Did Arkansas voters get to consider a proposed amendment cutting the number of legislatively referred constitutional amendments from three to one?

Plain-English summary

Frederick N. Scott, speaking for the Little Red Hen Committee, submitted a proposed constitutional amendment that would change Arkansas Constitution Article 19, Section 22, which currently allows the General Assembly to propose up to three constitutional amendments per regular session for submission to voters. The proposal would cut that to one.

The AG had already certified a popular name and ballot title for substantively the same proposal in Opinion 2015-115. This was a re-submission with a slightly modified popular name. The sponsor's new popular name read: "REDUCING FROM 3 TO 1 THE NUMBER OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS ALLOWED THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BY ARTICLE 19, SECTION 22."

The AG rejected that popular name. The word "allowed" was misleading because it suggested the General Assembly amends the Arkansas Constitution on its own. It doesn't. The General Assembly only proposes amendments that voters then approve or reject. The popular name needed to reflect the legislature's actual role (proposing, not adopting).

The AG substituted the following popular name: "REDUCING FROM 3 TO 1 THE NUMBER OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT MAY BE PROPOSED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY UNDER ARTICLE 19, SECTION 22." That phrasing matched the popular name already certified in Opinion 2015-115.

The ballot title was identical to the one already certified in Opinion 2015-115, and the AG approved it as submitted. The opinion enclosed the standard instructions to canvassers and signers under § 7-9-108 and the recitation of the seven categories of petition fraud in § 5-55-601(b).

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

Arkansas Constitution Article 19, Section 22 governs the General Assembly's role in proposing constitutional amendments: either branch may propose an amendment at a regular session, the proposed text is entered on the journals, published in newspapers for six months before the next general election, and then submitted to voters. The current constitutional language at the time of this opinion allowed up to three such amendments per cycle. The Little Red Hen Committee's proposal would change the constitutional ceiling from three to one.

Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-107 governs AG certification of popular names and ballot titles, with substitution authority in § 7-9-107(b). The Arkansas Supreme Court has held repeatedly that popular names cannot mislead voters about what they are voting on (Pafford v. Hall, Chaney v. Bryant, May v. Daniels). Implying that the General Assembly amends the constitution itself was a misleading framing because the legislature only proposes amendments; voters approve them. The sponsor's "allowed the General Assembly" wording suggested unilateral legislative power that the Arkansas Constitution does not grant.

The AG's substituted popular name fixes the confusion by saying the amendment reduces the number of amendments "that may be proposed by the General Assembly." That correctly describes the legislature's role and matches the popular name already certified for the same substantive proposal in Opinion 2015-115.

The instructions to canvassers and signers attached to the opinion are the standard § 7-9-108 enclosures, including the recitation of the seven categories of petition fraud in § 5-55-601(b), each a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to $1,000 in fines and one year of imprisonment.

Common questions

Does the General Assembly amend the Arkansas Constitution by itself?

No. The General Assembly proposes amendments. Voters approve or reject them. The AG's substitution made that distinction explicit.

What does this proposal actually do?

If voters had approved it, Article 19, Section 22 would have been changed so that the General Assembly could propose only one constitutional amendment per regular session, down from up to three.

Why did the AG bother to rewrite just the popular name?

Because the popular name is what voters see on the ballot summary. Implying the legislature has unilateral amendment power is exactly the kind of "partisan coloring" or "misleading tendency" the Arkansas Supreme Court has identified as fatal to a popular name. The fix was small but consequential.

Was the ballot title approved?

Yes, as submitted. It was identical to the one already certified in Opinion 2015-115, so it was reapproved.

What was the Little Red Hen Committee?

The opinion identifies Frederick N. Scott as spokesperson for the Little Red Hen Committee, a Maumelle-based group that sponsored the proposal. The committee's broader goals are not addressed in the opinion text.

Citations

• Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-107 (Supp. 2015) (AG certification authority)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-107(b) (substitution authority)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-108 (canvasser/signer instructions)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-309 (five-minute voting-booth limit)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 5-55-601(b) (petition fraud, Class A misdemeanor)
• Arkansas Constitution Article 19, Section 22 (legislatively referred amendments)
• 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)
• Arkansas Women's Political Caucus v. Riviere, 283 Ark. 463, 677 S.W.2d 846 (1984)
• Pafford v. Hall, 217 Ark. 734, 233 S.W.2d 72 (1950) (popular name as legislative device)
• Chaney v. Bryant, 259 Ark. 294, 532 S.W.2d 741 (1976)
• Moore v. Hall, 229 Ark. 411, 316 S.W.2d 207 (1958)
• May v. Daniels, 359 Ark. 100, 194 S.W.3d 771 (2004)
• Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. 219, 604 S.W.2d 555 (1980)
• Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994)
• Crochet v. Priest, 326 Ark. 338, 931 S.W.2d 128 (1996) (partisan coloring as misleading)
• Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 241, 884 S.W.2d 605 (1994)
• Becker v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 482, 798 S.W.2d 71 (1990)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2015-115 (prior certification of substantively same proposal)

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2015-124
November 2, 2015
STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Mr. Frederick N. Scott, Spokesperson
Little Red Hen Committee
P. O. Box 13584
Maumelle, AR 72113
Dear Mr. Scott:
I am writing in response to your request for certification, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-107 (Supp. 2015), of the popular name and ballot title for a proposed constitutional amendment.

You have requested certification of the following popular name and ballot title:

Popular Name: REDUCING FROM 3 TO 1 THE NUMBER OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS ALLOWED THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BY ARTICLE 19, SECTION 22

Ballot Title: Article 19, Section 22 of the Arkansas Constitution currently authorizes the Arkansas General Assembly at a regular legislative session to propose up to three (3) constitutional amendments to be submitted to the people for approval or rejection at the next general election. This amendment would change this number from three (3) to one (1), so that the General Assembly would be authorized at a regular session to propose no more than one (1) constitutional amendment pursuant to Article 19, Section 22, for submission to the people at the next general election.

This submission is a follow-up to Attorney General Opinion No. 2015-115, wherein I substituted and certified a popular name and ballot title for the same proposed constitutional amendment that is the subject of your current request. You have made no substantive changes to the proposed amendment, but have instead slightly modified the wording of the proposed popular name.

RESPONSE

Popular Name

It is my conclusion that your proposed popular name does not satisfy the guidelines established by the Court. The popular name you have submitted characterizes constitutional amendments under Article 19, section 22 of the constitution as amendments that are "allowed the General Assembly." (Emphasis added.) This suggests to the voters that the General Assembly can amend the Arkansas Constitution on its own. But that is inaccurate. Article 19, section 22 instead authorizes the General Assembly to submit proposed constitutional amendments to the people for a vote. That is why the popular name I substituted and certified in Opinion No. 2015-115 referred to your proposed amendment as one "reducing constitutional amendments proposed by the General Assembly under Article 19, Section 22 of the Arkansas Constitution." (Emphasis added.)

It is therefore my conclusion that I must reject the popular name you submitted. I hereby substitute and certify the following popular name for your proposed amendment.

Popular Name (substituted): REDUCING FROM 3 TO 1 THE NUMBER OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT MAY BE PROPOSED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY UNDER ARTICLE 19, SECTION 22

Ballot Title

The ballot title you submitted is identical to the one I substituted and certified in Opinion No. 2015-115. In my opinion, this title is sufficient to meet the above guidelines. It is therefore approved as submitted and hereby certified.

Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 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 are instructions that should be incorporated in your petition prior to circulation.

Sincerely,
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General