Can the Arkansas legislature pass a law merging Ouachita County's tax collector office into the county treasurer's office on January 1, 2026?

Plain-English summary

Act 447 of 2023 separates Ouachita County's sheriff and tax collector offices, then purports to combine the tax collector and treasurer offices. The reorganization is stated to take effect January 1, 2026. Representative Wade Andrews asked whether the treasurer could assume tax-collector duties then and whether the current sheriff and treasurer would remain in office through their elected terms.

The AG answered that the attempted merger of the tax collector and treasurer offices is unconstitutional. Article 7, § 46 permits the legislature to separate tax collection from the sheriff. Article 19, § 6 limits its ability to combine constitutional county offices. In Marshall v. Holland, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that the legislature could not authorize one person to hold both treasurer and tax collector. Amendment 55, § 2 provides a different route: the quorum court may consolidate elective county offices if a majority voting on the question at a general election approves. The AG said the amendment did not give that power to the legislature.

Act 447 does not shorten either current officeholder's term, so the AG said the sheriff and treasurer should remain in office for the duration of those terms. The treasurer may not assume the tax collector's duties under Act 447. The act calls for election of a sheriff and tax collector-treasurer in the 2026 general election, with the newly elected officers taking office January 1, 2027. The opinion does not determine who performs tax-collector duties during 2026.

What this means for you

If you work in Ouachita County government

Do not treat Act 447 as authority for the current treasurer to take over tax collection. The AG found that merger unconstitutional. The opinion says the current sheriff and treasurer should serve out their elected terms, but it leaves the 2026 tax-collection assignment unresolved. It also identifies the quorum court and general-election voter approval as the constitutional route for consolidating elective county offices.

If you are reviewing a county-office restructuring proposal

Distinguish separating the sheriff and tax collector, which Article 7, § 46 permits the legislature to do, from combining the tax collector and treasurer, which the AG said the legislature cannot do. Amendment 55, § 2 requires quorum-court action and majority approval by voters on the question at a general election for that consolidation.

Common questions

Can the treasurer assume tax-collector duties under Act 447 on January 1, 2026?

No. The AG said the statute's attempted merger violates the constitution and the treasurer may not assume those duties under it.

Does the opinion say the sheriff keeps collecting taxes throughout 2026?

No. It says the sheriff's elected term is not shortened, but does not decide who performs tax-collector duties after the act's January 1, 2026 reorganization date.

Why does the opinion mention January 1, 2027?

That is when officers elected at the 2026 general election would take office under Act 447. The act's stated reorganization date is January 1, 2026.

Could the county consolidate these offices through another process?

The AG said Amendment 55, § 2 gives the quorum court authority to consolidate elective county offices, subject to approval by a majority voting on the question at a general election. He said no information had been provided showing that this happened here.

Background and statutory framework

Article 7, § 46 makes the sheriff ex officio tax collector unless otherwise provided by law and allows creation of a separate collector's office. Article 19, § 6 generally bars one person from performing duties of more than one office in the same department unless the constitution expressly permits it. Marshall v. Holland applied that limit to the treasurer and tax collector. Amendment 55, § 2 authorizes the quorum court to restructure elective county offices with general-election voter approval. The AG relied on these provisions to conclude that the legislature could separate the sheriff and collector but could not merge the collector and treasurer by Act 447.

Citations and references

Constitutional provisions:

• Ark. Const. art. 7, § 46 (sheriff as ex officio tax collector)
• Ark. Const. art. 19, § 6 (one office per person in the same department)
• Ark. Const. amend. 55, § 2 (quorum-court restructuring authority)

Cases:

• Marshall v. Holland, 168 Ark. 449, 270 S.W. 609 (1925) (legislature cannot consolidate treasurer + tax collector)
• Chesshir v. Copeland, 182 Ark. 425, 32 S.W.2d 301 (1930) (read constitutional provisions together)
• Gravett v. Villines, 314 Ark. 320, 862 S.W.2d 260 (1993) (voter approval mandatory under Amendment 55)

Statute:

• Act 447 of 2023, § 1(c) (Ouachita County restructuring)

Source

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

Original opinion text

TIM GRIFFIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 2025-100

February 3, 2026

The Honorable Wade Andrews
State Representative
Post Office Box 470
Camden, Arkansas 71711

Dear Representative Andrews:

I am writing in response to your request for an opinion on Act 447 of 2023, which reorganizes certain county offices in Ouachita County, effective January 1, 2026. Specifically, the act separates the offices of sheriff and tax collector, and it purports to consolidate the office of tax collector with the office of the county treasurer. You have asked the following questions:

1. On January 1, 2026, will the office of tax collector merge with the county treasurer’s office in Ouachita County, with the county treasurer simply assuming all related duties?

Brief response: Because the Arkansas Constitution prohibits the consolidation of the offices of county treasurer and tax collector by statute, Act 447 cannot lawfully merge the two offices. Amendment 55, § 2 vests the authority to create, consolidate, separate, revise, or abandon elective county offices in the quorum court—subject to approval by a majority of those voting on the question at a general election—not in the General Assembly.
Accordingly, the tax collector’s duties may not be assumed by the county treasurer.

2. Will the current sheriff remain in office throughout 2026 until his term ends on or about December 31, 2026?

3. Will the current county treasurer, upon assumption of the tax collector’s duties, remain in office throughout 2026 until her term ends on or about December 31, 2026?

Brief response: To answer your second and third questions together, Act 447 does not shorten the term of either current officeholder. Thus, both the current sheriff and current county treasurer should remain in office for the duration of their elected terms. But, as explained in response to Question

BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201

The Honorable Wade Andrews
State Representative
Opinion No. 2025-100
Page 2

1, the county treasurer may not constitutionally assume the duties of tax collector under Act 447.

DISCUSSION

Question 1: On January 1, 2026, will the office of tax collector merge with the county treasurer’s office in Ouachita County, with the county treasurer simply assuming all related duties?

1. Constitutional framework. Article 7, § 46 of the Arkansas Constitution provides in relevant
   part:

       “The qualified electors of each county shall elect one (1) sheriff, who shall be ex
       officio collector of taxes, unless otherwise provided by law … If a separate
       collector of taxes has been created by law for a county, the qualified electors of that
       county shall elect one (1) collector of taxes ….”
   

Article 19, § 6 further states:

“No person shall hold or perform the duties of more than one office in the same department of the government at the same time, except as expressly directed or permitted by this Constitution.”

These two provisions must be read together.1 While article 7, § 46 authorizes the General Assembly to separate the office of tax collector from the office of sheriff, article 19, § 6 limits the legislature’s authority to combine constitutional county offices. Thus, the legislature may create a separate tax collector’s office, but it may not consolidate that office with another constitutional office unless the constitution expressly allows it.

2. Marshall v. Holland. The Arkansas Supreme Court squarely addressed this issue in Marshall
   v. Holland.2 In that case, the Court considered whether the General Assembly could authorize one person to hold both the offices of county treasurer and tax collector. The Court held that it could not.

The Court explained that article 19, § 6 prohibits dual office holding except where expressly permitted by the constitution. And the constitution provides no such authorization “except in the instance of sheriff and collector of taxes, and all of those offices mentioned in section 26, art. 19, namely, militia officers, officers of the public schools, and notaries.”3 The Court rejected the

1
See Chesshir v. Copeland, 182 Ark. 425, 32 S.W.2d 301, 302 (1930) (“It is a rule of universal application that the Constitution must be considered as a whole, and that, to get at the meaning of any part of it, we must read it in the light of other provisions relating to the same subject.”). 2 168 Ark. 449, 270 S.W. 609 (1925).
3
Id. at 612.

The Honorable Wade Andrews
State Representative
Opinion No. 2025-100
Page 3

argument that, because article 7, § 46 permits separating the office of tax collector from that of sheriff, it thereby grants lawmakers the authority to annex the collector’s office to any other constitutional office.4 Instead, it concluded “that there is no authority for joining together two offices in the same department, except those expressly permitted by the Constitution.”5

3. Amendment 55. Amendment 55, § 2—adopted after Marshall v. Holland—confers the power
   of county-office restructuring on the quorum court, but only if approved by voters:

      The Quorum Court may create, consolidate, separate, revise, or abandon any
      elective county office or offices except during the term thereof; provided, however,
      that a majority of those voting on the question at a general election have approved
      said action.
   

While Amendment 55 added this local mechanism for restructuring county offices, it did not expand the General Assembly’s power to consolidate those offices by statute. Rather, the quorum court has the authority to consolidate the offices of tax collector and county treasurer, subject to voter approval at a general election.6

4. Analysis. Marshall v. Holland has not been overruled or limited by subsequent judicial
   decisions. It remains controlling law as to the legislature: the General Assembly still lacks constitutional authority to consolidate the offices of treasurer and tax collector. Therefore, it is my opinion that Act 447’s attempt to merge the offices of tax collector and county treasurer in Ouachita County is unconstitutional. Any attempt to combine those offices must be initiated by the quorum court and approved by voters at a general election. You have provided no information suggesting that this occurred. Thus, the county treasurer may not assume the tax collector’s duties.

Question 2: Will the current sheriff remain in office throughout 2026 until his term ends on or about December 31, 2026?

Question 3: Will the current county treasurer, upon assumption of the tax collector’s duties, remain in office throughout 2026 until her term ends on or about December 31, 2026?

Although Act 447 separates the offices of sheriff and tax collector and purports to consolidate the office of tax collector with the office of the county treasurer, it does not shorten the term of either current officeholder. Instead, Act 447 provides that the electors of Ouachita County shall elect a

4
Id.
5
Id. (emphasis added).
6
The Arkansas Supreme Court has held that even when the quorum court initiates such a change under Amendment 55, § 2, its action is ineffective unless approved by voters at a general election. See Gravett v. Villines, 314 Ark. 320, 326, 862 S.W.2d 260, 263 (1993) (holding that because a quorum court ordinance removing jail operations from the sheriff “revised” an elective county office, the ordinance was invalid unless approved by voters at a general election).

The Honorable Wade Andrews
State Representative
Opinion No. 2025-100
Page 4

sheriff and a tax collector-treasurer at the 2026 general election, with each newly elected officer taking office on January 1, 2027.7

Accordingly, both the current sheriff and current county treasurer should remain in office for the duration of their elected terms. But, as explained in response to Question 1, the county treasurer may not constitutionally assume the duties of tax collector under Act 447.

Deputy Attorney General Kelly Summerside prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.

Sincerely,

TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General

7
Act 447 of 2023, §1(c).