I want to put a clean-environment amendment on the Arkansas ballot. Why did the Attorney General reject my proposed popular name and ballot title?

Plain-English summary

Under A.C.A. § 7-9-107, before a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment can be circulated for signatures, the Attorney General must certify the popular name and ballot title. The AG can also reject and instruct the sponsor to redesign. This is the second AG rejection for Jennifer Waymack Standerfer's proposed "Clean and Healthy Natural Environment Amendment" (the first was Opinion 2025-098).

The AG identifies two problems in the text of the amendment that block any ballot title certification, plus four additional issues the sponsor should fix:

Blocking problems in the amendment text:

1. "Governmental entities" is undefined. Section 1(c)(2) imposes duties on "governmental entities," but the amendment never says who counts: state constitutional offices, judges, cities, counties, school districts, state and local boards, commissions? That ambiguity gives voters "serious ground for reflection," which is a misleading-ballot-title problem the AG cannot fix by substituting a clearer title.

2. "Fundamental right" is undefined. The amendment creates a "fundamental right" to a clean and healthy environment, but the substance of the right is not stated. Without knowing what the right covers, neither the AG nor a court can ensure the ballot title accurately describes it.

Additional issues the sponsor was told to address (even though the above two would already require redesign):

3. Impact on other Arkansas law is unclear. Does the amendment touch takings law, sovereign immunity, or private property rights? The amendment's broad definition of "natural environment" reaches private real property, and Section 1(c)(2)'s duties on "governmental entities" could be read as requiring those entities to make private property available for recreation, or to limit commercial use of private land to prevent depletion. Voters need to know if that is what they are voting on.

4. Partisan coloring in the popular name. "Clean and healthy" is "inviting" language; few people will vote against something described that way (versus voting against "unclean and unhealthy"). Arkansas Women's Political Caucus v. Riviere (1984) is the controlling case on partisan coloring. If the AG ever reaches certification, the popular name will need to change.

5. Legislative findings. Section 1(a) contains legislative-findings language. Voters at the ballot box do not see the text of the proposed measure; they only see the ballot title. So any findings the sponsor wants voters to know about have to be in the ballot title itself.

6. Inconsistency about rules and regulations. Section 2 of the proposed amendment voids inconsistent "Constitution, statutes, and common law" but does not mention rules or regulations. The ballot title, however, says "all inconsistent state laws" are repealed. That creates a misleading impression about what is and is not affected.

7. Missing material provisions in the ballot title. Bailey v. McCuen (1994) requires that ballot titles include all "essential facts which would give the voter serious ground for reflection." The AG identifies four omissions: the duties to "[p]rotect Arkansas's natural environment from unreasonable depletion and degradation," to "[p]reserve" it for recreation, economic enhancement, and public health, to "[a]llow for the efficient, limited, and adequate use" of the environment, and the broad definition of "natural environment" itself.

The opinion stresses that the AG is not deciding the merits of the proposed amendment. Whether it is good policy or bad policy is irrelevant to certification. The AG is policing the text-and-title rules that protect voters from being asked to vote on something they do not understand.

What this means for you

If you are a ballot initiative sponsor in Arkansas

Three takeaways from this rejection:

1. Define every important term in the text of the amendment itself. "Governmental entities" and "fundamental right" both got the amendment killed because the sponsor left them open. A constitutional amendment that creates duties has to identify who owes them. A constitutional amendment that creates rights has to identify what the right protects.
2. Walk through the interaction with existing Arkansas law explicitly. Takings, sovereign immunity, private property rights, takings clause, and any pre-existing statutory schemes the new right could affect. Either spell out the interactions or, if you intend none, make that clear.
3. Avoid loaded language in the popular name. Riviere remains the controlling test. Words like "clean," "healthy," "fair," "patriotic" are partisan coloring. Use neutral descriptors of what the measure does.

If you are an environmental advocate

This opinion does not say environmental rights amendments are unworkable in Arkansas. It says this version is unworkable. Drafters of similar measures in other states have spelled out who the duty-holders are (often state agencies and state government generally), what the right covers (often a procedural right against pollution sources, or a substantive right to specific environmental quality measures), and the interaction with existing land-use and property law. That kind of precision is what the AG is asking for.

If you are a constitutional lawyer drafting an amendment

The AG's rejection grounds are textbook ballot-title doctrine. Roberts v. Priest establishes that the AG cannot certify a title when the underlying text is ambiguous or misleading. Bailey v. McCuen establishes the "essential facts" inclusion requirement. Riviere establishes the partisan-coloring rule. Build the amendment to satisfy each one before submitting.

If you are a voter following ballot initiatives

The AG certification process is a quality control step, not a censorship step. The AG cannot reject an amendment on policy grounds (as the opinion repeatedly says, "[m]y decision to certify or reject a popular name and ballot title is unrelated to my view of the proposed measure's merits"). The AG can reject for ambiguity, misleading framing, or missing material provisions. That is what happened here.

Common questions

Why does the AG review proposed ballot titles in the first place?
A.C.A. § 7-9-107 makes the AG the gatekeeper. Before sponsors can collect signatures, the AG certifies (or rejects) the popular name and ballot title to ensure voters are not asked to sign or vote on something misleading.

What does "partisan coloring" mean?
A popular name or ballot title cannot use loaded language that biases the voter. Riviere is the case. "Clean and healthy" is the kind of phrase the AG identifies as inviting voters to support without weighing tradeoffs.

What is "serious ground for reflection"?
From Bailey v. McCuen: any material the voter would want to weigh before deciding. If a fact about the measure would change a reasonable voter's decision, it has to be in the ballot title.

Can the AG fix the title instead of rejecting?
Yes, sometimes. A.C.A. § 7-9-107 allows the AG to substitute a more appropriate ballot title. But when the underlying amendment text is ambiguous, the AG cannot substitute either; you cannot describe accurately what is undefined.

Can the sponsor try again?
Yes. The AG explicitly tells Standerfer to "redesign" and resubmit. The sponsor can address the AG's identified issues and submit a new version.

Does the AG's rejection prevent the amendment from ever appearing on the ballot?
Not permanently. The sponsor can address the issues and resubmit. Failed AG certifications are common in early drafts of major initiatives.

Why does the popular name "Clean and Healthy Natural Environment Amendment" qualify as partisan coloring when "Right to Privacy Amendment" or "Right to Bear Arms Amendment" do not?
The AG's reasoning is that "clean and healthy" describes a desirable end-state in a way that frames opposition as supporting the opposite (unclean and unhealthy). Compare "Constitutional Right to Recreational Marijuana Use Amendment" or similar that names the substantive change neutrally.

Background and statutory framework

A.C.A. § 7-9-107 is the AG certification statute for citizen-initiated measures. The AG must review the popular name and ballot title and either certify, substitute, or reject. The statute does not authorize the AG to modify the text of the proposed measure itself.

Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813 (2000). Even though the AG cannot modify the measure text, the AG must consider the text because a misleading text means the title cannot be accurately certified. "[T]he ballot title and popular name cannot be certified when the 'text of the proposed amendment itself' is ambiguous or misleading."

Arkansas Women's Political Caucus v. Riviere, 283 Ark. 463 (1984). The "partisan coloring" rule. Popular names and ballot titles cannot use language that biases the voter toward yes or no.

Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277 (1994). The Arkansas Supreme Court interpretation of the constitutional requirement that ballot titles contain all material that qualifies as "essential facts which would give the voter serious ground for reflection." Omissions can render a title misleading by what is left out, not just by what is said.

Standard procedure on rejection. The AG identifies the issues, instructs the sponsor to redesign, and the sponsor can submit a revised version. The AG cites prior opinions where rejection rested on text ambiguity: 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, 2001-074, 2001-397, 2001-129, 2000-084, 99-430.

Citations

Statute:
- A.C.A. § 7-9-107 (AG certification of popular names and ballot titles)

Cases:
- Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 20 S.W.3d 376 (2000)
- Arkansas Women's Political Caucus v. Riviere, 283 Ark. 463, 677 S.W.2d 846 (1984)
- Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994)

Other AG opinions:
- Opinion 2025-098 (first rejection of this proposed amendment)
- Opinion 2025-085 (referenced for "fundamental right" issue)

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. 2025-110
November 4, 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. In Opinion No. 2025-098, I rejected a prior version of your proposed initiated amendment to the Arkansas Constitution. You have now revised the language of your proposal and submitted it for certification.

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 Clean and Healthy Natural Environment Amendment

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 government will maintain and improve a clean and healthy environment. The government will protect the environment from unreasonable misuse. The legislature will make laws to implement and enforce 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. In Opinion No. 2025-098, issued in response to your first submission for review and certification, I explained the rules and legal standards that govern my review of popular names and ballot titles. I rely on those same rules and legal standards here and incorporate them by reference.

3. 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:

• "Governmental entities." Section 1(c)(2) places certain duties on "governmental entities." It is unclear who, as a "governmental entity," would have these mandated duties under the proposed amendment. Does it include all constitutional offices, judges, cities, counties, schools, state or local boards, and commissions? Such ambiguity would give voters "serious ground for reflection." 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.

• "Fundamental right." The amendment creates a "fundamental right." But as currently drafted, what is that fundamental right? 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. And as noted in 2025-085, it is unclear what obligations are placed upon "governmental entities" and the legislature in enforcing a "fundamental right to a clean and healthy natural environment."

• Impact on other laws. As currently drafted, it is unclear how this proposed amendment impacts other laws. Does it amend takings laws, sovereign immunity, or impact private property rights? For example, the proposed amendment creates duties concerning the "natural environment," which, as defined, would broadly include private real property. Do governmental entities have the duty to make the natural environment on private land available for recreational use, economic benefit, or public health? Or do they have the duty to limit the commercial use of private property to prevent "unreasonable depletion and degradation"? Such questions would give voters "serious ground for reflection," and that ambiguity prevents me from ensuring that any substituted and certified ballot title would not be misleading.

4. Additional issues. While the foregoing defects are sufficient grounds for me to reject your submission, please note that your proposed measure contains several other issues that you may wish to correct or clarify.

• Partisan coloring in the popular name. In my opinion, a court could find your proposed popular name contains impermissible "partisan coloring" language when it uses the phrase "clean and healthy." That is, such a phrase is "inviting," and few would vote against something described as "clean and healthy" (as opposed to unclean and unhealthy). It gives voters only the impression that the proponents of the proposed amendment wish to convey. 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.

• Legislative findings provision. Section 1(a) contains a legislative findings paragraph. Because the voters at the ballot box do not have access to the text of the proposed measure, which itself contains language concerning legislative findings, any such language would need to be included in the ballot title itself.

• Inconsistent provisions. Section 2 of the proposed measure provides that "All provisions of the Constitution, statutes, and common law of this State to the extent inconsistent or in conflict with any provision of this Amendment are expressly declared null and void." That provision does not expressly reference rules or regulations while the ballot title states that "all inconsistent state laws" would be repealed. Voters would not know by reading the ballot title that inconsistent rules or regulations are not expressly repealed.

• Ballot title summary. 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. These provisions would likely give voters "serious ground for reflection," and their absence from the ballot title renders it misleading by omission:

• Requiring "governmental entities" to "[p]rotect Arkansas's natural environment from unreasonable depletion and degradation";

• Requiring "governmental entities" to "[p]reserve Arkansas's natural environment for future recreational enjoyment, economic enhancement, and public health benefits";
• Requiring "governmental entities" to "[a]llow for the efficient, limited, and adequate use of Arkansas's natural environment for current recreational enjoyment, economic enhancement, and public health benefits"; and
• Defining the phrase "natural environment" as "living and non-living things that occur naturally, without human creation or significant human alteration," including without limitation "ecosystems, natural resources, wildlife, plant-life, and native species."

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

Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General