We're trying to plan our initiative petition campaign under the new Act 274 rules. Can a canvasser play voters a prerecorded reading of the ballot title and then accept their signature, or does the canvasser have to do the reading live? And can voters listen on headphones, speed up the playback, or hear it in another language?
Plain-English summary
Senator Tucker asked the AG five questions about how Act 274 of 2025 governs the mechanics of initiative and referendum petition canvassing. The questions cover when a voter is "within a canvasser's presence," whether prerecorded ballot title readings can substitute for a live reading, whether voters can use headphones to listen simultaneously, whether playback speed can be adjusted, and whether the reading must be in a particular language.
The AG declined to answer all five. The reason: League of Women Voters of Arkansas v. Cole Jester, a federal lawsuit filed April 21, 2025 in the Western District of Arkansas, is challenging Act 274. The outcome of that suit may directly affect how each of the questioned provisions is interpreted, applied, or enforced. The AG's office has a longstanding policy of not issuing opinions on matters pending before the courts.
This opinion is therefore mostly procedural. It does not resolve any of the underlying questions about how canvassing must work under the new act. Practitioners are left to track the federal litigation directly.
Currency note
This opinion is recent (September 2025) but its operational value is limited because the AG declined to interpret Act 274 on the merits. The pending federal case is the most reliable source of forward-looking guidance on how the act will be applied. Anyone planning a 2026 or later canvassing operation should track League of Women Voters of Arkansas v. Cole Jester, No. 5:25-cv-05087 (W.D. Ark.), and any successor opinions from the AG once that case resolves.
What this means for you
If you are organizing an initiative or referendum campaign
Do not rely on this opinion for operational guidance. The AG explicitly declined to answer. Until the federal court resolves League of Women Voters v. Cole Jester, the safe posture is to comply with the strictest plausible reading of Act 274's text on canvasser presence and ballot title reading. Build training materials and field protocols that assume:
- Live reading by the canvasser (not a recording) until a court or the AG says otherwise.
- The voter must be physically and immediately present with the canvasser during the reading.
- One canvasser, one voter at a time during the reading.
- A single language consistent with the printed petition's language.
Once the litigation resolves, revise the protocol to match what the court or a follow-up AG opinion permits.
If you are a canvasser
Don't innovate on the procedure. Follow whatever your campaign's lawyer has approved. Sloppy procedure puts every signature you collect that day at risk.
If you are an election law attorney
The questions Senator Tucker put are exactly the kinds of operational ambiguities that motivate impact litigation. Track the docket of No. 5:25-cv-05087 (W.D. Ark.) for the court's eventual reading of "presence," "reading," and any first-amendment overlay on the canvassing rules. The AG will likely be willing to opine after the case is resolved.
If you are with the Secretary of State's office or another agency tasked with implementing Act 274
Compliance guidance you issue while the federal case is pending should clearly note that the AG has declined to interpret the act on the merits and that practical guidance may change once the courts speak.
Common questions
Why does the AG decline opinions on pending litigation?
The AG describes this as "long-standing policy" and cites prior opinions (2023-068, 2016-027, 2010-047) as examples. The reasoning is that the AG is part of the executive branch, and issuing a substantive interpretation while the same questions are before the courts would risk implying the executive's view to the parties or the judge in ways the office considers inappropriate.
Does this mean the questions are unanswerable?
No, just unanswered for now. Once the federal case resolves (or the AG sees a question that is not tightly entangled with the litigation), substantive guidance is possible. Practitioners can also seek declaratory relief in state court if they need a binding answer on a specific point.
What is Act 274 of 2025 about, in general?
The act amended Arkansas's initiative and referendum procedures, including A.C.A. §§ 7-9-103(a)(1)(A), -103(c), and -109(a). The amendments touch how canvassers handle voters during signature collection, including a requirement that the ballot title be read while the voter is in the canvasser's presence. The detailed mechanics are exactly what Senator Tucker's questions tried to flesh out.
Where can I read the federal complaint?
League of Women Voters of Ark. v. Cole Jester, No. 5:25-cv-05087, was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas on April 21, 2025. PACER and CourtListener carry the docket and pleadings.
Is the AG required to refuse to opine?
No, the policy is internal and prudential, not statutory. The AG could opine if the policy were waived, but the office has not done so here.
Background and statutory framework
Act 274 of 2025 generally. Arkansas's initiative and referendum process is governed by chapter 9 of title 7. The 2025 General Assembly tightened canvassing rules through Act 274, which amended subsections (a)(1)(A) and (c) of section 7-9-103, and subsection (a) of section 7-9-109. The act adds requirements about canvassers reading the ballot title to voters and about the voter being in the canvasser's presence during certain steps.
The pending litigation. League of Women Voters of Arkansas v. Cole Jester challenges aspects of Act 274 on grounds that have not been resolved. The case sits in the Western District of Arkansas. Because the suit's outcome could change how core operative terms in the act are read or whether they are enforceable, the AG has placed all interpretive questions about Act 274 on hold until the case resolves.
The decline-to-opine policy. The AG cites three prior opinions for the proposition that the office does not issue opinions related to pending litigation: 2023-068, 2016-027, and 2010-047. The policy is consistently applied; readers seeking operational answers must wait for the courts or seek private legal advice.
Citations
Statutes (named in the request, not interpreted):
- A.C.A. § 7-9-103(a)(1)(A) (amended by Act 274 of 2025)
- A.C.A. § 7-9-103(c) (amended by Act 274 of 2025)
- A.C.A. § 7-9-109(a) (amended by Act 274 of 2025)
Cases:
- League of Women Voters of Ark. v. Cole Jester, No. 5:25-cv-05087 (W.D. Ark.), filed April 21, 2025
Sessions law:
- Act 274 of 2025
Other AG opinions referenced:
- Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2023-068, 2016-027, 2010-047 (decline-to-opine policy on pending litigation)
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2025-043
September 9, 2025
The Honorable Clarke Tucker
State Senator
Post Office Box 7268
Little Rock, Arkansas 72217
Dear Senator Tucker:
You have requested my opinion regarding Act 274 of 2025, which amended A.C.A. §§ 7-9-103(a)(1)(A), -103(c), and -109(a). You have asked these questions:
- When is a voter within a canvasser's presence under Act 274 of 2025?
- Does anything in Act 274 of 2025 prohibit a canvasser from accepting a voter's signature on an initiative or referendum petition after the canvasser has the voter listen to a prerecorded reading of the petition's ballot title while in the presence of the canvasser?
- If the answer to question two is yes, does anything in Act 274 of 2025 prevent a voter from using headphones while listening to the prerecorded reading, thus allowing multiple readings to occur simultaneously in the presence of a single canvasser?
- If a prerecorded reading may be used to satisfy Act 274 of 2025, does anything in Act 274 of 2025 preclude the voter from choosing to increase (or decrease) the recording's playback speed?
- Does Act 274 of 2025 place any limitations on the language used during the reading, such that voters who prefer to listen to a recording in a different language may exercise that right?
RESPONSE
I must respectfully decline to opine on your questions because of pending litigation, the outcome of which could directly affect the issues you raised. It is the long-standing policy of the Office of the Attorney General, as a member of the executive branch, to decline to opine on matters that are pending before the courts for resolution.
I regret that I cannot be of assistance in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of future assistance in some other respect.
Assistant Attorney General Jodie Keener prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General
[Footnote 1: See League of Women Voters of Ark., et al. v. Cole Jester, et al., No. 5:25-cv-05087 (W.D. Ark.), filed April 21, 2025.]
[Footnote 2: See Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2023-068, 2016-027, 2010-047 (stating that the Office of Attorney General does not issue opinions related to pending litigation).]