Newly elected Arkansas Supreme Court Chief Justice Karen Baker apparently came into office intent on cleaning house: she tried to fire several high-ranking court officials and replace three judges on the court’s judicial discipline commission within two days of taking her oath of office.

Her actions resulted in an ongoing public feud with a majority of the court’s justices, raising constitutional and legal questions the remain unresolved.

Since Jan. 3, the public has been treated to no less than three orders from the court’s five most conservative justices challenging Baker’s authority and one order from Baker asserting her authority over court employees and to appoint judges to the disciplinary body without the other justices’ consent.

The origins of the brouhaha seem to stem from Baker’s visit in early December to the office of Marty Sullivan, director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, while he wasn’t there, according to a Jan. 11 report in Arkansas Business. But tensions at the court have been percolating for some time.

That Dec. 4 visit to Sullivan’s office by the chief justice-elect led to complaints by some of his staff to the AOC personnel office, which completed its investigation last week, whereupon Sullivan turned over its findings to the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission.

Baker was sworn in on Jan. 1, and the next day called Sullivan and court Police Chief Pete Hollingsworth into her office to confront them “about their responses to Freedom of Information Act requests involving her,” according to the Jan. 3 per curiam order by the five justices. She threatened them with firing, the order says.

On Jan. 3, Baker did try to fire Sullivan, Hollingsworth and eight other court employees, according to the order, which described the situation as “unnecessary and unfortunate.” The order rescinded the firings and forbade any court employee from processing the terminations without the agreement of at least four justices.

An administrative order accompanying the per curiam declares that only the AOC director can hire or terminate the office’s staff. Citing state law, the order says the director “cannot be terminated without the express consent of at least four members of the Supreme Court.”

The five-member majority followed up the order regarding the AOC with another on Jan. 6 saying the chief justice also didn’t have unilateral authority to appoint new members to the judicial discipline committee and lamenting that Baker hadn’t consulted her colleagues before doing so. The majority also named their own appointees to the JDDC.

Baker shot back with her own order on Jan. 8, citing Amendment 80 of the Arkansas Constitution as giving her sole authority over administration of the court system, including the Supreme Court. She declared the previous two orders invalid and an employment contract between Sullivan and a court majority null and void. The five opposing justices said her order amounted to no more than a dissenting opinion.

The back-and-forth gave state personnel officials whiplash regarding the status of the AOC employees, especially Sullivan.

After Secretary of Transformation and Shared Services Leslie Filken notified Baker that the Jan. 3 majority opinion settled Sullivan’s employment status, Baker responded with a terse email:

Attached please find the Order of January 8, 2025. It is simple Marty Sullivan is terminated. If the justice system were a corporation, I am the CEO.

The remaining employees, noticed in the previous letter, may remain on the payroll for the present time while they reapply for their positions.

Legal scholar John DiPippa told Roby Brock on Capitol View last weekend that the dispute boils down to the definition of “administer” in both the law and the constitution. That’s what a lot of legal disputes end up being about: definitions.

Such disputes usually end up being decided by — the Supreme Court. In this instance, of course, the dispute is among the members of the court.

I enjoy a good legal and political spat as much as anyone, but the current infighting has serious implications for the administration of justice in the Natural State — and for the public’s trust in the court.

Our court system exists to resolve disputes, among other things. The Arkansas Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of legal questions. Even when the members of the court disagree, a final resolution usually arises when a majority of the seven justices rule for or against a party involved in a dispute.

But what happens when the justices themselves are the parties?

Maybe the justices will work something out when they hold their first administrative meeting of the year on Jan. 23. Maybe the feud will simmer and bubble over in future rulings in unrelated cases. Or maybe, as columnist John Brummett suggested last week, they’ll settle it by wrasslin’.

Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com.

Over the past few weeks, Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, her spokesperson Alexa Henning and other officials have uttered the phrase “manufactured controversy” when asked about the now notorious $19,000 lectern.

That’s an easy way for them to ignore or otherwise fail to answer serious questions raised by the purchase of the lectern from a political friend of the governor. I suppose if you say “manufactured controversy” often enough, the crowd of onlookers might get tired and go away.

Fortunately, Arkansas lawmakers directed the state’s independent watchdog agency to audit the purchase and other administration expenses to drill past the tossed-off responses to curious reporters and bloggers.

On Thursday, in an obvious move to deflect Arkansans’ attention from the lectern scandal, Sanders treated us to a real manufactured controversy.

Sanders called a press conference Thursday afternoon to mark the signing of an executive order banning the use of gender-neutral terms, specifically pertaining to pregnancy, in official state documents. Of course, Fox News got the scoop on the ban ahead of the press conference.

The order asserts that “women are women,” that “there are things only women can do, like perform the miracle of birth” and that “government should reject language that ignores, undermines, and erases women.”

When asked for an example, Sanders cited only one: an Arkansas Department of Health memo about PFAS in drinking water that can negatively affect “pregnant people.” Thursday’s order requires state agencies now to use “pregnant women” or “pregnant mom” in describing a person expecting a child.

Asked whether the issue was a real problem, Sanders responded, “At no time will I apologize for defending women and standing up for the differences between men and women.

“One instance, to me, is enough to stand up,” the governor said.

The governor proclaimed her administration prohibits “the use of woke, anti-women words for official state government business” and bans all state offices, departments, boards and commissions “from using exclusionary, sexist language in official state government business.”

I almost have to admire Sanders’ ability to twist the language of inclusion and make it sexist and exclusionary. How can the use of gender-neutral language like “pregnant person,” which respects the diversity of individual self-identification, be considered sexist or exclusionary?

It just seems a bit excessive.

The governor’s penchant for chasing “woke” phantoms and engaging in performative culture-war politics produced a manufactured controversy.

Her executive order is a mind-bending example of tortured logic and linguistics that plays to the anxieties of people who feel unmoored or threatened by change and triggers the outrage of people who can’t or won’t try to understand those who disagree with them.

At the root of the divide between anxious and outraged is language, the battleground of expanding our concept of what it means to be human.

Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com. Follow Arkansas Advocate on Facebook and Twitter.

A conservative Illinois billionaire with a history of funding candidates and groups seeking to overturn the 2020 presidential election spent $450,000 on advertisements backing Republican Attorney General Jeff Landry in the Louisiana governor’s race, state campaign records show.

Richard “Dick” Uihlein is the financial backer of the Iowa-based Americas PAC, which paid the Kansas-based advertising firm VCreek $450,000 on Sept. 18 to produce and distribute media content supporting Landry, according to the political action committee’s campaign finance report.

Landry is one of six major candidates, and among four Republicans, running in Saturday’s primary election for governor.

“We believe that Jeff Landry is the best person to be governor,” Americas PAC treasurer Tom Donelson said in a written statement to the Illuminator. Landry is the strongest candidate on “energy independence” and will keep Louisiana as a leading energy producer, he said.

Uihlein and his wife, Liz, own the Wisconsin-based box and packaging company Uline and are some of the largest donors to conservative causes and candidates in the country.

Since 2016, the couple has spent $250 million on federal candidates and political groups, according to OpenSecrets, a nonprofit organization that tracks political funding. Dick Uihlein alone gave $82 million in the 2022 elections, making him the second largest individual political donor of any kind behind Democrat George Soros during that cycle.

An heir to the Schlitz Brewing Co. fortune, Dick Uihlein has a reputation for supporting disruptive, controversial Republicans, including those who challenge more mainstream GOP candidates.

The Midwest mogul has financially supported several groups that push disproven theories about voter fraud, including organizers of the “Stop the Steal” rally that took place in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021, right before a violent mob attacked the U.S. Capitol.

Uihlein also bankrolled the Voter Reference Foundation, which published millions of voters’ names, birthdates, addresses and voting histories for public consumption, ProPublica reported.

In other Deep South states, Uihlein has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to firebrand politicians such as Mississippi state Sen. Chris McDaniel, who tried to overturn a 2014 U.S. Senate election after he lost the race to incumbent Republican Thad Cochran.

He also donated to a super PAC backing Alabama U.S. Senate Candidate Roy Moore, even after allegations surfaced that Moore had been sexually inappropriate with girls as young as 14.

Certain social issues have also led to contributions from the couple. Dick Uihlein has pushed back on gay and transgender rights and contributes heavily to candidates and groups opposed to the transgender community. Liz Uihlein publicly opposes the legalization of marijuana.

The Uihleins’ conservative stances are reflected in their company culture. ProPublica reported women who work at Uline can only wear pants on Fridays or as part of a pantsuit. Hose and stockings are also required for women outside of the warmer months, and corduroy is banned for all employees.

The Landry campaign, which is prohibited from legally coordinating with the Americas PAC, declined to comment on the Uihleins’ support this week. The Uihleins could not be reached through messages left at their company.

Louisiana Illuminator is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Louisiana Illuminator maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Greg LaRose for questions: info@lailluminator.com. Follow Louisiana Illuminator on Facebook and Twitter.

Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com. Follow Arkansas Advocate on Facebook and Twitter.