Did Arkansas's AG certify Dinwiddie's fourth attempt at an initiated act lowering the antique vehicle registration age from 45 to 25 years?

Plain-English summary

David Dinwiddie's fourth attempt to certify his proposed initiated act on antique-vehicle registration was rejected. (The first three rejections were Opinion Nos. 2023-098, 2023-103, and 2023-112.) For this round, Dinwiddie cleaned up the most obvious structural issues from his prior drafts: the enacting clause and narrative-style problems were fixed. But two new substantive defects stopped certification.

Defect 1: Inconsistent terminology between the title and the actual statutes being amended. Dinwiddie's popular name, ballot title, and first paragraph of the proposed text describe the measure as letting "any person who owns an automobile that is a model year Twenty-Five (25) years or older" register the vehicle as an antique. But the statutes the proposal actually amends (A.C.A. §§ 27-15-2202 and 27-15-2209) refer to "a historic or special interest vehicle," not an "automobile."

These are not synonyms. A "historic or special interest vehicle" is a defined term in A.C.A. § 27-15-2201(2)(A): "a motor vehicle of age that is essentially unaltered from the original manufacturer's specifications and that, because of its significance, is being collected, preserved, restored, or maintained by a hobbyist as a leisure pursuit." That is much narrower than just "any automobile 25 years or older." A 25-year-old beater that is not collected or preserved, that is altered from manufacturer specs, or that is just a daily driver, would be an "automobile" but not a "historic or special interest vehicle."

So the title promises one thing (any 25-year-old car) while the underlying statute amendments deliver another (only collected/preserved 25-year-old vehicles). That mismatch makes the ballot title misleading. The AG could fix the title to say "historic or special interest vehicle" instead of "automobile," but the AG cannot rewrite the inconsistency in the proposed text itself.

Defect 2: Missing subsections. Dinwiddie's text amends A.C.A. § 27-15-2202 but only includes subdivisions (a)(1) and (d)(1). Subsections (b), (c), (e), (f), and the rest of (a) and (d) are missing. The amendment to § 27-15-2209 only includes (a)(1). The intent of the omissions is unclear. Are the missing subsections supposed to be repealed? Or were they left out because Dinwiddie did not want to change them?

The omissions also break the surface text. Amended § 27-15-2202(a)(1) ends with: "may, upon application:" and then nothing. Upon application, may what? The text after the colon is missing. The AG noted that Dinwiddie could fix this either by including the full statutes in the amendment or by adding introductory language to each section identifying which subsections were being amended (and implying the others remain unchanged).

Otherwise, the ballot title would mislead by omission. A voter cannot tell from the title that significant pieces of the statutes are being silently dropped.

This rejection was the fourth in the series. It was followed by additional submissions in 2024.

What this means for you

Antique car collectors

Same status as before: the 45-year threshold for antique-vehicle registration in Arkansas remains in effect. Until either the legislature amends A.C.A. §§ 27-15-2201 et seq. or a properly drafted initiated act passes certification, the threshold does not change.

If you are tracking this initiative, note that the policy question (whether to lower the threshold) is separate from the drafting question (whether the proposal actually does what it claims). A future certified version would still face the substantive test in either a referendum or an Arkansas Supreme Court challenge.

Ballot initiative sponsors

This rejection adds two more lessons to the list:

• Use the same terminology in the title and the underlying statute. If the statute uses a defined term ("historic or special interest vehicle"), use that exact term in your popular name, ballot title, and amendment text. Do not switch to a more familiar but broader term like "automobile" because it sounds better in marketing.
• Either include the full statute or use clear introductory language about which subsections you are amending. Silent omissions create ambiguity about repeal intent. Standard legislative drafting addresses this with phrases like "Section 1. Arkansas Code § 27-15-2202(a)(1) is amended to read as follows: ..." That makes the limited scope of the amendment explicit and leaves all other subsections undisturbed.

Legislative drafters

This is a useful teaching example for new drafters. The defined-term mismatch is a classic novice mistake: writing the title and the marketing first, then trying to retrofit the statute amendments without conforming the language. The proper order is to amend the statute first using the statute's existing terminology, then write the title summarizing what you actually changed.

DMV officials and county revenue officers

No change. Continue applying the 45-year threshold to antique-vehicle registration.

Common questions

What is a "historic or special interest vehicle" in Arkansas?
The defined term in A.C.A. § 27-15-2201(2)(A): a motor vehicle "essentially unaltered from the original manufacturer's specifications" that is "being collected, preserved, restored, or maintained by a hobbyist as a leisure pursuit."

How does that differ from "any automobile 25 years or older"?
The statute's definition has two extra requirements: (1) substantially original condition, and (2) hobbyist collection/preservation use. A modified or daily-driven 25-year-old car is an "automobile" but not a "historic or special interest vehicle."

Why didn't the AG just substitute a corrected ballot title?
Because the inconsistency was in the underlying text, not just the title. A.C.A. § 7-9-107(d)(1) lets the AG substitute a more suitable title in some cases, but the AG cannot rewrite the proposal's substantive text. When the text itself is internally inconsistent, the AG has to reject and instruct redesign.

What happens if the AG rejects four times in a row?
The sponsor can keep submitting revised versions. There is no limit on resubmissions in § 7-9-107. Many initiative cycles run multiple times before getting certified or being abandoned.

Are the missing subsections automatically repealed?
No, because the proposal was rejected and never enacted. But if a future version is certified and passes with similar omissions, an Arkansas court would have to decide whether the missing subsections survive. Under standard drafting practice, an "amend to read as follows" provision replaces the entire subsection with what is shown, so anything not shown is gone. Without that introductory language, the answer is genuinely unclear.

Can I write to my state legislator about this instead of waiting for a ballot initiative?
Yes. The legislature can amend A.C.A. § 27-15-2202 directly. The Arkansas General Assembly meets in regular session in odd-numbered years and in fiscal session in even-numbered years (with limited subject matter).

Background and statutory framework

A.C.A. § 7-9-107. Governs AG review and certification of ballot initiatives. Rejection is required when a ballot title would be misleading or when proposal design would cause voters to vote contrary to their intent.

A.C.A. § 27-15-2201(2)(A). Defines "historic or special interest vehicle" as essentially unaltered, hobbyist-collected/preserved/restored vehicles.

A.C.A. § 27-15-2202. Antique-vehicle registration provisions, currently using a 45-year age threshold.

A.C.A. § 27-15-2209. Companion provisions on antique vehicle registration.

Ark. Const. amend. 7. The people's right to propose initiated acts and amendments.

Prior opinions in this saga. Opinion No. 2023-098 (first rejection); Opinion No. 2023-103 (second rejection); Opinion No. 2023-112 (third rejection); this opinion (fourth rejection).

Citations

• A.C.A. § 7-9-107 (AG review of ballot initiatives)
• A.C.A. § 27-15-2201(2)(A) (definition of historic or special interest vehicle)
• A.C.A. § 27-15-2202 (antique vehicle registration)
• A.C.A. § 27-15-2209 (companion antique vehicle provisions)
• Ark. Const. amend. 7 (initiative and referendum)
• Ark. Att'y Gen. Op. 2023-098, 2023-103, 2023-112 (prior rejections in this series)

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2023-119
December 27, 2023
Mr. David E. Dinwiddie
8608 Princeton Pike
Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71602

Dear Mr. Dinwiddie:

I am writing in response to your request, made under A.C.A. § 7-9-107, that I certify the popular name and ballot title for a proposed initiated act. In Opinion Nos. 2023-098, 2023-103, and 2023-112, I rejected prior versions of your proposed initiated act. You have now revised your proposal and submitted it for certification.

My decision to certify or reject a popular name and ballot title is unrelated to my view of the proposed measure's merits. I am not authorized to consider the measure's merits when considering certification.

1. Request. Under A.C.A. § 7-9-107, you have asked me to certify the following popular name and ballot title for a proposed initiated act:

Popular Name: A Bill to allow any person who owns an automobile that is a model year Twenty-Five (25) years or older to register the vehicle as an Antique and Apply for Antique Automobile License Tags.

Ballot Title: A Bill to allow any person who owns an automobile that is a model year Twenty-Five (25) years or older to register the vehicle as an Antique and Apply for Antique Automobile License Tags.

2. Rules governing my review. In Opinion No. 2023-098, I explained the rules governing my review and the specific rules governing popular names and ballot titles. Rather than repeat those rules here, I refer to you to that opinion, which I have attached for your reference.

3. Application. Having reviewed the text of your proposed initiated act, as well as your proposed popular name and ballot title, I have concluded that I must reject your proposed ballot title as misleading because of ambiguities in the text of your proposal. Specifically, the text of your proposal contains two significant problems that prevent me from ensuring its provisions are adequately summarized in a ballot title:

• Inconsistent language: On the one hand, your proposed ballot title, popular name, and the first paragraph of your proposed text describe your measure as allowing "any person who owns an automobile that is a model year Twenty-Five (25) years or older" to register the vehicle as an antique and apply for antique automobile license tags. (Emphasis added.) On the other hand, your proposed measure changes the current 45-year requirement to a 25-year requirement by amending A.C.A. § 27-15-2202 and § 27-15-2209, both of which refer to "a historic or special interest vehicle," rather than an "automobile." (Emphasis added.) These terms do not have the same meaning. A "[h]istoric or special interest vehicle" is defined as "a motor vehicle of age that is essentially unaltered from the original manufacturer's specifications and that, because of its significance, is being collected, preserved, restored, or maintained by a hobbyist as a leisure pursuit." In other words, "an automobile that is a model year Twenty-Five (25) years or older" would encompass more vehicles than "a historic or special interest vehicle that is twenty-five (25) years of age or older." If this inconsistent language only appeared in your popular name and ballot title, I could substitute and certify language consistent with the amended statutes. But because these inconsistencies also appear within the proposed text itself, which I have no authority to amend, your intent is unclear. Consequently, I cannot ensure that your ballot title, or any ballot title I would substitute, is not misleading.

• Missing text: Your proposed initiated act amends A.C.A. § 27-15-2202, but the only subdivisions of that statute that appear in your text are (a)(1) and (d)(1). Subsections (b), (c), (e), (f), and the remainder of subsections (a) and (d) are missing. Similarly, your proposal amends A.C.A. § 27-15-2209, but your proposed text only includes subdivision (a)(1). This is problematic because it leaves unclear what you intend by the omission. That lack of clarity prevents me from ensuring the ballot title does not mislead by omission. For example, amended subdivision (a)(1) states, "A person who is the owner of a historic or special interest vehicle that is twenty-five (25) years of age or older at the time of making application for registration or transfer of title may, upon application:" The remainder of the text after the colon is missing. What may a person with a vehicle that is 25 years or older do? The intended significance of your omissions is unclear. Do you intend for the missing portions of the statutes to be repealed, or have you simply excluded them because their text would remain unchanged by your proposed amendment? You may clarify this ambiguity by including the full text of each statute in your proposed measure or by specifying in the introductory language of each section which subsection or subdivision you are amending.

The foregoing issues are sufficient grounds to reject your proposed popular name and ballot title. As I noted in response to your second and third submission, since you are proposing what Amendment 7 refers to as a "bill," you may wish to review examples of bills filed by legislators and drafted by professional drafters. These examples, which are available at the legislature's website, demonstrate how proposed statutes indicate the provisions of current law to be stricken and what new provisions will be added. This manner of legislative drafting provides the clarity needed to ensure your ballot title is not misleading.

Senior Assistant Attorney General Kelly Summerside prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.

Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General