Did the Arkansas AG certify an initiated act to lower the signature threshold for calling a local wet-dry alcohol election from 38% to 20% of qualified electors?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2015. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Arkansas law, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Arkansas has long allowed each county, township, municipality, ward, or precinct to vote itself "dry" or "wet" on the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages. To put the question on the ballot, a petition has to be signed by a specified percentage of qualified electors in the affected area. Under A.C.A. § 3-8-205, the threshold was 38%, a level high enough that calling a local-option election was practically difficult.
Attorney David Couch submitted a proposed initiated act for AG certification under A.C.A. § 7-9-107. The proposal would have amended A.C.A. § 3-8-205 to lower the petition signature threshold from 38% to 20%. (Two earlier versions of the proposal had been rejected in Op. Att'y Gen. 2015-014 and 2015-025.)
This third submission cleared. AG Leslie Rutledge approved the popular name "An Act Concerning Local Option (Wet-Dry) Elections" as submitted. She substituted a cleaner ballot title, focusing on what the act actually does (reduce the signatures required to call the election) and using plain language ("a local election on the question of the manufacture or sale of alcoholic beverages") rather than the more technical phrasing in the submitted version. The substituted title:
An act to reduce the number of signatures required to call a local election on the question of the manufacture or sale of alcoholic beverages from 38% of the qualified electors in the county, township, municipality, ward or precinct to 20% of the qualified electors in the county, township, municipality, ward or precinct.
The certification cleared the petition for circulation. The sponsor still had to gather signatures from at least 8% of legal voters (the threshold for initiated acts in Arkansas Constitution Art. 5, § 1) to put the measure on the next general election ballot.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 2015. 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.
Background and statutory framework
A.C.A. § 3-8-205 governs the petition procedure for an Arkansas local option (wet-dry) election. The version in effect when this opinion issued required signatures from 38% of qualified electors in the affected area, calculated from the most recent voter registration totals certified by the county clerk. The proposed initiated act would have reduced the threshold to 20% across all four geographic units the statute recognized (county, township, municipality, ward, or precinct). The substance of how local-option elections work, who decides whether to license alcohol manufacture or sale, and the consequences of a wet or dry vote, would have been unchanged.
A.C.A. § 7-9-107 sets the AG's certification role and the Supreme Court line of ballot-title cases (Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. 219 (1980); Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277 (1994); Becker v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 482 (1990)) set the standards for a sufficient ballot title. Substitution under § 7-9-107(b) is the AG's normal response when the submitted title accurately conveys the policy but uses cumbersome phrasing or could be made shorter.
The two prior rejections (Op. Att'y Gen. 2015-014 and 2015-025) on this same policy are not in this opinion's record, but the third-submission pattern is common: sponsors of alcohol-policy measures in Arkansas typically cycle through several drafts before clearing AG review.
Common questions
What is a "local option" or "wet-dry" election?
Arkansas lets each county, township, municipality, ward, or precinct vote on whether to allow the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages within its boundaries. A "wet" vote permits the licensed sale of alcohol; a "dry" vote bans it. The mechanism is in A.C.A. § 3-8-205 and related provisions of Title 3 (Alcoholic Beverages). The question can be called by petition of qualified electors in the affected area, then placed on the next biennial general election ballot.
Why was 38% considered a high threshold?
At 38% of qualified electors, the wet-dry petition threshold was higher than the threshold for initiated statewide acts (8%) or constitutional amendments (10%). In a typical Arkansas county with tens of thousands of registered voters, that meant collecting many thousands of signatures just to get the question on the ballot, before voters even saw it. The proposed initiated act aimed to bring the local-option threshold closer to the levels used for other types of ballot measures.
What did the AG change in the ballot title?
The submitted title said the act would "change the number of signatures required to call a local option (wet-dry) election from 38% . . . to 20%." The substituted title said the act would "reduce the number of signatures required to call a local election on the question of the manufacture or sale of alcoholic beverages from 38% . . . to 20%." The substantive policy is identical. The substitution swapped "change" for "reduce" (more concrete: voters know the direction of the change), replaced the parenthetical "(wet-dry)" with the plain description "manufacture or sale of alcoholic beverages" (less jargon), and dropped the implicit reliance on the term of art "local option election." Those small edits sharpened the ballot title without altering the proposal.
What happens after AG certification?
Certification clears the petition for circulation. A.C.A. § 7-9-108 requires the petition to be preceded by the AG-signed instructions to canvassers and signers (attached to the opinion as an enclosure). The sponsor then collects signatures from at least 8% of legal voters statewide for an initiated act under Arkansas Constitution Art. 5, § 1. The Secretary of State verifies the signatures. If enough qualify, the question goes on the next regular election ballot.
Did this initiated act ever reach voters?
Verify the current Arkansas Code provision (A.C.A. § 3-8-205) and the state's ballot history. AG certification only cleared the petition for circulation; whether enough signatures were gathered and the measure ultimately passed is a separate question. The text of A.C.A. § 3-8-205 in effect today will tell you whether the 38%-to-20% reduction actually became law.
Citations
Core statutes: A.C.A. § 7-9-107 (AG certification authority), A.C.A. § 7-9-107(b) (substitution), A.C.A. § 7-9-107(c) (rejection), A.C.A. § 7-9-108 (instructions to canvassers and signers), A.C.A. § 3-8-205 (local option election petition threshold and procedure), A.C.A. § 5-55-601(b) (petition fraud), A.C.A. § 7-5-522 (booth time limit). Ballot-title case law: Kurrus v. Priest (2000), Donovan v. Priest (1996), Plugge v. McCuen (1992), Arkansas Women's Political Caucus v. Riviere (1984), Pafford v. Hall (1950), Chaney v. Bryant (1976), Moore v. Hall (1958), May v. Daniels (2004), Becker v. Riviere (1980), Bailey v. McCuen (1994), Becker v. McCuen (1990), Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen (1994), Roberts v. Priest (2000). Prior AG opinions on the same policy: 2015-014, 2015-025.
Source
Original opinion text
STATE OF ARKANSAS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Opinion No. 2015-026
March 30, 2015
David A. Couch
1501 North University, Suite 228
Little Rock, Arkansas 72207
Dear Mr. Couch:
Neither certification nor rejection of a popular name and ballot title reflects
my view of the merits of the proposal. This Office has been given no authority
to consider the merits of any measure.
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 initiated act. You
previously submitted similar measures, which this office rejected pursuant to
section 7-9-107(c). See Op. Att'y Gen. Nos. 2015-025; 2015-014. You have
changed the text of your proposal and have now submitted the following popular
name and ballot title for my certification:
Popular Name
AN ACT CONCERNING LOCAL OPTION (WET-DRY) ELECTIONS
Ballot Title
A proposed act to change the number of signatures required to call a
local option (wet-dry) election from 38% of the qualified electors in
the county, township, municipality, ward or precinct to 20% of the
qualified electors in the county, township, municipality, ward or
precinct.
The Attorney General is required, pursuant to A.C.A. § 7-9-107, to certify the
popular name and ballot title of all proposed initiative and referendum acts or
amendments before the petitions are circulated for signature. The law provides that
the Attorney General may, if practicable, substitute and certify a more suitable and
correct popular name and ballot title. Or, if the proposed popular name and ballot
title are sufficiently misleading, the Attorney General may reject the entire
petition.
In this regard, A.C.A. § 7-9-107 neither requires nor authorizes this office to make
legal determinations concerning the merits of the act or amendment, or concerning
the likelihood that it will accomplish its stated objective. In addition, consistent
with Arkansas Supreme Court precedent, unless the measure is "clearly contrary to
law," this office will not require that a measure's proponents acknowledge in the
ballot title any possible constitutional infirmities. As part of my review, however,
I may address constitutional concerns for consideration by the measure's
proponents.
Consequently, this review has been limited primarily to a determination, pursuant
to the guidelines that have been set forth by the Arkansas Supreme Court,
discussed below, of whether the popular name and ballot title you have submitted
accurately and impartially summarize the provisions of your proposed act.
The purpose of my review and certification is to ensure that the popular
name and ballot title honestly, intelligibly, and fairly set forth the purpose of
the proposed amendment or act.
The popular name is primarily a useful legislative device. It need not contain
detailed information or include exceptions that might be required of a ballot title,
but it must not be misleading or give partisan coloring to the merit of the
proposal. The popular name is to be considered together with the ballot title in
determining the ballot title's sufficiency.
The ballot title must include an impartial summary of the proposed act that will
give the voter a fair understanding of the issues presented. According to the
Court, if information omitted from the ballot title is an "essential fact which would
give the voter serious ground for reflection, it must be disclosed." At the same
time, however, a ballot title must be brief and concise (see A.C.A. § 7-9-107(b));
otherwise voters could run afoul of A.C.A. § 7-5-522's five minute limit in voting
booths when other voters are waiting in line. The ballot title is not required to be
perfect, nor is it reasonable to expect the title to cover or anticipate every possible
legal argument the proposed measure might evoke. The title, however, must be
free from any misleading tendency, whether by amplification, omission, or fallacy;
it must not be tinged with partisan coloring. The ballot title must be honest and
impartial, and it must convey an intelligible idea of the scope and significance of
a proposed change in the law.
Furthermore, the Court has confirmed that a proposed amendment cannot be
approved if "[t]he text of the proposed amendment itself contribute[s] to the
confusion and disconnect between the language in the popular name and the ballot
title and the language in the proposed measure." The Court concluded that
"internal inconsistencies would inevitably lead to confusion in drafting a popular
name and ballot title and to confusion in the ballot title itself." Where the effects
of a proposed measure on current law are unclear or ambiguous, it is impossible
for me to perform my statutory duty to the satisfaction of the Arkansas Supreme
Court without clarification of the ambiguities.
Applying the above precepts, it is my conclusion that the popular name is
sufficient as proposed 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 act:
Popular Name
AN ACT CONCERNING LOCAL OPTION (WET-DRY) ELECTIONS
Ballot Title
An act to reduce the number of signatures required to call a local
election on the question of the manufacture or sale of alcoholic
beverages from 38% of the qualified electors in the county,
township, municipality, ward or precinct to 20% of the qualified
electors in the county, township, municipality, ward or precinct.
Pursuant to A.C.A. § 7-9-108, instructions to canvassers and signers must precede
every petition, informing them of the privileges granted by the Arkansas
Constitution and of the associated penalties for violations. Enclosed herewith,
over the signature of the Attorney General, are instructions that should be
incorporated in your petition prior to circulation.
Sincerely,
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General
LR/cyh
Enclosures
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2015 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Arkansas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.