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

Jennifer Waymack Standerfer submitted a revised environmental amendment after the AG rejected an earlier version in Opinion 2025-098. The AG again rejected the popular name and ballot title and instructed her to redesign them. He identified three ambiguities in the proposed amendment's text that prevented him from ensuring the submitted title was not misleading or substituting a suitable one:

1. The measure assigns duties to “governmental entities” without defining which offices or bodies are covered.
2. It creates a “fundamental right” to a clean and healthy natural environment without making clear what that right requires or what duties it places on governmental entities and the legislature.
3. It leaves unclear how the amendment would affect takings law, sovereign immunity, and private property rights. The AG asked, for example, whether governmental entities would need to make private land available for recreational use or limit commercial use to prevent environmental degradation.

The AG placed four additional issues in a separate section and said the three text defects already sufficed for rejection. He thought a court could find “clean and healthy” partisan language in the popular name; he also noted legislative findings absent from the ballot title, a mismatch between the measure's treatment of inconsistent laws and the title's wording, and material duties and definitions omitted from the title. The possibly partisan popular name was not a ground for this rejection.

What this means for you

If you are drafting an Arkansas initiative

Define who has duties and what any new right requires in the proposal's text. Consider how the measure would interact with existing law, including the property and immunity questions the AG raised here. Those were all grounds for rejecting this submission. Then compare the ballot title with the operative duties and definitions, and consider a neutral popular name. The latter points were additional issues the AG said the sponsor might correct.

If you are evaluating this decision

Read Section 3 of the opinion for the actual rejection grounds and Section 4 for additional issues. The AG expressly disclaimed any judgment on the amendment's policy merits. He also said he could not repair ambiguities in the measure's own text by writing a new ballot title.

Common questions

How many defects did the AG identify as grounds for rejection?

Three: uncertainty about “governmental entities,” the “fundamental right,” and the amendment's impact on other laws. All three appear in the opinion's application section before the additional-issues section.

Was “clean and healthy” the reason for rejection?

No. The AG said a court could find that wording partisan, and he would need to change the popular name if the proposal reached a certifiable stage. He listed it as an additional issue rather than a basis for the decision here.

Why couldn't the AG substitute a clearer ballot title?

He said the ambiguities in the proposed amendment itself prevented him from ensuring that a substitute title would not mislead voters. The AG could not modify the measure's text.

Which ballot-title omissions did the AG identify?

He pointed to the duties to protect and preserve the natural environment, the duty to allow its efficient and limited use, and the proposal's broad definition of “natural environment.” He discussed those omissions in the additional-issues section.

Background and statutory framework

A.C.A. § 7-9-107 governs the AG's review of proposed popular names and ballot titles. This opinion incorporates the legal standards explained in Opinion 2025-098. Its PDF footnote cites Roberts v. Priest for the rule that an ambiguous or misleading measure text can prevent certification even though the AG cannot rewrite that text. The AG instructed the sponsor to redesign and resubmit the proposal.

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 Pol. 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

TIM GRIFFIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

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

Ms. Jennifer Waymack Standerfer
Opinion No. 2025-110
Page 2

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:1

   • “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.

1
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 v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 825, 20 S.W.3d 376, 382 (2000). 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, 2001-074, 2001-397, 2001-129, 2000-084, 99-430.

Ms. Jennifer Waymack Standerfer
Opinion No. 2025-110
Page 3

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.2
   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.”3 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 tile renders it misleading by omission:

          o Requiring “governmental entities” to “[p]rotect Arkansas’s natural environment
            from unreasonable depletion and degradation”;
   
          o Requiring “governmental entities” to “[p]reserve Arkansas’s natural environment
            for future recreational enjoyment, economic enhancement, and public health
            benefits”;
   

2
See Arkansas Women’s Pol. Caucus v. Riviere, 283 Ark. 463, 468, 677 S.W.2d 846, 849 (1984).
3
Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 285, 884 S.W.2d 938, 942 (1994).

Ms. Jennifer Waymack Standerfer
Opinion No. 2025-110
Page 4

o 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
o 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