Did the Arkansas AG approve David Couch's May 19, 2014 ballot title for the Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Amendment to make the entire state 'wet'?

Plain-English summary

Attorney David Couch resubmitted the Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Amendment after three earlier rejections (Op. 2014-042, 2014-039, 2014-030). This fourth version addressed the AG's repeated concerns about scope and regulatory authority. AG Dustin McDaniel certified the popular name and substituted a clarified ballot title.

The substantive content of the approved amendment:

• Effective date: July 1, 2015.
• Scope: manufacture, sale, distribution, and transportation of intoxicating liquors lawful "within the entire geographic area of each and every county of this State." This wording fixes the prior ambiguity about whether "every county" meant the whole state or just part of each county.
• Definition: intoxicating liquors are beverages containing more than 0.5% alcohol by weight.
• Regulatory power: the General Assembly may "regulate, but not prohibit" the listed activities. This phrasing fixes the prior ambiguity about whether the General Assembly retained ban authority.
• Repealed laws: "[a]ll laws which conflict with this amendment, including laws providing for a local option election (wet-dry election) to determine whether intoxicating liquors may be sold or not sold, are hereby repealed to the extent that they conflict with this amendment." This specific call-out of local-option laws fixes the prior ambiguity about whether the existing wet-dry election system would survive.

The AG's substituted ballot title is similar to Couch's but tightens the language. It uses "lawful" rather than "permitted." It explicitly says regulation may not amount to prohibition. It identifies the local-option election framework that would be repealed.

The opinion also attaches the standard "Instructions to Canvassers and Signers" under A.C.A. § 7-9-108, which sponsors must incorporate into petitions before circulation. The instructions cover Amendment 7's signature thresholds, eligibility requirements, the criminal penalties for false signing, and the AG's disclaimer that certification does not indicate approval or disapproval.

After certification, the sponsor had to gather signatures from 10% of legal voters (for a constitutional amendment) and submit petitions to the Secretary of State. This page does not track what happened after certification; check the Secretary of State's 2014 ballot records for the outcome.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2014. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Did Arkansas voters approve the 2014 Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Amendment? This opinion is about the AG's certification step. It does not address what happened next. Check the Arkansas Secretary of State's records for the November 2014 election results to see whether the amendment qualified for the ballot and how it fared.

What does "regulate, but not prohibit" mean for the General Assembly? Under the approved amendment, the General Assembly retains broad authority to regulate alcohol sales (licensing, hours, age restrictions, taxes, location restrictions, etc.) but cannot ban alcohol sales outright. The constitution itself authorizes the activities.

What would happen to local-option (wet-dry) elections under this amendment? The amendment would repeal "laws providing for a local option election (wet-dry election) to determine whether intoxicating liquors may be sold or not sold." So local jurisdictions would no longer be able to vote themselves dry; the entire state would be wet.

What is the alcohol concentration threshold in the definition? The amendment defines "intoxicating liquors" as beverages with more than 0.5% alcohol by weight. This is a common federal-state baseline; below 0.5% is typically classified as non-alcoholic.

Did this amendment go through multiple rejection rounds before approval? Yes. The Couch amendment had four versions: Op. 2014-030 (rejected), 2014-039 (rejected), 2014-042 (rejected), and 2014-049 (approved). Each rejection identified specific ambiguities that the next draft addressed.

Why does the AG sometimes approve and sometimes substitute the ballot title? Under A.C.A. § 7-9-107(b), the AG can substitute "a more suitable and correct popular name and ballot title" if he can do so. The substitution power lets the AG fix titles that are technically defective but where the underlying measure is clear enough to support a faithful summary. Substitution is preferable to outright rejection if the ambiguities are minor.

Background and statutory framework

The Arkansas AG's review of initiative petitions is governed by A.C.A. § 7-9-107. Sponsors must collect signatures from 8% of legal voters for legislation, 10% for constitutional amendments, or 6% for referenda (Ark. Const. amend. 7). Petitions must include "Instructions to Canvassers and Signers" under A.C.A. § 7-9-108. The five-minute voting-booth limit at A.C.A. § 7-5-522 constrains how long ballot titles can be.

Arkansas Supreme Court ballot-title precedents (Pafford v. Hall, Bailey v. McCuen, Roberts v. Priest, Plugge v. McCuen, etc.) establish that ballot titles must:

• Be honest, intelligible, fair.
• Disclose essential facts that would give voters serious ground for reflection.
• Avoid misleading tendency by amplification, omission, or fallacy.
• Avoid partisan coloring.
• Convey an intelligible idea of the scope and significance of the change.
• Be brief and concise.

The approval here means the substituted ballot title satisfies those standards as applied to Couch's revised amendment text.

Citations

• A.C.A. § 7-9-107 (Repl. 2013) (AG certification authority)
• A.C.A. § 7-9-107(b) (substitution authority)
• A.C.A. § 7-9-108 (instructions to canvassers and signers)
• A.C.A. § 7-5-522 (five-minute voting-booth limit)
• Ark. Const. amend. 7 (initiative and referendum)
• Kurrus v. Priest, 342 Ark. 434, 29 S.W.3d 669 (2000)
• Donovan v. Priest, 326 Ark. 353, 931 S.W.2d 119 (1996)
• Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654, 841 S.W.2d 139 (1992)
• Pafford v. Hall, 217 Ark. 734, 233 S.W.2d 72 (1950)
• Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994)
• Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 20 S.W.3d 376 (2000)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2014-042, 2014-039, 2014-030 (prior rejected drafts of same amendment)

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

STATE OF ARKANSAS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DUSTIN McDANIEL
Opinion No. 2014-049
May 19, 2014

David A. Couch
Attorney at Law
1501 North University, Suite 228
Little Rock, Arkansas 72207

Dear Mr. Couch:

This is in response to your request for certification, pursuant to A.C.A. § 7-9-107 (Repl. 2013), of the popular name and ballot title for a proposed constitutional amendment. Three similar measures were rejected due to ambiguities in the text of the proposals. See Op. Att'y Gen. 2014-042, 2014-039 and 2014-030.

Popular Name: THE ARKANSAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE AMENDMENT

Ballot Title (as submitted): An amendment proposed by the people to the Arkansas Constitution to provide, effective July 1, 2015, that the manufacture, sale, distribution and transportation of intoxicating liquors is permitted in every geographic area of each and every county of this state; that for purposes of the amendment, "intoxicating liquors" is defined as any beverage containing more than one-half of one percent of alcohol by weight; that the manufacture, sale, distribution and transportation of intoxicating liquors may be regulated but not prohibited by the General Assembly; and, that all laws, specifically including laws providing for a local option election (wet-dry election) to determine whether intoxicating liquors may be sold or not sold, in conflict with this amendment are repealed to the extent they conflict with this amendment.

Applying the above precepts, it is my conclusion that your proposed popular name is sufficient but that a more suitable, complete, and correct ballot title should be substituted for that proposed. The following is hereby certified in order to ensure that, when construed together, the popular name and ballot title accurately set forth the purpose of the proposed amendment:

Popular Name: THE ARKANSAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE AMENDMENT

Ballot Title (substituted and certified):

A proposed amendment to the Arkansas Constitution to provide that, effective July 1, 2015, the manufacture, sale, distribution and transportation of intoxicating liquors is lawful within the entire geographic area of each and every county of this state; that "intoxicating liquors" is defined for purposes of the amendment as any beverage containing more than one-half of one percent (0.5%) of alcohol by weight; that the manufacture, sale, distribution and transportation of intoxicating liquors may be regulated, but not prohibited, by the General Assembly; and that all laws which conflict with the amendment, including laws providing for a local option election (wet-dry election) to determine whether intoxicating liquors may be sold or not sold, are repealed to the extent that they conflict with the amendment.

In my view, the purpose of your proposed measure is sufficiently stated in the above revised ballot title to satisfy this office's mandate under A.C.A. § 7-9-107.

Sincerely,

DUSTIN McDANIEL
Attorney General

DM/cyh
Enclosures

(Standard Instructions to Canvassers and Signers under A.C.A. § 7-9-108, including Amendment 7's signature thresholds for legislation, constitutional amendments, and referenda; signing requirements for registered voters; criminal penalties for false signing or unlawful compensation; and the AG's disclaimer.)