Why did the Attorney General reject my proposed environmental amendment 'The Amendment to Keep Arkansas Natural'?

Plain-English summary

This is the first AG rejection of Jennifer Waymack Standerfer's environmental rights amendment for Arkansas. (The revised version, "The Clean and Healthy Natural Environment Amendment," was rejected a month later in Opinion 2025-110.)

A.C.A. § 7-9-107 makes the AG the gatekeeper for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments. The AG can approve, substitute, or reject the popular name and ballot title. Reject is mandatory when the amendment text is so ambiguous that no ballot title could accurately describe it.

Four blocking text ambiguities:

1. "Environment" is undefined. The text uses the word throughout but never says what it means. Does it include manmade environments? The atmosphere? Voters cannot know what they are voting on.

2. "Environmental life support system" is undefined. Same problem. The atmosphere? Earth? Ecosystems? Manmade systems?

3. "Remedies" is undefined in the ballot title. Does the General Assembly have to create monetary or equitable relief, or just pass any law furthering the amendment?

4. "Each person" creates an unclear duty. The amendment imposes a "maintain and improve a clean and healthy environment" duty on "the State and each person." Does that mean infants? Children? Visitors? And what specifically must each person do?

Because these ambiguities sit in the underlying amendment text, the AG cannot fix them by substituting a clearer ballot title. He must reject and instruct the sponsor to redesign.

Additional issues flagged but not used as the rejection ground:

• Partisan coloring in the popular name "Keep Arkansas Natural." Inviting language. Few would vote against keeping Arkansas natural.
• Missing material provisions in the ballot title. Each-person duty, illegal exactions as the cause of action, the General Assembly's duty to provide adequate remedies, etc.
• "Full text" question on Article 16, Section 13. The amendment incorporates by reference the illegal exactions provision. North Dakota's Haugen v. Jaeger held that incorporation by reference can violate the full-text requirement; how an Arkansas court would rule is unclear.
• Grammatical issue. "in behalf" should be "on behalf."

The Act 602 of 2025 reading-level rule. This opinion notes Act 602 of 2025, which prohibits the AG from certifying a ballot title with a reading level above eighth grade per the Flesch-Kincaid formula. The AG can substitute a more suitable title or reject and redesign. Act 602 became effective April 14, 2025 (emergency clause).

What this means for you

If you are an initiative sponsor in Arkansas

Three lessons from this opinion (and the followup in 2025-110):

1. Define your terms in the amendment. "Environment," "fundamental right," "remedies," "governmental entities," "each person." These are concepts a lawyer can argue about. Voters cannot. Definitions go in the amendment text.

2. Specify who has duties and who has rights. A duty on "each person" or on "governmental entities" without saying which persons or which entities triggers serious-ground-for-reflection issues.

3. Watch the Flesch-Kincaid reading level. Under Act 602 of 2025, your ballot title cannot exceed an eighth-grade reading level. Run your draft through the formula before submission.

If you are a constitutional lawyer drafting an initiative

Build a checklist:
- Every operative term defined.
- Every duty assigned to a defined party.
- Every right's scope spelled out.
- Every interaction with existing law (takings, sovereign immunity, property rights) addressed.
- Popular name in neutral descriptive terms (no "patriotic," "fair," "clean," "healthy" framing).
- Ballot title under Flesch-Kincaid eighth grade.
- All material provisions reflected in the ballot title.

If you are a voter following ballot initiatives

The AG certification process is a quality control step. The AG is checking whether the proposed amendment text is clear enough that voters can understand what they would be voting for. The AG cannot reject on policy grounds; only on ambiguity, misleading framing, or missing material provisions. Failed certifications get sent back for redesign.

Common questions

What is the difference between this opinion and 2025-110?
This is the first rejection. Opinion 2025-110 is the rejection of the revised version a month later. Both versions failed on undefined-term issues plus partisan coloring.

Why does the AG focus so much on undefined terms?
Because Roberts v. Priest (2000) holds that ballot titles cannot be certified when the underlying amendment text is ambiguous or misleading. The AG cannot substitute a clearer ballot title for an unclear amendment.

What is Act 602 of 2025?
A new Arkansas law that prohibits the AG from certifying ballot titles with a Flesch-Kincaid reading level above eighth grade. Effective April 14, 2025.

What is Flesch-Kincaid?
A readability formula that estimates the U.S. school grade level needed to understand a passage based on sentence length and word complexity. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level around 8.0 means the text reads at an eighth-grade level.

What is the "incorporation by reference" issue?
The amendment refers to Article 16, Section 13 (illegal exactions) for the cause of action. North Dakota's Haugen v. Jaeger held that incorporating statutes into a constitutional amendment by citation can violate the full-text requirement. Arkansas has not yet ruled.

Can the sponsor try again?
Yes. The AG instructs the sponsor to redesign and resubmit. The sponsor did so, producing the version rejected in Opinion 2025-110.

Background and statutory framework

A.C.A. § 7-9-107 (AG certification of ballot titles). The AG must respond within ten business days in one of three ways: approve and certify; substitute a more suitable title; or reject and instruct redesign. Rejection is permitted when the title is misleading, when a vote for would actually be a vote against the intended outcome, or when the text conflicts with federal law.

Act 154 of 2025. Created the federal-conflict ground for rejection and required rejection of conflicting initiative petitions submitted by the same sponsor.

Act 602 of 2025. Prohibits AG certification of ballot titles with reading level above eighth grade per the Flesch-Kincaid formula as it existed January 1, 2025. Effective April 14, 2025 (emergency clause).

Popular name rules. A useful legislative device to identify the proposal for discussion. Need not contain detailed information but must not be misleading or partisan. Must be considered together with the ballot title. Pafford v. Hall (1950); Chaney v. Bryant (1976); May v. Daniels (2004).

Ballot title rules. Must summarize the amendment, be impartial, give voters a fair understanding, avoid technical terms not readily understood, include essential facts that would give voters serious ground for reflection (Bailey v. McCuen), be brief and concise (limited by the 10-minute statutory time at the polls per A.C.A. § 7-5-309(b)(1)(B)), be free from misleading tendency (by amplification, omission, or fallacy), not be tinged with partisan coloring, and convey an intelligible idea of the scope and significance of the change.

Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813 (2000). Even though A.C.A. § 7-9-107 does not authorize the AG to modify the proposed measure text, the AG must consider the text because a misleading text means the title cannot be certified.

Riviere (1984). Partisan coloring rule: popular names and ballot titles cannot use language that biases the voter toward yes or no.

Bailey v. McCuen (1994). Ballot titles must include all material that qualifies as an essential fact giving voters serious ground for reflection.

Haugen v. Jaeger, 2020 N.D. 177 (2020). North Dakota Supreme Court held that a constitutional amendment incorporating statutes by citation violates the full-text requirement. Persuasive but not binding in Arkansas.

Citations

Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 7-1-107 (full text required)
- A.C.A. § 7-5-309 (10 minutes at the polls)
- A.C.A. § 7-9-107 (AG certification of ballot titles)
- Act 154 of 2025
- Act 272 of 2025 (renumbering)
- Act 602 of 2025 (Flesch-Kincaid eighth-grade limit)

Cases (Arkansas):
- Pafford v. Hall, 217 Ark. 734, 233 S.W.2d 72 (1950)
- Paschall v. Thurston, 2024 Ark. 155, 699 S.W.3d 352
- Kurrus v. Priest, 342 Ark. 434, 29 S.W.3d 699 (2000)
- Chaney v. Bryant, 259 Ark. 294, 532 S.W.2d 741 (1976)
- Moore v. Hall, 229 Ark. 411, 316 S.W.2d 207 (1958)
- May v. Daniels, 359 Ark. 100, 194 S.W.3d 771 (2004)
- Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. 219, 604 S.W.2d 555 (1980)
- Wilson v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 334, 500 S.W.3d 160
- Cox v. Daniels, 374 Ark. 437, 288 S.W.3d 591 (2008)
- Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994)
- Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654, 841 S.W.2d 139 (1992)
- Becker v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 482, 798 S.W.2d 71 (1990)
- Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 241, 884 S.W.2d 605 (1994)
- Armstrong v. Thurston, 2022 Ark. 167, 652 S.W.3d 167
- Richardson v. Martin, 2014 Ark. 429, 444 S.W.3d 855
- Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 20 S.W.3d 376 (2000)
- Bradley v. Hall, 220 Ark. 925, 251 S.W.2d 470 (1952)
- Arkansas Women's Political Caucus v. Riviere, 283 Ark. 463, 677 S.W.2d 846 (1984)
- Johnson v. Hall, 229 Ark. 400, 316 S.W.2d 194 (1958)
- Shepard v. McDonald, 189 Ark. 29, 70 S.W.2d 566 (1934)
- McGill v. Thurston, 2024 Ark. 149, 699 S.W.3d 45

Out-of-state persuasive authority:
- Haugen v. Jaeger, 2020 N.D. 177, 948 N.W.2d 1 (incorporation by reference)

Constitutional:
- Ark. Const., art. 5, § 1 (Amendment 7)

Source

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

Original opinion text

BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Opinion No. 2025-098
October 3, 2025
Jennifer Waymack Standerfer
Via email only: [email protected]

Dear Ms. Standerfer:

I am writing in response to your request, made under A.C.A. § 7-9-107, that I certify the popular name and ballot title for a proposed constitutional amendment.

My decision to certify or reject a popular name and ballot title is unrelated to my view of the proposed measure's merits. I am not authorized to consider the measure's merits when considering certification.

1. Request. Under A.C.A. § 7-9-107, you have asked me to certify the following popular name and ballot title for a proposed initiated amendment to the Arkansas Constitution:

Popular Name
The Amendment to Keep Arkansas Natural

Ballot Title
This measure amends the Arkansas Constitution. It protects "The Natural State" for Arkansans today and in the future. It preserves the outdoors and natural resources for Arkansans' recreation, economy, and public health. It gives Arkansans the fundamental right to a clean and healthy environment. The state will maintain and improve a clean and healthy environment. The legislature will make laws to implement and enforce the measure. The legislature will make laws that protect wildlife and natural resources from unreasonable misuse. Arkansans may sue the government for misuse of taxpayer funds in violation of the measure. This measure repeals all inconsistent state laws. This amendment is severable. If part of it is held invalid, the rest is still valid if it can stand on its own.

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

• First, the Attorney General may approve and certify the ballot title and popular name in the form they were submitted.
• Second, the Attorney General may "substitute and certify a more suitable and correct ballot title and popular name."
• Third, the Attorney General may reject both the popular name and ballot title "and state his or her reasons therefor and instruct" the sponsors to "redesign the proposed measure and the ballot title and popular name." This response is permitted when, after reviewing the proposed measure, the Attorney General determines that (1) "the ballot title or the nature of the issue" is "presented in such manner that the ballot title would be misleading"; (2) "the ballot title or nature of the issue" is "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; or (3) the text of the proposal conflicts with the United States Constitution or a federal statute. This response is also permitted when a proposed ballot title fails to comply with Act 602 of 2025, which prohibits the Attorney General from certifying "a proposed ballot title with a reading level above eighth grade as determined by the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Formula as it existed on January 1, 2025." If a proposed ballot title is written above an eighth-grade reading level, I am authorized to substitute a "more suitable" ballot title or to reject the proposed ballot title, state the reasons for the rejection, and "instruct the petitioners to redesign the proposed ballot title or proposed measure in a manner that does not violate [Act 602]."

3. Rules governing the popular name. The popular name is primarily a useful legislative device, and its purpose is to identify the proposal for discussion. While it need not contain detailed information or include exceptions that might be required of a ballot title, the popular name must not be misleading or partisan. And it must be considered together with the ballot title in determining the ballot title's sufficiency. Thus, a popular name can be misleading if it references only a subset of the topics covered in the measure's text.

4. 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 summary and how that information must be presented. Sponsors must ensure their ballot titles impartially summarize the amendment's text and give voters a fair understanding of the issues presented. The Court has also disapproved the use of terms that are "technical and not readily understood by voters." Ballot titles that do not define such terms may be deemed insufficient. And, as mentioned above, the General Assembly has prohibited ballot titles "with a reading level above eighth grade."

Additionally, sponsors cannot omit material from the ballot title that qualifies as an "essential fact which would give the voter serious ground for reflection." Yet the ballot title must also be brief and concise lest voters exceed the statutory time allowed to mark a ballot. The ballot title is not required to be perfect, nor is it reasonable to expect the title to address every possible legal argument the proposed measure might evoke. The title, however, must be free from any misleading tendency, whether by amplification, omission, or fallacy, and it must not be tinged with partisan coloring. The ballot title must be honest and impartial, and it must convey an intelligible idea of the scope and significance of a proposed change in the law. The ballot title need not summarize existing law though. The court has held that a statement that a measure "will repeal inconsistent laws" is sufficient to inform the voters "that all laws which are in conflict will be repealed." But if a ballot title describes some of a measure's changes with specificity while describing other changes more generally, this can render the ballot title misleading.

Finally, the Court has held that a ballot title cannot be approved if the text of the proposed amendment itself contributes to confusion and disconnect between the language in the popular name and the ballot title and the language in the proposed amendment. Yet a ballot title need not account for all possible legal effects and consequences of a proposed amendment.

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

• "Environment." The ballot title, popular name, and proposed amendment all use the word "environment." But the text of the proposed amendment does not define "environment." While other portions of the proposed amendment's text use the phrases "outdoor spaces," "natural resources," and "environmental life support system," the word "environment" itself (undefined) is ambiguous. Does that "environment" include manmade environments or the atmosphere? The answer to this question would surely give voters "serious ground for reflection." And since the meaning of "environment" is unclear, I cannot ensure that the ballot title is not misleading.

• "Environmental life support system." It is also unclear what the undefined phrase "environmental life support system" means in this context. That is, does it include the atmosphere, the earth itself, ecosystems, or even manmade systems? Such ambiguity would give voters "serious ground for reflection." And since the meaning of "environmental life support system" is unclear, I cannot ensure that the ballot title is not misleading.

• "Remedies." The ballot title, but not your popular name, contains the word "remedies." It is unclear what "remedies" means in this context. Does the proposed amendment require the General Assembly to only create legal remedies, such as monetary or equitable relief, or does it broadly require the General Assembly to pass laws (generally) that further the proposed amendment? The answer to these questions would surely give voters "serious ground for reflection." And since the meaning of "remedies" is unclear, I cannot ensure that the ballot title is not misleading.

• "And each person." The text of the proposed amendment places a duty to "maintain and improve a clean and healthy environment" upon "each person." Does this include infants, children, or visitors to the State? The answer to this question would surely give voters "serious ground for reflection." Additionally, it is unclear what obligations, "to maintain and improve a clean and healthy environment," are placed upon the "state and each person." Because the meaning of the language contained in Section 1(c) of the proposed amendment is unclear, I cannot ensure that the ballot title is not misleading.

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

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

• Partisan coloring language in the popular name. It is my opinion that your proposed popular name contains impermissible "partisan coloring" language when it uses the phrase "Keep Arkansas Natural." The Arkansas Supreme Court has held that "partisan coloring" language is "a form of salesmanship" that "gives the voter only the impression that the proponents of the proposed amendment wish to convey of the activity represented by the words." "Keep Arkansas Natural" is an "inviting" catchphrase, and few would vote against keeping Arkansas natural (versus keeping it unnatural). It gives voters only the impression that the proponents of the proposed amendment wish to convey. To paraphrase the Arkansas Supreme Court, the "[voter] is entitled to form" his or her "own conclusions" on whether the proposed measure keeps Arkansas natural. I am identifying this issue here because if your proposal were at the stage where it could be certified, I would need to change the popular name to ensure it is not partisan. You may wish to provide an alternative name in a future submission.

• 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." But your proposed constitutional amendment 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 title misleading by omission:

• The ballot title fails to mention that, in addition to applying to the State, the proposed amendment would also require "each person" to "maintain and improve a clean and healthy environment."
• The ballot title fails to mention that an illegal exaction, specifically, is the cause of action that someone may bring against the government for misuse of taxpayer funds in violation of the proposed amendment.
• The ballot title fails to mention that the General Assembly will "provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation" and "provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources." Instead, the ballot title says that the "legislature will make laws that protect wildlife and natural resources from unreasonable misuse." The word "wildlife" does not appear in the text.

• The ballot title fails to mention that the General Assembly must "provide for the administration and enforcement of [the] duty" to "maintain and improve a clean and healthy environment." Instead, the ballot title provides that the "legislature will make laws to implement and enforce the measure."

• Full text. Under Section 1(f) of your proposed amendment's text, a "citizen … in [sic] behalf of himself and all others interested" may file a lawsuit "in the same manner as enforcement of illegal exactions under Article 16, Section 13 of this Constitution." It appears you are attempting to incorporate-by-reference another part of the State Constitution into this amendment by referencing the other provision's citation. A voter reviewing your ballot title may not be sufficiently advised about the content of the constitutional provision 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 in law. In Haugen v. Jaeger, the North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the legal validity of an initiated constitutional amendment that, by explicit citation, incorporated certain statutes into the state constitution. The Haugen court held that such an incorporation by reference violates the full-text requirement. But because what the Haugen court reviewed, incorporating statutes into the state constitution, differs from what your measure proposes, it is unclear how an Arkansas Court would rule. I note that a court could find that the language is misleading by omission.

• Grammatical issues. In the proposed amendment, the word "in" is used instead of "on" in the following clause: "A citizen of any county city, or town may institute suit in behalf of himself ...." You may wish to correct this issue.

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

Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General