Can an Arkansas county judge refuse to pay an election commission's invoice that meets every legal requirement?

Plain-English summary

Representative Ken Bragg asked who has the last word on writing a county check: the county judge or the body that incurred the expense. The specific dispute involved a county board of election commissioners whose invoice had been approved by the commission chair under the board's own meeting minutes, but the county judge would not authorize disbursement.

Then-Attorney General Leslie Rutledge concluded that the county judge does not have unfettered discretion. Amendment 55, section 3 of the Arkansas Constitution made the county judge the chief administrative officer responsible for authorizing and approving disbursement of appropriated county funds. The General Assembly fleshed that out in Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-1102(b)(2)(B) by listing five conditions a voucher must satisfy: sufficient appropriation, sufficient unencumbered balance, expenditure within the appropriation's purpose, lawful incurrence, and goods/services satisfactorily rendered. If those five conditions are met, the judge "does not have discretion regarding whether to approve the disbursement," and the proper remedy for a wrongful refusal is a mandamus action.

On the second question, Arkansas law does not require the judge to write down a reason for refusing. The opinion left that as an entirely separate question of administrative or political accountability, not a legal one.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2021. 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

Why doesn't the election commission have the final say on its own bills?
Because Arkansas separates appropriation, expenditure approval, and ministerial disbursement. The quorum court appropriates. The county judge, as administrative officer, approves disbursements. The commission spends within the appropriation but does not write the checks. As the Arkansas Supreme Court put it in Beaumont v. Adkisson, 267 Ark. 511, 515, 593 S.W.2d 11, 14 (1980), "the quorum court appropriates the money and the county judge simply executes those appropriations as an administrative officer."

What if the county judge denies a clearly valid voucher anyway?
The opinion pointed to mandamus, drawing on Mears v. Hall, 263 Ark. 827, 836, 569 S.W.2d 91, 95 (1978), in which the Arkansas Supreme Court held that the county judge had a duty to administer a county ordinance and authorize and approve disbursement of appropriated county funds when the underlying appropriation was legally proper. A board denied a lawful voucher can ask a circuit court to compel the judge to act.

What about cases where one of the five conditions is genuinely contested?
The opinion acknowledged that the approval process necessarily requires "some degree of judgment." In a contested case, in other words, the judge can investigate before signing. The duty to approve attaches only once the five conditions are demonstrably satisfied.

Did the AG actually evaluate the underlying invoice?
No. The opinion was deliberately abstract. It noted that "I cannot opine as to any specific claim or invoice" and described the legal framework only.

Background and statutory framework

Two layers of Arkansas law converged in this opinion. First, Amendment 55 to the Arkansas Constitution restructured county government and gave the county judge the explicit "power and duty to ... authorize and approve disbursement of appropriated county funds." Second, the General Assembly's implementation in Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-1102 spelled out the disbursement criteria. Subsection (b)(2)(C)(ii) authorized the judge to "enter into necessary contracts or other agreements to obligate county funds and to approve expenditure of county funds appropriated therefor in the manner provided by law." Subsection (b)(2)(B) listed the five facts the judge must verify before approving any voucher.

Election commissions are themselves "county officials" under Ark. Code Ann. § 7-4-102(d), with statutory duties under § 7-4-107 to allocate poll workers and ballot boxes. But those duties do not extend to approving disbursement of county funds; that authority sits with the county judge under Amendment 55. The opinion read this division of labor as a constitutional structure that did not bend to internal commission practice or meeting minutes.

The Arkansas Supreme Court explained the logic in Venhaus v. Pulaski Cty. Quorum Court, 291 Ark. 558, 562, 726 S.W.2d 668, 670 (1987): "The county judge, as chief administrative officer of the county, before disbursing county funds, must determine that the expenses have been incurred in a lawful manner and that payment is owed by the county."

Citations

Constitutional provisions:

• Ark. Const. amend. 55, § 3

Statutes:

• Ark. Code Ann. § 7-4-102(d) (Supp. 2019)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 7-4-107 (Supp. 2019)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-1102(b)(2)(B) (Repl. 2013)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-1102(b)(2)(C)(ii) (Repl. 2013)

Cases:

• Union Cty. v. Union Cty. Election Comm'n, 274 Ark. 286, 623 S.W.2d 827 (1981)
• Venhaus v. Pulaski Cty. Quorum Court, 291 Ark. 558, 726 S.W.2d 668 (1987)
• Beaumont v. Adkisson, 267 Ark. 511, 593 S.W.2d 11 (1980)
• Mears v. Hall, 263 Ark. 827, 569 S.W.2d 91 (1978)

Source

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

Original opinion text

STATE OF ARKANSAS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Opinion No. 2020-059
April 7, 2021
The Honorable Ken Bragg
State Representative
63 Pinecrest Circle
Sheridan, AR 72150-9704
Dear Representative Bragg:
This is in response to your request for an opinion on Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-1102(b)(2)(B). Your specific questions are as follows:
1) Is it within the power of a county judge to deny disbursement of an approved county board of election commissioners' claim or invoice (i.e., voucher) that meets all of the criteria listed in the above-referenced Arkansas Code section? Specifically,

• A sufficient appropriation was made by the Quorum Court;
• A sufficient unencumbered balance of funds on hand in the appropriate county fund and budget line to pay the claim;
• The expenditure complies with the purposes for which the funds were appropriated; and
• The services for which expenditure is to be made were satisfactorily rendered, and the payment thereof has been incurred in a lawful manner and is owed by the county.
  2) If you opine it is within a county judge's power to deny disbursement, is the county judge required to state the reason for denying disbursement of the approved claim?

RESPONSE
The answer to your first question is "no." If the criteria listed in subdivision 14-14-1102(b)(2)(B) have been satisfied, the county judge has a duty to authorize and approve the disbursement of appropriated county funds. The answer to your second question is also "no." There is no legal requirement that a county judge explain why he declines to authorize the disbursement of appropriated county funds.

DISCUSSION
Question 1: Is it within the power of a county judge to deny disbursement of an approved county board of election commissioners' claim or invoice (i.e., voucher) that meets all of the criteria listed in Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-1102(b)(2)(B)?

As an initial matter, I will note that I have not been provided with any background information concerning any particular claim or invoice and that, as a result, I cannot opine as to any specific claim or invoice. Rather, I can only opine generally as to the applicable law.

The county board of election commissioners (county board) is an agency of county government that performs a number of specified functions imposed by law, such as appointing an appropriate number of election officials and allocating a sufficient number of ballot boxes and voting system components for each polling site. However, the county board's functions do not include approving disbursement of appropriated county funds for election expenses. Rather, this authority is vested in the county judge.

Specifically, section 3 of Amendment 55 charges the county judge with the power and duty to "authorize and approve disbursement of appropriated county funds ...." Consistent with this constitutional imperative, the General Assembly has also vested the county judge with the authority to "enter into necessary contracts or other agreements to obligate county funds and to approve expenditure of county funds appropriated therefor in the manner provided by law." Furthermore, the county judge must ensure that a number of criteria have been met before any voucher for the payment of county funds can be approved. Namely, the judge must determine that: 1) there is a sufficient appropriation and unencumbered balance of funds on hand; 2) the expenditure is in compliance with the purpose for which the funds are appropriated; 3) the expenditure complies with relevant laws; 4) the goods or services for which the expenditure is to be made have been rendered; and 5) payment thereof has been incurred in a lawful manner and is owed by the county.

The Arkansas Supreme Court has stated that the logic behind these requirements is "obvious," explaining, "[t]he county judge, as chief administrative officer of the county, before disbursing county funds, must determine that the expenses have been incurred in a lawful manner and that payment is owed by the county." The Court has also noted that the county judge performs these duties as an exercise of his executive powers, stating that the "quorum court appropriates the money and the county judge simply executes those appropriations as an administrative officer."

However, because the county judge acts in an administrative capacity when authorizing the disbursement of county funds, his discretion is also somewhat limited. In Mears v. Hall, for example, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that the county judge had a duty to administer a county ordinance and to authorize and approve the disbursement of appropriated county funds when the county ordinance and the appropriation it made were legally proper.

Consequently, it is my opinion that the county judge does not have discretion regarding whether to approve the disbursement of county funds once he determines that all the requirements of subdivision 14-14-1102(b)(2)(B) have been met. Still, appropriated county funds cannot be disbursed without first being approved by the judge or his or her designated representative. This approval process necessarily requires some degree of judgment. However, if the facts show that all the legal requirements have been met but the county judge nevertheless refuses to authorize and approve the disbursement of appropriated county funds, then a mandamus action may be the county board's proper recourse.

Question 2: If you opine it is within a county judge's power to deny disbursement, is the county judge required to state the reason for denying disbursement of the approved claim?

No, nothing in state law specifically requires a county judge to explain why he has declined to authorize the disbursement of appropriated funds to pay a particular claim or invoice.

Sincerely,
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General