Democracy takes another hit.
Governor Sanders’ recent appointments to the Arkansas Supreme Court raise serious concerns about fairness, impartiality, and the lengths to which political power will go to control what makes it to the ballot.
In the unfolding suit regarding the ballot initiative aiming to expand medical marijuana access, two justices for the Arkansas Supreme Court recused themselves from the case without explanation. As a result, Sanders got to appoint stand-ins for the recused.
But the governor’s appointed special justices, Don Curdie and Bilenda Harris-Ritter, bring an astounding wave of conflicts of interest and conservative leanings that undermine trust in the justices’s critical decision-making process.
Let’s start with who these temporary justices are: Don Curdie has a long history in Arkansas politics, aligning himself with conservative figures like Mike Huckabee. Curdie’s social media shares reveal troubling perspectives, including posts defending Confederate General Robert E. Lee and disparaging George Floyd. His close ties to the governor and his well-known conservative stances raise red flags on his impartiality in this case.
Then there’s Bilenda Harris-Ritter, another appointee with deep Republican connections. Harris-Ritter has previously voted against marijuana measures, citing various concerns about amendment language, and is well-entrenched in conservative Arkansas politics, even playing a role on the advisory board of the conservative group Opportunity Arkansas. She’s also a member of the State Board of Election Commissioners, where she recently voted to uphold an emergency ruling requiring wet signatures for voter registration forms. With this history, it’s hard to believe she could be unbiased in a case that could expand medical marijuana access.
The two appointments are incredibly alarming; they appear to serve a single purpose, which is to prevent Arkansas voters from having a say on medical marijuana access this November. Sanders’ decision to place two politically charged justices in this position is a blatant attempt to manipulate the state’s judicial system for partisan ends. If Sanders succeeds, it may send a chilling message to Arkansas voters that their voices don’t matter if they conflict with the governor’s agenda.
Sanders, who is a pro at sidestepping neutrality, is flouting Arkansas’s core democratic values. Her moves run counter to the state constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to vote on important issues. With her judicial appointments, she’s making it clear that she’s willing to go to great lengths to control the ballot—democracy and voter rights be damned.
It’s time for Arkansans to demand better, to demand fairness, and to ensure that the courts serve the people, not partisan interests.
