Can an Arkansas city require local candidates to file an extra campaign-finance report before early voting starts, on top of the state-required reports?
Plain-English summary
Bella Vista wanted to pass an ordinance requiring municipal candidates to file a Campaign Contribution and Expense (CC&E) report at least seven days before early voting starts. The motivation: state law's preelection-report deadline falls after early voting begins, so voters often cast ballots without seeing candidate finances.
State Representative Mindy McAlindon asked whether the ordinance would conflict with state law on campaign finance or ethics.
Attorney General Tim Griffin concluded the ordinance does not conflict. Two pillars support municipal authority:
-
Police power under A.C.A. § 14-55-102. Cities can pass ordinances "not inconsistent with the laws of this state" to provide for the safety, health, prosperity, morals, order, comfort, and convenience of their inhabitants. Voter access to campaign-finance information falls within "order" or "general welfare" and would survive a rational-basis review.
-
Home Rule under A.C.A. § 14-43-602. Municipalities can act on "any and all matters of whatsoever nature pertaining to its municipal affairs" not contrary to state law. Local elections and campaign finance are not on the § 14-43-601(a) list of "state affairs" that the legislature has reserved for itself.
On preemption, the AG ran the standard three-way analysis:
- Express preemption. None. The state campaign-finance statutes do not say they preempt local ordinances.
- Field preemption. None. The legislature has not occupied the entire field; in fact, A.C.A. § 7-6-224 expressly authorizes municipalities to set certain local campaign-finance rules.
- Conflict preemption. None. Requiring an additional report on top of state-required reports does not contradict state law. Candidates can comply with both.
The AG was careful: this opinion is based on the facts as presented and does not bind a court. He cannot weigh in on whether a particular application would be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious as that is a question of fact.
What this means for you
If you are a city council member considering a similar local campaign-finance ordinance
Based on this opinion, you have authority to require additional pre-election disclosure tied to the start of early voting. Two design principles to follow:
- Stack on state law, do not contradict it. Your ordinance should require the local report in addition to state-required reports, not as a replacement. That sidesteps conflict preemption.
- Tie the local report to when voters actually start voting, which is the public-policy hook the AG accepted as a rational basis. State law's preelection-report deadline (7 days before election day) does not capture early voting.
Watch for conflict-preemption flags if your ordinance:
- Sets contribution limits higher than state law (state law is a floor; you can be more restrictive but not less).
- Tries to apply to state or federal candidates (limit to municipal candidates).
- Differs from state law on the threshold dollar amount that triggers reporting (state law exempts campaigns under $500 in contributions or expenditures; if you do not include a similar exemption, low-budget candidates may be over-burdened).
If you are a municipal candidate in a city with a local CC&E ordinance
You will need to file two sets of reports. The state report goes to the county clerk on the state schedule. The local report goes to the city clerk seven days before early voting starts. Calendar both deadlines and treat them independently. Missing either creates compliance risk.
If you are a campaign treasurer or compliance professional
Build separate worksheets keyed to each deadline. The local CC&E report and the state preelection report cover overlapping but not identical time windows. Keep clean records throughout the campaign so you can produce reports against either deadline without scrambling.
If you are a voter or transparency advocate
Local CC&E ordinances are now confirmed as a workable tool to pull campaign-finance information forward of early voting. If your city has not adopted one and you want pre-early-voting disclosure, this AG opinion is a clear citation in support of council action.
If you are a state legislator
The AG's reading leaves room for further legislation. If the policy preference is uniform statewide rules, the legislature could amend A.C.A. § 7-6-208 to set an earlier preelection-report deadline tied to early voting, or expressly preempt local CC&E ordinances. Either move would override the result here.
Common questions
Q: Does this ordinance only apply to municipal candidates, or also to state candidates running locally?
A: As proposed, it applies to municipal candidates. State-level candidates remain governed by state law. Stretching local ordinances to cover state candidates would create preemption issues.
Q: My city already has a contribution-limit ordinance. Is that affected?
A: Not directly. A.C.A. § 7-6-224 already authorizes municipalities to set lower contribution limits, time-period limits, and voluntary expenditure limits for local candidates. This opinion focuses on disclosure timing and reaches the same conclusion: more local disclosure is permitted.
Q: What if the ordinance creates a duplicative burden? Is that grounds to invalidate it?
A: Burden alone is not the standard. The standard is whether the ordinance is "arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable." Duplicative reporting that has a rational connection to voter access (here, pre-early-voting disclosure) is unlikely to be invalidated.
Q: Are there penalties under the ordinance, and can the city enforce them?
A: The AG opinion does not address enforcement specifics. Cities have authority to attach penalties to ordinance violations, but the penalty structure has to fit within constitutional limits and the police-power justification.
Q: What about state-level ethics laws? Does this conflict with those?
A: No. The AG concluded the proposed ordinance does not conflict with Arkansas ethics laws. Local disclosure on top of state ethics requirements operates harmoniously.
Background and statutory framework
Arkansas municipalities derive their authority from two sources:
Police power (A.C.A. § 14-55-102). A statutory delegation of the state's inherent police power. Cities can adopt ordinances "not inconsistent with the laws of this state" for the safety, health, prosperity, morals, order, comfort, and convenience of inhabitants. The Arkansas Supreme Court applies a rational-basis review (Phillips v. Town of Oak Grove, 333 Ark. 183 (1998); City of Fayetteville v. S & H, Inc., 261 Ark. 148 (1977)). Police-power ordinances are presumed valid unless arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.
Home Rule (A.C.A. § 14-43-602). The Home Rule Act authorizes municipalities to "perform any function and exercise full legislative power in any and all matters of whatsoever nature pertaining to its municipal affairs," provided the legislation is "not contrary to the general laws of the state." A.C.A. § 14-43-601(a) lists 15 "state affairs" reserved to the legislature. Elections and campaign finance are not on that list.
State preemption analysis comes from Kollmeyer v. Greer, 267 Ark. 632 (1980), which adopted a test analogous to federal preemption:
- Express: Statute explicitly forecloses local legislation. None here.
- Field: State regulation so comprehensive that no room remains for local regulation. None here; A.C.A. § 7-6-224 invites local regulation.
- Conflict: Local ordinance is contrary to state statute or less restrictive. None here; the additional local report is harmonious with state law.
A.C.A. § 7-6-208(a)(2) sets state preelection report deadlines: 7 days before primary, runoff, general, school, or special elections. A.C.A. § 7-6-208(d)(1) exempts unopposed candidates and candidates with under $500 in contributions or expenditures.
A.C.A. § 7-6-224 is the express invitation to local regulation: municipalities, counties, and townships can establish reasonable limitations on (1) time periods for soliciting contributions, (2) lower contribution limits than state law, and (3) voluntary expenditure limits.
Citations and references
Statutes and constitution:
- A.C.A. § 7-6-208 (state campaign-finance reports)
- A.C.A. § 7-6-224 (express local-regulation authority)
- A.C.A. § 14-43-601(a) (state affairs vs. municipal affairs)
- A.C.A. § 14-43-602 (Home Rule Act)
- A.C.A. § 14-55-102 (police power delegation)
- Arkansas Constitution, Article 12, § 4 (municipalities)
Cases:
- Phillips v. Town of Oak Grove, 333 Ark. 183, 968 S.W.2d 600 (Ark. 1998) (police power and rational-basis review)
- City of Fayetteville v. S & H, Inc., 261 Ark. 148, 547 S.W.2d 94 (Ark. 1977) (unreasonableness as fact question)
- Kollmeyer v. Greer, 267 Ark. 632, 593 S.W.2d 29 (Ark. 1980) (state preemption framework)
- Tompos v. City of Fayetteville, 280 Ark. 435, 658 S.W.2d 404 (Ark. 1983) (conflict preemption)
- Geurin v. City of Little Rock, 203 Ark. 103, 155 S.W.2d 719 (Ark. 1941) (police power origins)
- Hand v. H & R Block, Inc., 258 Ark. 774, 528 S.W.2d 916 (Ark. 1975) (police power covers business pricing)
- Williams v. State, 85 Ark. 464, 108 S.W. 838 (Ark. 1908), aff'd 217 U.S. 79 (1910) (police power and general welfare)
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2024-040
July 3, 2024
The Honorable Mindy McAlindon
State Representative
Post Office Box 324
Centerton, Arkansas 72719
Dear Representative McAlindon:
I am writing in response to your request for my opinion about the City of Bella Vista's authority to pass a proposed ordinance.
You indicate that the City wishes to pass an ordinance to require municipal candidates to file a Campaign Contribution and Expense report ("CC&E"), in addition to the one already required by state law. The City's proposed ordinance would require municipal candidates to file this CC&E report at least seven days before early voting begins. It requires this before early voting because "the deadline for filing the [State-mandated] reports with the county clerk is after the start of early voting," so many citizens are unable to view the reports before voting. The proposed ordinance cites A.C.A. § 7-6-224 and declares that "matters concerning local elections do not fall under the category of state affairs such that cities are prohibited from legislating."
You ask the following two questions:
- Does the proposed Bella Vista ordinance conflict with or violate any current Arkansas laws relating to or concerning campaign finance or disclosure?
- Does the proposed Bella Vista ordinance conflict with or violate any Arkansas ethics laws or requirements?
RESPONSE
For the reasons discussed in the opinion, the proposed Bella Vista ordinance does not conflict with or violate current Arkansas law concerning campaign finance or ethics.
DISCUSSION
1. General municipal authority. Cities, towns, and other municipalities "are creatures of the legislature" and only have powers as delegated to them by the General Assembly. This expressly delegated authority includes both the broad "police power" and statutory "Home Rule," which is the general power to act concerning "municipal affairs."
1.1. Police power. The police power is the power inherent in state sovereignty and is not a grant derived from any constitution. Although municipalities do not inherently have this power, the General Assembly has expressly delegated it to them. The "police power" is the power to "make and publish bylaws and ordinances, not inconsistent with the laws of this state, which, as to them, shall seem necessary to provide for the safety, preserve the health, promote the prosperity, and improve the morals, order, comfort, and convenience of such corporations and the inhabitants thereof." An exercise of police power "is always justified when it can be said to be in the interest of the public health, public safety, and public comfort, and when it is, private rights must yield to their security," subject to federal and state constitutional limitations.
Thus, a city has discretion to determine what is necessary for the public welfare, health, safety, order, comfort, and convenience of its inhabitants. An ordinance enacted under a city's police power is presumed valid unless a court concludes that there is no "rational basis" for the ordinance, that the ordinance is "arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable."
Although this particular issue appears to be one of first impression, it is my opinion that a court would likely find that the City has authority to pass the proposed ordinance under the City's "police power" because the proposed ordinance, at a minimum, could be categorized as improving the order of the city and its residents. Although the earliest cases typically concern health and safety, since then courts have routinely upheld ordinances regulating many areas outside of health and safety, such as fraud prevention, aesthetics, business pricing, and general prosperity of a community, as being reasonably related to the general welfare, order, comfort, or convenience of a city's inhabitants.
1.2. "Municipal affairs" vs. "state affairs." Under A.C.A. § 14-43-602(a), cities, towns, and other municipalities are also "authorized to perform any function and exercise full legislative power in any and all matters of whatsoever nature pertaining to its municipal affairs," if the legislation is not "contrary to the general laws of the state." "[M]unicipal affairs" includes "all matters and affairs of government germane to, affecting, or concerning the municipality or its government except" for "state affairs…[which are] subject to the general laws of the State of Arkansas."
Arkansas Code § 14-43-601(a) lists as "state affairs" 15 subjects, none of which expressly include elections or campaign finance. But even if a subject matter is designated as a "state affair," local legislation is permissible if it is "not in conflict with state law." Regardless of whether an ordinance regulates a "state affair" or a "municipal affair," state law preempts local legislation if it is "in conflict with" or "contrary to" state law.
2. State election law. Having determined that such an ordinance is within a city's power, the next question is whether it would conflict with any state law. Under A.C.A. § 7-6-208(a), municipal candidates are required to file multiple campaign-contribution reports, including annual, preelection, postelection, supplemental, and campaign-ending reports. A preelection report must be filed at least seven days before a "primary election, runoff election, general election, school election, or special election in which the candidate's name appears on the ballot" and include "all contributions received and expenditures made between [certain] periods." But candidates who have "not received contributions or made expenditures in excess of five hundred dollars" or are running unopposed are not required to file a preelection report.
State law expressly authorizes "[m]unicipalities, counties, and townships" to "establish reasonable limitations on: (1) Time periods that candidates for local office shall be allowed to solicit contributions; (2) Limits on contributions to local candidates at amounts lower than those set by state law; and (3) Voluntary campaign expenditure limits for candidates seeking election to their respective governing bodies."
3. State preemption. State statutes can preempt municipal ordinances in three ways: (1) express preemption; (2) field preemption; and (3) conflict preemption.
Express preemption occurs when the text of a statute expressly forecloses local legislation on the topic.
Field preemption occurs when a state statute preempts local legislation when the breadth of State regulation indicates that the General Assembly intends to "hold the field" of a particular area of law, or regulate "an area completely so as to not leave reasonable room for local regulation." But the mere existence of a statute governing the same or similar area of an ordinance does not mean that the statute preempts the ordinance. "The General Assembly should be clear when it intends to pre-empt a field that otherwise could be validly regulated by…ordinance." This clarity is necessary because Arkansas's Home Rule Act grants municipalities broad authority to regulate unless the regulation is "in conflict with state law."
Conflict preemption occurs when an ordinance is contrary to or irreconcilable with state statutes, or when it less restrictive than state statutes.
4. Application of state preemption analysis.
4.1. Express. The applicable state statutes concerning certain local elections do not expressly preempt municipal ordinances concerning municipal elections or municipal campaign contribution because nothing in those statutes states that they "preempt" local ordinances.
4.2. Field. The applicable state statutes concerning certain local elections do not pervasively regulate municipal elections or municipal campaign-contribution reports in a way that renders cities, towns, or other municipalities completely preempted from the field. This is so for three reasons. First, the General Assembly has not clearly indicated that it intended to preempt the field of local-election reports that otherwise could be validly regulated by local ordinance. Second, while statutes do govern certain local-election reports and expressly authorize local governments to "establish reasonable limitations" concerning campaign finance, state law leaves room for cities and other municipalities to regulate in the field or area of local campaign-finance reports. Third, under A.C.A. § 14-43-601(a), neither municipal elections nor campaign finance are listed as "state affairs" subject to the general laws of the State, so municipalities may presumptively legislate broadly on the subject.
4.3. Conflict. An ordinance that requires municipal-office candidates to, "in addition to any other requirement of state law," "file campaign contribution and expenditure reports" with a city clerk "no later than seven days prior to early voting" does not itself contradict or conflict with A.C.A. § 7-6-208(a). Although the ordinance obligates candidates to file an additional report, the provided ordinance is harmonious with state law and not less restrictive than state law. In this type of situation, it is not then impossible to comply with both the ordinance and with the state statute.
In sum, the proposed Bella Vista ordinance likely fits under a broad use of "police power" and does not conflict with or violate current Arkansas laws concerning campaign finance or disclosure, or ethics laws or requirements.
Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General