Why did the Arkansas AG reject the citizen-initiated act lowering the antique-vehicle-tag age threshold from 45 to 25 years?
Plain-English summary
David Dinwiddie wants to lower the age threshold for Arkansas antique vehicle tags from 45 years to 25 years. He has been trying to get a popular name and ballot title certified for an initiated act that would do this, and the AG has now rejected his proposal four times (Opinions 2023-098, 2023-103, 2023-112, 2023-119, and now 2024-003).
In Opinion 2023-119, the AG had rejected the prior version because of two issues: (1) the text used "automobile" rather than "historic or special interest vehicle" (creating ambiguity about what kinds of vehicles would qualify), and (2) the text only included a portion of the amended statute, leaving the legislative intent unclear. Dinwiddie cured both of those issues in this submission.
But he introduced a new defect: the text now refers to "the requirement to obtain Antique Tags on a Historic or Special Intrest [sic] Vehicle." There is no such requirement. Owners of historic or special interest vehicles in Arkansas are not required to obtain antique tags. Whether to do so is discretionary. The actual rule is that to qualify for antique tags, the vehicle must be at least 45 years old, that is, the 45-year threshold is a precondition for obtaining the tags, not a requirement that all eligible vehicles must use those tags.
Calling existing law a "requirement to obtain Antique Tags" misstates the law. The mischaracterization appears in three places: the popular name, the ballot title, and the text of the proposed measure itself. The AG can substitute language in the popular name and ballot title to fix mischaracterizations there, but he cannot rewrite the text of the proposed measure. Because the same misleading language appears in the text, the AG cannot cure the defect by substitution and must reject.
The AG also flagged in a footnote that Dinwiddie went too far in addressing the prior text-omission issue. He had added "the table of contents and the full text of all nine statutes that make up Title 27, Chapter 15, Subchapter 22 of the Arkansas Code" when only the two statutes being amended (§ 27-15-2202 and § 27-15-2209) were necessary. The AG noted this is unnecessary; just the full text of the two amended statutes is enough.
The AG closed with a polite suggestion: Dinwiddie could have avoided the confusion by using the introductory language he had used in the previous version, with one substitution. The AG quoted the recommended language: "Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Arkansas, any person who owns a historic or special interest vehicle that is a model year twenty-five (25) years or older, may register the vehicle as an antique and apply for antique automobile license tags…" The word "may" makes clear that the registration is discretionary.
What this means for you
Vehicle collectors and enthusiasts
A.C.A. § 27-15-2202 currently requires a 45-year age minimum for antique vehicle tags. Lowering the threshold to 25 years would substantially expand eligibility (a 25-year-old vehicle in 2024 is a 1999 model, which captures cars routinely on the road that enthusiasts may treat as classics). The proposal in this opinion would make that change.
The proposal has been rejected on drafting grounds, not on substantive policy grounds. If a future version uses careful "may register" language and limits the included statutory text to the two statutes being amended, certification is possible. Watch for resubmissions from the same sponsor.
If you want to support a 25-year threshold but the proposal has not been certified, your options are limited. You cannot circulate a petition for an uncertified measure. Either wait for a certified version or contact your state legislators to seek a legislative change.
Ballot initiative sponsors
This opinion is a useful illustration of two drafting principles:
First, accurately describe existing law. If the existing law is a conditional eligibility rule ("if your vehicle is X years old, you may register as antique"), do not call it a "requirement to obtain" antique tags. The mischaracterization makes your ballot title misleading.
Second, when the AG instructs you to include the "full text" of the amended statute, include only the amended statute(s), not the entire chapter or subchapter. The AG's footnote here is gentle but clear: more is not better, just unnecessary.
The "may register…and apply for antique automobile license tags" language the AG suggested is the kind of clean, accurate phrasing that would enable certification. Pattern your draft after that.
Arkansas DMV administrators
The current 45-year threshold is established in A.C.A. §§ 27-15-2202 and 27-15-2209. If the threshold changes to 25 years (whether by initiated act or legislative amendment), eligibility for antique tags expands substantially. Plan operationally for a possible expansion in the antique-tag application volume if a future certified version passes.
Automotive attorneys
Cite this opinion when distinguishing between a "requirement" and a "conditional eligibility rule" in vehicle-registration statutes. The framing matters because it determines whether a citizen has a right (in the case of a requirement) or merely an option (in the case of an eligibility rule).
Common questions
What is an "antique" or "historic or special interest" vehicle in Arkansas?
A vehicle that meets the age threshold for antique-tag eligibility under A.C.A. § 27-15-2202. As of this opinion, that threshold is 45 years. Antique tags often come with reduced registration fees and reduced restrictions (e.g., not requiring an inspection sticker), but typically with use restrictions (e.g., only for parades, exhibitions, club activities, occasional driving).
Why did the AG reject this proposal but acknowledge that the substantive change (45 to 25 years) is permissible?
The AG cannot consider the substantive merits of an initiated measure. His role is procedural: does the popular name and ballot title fairly summarize the text, and is the text clear? The 45-vs-25 age threshold is a policy judgment for voters. The drafting issue (mischaracterizing existing law) is what the AG can and must address.
Can the same person keep submitting the same proposal indefinitely?
Yes, sponsors can submit revised proposals as many times as they want. The AG must respond to each submission within ten business days under A.C.A. § 7-9-107. There is no statutory limit on attempts.
Is there a deadline for getting this certified for the November 2024 ballot?
Under Ark. Const. art. 5, § 1, signatures must be filed with the Secretary of State no later than four months before the election. For November 2024, that meant a July 5, 2024 deadline. Sponsors who could not get certified in time would have to wait for a later election.
Background and statutory framework
A.C.A. § 7-9-107. AG review of ballot titles and popular names. Subsection (e) requires rejection with reasons when the measure or its title is misleading.
A.C.A. § 27-15-2202. Defines the categories and age threshold for antique vehicle tags. The statute the proposal would amend.
A.C.A. § 27-15-2209. Other provisions in Subchapter 22 the proposal would amend.
Substitution authority. A.C.A. § 7-9-107(d)(1) allows the AG to substitute popular name and ballot title. It does not allow the AG to substitute the text of the proposed measure.
Prior opinions. 2023-098, 2023-103, 2023-112, 2023-119 addressed earlier versions of this same proposal.
Citations
- A.C.A. § 7-9-107
- A.C.A. § 27-15-2202 (antique vehicle eligibility)
- A.C.A. § 27-15-2209 (other antique-tag provisions)
- Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2023-098, 2023-103, 2023-112, 2023-119 (prior versions of this proposal)
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2024-003
January 19, 2024
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, 2023-112, and 2023-119, 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.
- 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 change the requirement to obtain Antique Tags on a Historic or Special Intrest [sic] Vehicle, from a minimum of Forty-Five (45) model years old, to a minimum of Twenty-Five (25) model years old
Ballot Title
A Bill to change the requirement to obtain Antique Tags on a Historic or Special Intrest [sic] Vehicle, from a minimum of Forty-Five (45) model years old, to a minimum of Twenty-Five (25) model years old
-
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. I rely on those same rules and standards here, and I incorporate them by reference into this opinion.
-
Application. In Opinion No. 2023-119, regarding the last version of your proposal, I noted that two issues prevented me from certifying your proposal: (1) your use of the word "automobile" in place of "a historic or special interest vehicle" and (2) missing language from the text of your proposed measure. In your current submission, you have remedied both of these problems, yet I am still unable to certify your popular name and ballot title because you have added new, inaccurate language to the text of your proposed measure.
Specifically, this new text refers to "the requirement to obtain Antique Tags on a Historic or Special Intrest [sic] Vehicle." No such requirement exists. Whether a person chooses to obtain such tags for a historic or special interest vehicle is discretionary. Instead, there is a conditional requirement that, for a person to obtain such antique tags, his or her vehicle must be at least 45 years old.
I assume that you intended your ballot title, popular name, and proposed text to convey a change to this conditional requirement. But as your proposed text is currently written, it suggests that there exists a requirement for an owner of a historic or special interest vehicle to obtain antique tags. This is misleading. If this language only appeared in your popular name and ballot title, I could substitute and certify language consistent with your intent and with your proposed amendments to A.C.A. § 27-15-2202 and § 27-15-2209. But this confusing language also appears within the proposed text itself, which I have no authority to amend. As a result, I cannot ensure that your ballot title, or any ballot title I would substitute, is not misleading to the voter.
The foregoing defect prevents me from certifying your proposed ballot title. Therefore, my statutory duty is to reject your proposed popular name and ballot title, stating my reasons therefor, and to instruct you to redesign your proposed initiated act.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Kelly Summerside prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General
(Footnote: In your previous submission, which was the subject of Opinion No. 2023-119, your proposed text amended A.C.A. § 27-15-2202 and § 27-15-2209, but it only included a portion of each amended statute. I stated that this omission left your intent unclear but that you could remedy this problem by including the full text of each statute or by specifying in the introductory language of each section which subsection or subdivision was being amended. You have responded by not only including the full text of A.C.A. § 27-15-2202 and § 27-15-2209 but by including the table of contents and the full text of all nine statutes that make up Title 27, Chapter 15, Subchapter 22 of the Arkansas Code. This is unnecessary. If you simply include the full text of A.C.A. § 27-15-2202 and § 27-15-2209, that is sufficient.)
(Footnote: If you had retained the introductory language of the proposed measure that was the subject of Opinion No. 2023-119, substituting the phrase, "a historic or special interest vehicle," in place of "automobile," you would have avoided this confusion and accurately conveyed the changes your proposed measure makes to A.C.A. § 27-15-2202 and § 27-15-2209 ("Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Arkansas, any person who owns a historic or special interest vehicle that is a model year twenty-five (25) years or older, may register the vehicle as an antique and apply for antique automobile license tags….").)