In Arkansas, who actually decides where new county roads go: the county judge or the quorum court?
Plain-English summary
State Senator Ricky Hill asked the AG to draw the line between the quorum court and the county judge on county-road authority. The AG's answer divides the work between Arkansas's two main county-government roles.
Quorum court (the legislative branch of county government). Under Amendment 55, § 1, the quorum court has authority to "exercise local legislative authority not denied by the Constitution or by law." Specifically, the quorum court can adopt ordinances establishing transportation services (A.C.A. § 14-14-802(b)(1)) and adopt an official road plan for the unincorporated areas of the county (A.C.A. § 14-17-208(h)(1)). It can also accept the county planning board's recommendation to establish setback lines on roads (§ 14-17-208(j)).
County judge (chief executive plus judge of the county court). The county judge wears two hats. As judge of the county court, the office has "exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters relating to roads" (Ark. Const. art. 7, § 28) and the authority to enter "all orders necessary for establishing and opening new roads" (A.C.A. § 14-298-101). As chief executive, the county judge has the power to "operate the system of county roads" (Amendment 55, § 3) and administers the system, including maintaining "public roadways eligible for expenditure of county funds" (A.C.A. § 14-14-1102(b)(1)(A)(i)). The Arkansas Supreme Court in Reding v. Wagner, 350 Ark. 322, 86 S.W.3d 386 (2002), upheld the county judge's "executive power to make discretionary decisions" to change, alter, or relocate county roads.
The line. The quorum court can pass ordinances about roads or road plans. But an ordinance cannot restrict or impede the county judge's authority over county roads. Past AG opinions (2014-021, 2001-038, 2001-233, 1997-181) have held that a quorum court that crosses into the judge's executive authority over roads has gone too far.
Practical examples from past opinions: the county judge does not need quorum court approval to designate county roads (Op. 1992-081), to expend county funds to improve them, or to name a county road (Ops. 1996-375, 1996-373).
What this means for you
County judges
Your road authority is broad and independent of the quorum court. You can change, alter, or relocate county roads using executive discretion (Reding v. Wagner). You can designate new county roads, expend funds for road maintenance, and name roads, all without quorum court approval. The quorum court's role is at the planning level, not at the execution level.
When the quorum court passes an ordinance that purports to control road construction or maintenance details, push back if it crosses into your executive authority. The AG opinions have repeatedly recognized that county judges' road authority is not subject to quorum court override.
Quorum court members
You have a defined and limited role on roads: you can plan, but not direct execution. Adopt official road plans for unincorporated areas if your county does not have one. Set setback lines on the planning board's recommendation. But do not pass ordinances that restrict the county judge's discretion to construct, alter, or operate the road system. Such ordinances are unenforceable under the AG's consistent reading.
If you want to influence road priorities, the use points are budget (you appropriate the funds) and planning (the official road plan). Direct dictation of judge decisions is not available.
County attorneys
When advising either branch, draw the line at planning vs. execution. Quorum-court planning is fine. Quorum-court direction of construction or maintenance details encroaches on the judge's executive role. The phrase "operate the system of county roads" in Amendment 55, § 3 is undefined in statute and case law (the AG flags this as an open issue), but past AG opinions consistently treat construction, maintenance, and discretionary changes as the judge's domain.
Rural landowners and constituents
If you want a road built, paved, or named, the right person to ask is the county judge, not your quorum court member. The quorum court can fund road work in the budget, but the judge decides which projects move forward and how. If a project gets blocked, ask the judge directly; do not assume a quorum court ordinance can override.
State legislators
The opinion flags ambiguity in the meaning of "operate the system of county roads" under Amendment 55, § 3. If you want a clearer line between quorum court and county judge authority, statutory clarification of that phrase would help. Without it, counties continue to litigate the boundary case by case.
Common questions
The quorum court passed an ordinance saying the county judge has to put new roads out for bid using a specific process. Is that enforceable?
Probably not, to the extent it dictates execution. The judge has executive authority over road construction and maintenance. A quorum court can establish general purchasing rules, but it cannot dictate the road-construction process in a way that overrides the judge's discretion. The line is fact-specific; consult county counsel.
Can the quorum court refuse to fund the county judge's preferred road project?
Yes, indirectly. The quorum court controls appropriations, so it can decline to fund a specific project. But once funds are appropriated for road work generally, the judge has discretion in how to spend them within statutory limits.
Who can establish a new county road by formal designation?
The county judge, as judge of the county court, under A.C.A. § 14-298-101. The county court has "exclusive original jurisdiction" over road matters under Ark. Const. art. 7, § 28, and the AG opinions read this as confirmed by Amendment 55. (See Op. 2023-064 for what makes the underlying designation legally effective.)
Is the quorum court completely shut out of road decisions?
No. The quorum court has real planning authority: official road plans for unincorporated areas, setback lines, transportation-service ordinances. These set the framework. The judge then operates within that framework.
Why does this matter? Both branches are part of the same county.
Because the structure of county government in Arkansas (legislative, executive, judicial functions) is constitutionally separated by Amendment 55. Crossing the lines creates ordinances and orders that may be unenforceable when challenged. Counties that respect the line avoid expensive litigation.
Background and statutory framework
Arkansas county government has three functions, separated by A.C.A. § 14-14-502(b)(1)–(3): legislative (quorum court), executive (county judge as chief executive), and judicial (county court, with the county judge presiding). The county judge thus wears two of the three hats. Amendment 55 to the Arkansas Constitution restructured county government in 1974; § 1 grants quorum courts general legislative authority, and § 3 grants the county judge executive authority including operation of the road system.
A.C.A. § 14-14-1105(a) explains the structure: powers not vested in the county judge as chief executive "shall continue to be exercised and administered by the county court, over which the judge shall preside." The county judge thus "presides over the county court in a judicial, rather than an executive capacity" (§§ 14-14-1105(b), 14-14-1301(a)(1)(A)(iii)).
For county roads, the operative statutes are:
- A.C.A. § 14-298-101: county court authority to enter orders establishing and opening new roads (and changing or vacating). Past AG opinions read references to "county court" in §§ 14-298-101 and 14-298-120 as superseded by Amendment 55 to mean "county judge" for county roads.
- A.C.A. § 14-14-802(b)(1): quorum court ordinance authority over transportation services.
- A.C.A. § 14-17-208(h)(1) and (j): quorum court authority over official road plans and setback lines.
- A.C.A. § 14-14-1102: county judge's executive powers including operation of the road system.
- A.C.A. § 14-14-1102(b)(1)(A)(i): judge's responsibility to maintain public roadways eligible for county-fund expenditure.
The Arkansas Supreme Court's Reding v. Wagner, 350 Ark. 322, 86 S.W.3d 386 (2002), is the controlling case for the judge's executive discretion over roads. (Ark. Reports + S.W.3d signals state court.)
Citations
- Ark. Const. art. 7, § 28 (county court exclusive jurisdiction over road matters)
- Ark. Const. amend. 55, § 1 (quorum court legislative authority)
- Ark. Const. amend. 55, § 3 (county judge operates road system)
- A.C.A. § 14-14-502(b)(1)–(3) (separation of county-government functions)
- A.C.A. § 14-14-802(b)(1) (quorum court transportation-service ordinances)
- A.C.A. § 14-17-208(h)(1), (j) (official road plans, setbacks)
- A.C.A. § 14-14-1101(a)(5) (judge's custody of county property)
- A.C.A. § 14-14-1102 (judge's executive powers)
- A.C.A. § 14-14-1102(b)(1)(A)(i) (maintenance of eligible roadways)
- A.C.A. § 14-14-1102(b)(5)(A) (purchase of labor or services)
- A.C.A. § 14-14-1102(b)(7)(A) (acceptance of gifts and grants)
- A.C.A. § 14-14-1105(a) (judge's executive and judicial roles)
- A.C.A. § 14-14-1105(b) (judge presides over county court)
- A.C.A. § 14-14-1301(a)(1)(A)(iii)
- A.C.A. § 14-298-101 (orders establishing and opening new roads)
- A.C.A. § 14-298-120 (county court road jurisdiction superseded for county roads by Amendment 55)
- Reding v. Wagner, 350 Ark. 322, 327, 86 S.W.3d 386, 389 (2002)
- Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2014-021, 2006-050, 2001-038, 2001-197, 2001-233, 1997-181, 1996-375, 1996-373, 1992-081, 1989-135, 1988-364, 1985-073
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2023-080
October 17, 2023
The Honorable Ricky Hill
State Senator
Post Office Box 177
Cabot, Arkansas 72023
Dear Senator Hill:
I am writing in response to your request for my opinion on whether, under A.C.A.
§§ 14-298-101 to 14-298-125, the county judge or quorum court has the authority to plan
and construct county roads.
RESPONSE
The quorum court has authority to plan county roads, and the county judge has the authority
to construct and maintain county roads.
DISCUSSION
In planning and constructing public roads, the quorum court and the county judge each
have distinct roles.
Quorum courts may pass ordinances establishing roads as a transportation "service…not
expressly prohibited by the Arkansas Constitution or by law." They may also adopt "an
official road plan for the unincorporated areas of the county" or accept the county planning
board's recommendation to establish additional setback lines on roads.
But this office has consistently opined that a quorum court lacks the authority to interfere
with the constitutional and statutory powers exercised by the county judge concerning
county roads.
A county judge exercises a judicial power in his or her role as the sole member of the
county court. And a county court has the "exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters
relating to…roads." Although the county judge has both executive and judicial powers,
the county judge presides over the county court in a judicial, rather than an executive
capacity. In this role, a county judge has the authority to enter "all orders necessary…for
establishing and opening new roads…."
Additionally, the county judge, as chief executive of the county, exercises administrative
powers that are separate from the county court. While wearing his or her "executive" hat,
the county judge has the power to "operate the system of county roads," and "not by order
of the county court." Further, the county judge has the responsibility for administering
the system of county roads in the unincorporated areas of the county and for maintaining
"public roadways…eligible for expenditure of county funds."
A county judge may use discretion in exercising his or her administrative authority to
change, alter, or relocate county roads. Accordingly, this office has opined that a county
judge does not need quorum court approval to designate county roads, to expend county
funds to improve county roads, or to name a county road.
While a quorum court may exercise its authority and pass ordinances concerning roads or
road plans, an ordinance goes too far if it restricts or impedes the authority of the county
judge over county roads.
Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby
approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General