Click here
Concerns About Arkansas National Guard Bill
“For An Act To Be Entitled
AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE ORGANIZED MILITIA INTO SERVICE; TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF THE ORGANIZED MILITIA FOR MATTERS RELATED TO MILITARY JUSTICE AND TO ADDRESS STAFFING SHORTAGES; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.”
Bill Info
Politically Motivated Deployment

1

Suppressing Dissent and Protests
The vagueness of "non-emergency" could be exploited to deploy the National Guard to preemptively address or discourage peaceful protests or political demonstrations. A governor could claim that a protest might become disruptive, or that public order could be threatened, even without credible evidence. This would be a chilling effect on free speech and assembly.

2

Electoral Advantage
A governor could deploy the National Guard in areas where they feel politically vulnerable to create a perception of control and strength, or to subtly intimidate opposition voters. This is particularly concerning leading up to elections.

3

Targeting Specific Demographics or Groups
The bill could be abused to target specific demographic groups or political opponents under the guise of maintaining order or addressing a vague "non-emergency." This could be based on discriminatory or biased assessments.

4

Boosting Governor's Profile
A governor could use non-emergency deployments for public relations, showcasing decisive action and leadership, even if the situation doesn't genuinely warrant military intervention. This could be used to enhance their political standing.
Economic and Business Interests
Labor Disputes
Imagine a scenario where a corporation faces a labor strike. A governor, perhaps influenced by business interests or campaign donors, could declare a "non-emergency" situation related to potential economic disruption and deploy the National Guard to intimidate striking workers or provide security for strikebreakers. This would be a severe overreach and undermine workers' rights.
Protecting Private Property Over Public Need
A "non-emergency" could be declared to protect private property or business interests from potential disruption, even if the threat is minimal or hypothetical. This prioritizes commercial interests over public needs and civil liberties.
Resource Extraction/Environmental Protests
Protests against environmentally damaging projects (pipelines, logging, etc.) could be labeled "non-emergency" situations to justify National Guard deployment to protect corporate activities and suppress environmental activism.
Mission Creep and Militarization of Civilian Life

1

Normalization of Military Presence
Frequent "non-emergency" deployments could gradually normalize the presence of armed military personnel in civilian life. This could erode the distinction between military and civilian roles and foster a culture where military intervention in non-military matters becomes accepted.

2

Expanding the Definition of "Non-Emergency"
Over time, the definition of "non-emergency" could be broadened to encompass increasingly vague and trivial situations. This "mission creep" could lead to the National Guard being used for tasks far beyond their intended scope.

3

Erosion of Posse Comitatus
While the Posse Comitatus Act has exceptions, a broad "non-emergency" bill could weaken the spirit of limiting military involvement in domestic law enforcement. It could blur the lines and encourage reliance on the military for situations that civilian agencies should handle.
Lack of Clear Definitions and Oversight
1
Subjective "Non-Emergency" Standard
The bill likely lacks a clear and objective definition of "non-emergency." This ambiguity is the primary source of potential abuse. Who decides what constitutes a "non-emergency"? What are the criteria? Without strict definitions, the decision becomes arbitrary and vulnerable to political influence.
2
Weak Oversight and Accountability
If the bill doesn't include robust oversight mechanisms (legislative review, judicial review, independent bodies), the governor's power to declare a "non-emergency" becomes unchecked. This lack of accountability increases the risk of abuse.
3
Lack of Transparency
Deployments under a "non-emergency" clause might be less transparent than emergency deployments. Public justification and reporting requirements might be weaker, making it harder to scrutinize the governor's decisions.
Straining National Guard Resources and Readiness

1

1

Diversion from Core Missions
Frequent "non-emergency" deployments could divert National Guard resources (personnel, equipment, training time) away from their core missions related to real emergencies, national defense, and disaster response. This could weaken their readiness for actual crises.

2

2

Burnout and Low Morale
Being deployed for politically motivated or questionable "non-emergency" tasks could lead to burnout and low morale among National Guard personnel. They might feel they are being misused for partisan purposes, undermining their commitment and professionalism.

3

3

Weakened Emergency Response
Overuse in non-emergency situations could leave the National Guard less prepared and equipped to handle genuine emergencies and disasters when they occur.
Example Scenarios of Abuse

1

Governor declares a "non-emergency" related to "potential traffic disruptions" in a city hosting a major political convention that opposes their party and deploys the National Guard to "ensure smooth traffic flow," but the real aim is to intimidate attendees and limit protest activity.

2

A large factory in Arkansas is facing a unionization drive. The governor, citing a "non-emergency" related to "potential economic instability" due to labor unrest, deploys the National Guard to patrol the area around the factory, ostensibly for "security," but effectively to discourage union organizers and workers.

3

Environmental activists are planning a peaceful protest against a pipeline project near a state park. The governor, declaring a "non-emergency" related to "potential public safety concerns" near the park, deploys the National Guard to prevent the protest from even starting.
Preventing Abuse
Strict and Objective Definition
The bill must clearly define "non-emergency" with objective criteria, limiting it to truly pre-emptive situations where there is a credible and imminent threat of a genuine emergency, and not just hypothetical or politically motivated concerns.
Independent Oversight and Approval
Decisions to deploy the National Guard under "non-emergency" circumstances should require approval from an independent body (legislative committee, judicial review) and not be solely at the governor's discretion.
Transparency and Public Justification
All "non-emergency" deployments must be publicly justified with clear and detailed reasons, and subject to public reporting requirements and legislative review.
Sunset Clause and Regular Review
The bill should have a sunset clause and be subject to regular review and re-authorization by the legislature to ensure it's not being abused and remains necessary.
Focus on Civilian Agencies First
The bill should explicitly state that National Guard deployment should only be considered after exhausting all other civilian agency resources and as a truly last resort in pre-emergency situations.