In Arkansas, does the county judge or the quorum court decide which committee a proposed ordinance goes to?

Plain-English summary

Representative Mark Lowery asked who controlled the routing of proposed ordinances to committees of the quorum court: the county judge as presiding officer, or the quorum court itself acting through its procedural rules.

Attorney General Leslie Rutledge concluded the answer was clean. The quorum court had exclusive authority to assign proposed ordinances to committees. The county judge had a defined but narrower role.

The breakdown:

• The county judge presides over quorum court meetings and "appoints" committee members. The judge decides who serves on which committee.
• The quorum court decides which committees exist, sets procedural rules, and (per this opinion) assigns proposed ordinances to specific committees.
• Committee size is bounded: the quorum court generally cannot create a committee larger than a majority of the whole body without the county judge's consent.

The AG read Amendment 55 of the Arkansas Constitution and the Code together. Amendment 55 gave the quorum court "local legislative authority not denied by the Constitution or by law." Section 14-14-801 echoed that language and added enumerated powers, including the authority to "[p]rovide for its own organization and management of its affairs" and to "determine at the first regular meeting its rules of procedure." Routing of ordinances was a procedural matter, falling within those powers.

The AG also observed that ordinances may only be proposed by justices of the peace (members of the quorum court), so the legislative branch already controls origination. It made sense that the same branch would control routing.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2017. 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

Q: What is a quorum court?
A: A quorum court is the legislative body of an Arkansas county, made up of justices of the peace elected from districts. It enacts ordinances on matters within local legislative authority. The county judge presides at its meetings but is the head of the executive branch of county government, not a member of the legislative branch.

Q: What is the county judge's actual role under § 14-14-904?
A: The county judge presides over quorum court meetings. Under § 14-14-904(d)(2), the presiding officer "shall appoint all regular and special committees of a quorum court, subject to any procedural rules that may be adopted by ordinance." Under § 14-14-904(d)(2)(B), the county judge must consent before a committee can be larger than a majority of the whole quorum court (a 2013 limitation). The judge does not introduce ordinances and does not vote on legislative matters.

Q: Why did the AG say committee assignment is procedural?
A: Two reasons. First, § 14-14-801(b)(12) gave the quorum court power to "[p]rovide for its own organization and management of its affairs," and routing ordinances is part of how a legislative body manages itself. Second, § 14-14-904(e)(1) gave the quorum court power to "determine at the first regular meeting its rules of procedure." Routing is a rule of procedure in the way that bill-referral rules are in any legislative body.

Q: Could the quorum court use its procedural rules to override the judge's committee membership decisions?
A: No. Earlier AG opinions (Op. Att'y Gen. 2003-039, 2003-180) had drawn the line: the quorum court's procedural rules could not "infringe upon the statutory power of the county judge to make appointments to committees." The judge's authority over membership is statutory and cannot be displaced by procedural rule. But routing ordinances is a separate function from appointing members, so the quorum court's rule-making in that area does not encroach.

Q: Could the quorum court establish term lengths for committee members?
A: Yes. The 2003 opinion concluded that the quorum court could set committee-member term lengths by ordinance, as a procedural rule, provided the term did not extend beyond the next county judge's tenure. The same logic applied to bill-routing.

Q: What was the AG's bottom line for practical implementation?
A: A quorum court may adopt rules of procedure (by ordinance) that govern how proposed ordinances flow through the legislative process: which committees exist, what each committee handles, how a proposed ordinance gets to a committee, and how it returns to the floor. The county judge presides over those meetings and appoints members, but does not control which committee gets what bill.

Background and statutory framework

The Arkansas county-government structure under Amendment 55 (added 1974) reorganized counties along legislative-executive lines, broadly tracking how state government is organized. The quorum court is the legislature; the county judge is the executive (with administrative responsibilities for county roads, buildings, and personnel) but also presides over the quorum court. That dual role can blur the lines between legislative and executive authority, and AG opinions over the years have repeatedly drawn fine distinctions to keep them straight.

This 2017 opinion fit a pattern: legislative procedure (rules, committee structure, bill routing) belongs to the quorum court; appointments to specific committee seats belong to the county judge; substantive legislative content belongs to the justices of the peace who introduce ordinances. The opinion is most useful as a reference when a county is writing or amending its rules of procedure and wants to confirm what each branch can and cannot do.

Citations

• Ark. Const. amend. 55, § 1(a)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-501(a)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-801(a), (b)(12), (b)(13)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-904(d)(2), (d)(2)(A)-(B), (e), (e)(1)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-905, (a)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2015-023
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2003-180
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2003-039
• Op. Att'y Gen. 99-036
• Op. Att'y Gen. 95-084

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2017-004
March 7, 2017
The Honorable Mark Lowery
State Representative
229 Summit Valley Circle
Maumelle, AR 72113-5934
Dear Representative Lowery:

STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE

This is in response to your request for an opinion regarding the ability of county judges and quorum courts to assign proposed ordinances to committees. Your questions are as follows:

1) Is the county judge, as the quorum court's presiding officer under Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-904, authorized to assign proposed ordinances to quorum-court committees?

2) Is the quorum court authorized to assign proposed ordinances to committees, pursuant to the quorum court's ability under Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-904 to enact procedural rules?

RESPONSE

I can better answer your questions by combining them: Does the county judge, or instead the quorum court, have the authority to assign proposed ordinances to committees? In my opinion, that power lies exclusively with the quorum court.

Arkansas law reserves to the quorum court a county's local legislative authority, as well as the ability to manage the affairs of the quorum court itself. Likewise, the quorum court is authorized to set procedures for its own operation, so long as those rules do not violate state law or encroach on the county judge's executive powers. The county judge is empowered to appoint the members of quorum-court committees, and the judge may limit the size of those committees to a majority of the court as a whole. However, assigning proposed ordinances to specific committees falls within the quorum-court's managerial and procedural authorities, if not its local legislative powers.

DISCUSSION

Arkansas law does not directly address whether a county's executive or legislative branch is responsible for assigning ordinances to a committee of the quorum court. The roles of the two branches are defined in other areas of county governance, however, and these statutes inform my response. With respect to the executive, the county judge is authorized to appoint committees as the quorum court's presiding officer. This office has maintained that the county judge's appointment authority is coextensive with the ability to "name persons to serve on the committees." In other words, "committee members must be appointed by the presiding officer of the quorum court." But the county judge's appointment authority has limits. It is "subject to any procedural rules" enacted by ordinance, such that justices of the peace may "establish[] the term lengths of committee members" once the judge has appointed them. And "which committees are to be formed" is distinct from deciding who will be a member of which committee, the county judge's authority to appoint is triggered only after the quorum court has "determine[d] which committees will be necessary."

The quorum court derives authority from the constitutional mandate to govern consistently with state law as well as from statutes that specifically sanction certain functions. Under Amendment 55, section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution, a quorum court "may exercise local legislative authority not denied by the Constitution or by law." This "broad grant of power" is echoed in Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-801, which provides that a quorum court may "exercise local legislative authority not expressly prohibited by the Arkansas Constitution or by law for the affairs of the county." The quorum court also has certain enumerated powers, among them the authority to "[p]rovide for its own organization and management of its affairs" and the prerogative to "determine at the first regular meeting its rules of procedure." And to the extent the quorum court's actions are not "inconsistent with law," it may "[e]xercise other powers . . . necessary for effective administration of authorized services and functions."

In light of this delineation between the executive and legislative branches of county government, it is my opinion that the quorum court is exclusively authorized to assign ordinances to the various committees appointed by the county judge. First, assigning ordinances for consideration at the committee level is not a function "denied by the Constitution or by law" to the quorum court. So while Arkansas statute prevents a quorum court from impinging on the county judge's authority to appoint committee members, designating this or that ordinance for a certain committee appears unlikely to affect the appointment authority. And while quorum courts cannot form committees larger than a quorum of the whole without the county judge's consent, I see no reason why designating a proposed ordinance for a given committee would interfere with the judge's ability to grant or withhold that consent. Because quorum courts are not prohibited from assigning ordinances to committees, I must conclude that generally they are allowed to do so.

Moreover, in my opinion, Arkansas statutes at least impliedly authorize quorum courts to assign ordinances to committees. Ordinances may only be proposed by members of the quorum court, and it reasonably follows that creating a process for proposing and assigning new ordinances is an administrative or managerial function suitable for the quorum court. Additionally, this process would "involv[e] the mode of proceeding" for a county government. That is, it would fall within another of the quorum court's enumerated authorities: "determin[ing] at the first regular meeting its rules of procedure."

In conclusion, I find the assignment of ordinances to be one of the quorum court's "authorized . . . functions" for the reasons discussed above, beginning with the fact that it is "not expressly prohibited by the Arkansas Constitution or by law." It is therefore my opinion that the quorum court, and not the county judge, is properly tasked with assigning proposed ordinances to committees.

Sincerely,
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General