Why did the Arkansas AG reject the 2024 Medical Cannabis Amendment ballot title?

Plain-English summary

Stephen Lancaster, on behalf of his clients, submitted a proposed constitutional amendment that would substantially overhaul Amendment 98 (the 2016 Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment). The proposal would, among other things: redefine "physician" to include nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and pharmacists; allow telemedicine assessments without a physician-patient relationship; let dispensaries sell to qualifying patients and other licensees; relax advertising and packaging rules; abrogate State sovereign immunity in Amendment 98 enforcement actions; allow patients and caregivers to grow plants at home; and create a contingent recreational-use trigger if federal law changes.

The AG rejected the popular name and ballot title because of four substantive defects in the text:

1. Improper enacting clause. The Arkansas Supreme Court has held that the "Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Arkansas" enacting clause is required for initiated acts (statutes), not for constitutional amendments. The proposal's inclusion of an enacting clause created ambiguity about whether voters were considering an act or an amendment.

2. Ambiguous "rules" referent in the advertising provision. The proposed amendment to Amendment 98 § 8(e)(8) said "the rules shall also require child-proof packaging," but Amendment 98 elsewhere refers to rules adopted by the Medical Marijuana Commission (MMC), the Alcoholic Beverage Control Division (ABC), or both. The proposed text did not say which.

3. Incorporation by reference of 16 C.F.R. § 1700.20. The proposed text adopted child-resistant packaging "in accordance with the method described in 16 C.F.R. § 1700.20, as existing on January 1, 2023." The AG cited Haugen v. Jaeger and Dyer v. Hall (the same decisions analyzed in Opinion 2024-009) for the proposition that incorporating an external regulation by reference defeats Arkansas's full-text requirement. The legislature's earlier inclusion of the same cross-reference in Amendment 98 (via Act 640 of 2017) does not cure the problem because the cross-reference was added by legislation, not by the people through the initiative process.

4. Undefined "medical cannabis." Section 3(c) used the phrase "medical cannabis" without defining it, and Amendment 98's existing definitions do not contain that term. Voters could reasonably ask whether "medical cannabis" was a different thing from "usable marijuana" or "cannabis."

5. Ambiguous General Assembly amendment provision. Section 3(v) said "Absent a vote of the people, the General Assembly may not amend, alter, or repeal this amendment." The AG noted this only partly summarizes the constitutional process and is silent on whether such an amendment would count as a referred amendment under article 19, section 22.

The AG also flagged additional issues that were not bases for rejection but that the sponsor should fix on resubmission: inconsistent use of "plants" vs. "cannabis plants," failure to summarize how the proposed advertising changes interact with existing statutes (A.C.A. §§ 20-56-305 and 20-56-306), and various typographical errors in the ballot title.

Because the defects were in the text of the proposed measure (not just the ballot title), the AG could not fix them by substitution. The sponsor had to revise the text and resubmit.

What this means for you

Ballot initiative sponsors

This opinion is a checklist for drafting initiated constitutional amendments. Five practical lessons:

First, do not include an enacting clause in a constitutional amendment. The "Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Arkansas" clause is constitutionally required only for initiated acts under Amendment 7. Including it in an amendment creates ambiguity about what kind of measure voters are seeing.

Second, when amending an existing measure that uses defined terms, use the existing definitions or add new ones explicitly. Introducing a phrase like "medical cannabis" without a definition forces voters to guess at what the new amendment changes.

Third, do not incorporate federal regulations or other external law by reference. Even where the cross-reference matches existing legislation that has been folded into the amended measure, the AG's view is that the full-text requirement bars new initiative-based incorporation by reference. Either copy the substance of the federal rule into the proposed text or use a function-based standard ("packaging that meets generally accepted industry standards for child-resistant packaging").

Fourth, when you reference rules to be promulgated, name the agency. "Rules of the Medical Marijuana Commission" or "Rules of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Division" is unambiguous; bare "rules" is not.

Fifth, when describing how the General Assembly may amend the measure, address the interaction with article 19, section 22 (the legislative referral power). Otherwise voters cannot tell which constitutional path applies.

Medical marijuana industry

Several elements of this proposed amendment were aimed at the dispensary, processor, and cultivator side of the market: relaxed advertising restrictions, expanded sales authority, contingent recreational-use authorization, and more. The AG's rejection did not reach the merits of any of those changes. They were rejected for drafting reasons that the sponsor could fix on resubmission. If you are tracking this proposal for industry implications, watch for a revised filing.

Patients and caregivers

Note that the existing Amendment 98 framework remained unchanged after this rejection: Amendment 98 § 5(d) sets the registry-card expiration period (one year, not three); written certification requires a physician-patient relationship under Amendment 98 § 2(19); and patient or caregiver home cultivation was prohibited as of the date of this opinion. None of the changes summarized in the rejected ballot title were enacted as a result of this opinion.

Cannabis attorneys

The Haugen / Dyer incorporation-by-reference reasoning is now established in Arkansas AG opinions across two distinct subject areas (the transparency act in 2024-009, the medical cannabis amendment here). Any future client-drafted initiative that adopts external standards by reference should expect the same critique. Footnote 23 of this opinion is also important for understanding the scope of the AG's view: the prior inclusion of the same cross-reference in Amendment 98 (added by Act 640 of 2017) did not cure the full-text problem because the legislature is not "the people."

Common questions

Did the proposal actually authorize recreational marijuana?
Only contingently. Section 3(t) of the proposal would have allowed adult-use possession and sales "if current federal law prohibiting such activities changes." The AG did not reach the merits of this contingent-authorization mechanism in this opinion.

What is the difference between the Medical Marijuana Commission and the Alcoholic Beverage Control Division?
Amendment 98 originally placed regulatory authority with the Medical Marijuana Commission (MMC). Subsequent amendments and legislation transferred substantial regulatory authority to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Division (ABC) within the Department of Finance and Administration. Some of Amendment 98's references to "rules" mean MMC rules and others mean ABC rules. The proposed amendment did not specify which it meant in the new advertising provision.

Is incorporation by reference always invalid in Arkansas initiatives?
The AG's view is that any incorporation by reference of external law into the text of an initiated measure violates the full-text requirement. The Arkansas Supreme Court has not directly ruled on this question; the AG cites the North Dakota Supreme Court's analysis in Haugen v. Jaeger as persuasive.

What happens to the existing Amendment 98 if a future revised version is approved?
The proposal would amend Amendment 98 in place. Most of Amendment 98 would remain operative, with the changes described in the proposal layered on top. If the proposal's repeal of § 26 was kept, that section would be gone entirely.

Did the sponsors try again?
The opinion does not say. The opinion's instructions to redesign and resubmit are typical of § 7-9-107(e) rejections. Subsequent AG opinions in 2024 may show whether the sponsor refiled.

Background and statutory framework

A.C.A. § 7-9-107 and § 7-1-107. AG review of ballot titles and full-text submission requirement.

Ark. Const. art. 5, § 1 (Amendment 7). Initiative power, full-text requirement, and the enacting-clause distinction between bills and constitutional amendments.

Standards for ballot titles. The Arkansas Supreme Court has set the framework in Becker v. Riviere, Bailey v. McCuen, Plugge v. McCuen, May v. Daniels, and Wilson v. Martin: ballot titles must impartially summarize the measure, must not be misleading by amplification or omission, and must not be tinged with partisan coloring. Roberts v. Priest extends this to require that the underlying text of the measure not contribute to confusion.

Enacting clause distinction. Mertz v. States and U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Hill establish that the constitutional enacting-clause requirement applies only to initiated acts ("bills"), not to constitutional amendments.

Incorporation-by-reference doctrine. Haugen v. Jaeger (N.D. 2020), citing Dyer v. Hall (N.D. 1924), is the AG's authority for the position that adopting external law by reference violates the full-text requirement. The AG has applied this doctrine in Opinions 2024-009, 2024-014, 2023-113, and 2023-133.

Citations

• A.C.A. § 7-9-107(a), (b), (d)(1), (d)(2), (e) (AG review framework)
• A.C.A. § 7-1-107 (full-text submission)
• A.C.A. §§ 20-56-305, 20-56-306 (existing advertising and packaging restrictions for medical marijuana licensees)
• 16 C.F.R. § 1700.20 (federal child-resistant packaging standard)
• Pafford v. Hall, 217 Ark. 734, 233 S.W.2d 72 (1950)
• Chaney v. Bryant, 259 Ark. 294, 532 S.W.2d 741 (1976)
• Moore v. Hall, 229 Ark. 411, 316 S.W.2d 207 (1958)
• May v. Daniels, 359 Ark. 100, 194 S.W.3d 771 (2004)
• Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. 219, 604 S.W.2d 555 (1980)
• Wilson v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 334, 500 S.W.3d 160
• Cox v. Daniels, 374 Ark. 437, 288 S.W.3d 591 (2008)
• Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994)
• Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654, 841 S.W.2d 139 (1992)
• Becker v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 482, 798 S.W.2d 71 (1990)
• Christian Civic Action Comm. v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 241, 884 S.W.2d 605 (1994)
• Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 20 S.W.3d 376 (2000)
• Mertz v. States, 318 Ark. 390, 885 S.W.2d 853 (1994)
• U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Hill, 316 Ark. 251, 872 S.W.2d 349 (1994)
• Shepard v. McDonald, 189 Ark. 29, 70 S.W.2d 566 (1934)
• Haugen v. Jaeger, 2020 N.D. 177, 948 N.W.2d 1
• Dyer v. Hall, 51 N.D. 391, 199 N.W. 754 (1924)

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2024-014
January 29, 2024
Stephen R. Lancaster
Wright Lindsey & Jennings LLP
200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Dear Mr. Lancaster:

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 constitutional amendment.

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 amendment to the Arkansas Constitution:

Popular Name
Arkansas Medical Cannabis Amendment of 2024

Ballot Title
This amendment to the Arkansas Constitution expands access to medical cannabis by qualified patients under the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment of 2016, Amendment 98 and ratifies and affirms that amendment as originally adopted and as amended by any legislative act, except as specified; amending Amendment 98, §2(4)(B) to define "cultivation facility" as including sale and delivery of usable marijuana to a processor; amending Amendment 98, §2(12) to replace the definition of "physician" with "health care practitioner," which includes medical and osteopathic doctors, nurse practitioners, physicians' assistants, and pharmacists and to remove requirements for federal controlled-substances registration; amending Amendment 98, §§4(f), 5(a)(1)-(2), 5(f)(1), 5(h); and 15 [sic] to replace references to physicians with references to health care practitioners; amending Amendment 98, §2(13)(C) to add language defining such a condition as including any condition not otherwise specified in Amendment 98 that a health care practitioner considers debilitating to a patient that might be alleviated by medical marijuana; amending Amendment 98, §2(14)(A) to allow non-Arkansas residents to obtain registry identification cards in the same was [sic] as Arkansas residents; amending Amendment 98, §2(17) to define usable marijuana as including all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa, including any seeds, resin, compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, isomer or preparation of the plant, including tetrahydrocannabinol and all other cannabinol derivatives, and to exclude hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; amending Amendment 98, §2(19) to remove language requiring a physician-patient relationship from the definition of written certification and to allow assessments in person or by telemedicine; amending Amendment 98, §3(e) to allow licensed dispensaries to receive, transfer, or sell marijuana seedlings, plants, or usable marijuana to and from Arkansas-licensed cultivation facilities, processors, or other dispensaries, to accept marijuana seeds, seedlings, or clones from any individual authorized by law to possess them, and to sell usable marijuana, marijuana seedlings, plants or seeds to qualifying patients and designated caregivers; amending Amendment 98, §3(h) to remove language allowing professional licensing boards to sanction a physician for improper evaluation of a patient's medical condition or for violating the standard of care; amending Amendment 98, §3(1) to remove authorization for Department of Health rules concerning visiting qualifying patients obtaining marijuana from a dispensary; amending Amendment 98, §4(a)(4)(A) to require criminal background checks for all applicants seeking to serve as designated caregivers, with the exception of parents or guardians of minor qualifying patients applying to serve as designated caregivers for those minors; amending Amendment 98, §5(d) to extend the expiration date of registry identification cards from one to three years and to add two additional years to the expiration of date of existing cards; amending Amendment 98, § 8(e)(8) to remove and replace advertising restrictions with restrictions for dispensaries, processors, and cultivation facilities narrowly tailored to prevent advertising and packaging from appealing to children and to modify child-proof packaging requirements to reflect 16 C.F.R. § 1700.20, as of January 1, 2023; amending Amendment 98, § 8(m)(1)(A) to remove prohibitions on dispensary-provided paraphernalia requiring combustion of marijuana, requirements relating to vaporizers, and requirements for warnings and educational materials regarding methods of ingestion; amending Amendment 98, § 8(m)(4)(A)(ii) to allow cultivation facilities to sell marijuana in any form to dispensaries, processors, or other cultivation facilities; amending Amendment 98, § 16 to replace its current language with a waiver of state sovereign immunity so that a licensed person or entity may seek injunctive relief in the event the state fails to follow Amendment 98; amending Amendment 98, § 21 to remove a prohibition on the growing of marijuana by qualifying patients and designated caregivers and to allow such growing under Amendment 98; amending Amendment 98, § 23 to replace its current provisions with a prohibition on legislation amending, altering, or repealing Amendment 98 absent a vote of the people; repealing Amendment 98, § 26 in its entirety; amending Amendment 98 to allow qualifying patients or caregivers at least 21 years old to keep and to plant marijuana plants in limited quantities and sizes at their domicile solely for the personal use of a qualifying patient, to prohibit sale, bartering, and trade of marijuana plants, and to provide for regulation of such activities by the Alcohol [sic] Beverage Control Division; amending Amendment 98 to allow possession by adults of up to one ounce of usable marijuana and to allow sale of marijuana by licensed cultivators and dispensaries for adult use if current federal law prohibiting such activities changes; providing that this amendment's provisions are severable, nullifying any provision of state law in conflict with this amendment; and providing that the amendment is self-executing.

2. Rules governing my review. Arkansas law requires sponsors of statewide initiated measures to "submit the original draft" of the measure to the Attorney General. An "original draft" includes the full text of the proposed measure along with its ballot title and popular name. Within ten business days of receiving the sponsor's original draft, the Attorney General must respond in one of three ways:

• First, the Attorney General may approve and certify the ballot title and popular name in the form they were submitted.
• Second, the Attorney General may "substitute and certify a more suitable and correct ballot title and popular name." But A.C.A. § 7-9-107 does not authorize the Attorney General to modify the text of the proposed measure itself.
• Third, the Attorney General may reject both the popular name and ballot title "and state his or her reasons therefor and instruct" the sponsors to "redesign the proposed measure and the ballot title and popular name." This response is permitted when, after reviewing the proposed measure, the Attorney General determines that "the ballot title or the nature of the issue" is (1) "presented in such manner" that the ballot title would be misleading or (2) "designed in such manner" that a vote for or against the issue would actually be a vote for the outcome opposite of what the voter intends.

3. Rules governing the popular name. The popular name is primarily a useful legislative device. While it need not contain detailed information or include exceptions that might be required of a ballot title, the popular name must not be misleading or partisan. And it must be considered together with the ballot title in determining the ballot title's sufficiency.

4. Rules governing the ballot title. The ballot title must summarize the proposed act. The Court has developed general rules for what must be included in the summary and how that information must be presented. Sponsors must ensure their ballot titles impartially summarize the measure's text and give voters a fair understanding of the issues presented. The Court has also disapproved the use of terms that are "technical and not readily understood by voters." Ballot titles that do not define such terms may be deemed insufficient.

Additionally, sponsors cannot omit material from the ballot title that qualifies as an "essential fact which would give the voter serious ground for reflection." Yet the ballot title must also be brief and concise lest voters exceed the statutory time allowed to mark a ballot. The ballot title is not required to be perfect, nor is it reasonable to expect the title to address every possible legal argument the proposed measure might evoke. The title, however, must be free from any misleading tendency, whether by amplification, omission, or fallacy, and it must not be tinged with partisan coloring. The ballot title must be honest and impartial, and it must convey an intelligible idea of the scope and significance of a proposed change in the law.

Finally, the Court has held that a ballot title cannot be approved if the text of the proposed measure itself contributes to confusion and disconnect between the language in the popular name and the ballot title and the language in the measure. Where the effects of a proposed measure on current law are unclear or ambiguous, I am unable to ensure the popular name and ballot title accurately reflect the proposal's contents until the sponsor clarifies or removes the ambiguities in the proposal itself.

5. Application. Having reviewed the text of your proposed initiated amendment, as well as your proposed popular name and ballot title, I have concluded that I must reject your proposed popular name and ballot title and instruct you to redesign them. The following problems in the text of your proposed amendment prevent me from (1) ensuring your ballot title is not misleading or (2) substituting a more appropriate ballot title:

• Enacting clause. While the state constitution requires proposed initiated acts to include an enacting clause, "Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Arkansas," initiated constitutional amendments do not require enacting clauses. Therefore, as this office has consistently concluded, the inclusion of an enacting clause required for "bills" in your proposed constitutional amendment creates an ambiguity as to what the voters are being asked to consider: a bill or a constitutional amendment.

• Advertising language. Section 3(p) of the measure's text amends § 8(e)(8) of Amendment 98. The current Amendment 98 provision is: "Advertising restrictions for dispensaries and cultivation facilities, including without limitation the advertising, marketing, packaging, and promotion of dispensaries and cultivation facilities with the purpose to avoid making the product of a dispensary or a cultivation facility appealing to children, including without limitation: (A) Artwork; (B) Building signage; (C) Product design, including without limitation shapes and flavors; (D) Child-proof packaging that cannot be opened by a child or that prevents ready access to toxic or harmful amount of the product, and that meets the testing requirements in accordance with the method described in 16 C.F.R. § 1700.20, as existing on January 1, 2017; (E) Indoor displays that can be seen from outside the dispensary or cultivation facility; and (F) Other forms of marketing related to medical marijuana."

The proposed text reads: "Advertising restrictions for dispensaries, processors and cultivation facilities narrowly tailored to avoid making the advertising and packaging by a dispensary, processor or a cultivation facility appealing to children. The rules shall also require child-proof packaging that cannot be opened by a child or that prevents ready access to toxic or harmful amount of the product, and that meets the testing requirements in accordance with the method described in 16 C.F.R. §1700.20, as existing on January 1, 2023."

Such changes raise a few key issues. First, when the new proposed text provides that "rules shall also require child-proof packing," what "rules" are being referenced here, the Medical Marijuana Commission's (MMC) rules or the Alcoholic Beverage Control Division's (ABC) rules? Section 8 of Amendment 98 refers variously to rules that the MMC should adopt, the ABC should adopt, or that both should adopt. This ambiguity about what regulatory entity is promulgating rules here prevents me from ensuring your ballot title is not misleading.

Second, the citation to federal law attempts to incorporate a regulatory definition by reference, which violates the "full text" requirement. The absence of the measure's full text then renders the ballot title misleading by omission. I am aware that your proposal is simply copying what is already considered part of Amendment 98. But that cross-reference to federal law was created by the legislature, not through the initiative process. Amendment 7 (Ark. Const., art. 5, § 1) to our state constitution requires that the "full text" of the initiated measure accompany each petition. Consequently, under A.C.A. § 7-1-107, all sponsors must give the Attorney General "[t]he full text of the proposed measure." And while the Arkansas Supreme Court has yet to interpret the meaning of the phrase "full text of the proposed measure," the North Dakota Supreme Court recently reviewed a substantially identical phrase in its own law. In Haugen v. Jaeger, the North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the legal validity of an initiated constitutional amendment that, by explicit citation, incorporated certain statutes into the state constitution. There, the legal question was whether such an incorporation violated the state's full-text requirement.

Reaffirming a nearly 100-year-old decision on that topic of law, Dyer v. Hall, the Haugen court held that such an incorporation by reference violates the full-text requirement for two reasons. First, it cut against "the purpose of the full-text requirement," which "was to obviate all uncertainty as to the subject-matter dealt with in the Constitution." Second, Haugen approvingly cited Dyer's additional point that when initiated measures incorporate laws by reference, the "voters have no opportunity to read or examine fairly the contents [of those incorporated laws] and appreciate the real import of the proposed amendment." In my opinion, the Arkansas Supreme Court likely would agree with Haugen's conclusion and reasoning when interpreting our own full-text requirements.

Here, you, like the sponsors in Haugen, expressly incorporate by reference a different law, into the definition of "testing requirement" without providing the actual definition. Therefore, voters reviewing the ballot title are not sufficiently advised about the content of the statute you are attempting to incorporate into the definition of "testing requirement," and the absence of the measure's full text means the ballot title is misleading by omission. The solution to this is to simply set out in proposal the definition you are trying to incorporate by reference.

• Undefined phrase "medical cannabis." Section 3(c) of your text, which amends § 2(13)(C) of Amendment 98, uses the phrase "medical cannabis." But this phrase is neither defined nor used anywhere else in the measure's text or Amendment 98. While § 3 of the measure's text amends the definition of "usable marijuana" to include "cannabis and other substances including any parts of the plant Cannabis sativa," it is unclear whether "medical cannabis" is a distinct category of cannabis. Such unclarity is compounded by the lack of any definition of "medical cannabis" in Amendment 98. When a "health care practitioner" determines that a patient has a condition that "the health care practitioner considers debilitating to the patient and which may be alleviated by the use of medical cannabis," is that "usable marijuana," cannabis, or a specific type of cannabis known as "medical cannabis"? Is this term referring to cannabis used for a medicinal purpose? Or is the term referring to a specific kind of cannabis? This ambiguity prevents from be ensuring your ballot title is not misleading.

• Amendment by General Assembly. Section 3(v) amends § 23 of Amendment 98 to read: "Absent a vote of the people, the General Assembly may not amend, alter, or repeal this amendment." But this is misleading because this provision only partly summarizes the constitutional process concerning amendments. It is also unclear whether you intend any such amendment, alteration, or repeal to be considered one of the three referred amendments under article 19, section 22 to the Arkansas Constitution. This lack of clarity prevents me from ensuring that the ballot title as submitted is not misleading, and it prevents me from ensuring that any substituted and certified ballot title would not be misleading.

Because of the issues identified above, my statutory duty under A.C.A. § 7-9-107(e) is to reject your proposed popular name and ballot title, stating my "reasons therefor," and to "instruct…[you] to redesign your proposed measure and the ballot title…in a manner that would not be misleading."

6. Additional issues. The foregoing defects are sufficient grounds for me to reject your submission. But please note that your proposed measure contains several other issues that, while not bases for my decision to reject your proposed measure, you may wish to correct or clarify:

• "Plants" vs. "cannabis plants." Section 4(a) of the measure's text uses the term "plants" while § 4(b) and (d) use the phrase "cannabis plants." The ballot title refers to "marijuana plants." You likely intend to use "cannabis plants" throughout § 4 of the measure's text, but that is not what the measure's text says. To remedy any confusion, you may want to clarify this switch in terminology.

• Advertising Language. As discussed above, the proposed measure repeals advertising and marketing restrictions that were incorporated into Amendment 98 through the legislature but were never brought to the voters for review. The measure's text fails to tell voters about the impact these changes have on existing statutory law concerning advertising and marketing restrictions for dispensaries, processors, and cultivation facilities: A.C.A. § 20-56-305, which includes specific prohibitions on advertising and use of certain symbols for dispensaries and cultivation facilities, and A.C.A. § 20-56-306, which prohibits any "cultivation facility, dispensary, or processor" from "process[ing] or manufactur[ing] a medical marijuana product in a non-childproof package or container for consumption that" is "likely to appeal to minors due to shape, color, taste, or design," including products "in the shape of an animal, vehicle, person, or character."

• Amendment by General Assembly. Section 3(v) amends § 23 of Amendment 98 without adequately summarizing the current law being repealed. The change in law, both the law being displaced and the law being created, would need to be adequately summarized in any ballot title ultimately certified by this office.

• Grammatical issues. In the ballot title, the word "was" is used instead of "way" in the following clause: "amending Amendment 98, § 2(14)(A) to allow non-Arkansas residents to obtain registry identification cards in the same was as Arkansas residents." Also in the ballot title, the "Alcohol Beverage Control Division" should instead read "Alcoholic Beverage Control Division." While I have authority to change these as they appear in the measure's ballot title, I lack authority to change them as they appear in the text. You likely will want to change this in the measure's text as well. Throughout the measure's text there are missing semicolons (for instance, §3(b) and (c) of the measure's text) or improper use of apostrophes. You may wish to correct these issues.

Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.

Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General