What standards does the Arkansas AG apply when reviewing a proposed initiated constitutional amendment, and why was the 2024 recreational marijuana ballot title rejected?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2024. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Arkansas law, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Cedric King submitted a proposed initiated constitutional amendment titled "The Arkansas Recreational Marijuana Amendment of 2024" to the AG for review and certification of the popular name and ballot title. Under A.C.A. § 7-9-107, the AG has three options within ten business days: certify as submitted, substitute a more suitable popular name and ballot title, or reject and instruct the sponsor to redesign.
The AG rejected the submission. The opinion identifies specific defects in the proposed measure that prevent the AG from certifying or substituting a workable ballot title, plus a long list of additional issues the sponsor should address.
Defects that grounded the rejection:
-
Full-text violations. The proposed measure repeatedly incorporates Arkansas statutes by reference (the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act, the Arkansas State Sales and Use Tax). The Arkansas Constitution (via Amendment 7) requires the "full text" of the proposed measure to accompany each petition. Voters cannot fairly evaluate a measure when it depends on statutes whose text is not in the measure itself. The AG cited Haugen v. Jaeger, 2020 N.D. 177, 948 N.W.2d 1, where the North Dakota Supreme Court invalidated similar incorporation by reference. The Arkansas Supreme Court would likely agree.
-
Marijuana vs. "recreational marijuana" ambiguity. Section 4 says the "cultivation, production, distribution, sale, transport, possession, and use of marijuana and products produced from marijuana for adult recreational purposes are lawful under state law." But "marijuana for adult recreational purposes" is undefined; "marijuana" and "recreational marijuana" are separately defined. The two might or might not mean the same thing.
-
Expungement scope unclear. The expungement section refers to "marijuana-related offenses" defined by reference to the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. Does this include federal offenses? Does it expunge convictions, violations, or both? The text uses both terms inconsistently. The expungement effective date in the ballot title (2022) does not match the proposed effective date in the text (2024).
-
License vs. personal-use conflict. Section 5(a)(1) says "Adults and Businesses shall be licensed by the Arkansas Agriculture Department." But Section 4(b) says certain acts by an in-state adult resident "shall not be an offense" without any license, including cultivating up to 12 plants and possessing/purchasing certain amounts. The "shall be licensed" language conflicts with the personal-use exemption.
-
Cultivation/production licenses confused. Section 4(a) says two license types regulate "cultivation and production," but the licenses themselves cover transport and sale too.
Additional issues the sponsor should fix:
- Mismatched effective dates (Section 2 says November 6, 2024; ballot title says November 9, 2022)
- "Recreational marijuana" defined to include hemp/Delta-8 products (likely unintended)
- Misstated regulator (ballot title says Department and Division "regulate cultivation and production"; actual text divides licensing and enforcement between them)
- Medical marijuana provision misstated (Amendment 98 does not regulate the way the proposed measure says)
- Multiple ballot-title summary omissions: severability clause, rule-making authority, 1,500-foot setback, food/drink content rules, paraphernalia rules, expungement details
- Federal-prohibition recognition in ballot title but not in text
- Wrong agency name ("Arkansas Agriculture Department" vs. "Arkansas Department of Agriculture")
- "Shall" vs. "may" mismatch on tax-revenue allocation
- Many grammatical and typographical issues (missing spaces, wrong words, missing punctuation, all-caps formatting)
The sponsor must redesign the proposed measure (especially fixing the full-text and ambiguity issues), then redesign the popular name and ballot title, and resubmit.
What this means for you
Anyone sponsoring a ballot initiative in Arkansas
This opinion is a useful checklist. The AG's review focuses on whether the ballot title is or can be made non-misleading. If the underlying measure is internally ambiguous, the AG cannot fix it through ballot title alone. So:
- Do not incorporate statutes by reference. Quote the relevant statutory language in your measure. Voters cannot reasonably evaluate a measure that depends on outside statutes whose text is not in front of them.
- Define your terms clearly. If you use "recreational marijuana" and "marijuana" as separate concepts, make sure both are defined and the relationship between them is clear. Avoid undefined hybrid phrases like "marijuana for adult recreational purposes" when you have already defined the underlying terms.
- Match the ballot title to the text. If the ballot title says one thing about regulators or rules and the text says another, the ballot title is misleading and will be rejected.
- Avoid all-caps formatting. No law requires it, and it makes the title harder to read (per the AG's citation to Garner's Modern English Usage).
- Include all "essential facts." A ballot title that omits material provisions of the measure is misleading by omission. List severability, rule-making authority, setbacks, content rules, paraphernalia provisions, and similar elements that voters would consider material.
- Proofread thoroughly. Typos and missing spaces are not fatal but they undermine the ballot title's credibility and the sponsor's diligence. Get an attorney or experienced ballot drafter to review before submission.
Election law attorneys advising sponsors
The AG's reasoning on incorporation by reference is the most important development here. The AG explicitly relies on Haugen v. Jaeger from North Dakota and predicts the Arkansas Supreme Court would follow. This raises the bar for sponsors who previously relied on shorthand citations to existing statutes. Quote, do not cite.
The opinion is also useful for understanding the structure of A.C.A. § 7-9-107 review. The AG does not modify the text of the measure itself; only the ballot title and popular name. But the AG can reject both when the underlying text is ambiguous because no fix to the ballot title alone will make it non-misleading. So a sponsor cannot fix things by tweaking only the title.
Cannabis policy advocates
Recreational marijuana keeps coming up in Arkansas. This was the second proposed amendment in recent cycles to fail at AG review. Sponsors of future cannabis amendments should look closely at the specific defects identified here and avoid them: incorporation by reference of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, ambiguity around licenses and personal use, expungement scope, federal preemption recognition.
Voters
When you see a ballot title at the ballot box, remember that the AG has reviewed it for whether it accurately summarizes the measure. The AG's standards are technical and procedural, not substantive. The AG does not consider whether the policy is good or bad. A measure that survives AG review can still be a bad idea or a good idea depending on your values. The AG just confirms the title is fair.
If a measure does not appear on the ballot at all, it may have failed AG review and not been redesigned/resubmitted in time, or it may have failed signature collection. AG rejection slows down the process but does not necessarily kill the proposal; sponsors can revise and resubmit.
Secretary of State staff
The AG's certification is a precondition to printing petitions and collecting signatures. A rejected measure cannot proceed until the sponsor redesigns and resubmits. Track the status of pending submissions and notify sponsors promptly when deadlines are tight.
Common questions
What is the AG's role in reviewing initiated measures?
Under A.C.A. § 7-9-107, the AG reviews proposed popular names and ballot titles for initiated and referred measures. The AG can certify, substitute (for ballot title and popular name only, not the measure's text), or reject and instruct redesign. The AG does not review the measure's policy merits.
What is the "full-text" requirement?
Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution (Ark. Const. art. 5, § 1) requires the "full text" of an initiated measure to accompany each petition. Voters need to be able to read the actual text being voted on. The AG construes this to bar incorporation by reference of statutes whose text is not in the measure.
Why does the AG cite a North Dakota case?
Arkansas's full-text requirement is similar to North Dakota's. The North Dakota Supreme Court in Haugen v. Jaeger ruled that incorporation by reference violates the full-text rule because voters "have no opportunity to read or examine fairly the contents [of those incorporated laws] and appreciate the real import of the proposed amendment." The AG predicts the Arkansas Supreme Court would follow this reasoning.
Can the AG just rewrite the ballot title himself?
For some defects, yes (A.C.A. § 7-9-107(d)(1) allows substituting a more suitable ballot title). But if the underlying measure's text is ambiguous, no ballot title can accurately summarize it. The AG must reject in those cases (Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 20 S.W.3d 376 (2000)).
What is the difference between popular name and ballot title?
The popular name is short, like a label (in this case, "The Arkansas Recreational Marijuana Amendment of 2024"). The ballot title is the longer summary that appears on the ballot itself. Both must be non-misleading and consistent with each other and with the measure's text. The popular name is "primarily a useful legislative device" (Pafford v. Hall, 217 Ark. 734, 233 S.W.2d 72 (1950)).
What happens if a sponsor disagrees with the AG's rejection?
The sponsor can redesign and resubmit, which is the normal path. Sponsors can also seek judicial review of the AG's decision, though this is rare and would face deference to the AG's authority under A.C.A. § 7-9-107(e).
Is this the only proposed recreational marijuana measure for 2024?
The opinion does not say. Multiple sponsors have submitted recreational marijuana measures over the years; the AG's review is sponsor-by-sponsor. This particular submission was rejected; other submissions might be pending or have been certified separately.
Why does the all-caps issue matter?
The opinion cites Garner's Modern English Usage: "a block of all caps is hard to read, and the longer the block, the harder it is to read." Sponsors who use all-caps formatting throughout the ballot title undermine voter comprehension, which can support a misleading-by-amplification argument. The AG suggests sticking with mixed case.
Background and statutory framework
The AG's review process. A.C.A. § 7-9-107(a) requires sponsors to submit the original draft (text + ballot title + popular name) to the AG. Within ten business days, A.C.A. § 7-9-107(d)(1) lets the AG approve and certify, or substitute a more suitable ballot title and popular name. A.C.A. § 7-9-107(e) lets the AG reject and instruct redesign when "the ballot title or the nature of the issue" would be misleading or designed in such manner that a vote for or against would actually produce the opposite outcome.
Popular name standards. Pafford v. Hall, 217 Ark. 734, 233 S.W.2d 72 (1950) (Arkansas Supreme Court): popular name is primarily a legislative device. Chaney v. Bryant, 259 Ark. 294, 532 S.W.2d 741 (1976), and Moore v. Hall, 229 Ark. 411, 316 S.W.2d 207 (1958), establish that the popular name must not be misleading or partisan. May v. Daniels, 359 Ark. 100, 194 S.W.3d 771 (2004) (Arkansas Supreme Court): popular name and ballot title considered together for sufficiency.
Ballot title standards. Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. 219, 604 S.W.2d 555 (1980) (Arkansas Supreme Court): impartial summary giving voters a fair understanding. Wilson v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 334, 500 S.W.3d 160 (Arkansas Supreme Court): technical terms not readily understood by voters must be defined or avoided. Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994) (Arkansas Supreme Court): cannot omit material qualifying as an "essential fact which would give the voter serious ground for reflection." Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654, 841 S.W.2d 139 (1992) (Arkansas Supreme Court): ballot title need not be perfect but must be free from misleading tendency. Becker v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 482, 798 S.W.2d 71 (1990) (Arkansas Supreme Court): honest and impartial.
Brevity requirement. A.C.A. § 7-9-107(d)(2) requires brief and concise statement. A.C.A. § 7-5-309(b)(1)(B) sets a 10-minute ballot-marking time limit, supporting the brevity requirement.
Ambiguity in measure text. Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 825, 20 S.W.3d 376, 382 (2000) (Arkansas Supreme Court): ballot title cannot be approved if the underlying measure's text contributes to confusion or disconnect with the title.
Full-text requirement. Ark. Const. amend. 7 (Ark. Const. art. 5, § 1). A.C.A. § 7-9-107 implements this by requiring "[t]he full text of the proposed measure." Haugen v. Jaeger, 2020 N.D. 177, 948 N.W.2d 1 (North Dakota Supreme Court), held that incorporation by reference violates a similar full-text requirement.
Citations
- A.C.A. § 7-9-107 (Attorney General review of ballot titles)
- A.C.A. § 7-9-107(a), (b), (d), (e) (review process and authority)
- A.C.A. § 7-5-309(b)(1)(B) (10-minute voting time limit)
- A.C.A. § 2-15-503 (industrial hemp definition)
- Ark. Const. amend. 7 (Ark. Const. art. 5, § 1) (initiative process and full-text requirement)
- Ark. Const. amend. 98 (Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment of 2016)
- Pafford v. Hall, 217 Ark. 734, 233 S.W.2d 72 (1950)
- 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
- 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)
- Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 20 S.W.3d 376 (2000)
- Richardson v. Martin, 2014 Ark. 429, 444 S.W.3d 855
- Haugen v. Jaeger, 2020 N.D. 177, 948 N.W.2d 1 (cited as persuasive)
- Bryan A. Garner, GARNER'S MODERN ENGLISH USAGE (5th ed. 2022)
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2024-050
April 2, 2024
Cedric L. King
Post Office Box 94
Griffithville, Arkansas 72060
Dear Mr. King:
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.
- 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
The Arkansas Recreational Marijuana Amendment of 2024
Ballot Title
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION DEFINING
RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA IS [sic] ANY PART OF THE
CANNABIS PLANT, LIVING OR NOT, THAT IS CULTIVATED AND
PRODUCED TO BE USED AS AN INTOXICANT FOR THE PURPOSE
OF ADULT ENJOYMENT OR PLEASURE; THIS AMENDMENT WILL
MAKE THE CULTIVATION, PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION,
POSSESSION,TRANSPORT, AND SALE OF RECREATIONAL
MARIJUANA FOR PERSONS 21 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER LEGAL
UNDER STATE LAW, BUT RECOGNIZING THAT THE LISTED
ACTIVITIES REGARDING MARIJUANA IS [sic] PROHIBITED
UNDER FEDERAL LAW; UNDER THIS AMENDMENT THE
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND THE ALCOHOLIC Mr. Cedric L. King
Opinion No. 2024-050
Page 2
BEVERAGE CONTROL DIVISION SHALL REGULATE THE
CULTIVATION AND PRODUCTION OF RECREATIONA [sic]
MARIJUANA THAT IS SOLD IN THE STATE. THE AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT SHALL ISSUE TWO TYPES OF RECREATIONAL
MARIJUANA LICENSES TO ANY ADULT OR BUSINESS WHO ARE
[sic] A RESIDENT OF THE STATE FOR 3 YEARS OR MORE TO
CULTIVATE, MANUFACTURE, AND SELL RECREATIONAL
MARIJUANA PLANTS AND PRODUCTS PRODUCED THEREFROM;
A CLASS A LICENSE WHICH WOULD PERMIT THE POSSESSION,
CULTIVATION, TRANSPORT, AND SALE OF RECREATIONAL
MARIJUANA PLANTS AND SEEDS; A CLASS B LICENSE WOULD
PERMIT THE POSSESSION, CULTIVATION, PRODUCTION,
TRANSPORT, AND SALE OFRECREATIONAL [sic] MARIJUANA
PLANTS, SEEDS, AND PERMITS THE PRODUCTION AND SALE OF
PRODUCTS PRODUCED FROM THE PLANT; PROVIDING THAT A
CLASS A LICENSE COST SHALL NOT EXCEED $250 A YEAR PER
LICENSE HOLDER, AND A CLASS B LICENSE COST SHALL NOT
EXCEED $500 A YEAR PER LICENSE HOLDER; PROVIDING THAT
THE DEPARTMENT AND THE DIVISION MAY ADOPT
ADDITIONAL RULES, REGULATIONS, AND PENALTIES TO
PREVENT THE USE OF RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA BY
MINORS, TO INCREASE PRODUCT SAFETY, AND CONSUMER
AWARENESS; UNDER THIS AMENDMENT ANY PERSON WHO IS
21 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER AND A RESIDENT OF THIS STATE
MAY CULTIVATE, POSSESS, PURCHASE AND TRANSPORT UP TO
12 RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA PLANTS, AND AN UNLIMITED
QUANTITY OF SEEDS OUT OF PUBLIC VIEW, THEY MAY ALSO
PURCHASE UP TO 4 OUNCES OF SMOKEABLE OR VAPORIZABLE
RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA A DAY, BUT MAY POSSESS OUT OF
PUBLIC VIEW, AN UNLIMITED QUANTITY OF PRODUCTS
PRODUCED FROM THE PLANT; NON RESIDENT ADULTS IN THE
STATE MAY POSSESS AND PURCHASE UP TO ONE OUNCE OF
SMOKABLE OR VAPORIZABLE RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA A
DAY, AND UP TO 72 OUNCES Of RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA IN
THE FORM OF FOOD OR DRINK A DAY; UNDER THIS
AMENDMENT ANY PERSON SERVING INCARCERATION,
PROBATION, OR PAROLE FOR VIOLATING THE ARKANSAS
UNIFORMED CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT AS IT PERTAINS
TO MARIJUANA, WHOSE CURRENT AND ONLY CONVICTION
WAS FOR A MARIJUANA RELATED OFFENSE SHALL BE
RELEASED AND ALL CRIMINAL RECORDS SHALL BE EXPUNGED
OF SUCH CONVICTIONS THAT OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE
AMENDMENTS [sic] EFFECTIVE DATE OF NOVEMBER 9TH, 2022;
UNDER THIS AMENDMENT THE SALES OF RECREATIONAL
MARIJUANA WILL BE SUBJECT TO EXISTING SALES TAX, AND Mr. Cedric L. King
Opinion No. 2024-050
Page 3
AN ADDITIONAL 8% RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA EXCISE TAX,
AND A LOCAL SALES TAX OF 5% AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
SHALL DETERMINE THE ALLOCATION OF THE TAX REVENUE
RECEIVED BY THE STATE FROM THE SALES WITH PRIORITY
GIVEN TO THE COST TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
AMENDMENT; UNDER THIS AMENDMENT RECREATIONAL
MARIJUANA PLANTS AND PRODUCTS PRODUCED THEREFROM
CAN ONLY BE SOLD IN A LOCATION THAT IS 1500 FEET AWAY
OR MORE FROM AN EXISTING PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SCHOOL,
CHURCH, OR DAYCARE; UNDER THIS AMENDMENT THE
RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA THAT IS SOLD IN THE FORM OF
FOOD OR DRINK (A)SHALL [sic] NOT BE DESIGNED TO APPEAL
TO CHILDREN; (B) SHALL NOT EXCEED 10 MILLIGRAMS OF THC
PER SERVING, AND (C) LABELING OR PACKAGING MUST
PROVIDE PRODUCT INFORMATION; PROVIDING THAT THE
MANUFACTURE, POSSESSION, PURCHASE, SALE, AND
DISTRIBUTION OF MARIJUANA PARAPHERNALIA IS LAWFUL
UNDER STATE LAW; AND PROVIDING THAT THE AMENDMENT
(A) DOES NOT AFFECT THE ABILITY OF EMPLOYERS TO HAVE
POLICIES RESTRICTING THE USE OF RECREATIONAL
MARIJUANA BY EMPLOYEES, NOR THE ABILITY OF
LANDLORDS TO PROHIBIT THE CULTIVATION, PRODUCTION,
AND USE OF RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA ON HIS OR HER OWN
PROPERTY; (B) DOES NOT PERMIT DRIVING UNDER THE
INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA, (C) DOES NOT PERMIT THE
TRANSFER OF RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA TO ANYONE
UNDER 21 YEARS OF AGE, (D) NOR PERMIT ANYONE UNDER 21
YEARS OF AGE TO CULTIVATE, PRODUCE, SELL, DISTRIBUTE,
TRANSPORT, POSSESS, OR USE RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA;
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS AMENDMENT SHALL SUPERSEDE ALL
CONFLICTNG STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, CHARTERS,
REGULATIONS, AND ANY AND ALL OTHER PROVISIONS IN
CONFLICT WITH THIS AMENDMENT; THIS AMENDMENT DOES
NOT SUPPRESS ANY PRIVILEGES OR RIGHTS OF A QUALIFYING
PATIENT OR LICENSED ENTITY IN REGARDS TO MEDICAL
MARIJUANA; MARIJUANA THAT IS CULTIVATED, DISTRIBUTED,
AND SOLD FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES WILL REMAIN UNDER THE
SAME REGULATORY SCHEME PURSUANT TO THE ARKANSAS
MEDICAL MARIJUANA AMENDMENT OF 2016; MARIJUANA
THAT IS CULTIVATED, PRODUCED, DISTRIBUTED, AND SOLD
FOR ADULT RECREATIONAL PURPOSES SHALL BE REGULATED
PURSUANT TO THIS AMENDMENT. Mr. Cedric L. King
Opinion No. 2024-050
Page 4 - Rules governing my review. Arkansas law requires sponsors of statewide initiated
measures to “submit the original draft” of the measure to the Attorney General.1 An
“original draft” includes the full text of the proposed measure along with its ballot title and
popular name.2 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.3
• Second, the Attorney General may “substitute and certify a more suitable and
correct ballot title and popular name.”4 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.”5 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.6 - Rules governing the popular name. The popular name is primarily a useful legislative
device.7 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.8 And it must
be considered together with the ballot title in determining the ballot title’s sufficiency.9 - Rules governing the ballot title. The ballot title must summarize the proposed
amendment. The Court has developed general rules for what must be included in the
1 A.C.A. § 7-9-107(a).
2 A.C.A. § 7-9-107(b).
3 A.C.A. § 7-9-107(d)(1).
4 Id.
5 A.C.A. § 7-9-107(e).
6 Id.
7 Pafford v. Hall, 217 Ark. 734, 739, 233 S.W.2d 72, 75 (1950).
8 E.g., Chaney v. Bryant, 259 Ark. 294, 297, 532 S.W.2d 741, 743 (1976); Moore v. Hall, 229 Ark. 411, 414–
15, 316 S.W.2d 207, 208–09 (1958).
9 May v. Daniels, 359 Ark. 100, 105, 194 S.W.3d 771, 776 (2004). Mr. Cedric L. King
Opinion No. 2024-050
Page 5
summary and how that information must be presented. Sponsors must ensure their ballot
titles impartially summarize the proposed measure’s text and give voters a fair
understanding of the issues presented.10 The Court has also disapproved the use of terms
that are “technical and not readily understood by voters.”11 Ballot titles that do not define
such terms may be deemed insufficient.12
Additionally, sponsors cannot omit material from the ballot title that qualifies as an
“essential fact which would give the voter serious ground for reflection.”13 Yet the ballot
title must also be brief and concise lest voters exceed the statutory time allowed to mark a
ballot.14 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.15 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.16 The ballot title
must be honest and impartial,17 and it must convey an intelligible idea of the scope and
significance of a proposed change in the law.18
The Court has held that a proposed measure that expressly states that it “will repeal
inconsistent laws” is sufficient to inform the voters “that all laws which are in conflict will
be repealed.”19
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
10 Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. 219, 226, 604 S.W.2d 555, 558 (1980).
11 Wilson v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 334, 9, 500 S.W.3d 160, 167 (citing Cox v. Daniels, 374 Ark. 437, 288 S.W.3d
591 (2008)).
12 Id.
13 Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 285, 884 S.W.2d 938, 942 (1994).
14 A.C.A. § 7-9-107(d)(2) (requiring the ballot title “submitted” to the Attorney General or “supplied by the
Attorney General” to “briefly and concisely state the purpose the proposed measure”); § 7-5-309(b)(1)(B)
(allowing no more than ten minutes); see Bailey, 318 Ark. at 288, 884 S.W.2d at 944 (noting the connection
between the measure’s length and the time limit in the voting booth).
15 Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654, 658, 841 S.W.2d 139, 141 (1992).
16 Bailey, 318 Ark. at 284, 884 S.W.2d at 942 (internal citations omitted); see also Shepard v. McDonald,
189 Ark. 29, 70 S.W.2d 566 (1934).
17 Becker v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 482, 489, 798 S.W.2d 71, 74 (1990).
18 Christian Civic Action Comm. v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 241, 250, 884 S.W.2d 605, 610 (1994).
19 Richardson v. Martin, 2014 Ark. 429, 9, 444 S.W.3d 855, 861. Mr. Cedric L. King
Opinion No. 2024-050
Page 6
name and the ballot title and the language in the proposed measure.20 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. - 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:21
• Full text. In the proposed measure’s text, you have chosen to incorporate existing
state statutes into your proposed measure. For example:
o Section 3(f) of the proposed measure’s text defines “marijuana-related
offense(s)” as “a violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act that
occurred prior to the effective date of this amendment.”22
o Section 5(b)(2) of the proposed measure’s text attempts to incorporate other
statutory definitions by reference: “Rules adopted under this section are
rules as defined in the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act…25-15-201
et seq.”
o Section 7(f) of the proposed measure’s text states that nothing in the
proposed amendment “permits the cultivation, production, distribution, or
sale of any other substance that is controlled or prohibited by the state
pursuant to the Arkansas Uniform Controlled Substances Act.”
20 Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 825, 20 S.W.3d 376, 382 (2000).
21 Although A.C.A. § 7-9-107 does not authorize the Attorney General to modify the text of the proposed
measure itself, the Attorney General still reviews the text of the proposed measure because the ballot title
and popular name cannot be certified when the “text of the proposed amendment itself” is ambiguous or
misleading. Roberts, 341 Ark. at 825, 20 S.W.3d at 382. And in line with the caselaw, my predecessors have
consistently rejected ballot titles “due to ambiguities in the text” of the proposed measure. E.g., Ark. Att’y
Gen. Ops. 2016-015, 2015-132, 2014-105, 2014-072, 2013-079, 2013-046, 2013-033, 2011-023, 2010-007,
2009-083, 2008-018, 2005-190, 2002-272, 2001-397, 2001-129, 2001-074, 2000-084, 1999-430.
22 Because you do not indicate which “Uniform Controlled Substances Act” you are attempting to
incorporate-by-reference, the state or federal version, it is unclear which one you mean. Elsewhere in the
measure’s text you use the phrase “Arkansas Uniform Controlled Substances Act.” Even if you are referring
to a federal statute, this attempt to incorporate the statute by reference still violates the full text requirements
for the reasons provided in this opinion. Mr. Cedric L. King
Opinion No. 2024-050
Page 7
o Section 9(a) of the proposed measure’s text imposes certain taxes “upon the
purchase of recreational marijuana in Arkansas.” Those taxes include “The
Arkansas State Sales and Use Tax.”23
Each of the above examples violates the “full text” requirement and is misleading
by omission. A voter reviewing your ballot title would not be sufficiently advised
about the content of the statutes you are attempting to incorporate. 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—“full text of the measure.”24 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.25 There, the legal question was whether such an
incorporation violated the state’s full-text requirement.
Reaffirming a nearly 100-year-old decision, the Haugen court held that such an
incorporation by reference violates the full-text requirement for two reasons. First,
it cuts against “the purpose of the full-text requirement,” which is “to obviate all
uncertainty as to the subject-matter dealt with in the Constitution.”26 Second, 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.”27 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 statutes
into your proposed measure’s text. Therefore, voters reviewing the ballot title are
not sufficiently advised about the content of the statute you are attempting to
incorporate into your proposed measure’s text, and the absence of the measure’s
full text means the ballot title is misleading by omission. Further, such references
are also misleading and unclear because voters do not know what that reference
means if and when the law changes at any given time. The solution is to include the
23 Because you capitalize “Arkansas State Sales and Use Tax,” you appear to be expressly
incorporating-by-reference certain state statutes.
24 I have also recently reviewed in detail the holding of this particular North Dakota Supreme Court decision
in Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2023-133, 2023-113, and I incorporate that analysis by reference here.
25 2020 N.D. 177, 948 N.W.2d 1.
26 2020 N.D. at 4, 948 N.W.2d at 4 (internal quotations omitted).
27 Id. at 4, 948 N.W.2d at 3 (internal quotations omitted). Mr. Cedric L. King
Opinion No. 2024-050
Page 8
text of what you want to incorporate, instead of incorporating it by reference, in the
measure’s text.
• Marijuana vs. “recreational marijuana.” Section 4 of the proposed measure’s text
provides that the “cultivation, production, distribution, sale, transport, possession,
and use of marijuana and products produced from marijuana for adult recreational
purposes are lawful under state law.” But the phrase “marijuana for adult
recreational purposes” is undefined in the proposed measure’s text. The words
“marijuana” and “recreational marijuana,” however, are separately and distinctly
defined in the proposed measure’s text. Even the ballot title uses the phrase
“recreational marijuana” in lieu of “marijuana for adult recreational purposes.”
Thus, it is unclear how or if “marijuana for adult recreational purposes” differs from
“recreational marijuana.” 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.
• Expungement. Section 8(a) provides that “[a]ll convictions for a marijuana-related
offense…shall be expunged from all criminal records in this state.” Section 8(b)
then provides for the “release from incarceration, probation, and parole all persons
whose current and only conviction(s) in which they are serving was for a marijuana-
related offense.” The phrase “marijuana-related offense” is defined in Section 3(f)
as “a violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act that occurred prior to the
effective date of this amendment for one or more” of six marijuana-related offenses
listed. First, for the reasons discussed above, the incorporation-by-reference of
statutes violates the full text requirement. Second, it is unclear which qualifying
marijuana-related offenses must be expunged. Does the phrase “from all criminal
records in this state” also include federal “marijuana-related offenses” and federal
criminal records or convictions that occurred or are being served in Arkansas? The
answer to this question likely would give a voter “serious ground for reflection.”
Additionally, the use of the words “violation” and “conviction,” which have distinct
meanings, is confusing. A voter could read those provisions containing those words
together and believe that the amendment’s intent is to expunge current “marijuana-
related convictions” for “a violation” that “occurred prior to the effective date of
this amendment.”28 So a marijuana-related conviction would only be expunged if
the conviction occurred before the amendment’s effective date and the sentence
associated with the conviction was being served when the amendment took effect.
But a voter could also read those provisions to mean that if someone is serving a
marijuana-related sentence when the amendment took effect, every marijuana-
related conviction on that person’s record must also be expunged, even those
convictions with already-completed sentences. This ambiguity prevents me from
ensuring your ballot title’s summary is not misleading.
28 See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2017-043 (opining that the following was ambiguous: “the state shall
expunge from every criminal record in this state such marijuana related convictions that occurred prior to the
effective date of this amendment of all persons ever convicted of such violations”). Mr. Cedric L. King
Opinion No. 2024-050
Page 9
• Licenses. Section 5(a)(1) of the proposed measure’s text states that “Adults and
Businesses shall be licensed by the Arkansas Agriculture Department.” Under
Section 3(a), “Adult” is defined as “a person who is twenty-one (21) years of age
or older.” But Section 4(b) expressly provides that certain “acts by any adult who
is a resident of the state shall not be an offense under Arkansas law.”29 Such
acts include cultivating, possessing, purchasing, and transporting “up to twelve (12)
recreational marijuana plants”; possessing and transporting “any quantity of
products produced from recreational marijuana”; purchasing and possessing any
quantity of recreational marijuana plant seeds”; manufacturing “products produced
from recreational marijuana plants”; and purchasing certain amounts and forms of
recreational marijuana from “a class B license holder.” While it appears that an in-
state adult cannot sell “recreational marijuana” to anyone, unless the adult has either
a Class A license or a Class B license, he or she can cultivate, possess, purchase,
transport, and manufacture certain amounts of certain forms of “recreational
marijuana.” And the proposed measure’s text does not appear to include any
restrictions on where an in-state adult may purchase certain amounts or forms of
“recreational marijuana”—such as out-of-state or online. But compounding the
confusion is the apparent requirement that adults must “be licensed,” in light of
Section 4(b)’s language. It is thus unclear who actually needs to obtain a license.
Such ambiguity prevents me from ensuring your ballot title’s summary is not
misleading.
• “Cultivation” and “production.” Section 4(a) of the proposed measure’s text states
that the “Arkansas Agriculture Department shall issue two types of recreational
marijuana licenses to regulate the cultivation and production of recreational
marijuana sold in the state.” But the two types of licenses provided would allow
more than “cultivation” and “production.” For example, in addition to cultivation
and production, a Class A license would authorize the transport and sale of certain
amounts of recreational marijuana plants and seeds. It is thus unclear if the licenses
identified in Section 4(a) for cultivation and production are the same or different as
the licenses for transportation, sale, cultivation, and production. This lack of clarity
prevents me from ensuring your ballot title’s summary is not 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.” - 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,
29 Emphases added. While the word “adult” here is not capitalized, it has still been defined in the proposed
measure itself. Mr. Cedric L. King
Opinion No. 2024-050
Page 10
while not bases for my decision to reject your proposed measure, you may wish to correct
or clarify:
• Effective dates. Section 2 of the proposed measure states that the proposed
amendment will “be effective on and after November 6, 2024.” But the ballot title
sates “such convictions that occurred prior to the Amendments [sic] effective date
of November 9th, 2022.” While you may have intended to say “November 9, 2024,
such a date still does not match the effective date provided in the proposed
measure’s text. It is thus unclear whether you intended to have different effective
dates.
• “Recreational marijuana.” Section 3(k) of the proposed measure’s text defines
“Recreational marijuana” as “any part of the cannabis plant, living or not, that is
cultivated or produced to be used as an intoxicant for the purpose of adult
enjoyment or pleasure.” Importantly, the words “produced” and “intoxicant” are
not defined. But it appears “recreational marijuana” would include hemp or hemp
products like Delta-8 “produced to be used as an intoxicant for the purpose of adult
enjoyment or pleasure.”30 For comparison, Section 3(d) of the proposed measure’s
text defines “Marijuana” more narrowly to exclude certain hemp products: “any
part of the cannabis plant (genus Cannabis), living or not, and when harvested in
its mature plant state contains greater than three-tenths of one percent (0.3%) by
dry weight, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (DELTA 9THC).” Thus, the proposed
measure’s text fails to tell voters about the impact the amendment has on existing
law on hemp.
• Government regulation. The ballot title states that “under this amendment the
Arkansas Agriculture Department and the Alcoholic Beverage Control Division
shall regulate the cultivation and production of recreational marijuana that is sold
in the state.” But this does not accurately reflect the proposed measure’s text, which
instead provides, in Section 5(a), that the “Arkansas Agriculture Department…shall
administer and regulate the licensing of Adults and Businesses” and the “Alcoholic
Beverage Control Division…shall administer and enforce the provisions of this
amendment concerning the sale of recreational marijuana plants and products
produced therefrom.” Section 5(c) also requires the “Arkansas Agriculture
Department” to “adopt rules governing” “applications and renewals for recreational
marijuana licenses, and plant tags” and the “form and content of registration and
renewal applications for recreational marijuana licenses andplant [sic] tags.” And
Section 5(d) requires the “Alcoholic Beverage Control” to “adopt rules governing”
“[o]versight requirements for those licensed to cultivate, produce, and sell
recreational marijuana”; “[r]ecordkeeping requirements for those licensed to
30 See, e.g., A.C.A. § 2-15-503 (defining “industrial hemp” as the “plant Cannabis sativa and any part of the
plant, including the seeds of the plant and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and
salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a total delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of no more
than three-tenths of one percent (0.3%) of the hemp-derived cannabadiol on a dry weight basis, unless
specifically controlled under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, § 5-64-101 et seq.”). Mr. Cedric L. King
Opinion No. 2024-050
Page 11
cultivate, produce, and sell recreational marijuana”; [s]ecurity requirements for
those places where recreational marijuana products are produced and sold”;
“[p]ersonnel requirements for those licensed to sell, produce, and distribute
recreational marijuana”; [t]he manufacture, processing, packaging, and dispensing
of recreational marijuana”; “[p]rocedures for suspending the licenses of Adults or
Businesses that violate the provisions of this amendment or the rules adopted under
this amendment”; “[p]rocedures for inspection and investigations of Adults or
businesses that are licensed to produce and sell recreational marijuana”; and
“[a]dvertising restrictions.”
• Medical marijuana. Both the ballot title and Section 10(b) of the proposed
measure’s text state that “Marijuana that is cultivated, distributed, and sold for
medical purposes will remain under the same regulatory scheme pursuant to the
Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment of 2016.” But the Arkansas Medical
Marijuana Amendment of 2016, Amendment 98, does not define what it regulates
the way your proposed measure’s text does. Instead, Amendment 98 defines and
regulates “medical use” of “usable marijuana,”31 including medical-marijuana
registry cards, cultivating, and dispensing.32
• Ballot title summaries. The Arkansas Supreme Court has interpreted the Arkansas
Constitution to require that sponsors include all material in the ballot title that
qualifies as an “essential fact which would give the voter serious ground for
reflection.”33 But your proposed measure contains material provisions that do not
appear in your ballot title, which would likely give voters “serious ground for
reflection” and would render the ballot tile misleading by omission (all emphases
below have been added):
o The ballot title fails to mention or summarize the severability clause
contained in the proposed measure’s text: the “provisions of this
Amendment are hereby declared to be severable” and “[i]f any provision of
this Amendment, or the application of such provision to any person or
circumstance, is declared invalid by any court for any reason, such
declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
Amendment.”
31 Ark. Const. amend. 98 § 2(11) (defining “medical use” as “the acquisition, possession, use, delivery,
transfer, or transportation of marijuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marijuana to treat
or alleviate a qualifying patient’s qualifying medical condition or symptoms associated with the qualifying
patient’s qualifying medical condition”), (17) (defining “usable marijuana” to mean the “stalks, seeds, roots,
dried leaves, flowers, oils, vapors, waxes, and other portions of the marijuana plant and any mixture or
preparation thereof”).
32 See, e.g., id. at §§ 5, 8.
33 Bailey, 318 Ark. at 285, 884 S.W.2d at 942. Mr. Cedric L. King
Opinion No. 2024-050
Page 12
o The ballot title fails to mention the type of rules that the “Arkansas
Agriculture Department” and the “Alcoholic Beverage Control” may
promulgate. The ballot title currently states that “the Department and the
Division may adopt additional rules, regulations, and penalties to prevent
the use of recreational marijuana by minors, to increase product safety, and
consumer awareness.” But the authority given to these government entities
in Section 5 is different.
o The ballot title fails to mention that under the proposed amendment certain
recreational marijuana plants, seeds, and products produced therefrom can
only be sold by the applicable licensee at a location that is 1,500 feet away
or more of a public or private school, church, or daycare.
o The ballot title fails to mention that “food and drink products produced from
recreational marijuana that is sold in this state by a Class B recreational
marijuana license holder” must not be designed to appeal to children or
“easily confused with commercially sold candy or foods that do not contain
marijuana”; must not be “produced [or] sold with a standardized dosage”’
that exceeds “ten (10) milligrams of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (DELTA
9THC) per serving”; must be “delineated or scored into standardized
serving sizes if the product contains more than one serving and is in solid
form”; must be homogenized to ensure uniform disbursement of delta-9-
tetrahydrocannabinol (DELTA 9THC) through the product”; and must
“provide information on the packing or labeling to enable the informed
consumption of such products, including the potential effects of the product,
and directions as to how to consume the product.”
o The ballot title fails to mention that “smokable and vaporizable products
produced from recreational marijuana that is sold by a Class B recreational
marijuana license holder” must “provide information on the packaging or
labeling to enable the informed consumption of such products, including the
delta-9-tetrahydrocannaibinol (DELTA9THC) content, potential effects of
the product, and directions as to how to consume the product.”
o The ballot title fails to mention that “[a]ll products produced from
recreational marijuana that is [sic] distributed by any adult or business entity
without remuneration to any adult or business entity shall be exempt from
the design, packaging, and labeling requirements” under the proposed
amendment.
o The ballot title fails to provide that an adult or business entity may
“manufacture, possess, and purchase marijuana paraphernalia, or my sell
marijuana paraphernalia to another adult or business entity, providing that
such paraphernalia sold that contains products produced from recreational
marijuana is designed, packaged, and labeled” in compliance with the Mr. Cedric L. King
Opinion No. 2024-050
Page 13
amendment, and “sold only by a Class B recreational marijuana license
holder.”
o The ballot title fails to provide the specific type of marijuana-related
offenses, as defined in Section 3(f) of the proposed measure’s text. The
ballot title states that “any person serving, incarceration, probation, or
parole for violating the Arkansas Uniformed Controlled Substances Act as
it pertains to marijuana, whose current and only conviction was for a
marijuana related offense shall be released and all criminal records shall be
expunged of such convictions that occurred prior to the amendments
effective date.” This language is also misleading because it does not
accurately reflect the proposed measure’s text, which refers to
“convictions” versus “violations.”
• Federal prohibition. The ballot title states that the proposed measure “will make
the cultivation, production, distribution, possession, transport, and sale of
recreational marijuana for persons 21 years of age or older legal under state law,
but recognizing that the listed activities regarding marijuana is [sic] prohibited
under federal law.”34 While Section 4 of the proposed measure’s text provides
that the “cultivation production, distribution, sale, transport, possession, and use of
marijuana and products produced from marijuana for adult recreational purposes
are lawful under state law,”35 nowhere in the proposed measure’s text recognizes
“that the listed activities regarding marijuana is prohibited under federal law.”
• “Arkansas Agriculture Department.” Both the ballot title and the proposed
measure’s text use “Arkansas Agriculture Department.” But the name of the
government entity in question is the “Arkansas Department of Agriculture.” While
I have the authority to change these as they appear in the proposed 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.
• “Shall” vs. “may.” The ballot title uses “shall” when the proposed measure’s text
in Section 9(b) uses “may”: “The distribution of tax revenues received by the
Department of Finance and Administration from the sale of recreational marijuana
under this amendment may be determined by the general assembly.”
• Grammatical issues. I have also identified some grammatical changes and
clarifications to the ballot title and to the proposed measure’s text. You may wish
to correct these issues. Some of these grammatical issues are as follows:
34 Emphasis added.
35 Emphasis added. Mr. Cedric L. King
Opinion No. 2024-050
Page 14
o The first clause of the ballot title should read “as,” instead of “is”: “Defining
recreational marijuana is any part of the cannabis plant.” In the first clause
of the ballot title, the word “and” should be “or” to reflect the words used
in the proposed measure’s text. In the third clause of the ballot title,
“recreationa marijuana” should instead read “recreational marijuana.”
o Throughout the ballot title there are missing semicolons and commas. For
instance, “Under this Amendment” should have a comma after
“Amendment.” And the period between “State” and “The Agriculture”
should instead be a semicolon.
o Section 3(c) of the proposed measure’s text uses the “?” symbol: “Delta-9-
tetrahydrocannabinol (?9THC).” Based on other similar parentheticals used
throughout the measure, you may have intended to instead use the word
“DELTA.”
o The measure’s text also contains instances where a space between words is
necessary. Section 3(c) of the proposed measure’s text should contain a
space between “the” and “operator,” instead of “theoperator’s.” In Section
5(c)(2), a space is needed between “and” and “plant,” instead of “andplant.”
o In Section 3(i), the phrase “means can not be seen” should instead read
“means cannot be seen.”
o Section 5(b)(2) contains some symbol in superscript that directly precedes
the statute citation. You may have intended to use “A.C.A” citation instead.
o Section 5(d)(7) does not capitalize “businesses,” yet the word is capitalized
throughout the proposed measure’s text.
o The text in both the popular name and the ballot title are all capital letters
(“all caps”). No law governing this process requires all caps. And such a
typographical choice makes the words harder to read.36
o The spacing of “DELTA 9THC” throughout the proposed measure’s text is
inconsistent. For the majority of instances, the proposed measure’s text uses
“DELTA 9THC.” But, for example, Section 4(c)(2)(I) uses “DELTA9THC.
o The ballot title does not contain a space between “of” and “recreational”:
“A Class A license would permit the possession, cultivation, production,
transport, and sale ofrecreational [sic] marijuana.” Additionally, the ballot
36 See, e.g., Bryan A. Garner, GARNER’S MODERN ENGLISH USAGE 180 (5th ed. 2022) (noting that one should
avoid all capital letters because a “block of all caps is hard to read, and the longer the block, the harder it is
to read”). Mr. Cedric L. King
Opinion No. 2024-050
Page 15
title does not contain a space after the comma between “possession” and
“transport.”
Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby
approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2024 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Arkansas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.