What does the certified 'Arkansas Educational Rights Amendment of 2024' ballot title say about how voucher schools must meet the same standards as public schools?
Plain-English summary
For AR Kids submitted its third version of the proposed "Arkansas Educational Rights Amendment of 2024." Earlier versions were rejected in Opinion No. 2023-131 and Opinion No. 2024-019 over textual ambiguities (especially around the meaning of "tax benefit" and the scope of state-funded schools subject to the amendment). The third version added explicit definitions to address those concerns, defining "receives, or in receipt of, any State or local funds" to mean three specific things: (i) school receives State or local funds, property, or tax credits to defray a student's costs; (ii) student or parent receives State or local funds, property, or tax credits to defray those costs; or (iii) school, student, or parent receives financial assistance funded in whole or in part by monetary contributions qualifying for a State tax credit.
The AG substituted and certified:
Popular Name: "The Arkansas Educational Rights Amendment of 2024"
Ballot Title: A detailed summary requiring identical academic standards for any school receiving state or local funds (with the new definition), denying state funds to non-public schools that fail to meet those standards, expanding the state's obligation to maintain a system of free public schools to include universal voluntary pre-K (for 3-year-olds), voluntary afterschool and summer programs, poverty assistance, and individualized services for students with disabilities. Defines "adequate education" with seven specific outcome categories (communication, knowledge of governmental processes, etc.). Requires the General Assembly to enact implementing legislation and allocate funding. Forbids the General Assembly from amending or repealing the amendment without a vote of the people. Severability clause.
The AG cautioned about length and complexity (this is a long ballot title) but found it compliant. The amendment did not appear on the November 2024 ballot.
What this means for you
Public education advocates
This was the third try and the one that worked through AG certification. The textual definitions added in this version specifically address the "tax benefit" and "tax credit" pathway through which voucher and ESA programs deliver state funding to private schools. If a future version of this amendment reaches the ballot and passes, the practical effect would be that private schools accepting state-supported funds, even indirectly through tax-credit-funded scholarships, would have to meet the same academic standards as public schools.
Private school administrators and voucher-receiving institutions
The ballot title's definition of "receives" reaches schools where students or parents got tax-credit-funded scholarships. If your school accepts students paying tuition with funds from the Arkansas Brighter Future Fund Plan (529 plan), through scholarship tax credit programs, or through state-funded education savings accounts, this amendment would have required identical accreditation, curriculum standards, and assessment regimes as public schools. Watch for revised versions of this proposal in future cycles.
Parents using education savings accounts or voucher funds
The amendment's definition explicitly captures situations where state or local tax credits flow to families to support private K-12 tuition. If passed, it would have meant the school you chose for your child would have been subject to the same standards as a public school, including state assessment requirements. The trade-off for school choice advocates is significant.
Ballot initiative sponsors
The For AR Kids three-version sequence shows the iterative process. Each rejection identified specific defects; each subsequent submission addressed them. The third version explicitly defined the previously ambiguous "tax benefit" by enumerating three specific scenarios. Note also the AG's standard caution about length: this ballot title is long, and length correlates with successful post-election challenges. If you are advising sponsors of a complex amendment, plan for a parallel litigation strategy.
State legislators
The amendment's restriction on legislative repeal was its capstone provision. Without voter approval, the General Assembly could not amend or repeal this constitutional accountability framework. If passed, this would have substantially constrained future legislative flexibility on voucher and ESA programs.
Common questions
Did this amendment pass in November 2024?
The amendment did not appear on the November 2024 ballot. AG certification is a procedural milestone, not a guarantee of ballot placement. Sponsors must collect signatures and survive any pre-election challenges. This proposal did not advance through those subsequent stages.
What changes did For AR Kids make to address the AG's prior rejection in 2024-019?
The third version added an explicit definition of "receives, or in receipt of, any State or local funds" with three enumerated categories: (i) receipt by the school; (ii) receipt by the student or parents/guardians; (iii) receipt by school, student, or parents of financial assistance funded by tax-credit-eligible contributions. This eliminated the "tax benefit" ambiguity that doomed the previous version.
What does "adequate education" require under the amendment?
The text defines it as students developing sufficient: (1) oral and written communication skills, (2) knowledge of economic, social, and political systems, (3) understanding of governmental processes, (4) self-knowledge and mental/physical wellness, (5) grounding in the arts, (6) training for academic or vocational fields, and (7) academic or vocational skills to compete in surrounding states.
Why did the AG repeat the length-and-complexity warning?
Because long ballot titles are demonstrably more vulnerable to successful court challenges. The Arkansas Supreme Court has cautioned sponsors repeatedly. The AG's warning is a procedural courtesy: certification doesn't immunize the title from judicial review.
What's the relationship between this amendment and the LEARNS Act?
LEARNS Act (Act 237 of 2023) significantly expanded Arkansas's voucher and ESA programs. This proposed amendment was a coalition response intended to constrain LEARNS by requiring private schools accepting LEARNS-related funding to meet public-school standards. The amendment did not target LEARNS by name, but the practical effect would have substantially limited LEARNS's intended flexibility for private schools.
Background and statutory framework
AG ballot-title review. A.C.A. § 7-9-107 sets the AG's review process: certify, substitute and certify, or reject and direct redesign.
Petition instructions. A.C.A. § 7-9-108 requires every petition to include canvasser/signer instructions.
Length and complexity warnings. AG Opinions 2023-038, 2007-160, 2005-212, and 2000-137 collect and summarize the Arkansas Supreme Court's warnings about ballot title length and complexity.
Bailey "essential facts" rule. Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994), requires ballot titles to summarize all essential facts.
Article 14. Arkansas Constitution Article 14 governs education. The amendment would have added a new section requiring identical standards for any school receiving state or local funds.
Prior versions. AG Opinion 2023-131 rejected the first version. AG Opinion 2024-019 rejected the second version (over "tax benefit" ambiguity).
Citations
- A.C.A. § 7-9-107 (AG ballot-title review)
- A.C.A. § 7-9-108 (canvasser/signer instructions)
- Ark. Const. art. 14 (Education)
- Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994)
- AG Opinions 2023-131, 2024-019 (prior rejections)
- AG Opinions 2023-038, 2007-160, 2005-212, 2000-137 (length/complexity warnings)
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2024-033
March 1, 2024
Mr. Bill Kopsky
For AR Kids
1308 West Second Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Dear Mr. Kopsky:
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. In Opinion Nos. 2023-131 and
2024-019, I rejected prior versions of your proposal. You have now revised your proposed
constitutional amendment 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 amendment to the Arkansas Constitution:
Popular Name
Arkansas Educational Rights Amendment of 2024
Ballot Title
An amendment to Article 14 (Education) of the Arkansas Constitution of 1874, to be
known as the “Arkansas Educational Rights Amendment of 2024,” to require identical
academic standards and identical standards for accreditation, including assessments of
students and schools based on such standards, for any school that receives State or local
funds; to define “receives, or in receipt of, any State or local funds” to mean: (i) receipt
by the school of any State or local funds, property, or tax credits to cover or defray, in
whole or part, the costs of any student attending the school; or (ii) receipt by the student
attending the school, or the student’s parents or guardians, of any State or local funds,
property, or tax credits to cover or defray, in whole or in part, the costs of the student
attending the school; or (iii) receipt by a school, a student attending the school, or the
student’s parents or guardians, of financial assistance for the cost of the student
attending the school that is funded, in whole or in part, by monetary contributions that Mr. Bill Kopsky
Opinion No. 2024-033
Page 2
qualify for a state tax credit under Arkansas law; to deny State or local funds to any
non-public school that fails to meet the same academic standards and standards for
accreditation or to meet the same assessment requirements based on such standards as
public schools; to expand the State’s obligation to ever maintain a general, suitable,
and efficient system of free public schools to include: (1) universal access to voluntary,
early childhood education for students three (3) years old until they qualify for
Kindergarten; (2) universal access to voluntary afterschool and summer programs
necessary for the achievement of an adequate education; (3) assistance to children who
are within 200% of the federal poverty line so that the qualifying children can achieve
an adequate education and overcome the negative impact of poverty on education; and
(4) services that fully meet the individualized needs of students with disabilities to
allow them meaningful access to integrated education; to ensure that an adequate
education means, without limitation, that every child educated in the school should
develop sufficient: (1) oral and written communication skills to enable students to
function in a complex and rapidly changing civilization; (2) knowledge of economic,
social, and political systems to students to make informed choices; (3) understanding
of governmental processes to students to understand the issues that affect their
community, state, and nation; (4) self-knowledge and knowledge of their mental and
physical wellness; (5) grounding in the arts to enable students to appreciate their
cultural and historical heritage; (6) training or preparation for advanced training in
either academic or vocational fields so as to enable children to choose and pursue life
work intelligently; and (7) academic or vocational skills to enable public school
students to compete favorably with their counterparts in surrounding states, in
academics or in the job market; and to require the General Assembly to enact legislation
to implement this amendment, including allocating funding necessary to fully
implement this amendment.
2. Rules governing my review. In Opinion No. 2023-131, I explained the rules governing popular
names and ballot titles, and I also explained the rules governing my review of proposed measures.
Rather than repeat those explanations, I incorporate them here by reference.
3. Application. Having reviewed the text of your proposed constitutional amendment, as well as
your proposed popular name and ballot title, I substitute and certify the following popular name
and ballot title for your proposed measure:
Popular Name
The Arkansas Educational Rights Amendment of 2024
Ballot Title
An amendment to Article 14 (Education) of the Arkansas constitution requiring
identical academic standards and identical standards for accreditation, including
assessments of students and schools based on such standards, for any school that
receives State or local funds; defining “receives, or in receipt of, any State or local
funds” to mean: (i) receipt by the school of any State or local funds, property, or tax Mr. Bill Kopsky
Opinion No. 2024-033
Page 3
credits to cover or defray, in whole or in part, the costs of any student attending the
school; (ii) receipt by the student attending the school, or the student’s parents or
guardians, of any state or local funds, property, or tax credits to cover or defray, in
whole or in part, the costs of the student attending the school; or (iii) receipt by a school,
a student attending the school, or the student’s parents or guardians, of financial
assistance for the cost of the student attending the school that is funded, in whole or in
part, by monetary contributions that qualify for a State tax credit under Arkansas law;
denying State or local funds to any non-public school that fails to meet the same
academic standards, standards for accreditation, or assessment requirements as public
schools; expanding the State’s obligation to ever maintain a general, suitable, and
efficient system of free public schools to include: (1) universal access to voluntary,
early childhood education for students three (3) years old until they qualify for
Kindergarten; (2) universal access to voluntary afterschool and summer programs
necessary for the achievement of an adequate education; (3) assistance to children who
are within 200% of the federal poverty line so that the qualifying children can achieve
an adequate education and overcome the negative impact of poverty on education; and
(4) services that fully meet the individualized needs of students with disabilities to
allow them meaningful access to integrated education; defining an adequate education
as, without limitation, all children developing sufficient: (1) oral and written
communication skills to enable students to function in a complex and rapidly changing
civilization; (2) knowledge of economic, social, and political systems to enable
students to make informed choices; (3) understanding of governmental processes to
enable students to understand the issues that affect their community, state, and nation;
(4) self-knowledge and knowledge of their mental and physical wellness; (5) grounding
in the arts to enable students to appreciate their cultural and historical heritage;
(6) training or preparation for advanced training in either academic or vocational fields
so as to enable children to choose and pursue life work intelligently; and (7) academic
or vocational skills to enable public school students to compete favorably with their
counterparts in surrounding states, in academics or in the job market; requiring the
General Assembly to enact legislation to implement this amendment, including
allocating funding necessary to fully implement this amendment; forbidding the
General Assembly from amending, altering, or repealing this amendment absent a vote
of the people; and providing that this amendment’s provisions are severable.
While the foregoing has been substituted and certified, I believe that, in light of the significance
of the subject matter undertaken and the potential complexity and far-reaching effects of this
proposal, a few cautionary notes are warranted. You should be aware that experience has shown a
correlation between the length and complexity of constitutional amendments and their
susceptibility to a successful ballot-title challenge. Any ambiguity in the text of a measure could
lead to a successful court challenge. Significant changes in law often have unintended
consequences that, if known, would give voters serious ground for reflection. As several of my
predecessors have noted when certifying certain lengthy and complex ballot titles, the Arkansas
Supreme Court has repeatedly warned sponsors of statewide measures about their ballot titles’ Mr. Bill Kopsky
Opinion No. 2024-033
Page 4
length and complexity.1 In Opinion No. 2023-038, I recently summarized the Court’s decisions on
the significance of a ballot title’s length and complexity.
Under A.C.A. § 7-9-108, instructions to canvassers and signers must precede every petition,
informing them of the privileges granted by the Arkansas Constitution and the associated penalties
for violations. I have included a copy of the instructions that should be incorporated into your
petition before circulation.
Assistant Attorney General Jodie Keener prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General
1 E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2023-038, 2007-160, 2005-212, 2000-137.