called Secretary of Education Jacob Oliva to the stand to ask about recent decisions with the Marvell-Elaine School District and if they were made under the law, specifically the emergency clause.

Oliva testified that the Marvell-Elaine contract was not done unconstitutionally, and a decision over the district’s future likely would have come either way.

“I would say it was part of the consideration, I would not say it was the sole determination,” he said.

Oliva also said the quick timeline had more to do with being able to move forward with the next school year for Marvell-Elaine, rather than simply taking advantage of an emergency clause.

The secretary added that the court the transformation contract with friendship does not make Marvell-Elaine a charter school, despite misinformation. He said the district is “still intact,” though it now has more accountability.

State Sen. Clarke Tucker (D-Little Rock) and Rep. Tippi McCullough (D-Little Rock) also testified, noting that they were aware of the emergency clause when they voted both times, and understood they were also deciding on the emergency clause before and after voting.

Noland finished her arguments reminding the courtroom of the plaintiff’s request to simply verify the law.

An attorney for the state asked for the case to be dismissed a few times. Attorneys for Marvell-Elaine and Friendship Education Foundation were present and joined in on the requests for dismissal, though the motions were denied.

The state’s attorney finished closing arguments asking, “Are the things the plaintiffs claim to be illegal actually illegal?”

Judge Herbert Wright said he anticipates a decision to be made within the next week or two. If the state wins this challenge, the emergency clause will remain in effect. If Wright rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the law’s implementation will not begin again until August.

from KARK https://ift.tt/jwEld8A