If a quorum court doesn't pass an annual appropriation ordinance by January 1, can the county judge and justices of the peace go without pay until they do, and do they get back pay once the ordinance passes?
Plain-English summary
Act 24 of 2025 pressures Arkansas quorum courts to enact annual appropriation ordinances on time by withholding the county judge's salary and justices of the peace per diem when they don't. In one Eleventh-West Judicial District county, the quorum court didn't enact the 2025 appropriation ordinance until June 2025. The county judge went unpaid for eleven pay periods.
The county judge then filed a claim in his own court, presided over the hearing, and ordered the county clerk to pay. The Prosecuting Attorney, S. Kyle Hunter, asked the AG whether Act 24's pay-cutoff is constitutional, and if so, whether back pay is owed.
Attorney General Tim Griffin's analysis:
For county judges: Two readings of Act 24 are possible. One reading says pay is cut off until the ordinance passes and there is no back pay. That reading would reduce the county judge's overall compensation during his current term, which violates Amendment 55, Section 5 of the Arkansas Constitution: "Compensation [of a county officer] may not be decreased during a current term." Because that reading is unconstitutional, it must be rejected.
The alternative reading emphasizes the word "until" in "shall not be paid until an annual appropriation ordinance is adopted." Under this reading, current-year salary cannot be paid until the ordinance is adopted, but once adopted, the county judge receives the salary appropriated for that year, including back pay from the date the ordinance became effective back to the first day of the fiscal year. That reading avoids the constitutional conflict, so it controls under the canon of constitutional avoidance.
For justices of the peace: Justices of the peace are not "county officers" under Amendment 55, so the no-decrease-during-current-term rule doesn't apply directly. But the same statutory language ("shall not be paid until an annual appropriation ordinance is adopted") applies to both county judges and JPs. It would be illogical to read the same phrase as allowing back pay for county judges but denying it for JPs. The plain-meaning canon of "consistent meaning" applies. JPs also get back pay.
Result: Under Act 24, both the county judge and JPs are owed back pay once the annual appropriation ordinance is adopted, retroactive to January 1 of the fiscal year.
What this means for you
If you're a county judge whose pay was cut off under Act 24
You're entitled to back pay once the appropriation ordinance is adopted. The County Clerk should issue back pay covering the period from January 1 to the effective date of the appropriation. If the County Clerk refuses, the path is a county-court action; this opinion is persuasive authority for the result.
A practical note: while the Prosecuting Attorney here flagged the irregular procedure of the county judge filing a claim in his own court (which is structurally awkward but not foreclosed by statute), the substantive result on back pay is the AG's conclusion either way. Talk to your county attorney about whether to use the county-court path or to wait for the next regular appropriation ordinance to include the back-pay amount.
If you're a justice of the peace whose per diem was withheld under Act 24
Same answer. Back pay is owed once the ordinance is adopted. The "consistent meaning" canon means the JP per diem comes back, retroactive to January 1.
If you're a county clerk processing payroll under Act 24
When the appropriation ordinance is adopted mid-year, your back-pay calculation should:
- Pay the county judge and JPs at the rate established in the new appropriation ordinance, retroactive to January 1.
- Net out any salary already paid (none, if Act 24 was strictly enforced).
- Report the back pay on the appropriate W-2 / 1099 / payroll-tax forms for the year the back pay is paid (the wages were "earned" in the periods covered, but "paid" in the back-pay period).
- Document the appropriation-ordinance effective date and the calculation in payroll files.
Don't withhold back pay on the theory that "Act 24 forbids paying for the period before the ordinance." That's the reading the AG rejected as unconstitutional.
If you're a prosecuting attorney
This opinion gives you authoritative guidance for the next time a county misses the deadline. Two practical takeaways:
- Encourage the quorum court to pass the ordinance early. Act 24 was meant to incentivize timely appropriations; if it works as intended, the back-pay question never arises.
- If pay is withheld, advise the County Clerk that back pay is owed once the ordinance passes. Don't let inaction by a confused payroll administrator turn into an unconstitutional pay reduction.
If you're a state legislator considering amendments to Act 24
The constitutional avoidance reading the AG adopted leaves the act's effectiveness intact: the quorum court still has incentive to pass the ordinance on time (county judges and JPs aren't paid until they do). What's clarified is just that pay is owed when the ordinance does pass, retroactive to January 1.
If you wanted Act 24 to actually decrease compensation (i.e., punish for the period of delay), you'd need a constitutional amendment to Amendment 55. That's a heavy lift.
Common questions
Q: Why is the county judge a "county officer" under Amendment 55 but a JP isn't?
A: Amendment 55 distinguishes between "county officers" (whose compensation is set by the quorum court within statutory ranges) and "quorum court members" (whose per diem is fixed by law by the General Assembly). County judges fall in the first bucket; JPs fall in the second. The mid-term-no-decrease protection in § 5 only protects "county officers" by its terms.
Q: How does the AG handle a statute capable of two readings, one constitutional and one not?
A: The constitutional avoidance canon: "A statute must be interpreted in a way that avoids placing its constitutionality in doubt." If only one reading is constitutional, courts and the AG go with that reading. Op. 2025-123 cites Scalia and Garner, Reading Law, for this canon.
Q: What about all the other county employees during the no-appropriation period?
A: They keep getting paid under the previous year's appropriation, which is automatically readopted by operation of A.C.A. §§ 14-14-904(b)(1)(A)(ii)(c)(1) and 14-58-202(b)(1) until a new ordinance is adopted. Act 24 specifically targets the county judge and JPs to create pressure on the quorum court itself.
Q: Is the county judge's procedural step of filing a claim in his own court proper?
A: That's a separate procedural question the AG didn't reach. The substantive answer (back pay is owed) is the same regardless of which procedural path the county judge uses.
Q: Could the General Assembly amend Act 24 to pay only a reduced rate for the no-appropriation period?
A: For county judges, no. Amendment 55, Section 5, forbids decreasing compensation during the current term. For JPs, possibly yes, since they're not protected by Amendment 55, Section 5. But the AG's "consistent meaning" interpretation of the current statutory language treats them the same as county judges.
Q: What about future terms?
A: Amendment 55 protections apply within the current term. A new term starts a new clock. The legislature could decrease compensation for future terms (subject to other constitutional constraints), and Act 24's structure would then operate without the back-pay-required limit for those future terms.
Background and statutory framework
Arkansas counties operate under a January-to-December fiscal year. A.C.A. § 14-14-904(b)(1)(A)(ii)(a) requires each quorum court to adopt an annual appropriation ordinance for the next year's expenses by the end of the current year.
Act 24 of 2025 added subsections (c)(1)-(c)(3) to § 14-14-904(b)(1)(A)(ii). The substantive changes:
- If the quorum court fails to enact an appropriation ordinance by January 1, the previous year's ordinance is "readopted by operation of law."
- Other county employees keep getting paid under the readopted previous-year amounts.
- The county judge "shall not be paid" until the new ordinance is adopted.
- Justices of the peace "shall not be paid" their per diem until the new ordinance is adopted.
Once the ordinance is adopted, the county judge's salary is governed by § 14-14-1204(c)(3), which references the "until" trigger and points to the newly-adopted appropriation. JP per diem is governed by § 14-14-1205(a)(1)(C), which uses the same "until" language.
Amendment 55, Section 5 of the Arkansas Constitution sets up the constitutional firewall: county officer compensation cannot be decreased during the current term. Decreasing pay mid-term, even by the legislative pressure tactic of conditional withholding, is forbidden.
The AG's resolution applies the canon of constitutional avoidance and the rule of consistent meaning. Both are well-settled rules of statutory interpretation in Arkansas.
Citations and references
Statutes and constitutional provisions:
- Act 24 of 2025
- A.C.A. § 14-14-904(b), annual appropriation requirements
- A.C.A. § 14-14-1204(c)(3), county judge compensation
- A.C.A. § 14-14-1205(a)(1)(C), JP per diem
- A.C.A. § 14-58-202(b)(1), carryover appropriation
- Ark. Const. amend. 55, § 5: county officer compensation
Reference:
- Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (2012), at 247-51 (avoid construing a statute to render it unconstitutional) and 170 (consistent meaning of repeated phrases)
Related AG opinion:
- Op. 2003-059 (JPs not "county officers" under Amendment 55)
Source
Original opinion text
BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Opinion No. 2025-123
December 12, 2025
Mr. S. Kyle Hunter
Prosecuting Attorney
Eleventh-West Judicial District
101 East Barraque Street, Suite 201
Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71601
Dear Mr. Hunter:
I am writing in response to your request for my opinion on the constitutionality of Act 24 of 2025. You report that under Act 24 of 2025, a county judge was not paid for eleven pay periods until the quorum court passed an appropriation ordinance in June 2025. Consequently, that county judge filed a claim in the county court for payment and, "at a hearing he presided over, issued an Order directing the county clerk to pay" his claim. You note that at the hearing, the county judge argued that Act 24 of 2025 is unconstitutional because it violates Section 5 of Amendment 55 to the Arkansas Constitution.
Against this background, you ask the following questions:
-
Is Act 24 of 2025 in conflict with the Arkansas Constitution as it relates to not paying the county judge and justices of the peace until an annual appropriation ordinance is passed by the Quorum Court?
-
If withholding pay as required by Act 24 of 2025 is constitutional, should the county judge and justices of the peace be retroactively paid to the first of the year after passage of the budget ordinance?
RESPONSE
A reading of Act 24 of 2025 that prohibits back pay would render the act unconstitutional under Amendment 55, § 5, because it would decrease the compensation of the county judge during his current term. An alternative but permissible reading of the act does not decrease compensation. Because one interpretation of Act 24 of 2025 would render the act unconstitutional, while another would not, one must opt for the constitutional reading. Therefore, the county judge and justices of the peace are entitled to back pay once an annual appropriation ordinance is adopted.
DISCUSSION
Before the end of each fiscal year, a county must enact an annual appropriation ordinance for the next year's county expenses. Act 24 of 2025 imposes penalties for failing to comply.
If a quorum court fails to enact an annual appropriation by January 1, the county judge does not receive a salary, and the justices of the peace do not receive per diem compensation. Meanwhile, the annual appropriation ordinance from the previous year is automatically "readopted by operation" of law. The salaries of other county employees continue under the previous year's appropriation until "a new annual appropriation ordinance is adopted."
But once the quorum court enacts an appropriation, the county judge and justices of the peace begin receiving the money appropriated for them. The question is whether the county judge and justices of the peace are entitled to back pay for the period before the ordinance was adopted. The legal analysis necessary to answer that question differs between the county judge and justices of the peace, although both end up with the same result.
- County judge. In my opinion, two interpretations of the act are possible as applied to county judges, but only one is the best reading. Under one reading, pay is cut off until the ordinance is passed, and no back pay is authorized. Yet under this interpretation, the county judge's overall compensation would be reduced, violating Amendment 55, § 5, of the Arkansas Constitution: "Compensation [of a county officer] may not be decreased during a current term." Thus, interpreting the act to prohibit back pay for county judges would render the act unconstitutional under Amendment 55.
An alternative reading emphasizes the word "until" in the phrase "shall not be paid until an annual appropriation ordinance is adopted." Under this interpretation, that year's salary cannot be paid "until" the ordinance is adopted, at which point the county judge receives the salary set in that year's appropriation ordinance, including back pay from the date the ordinance became effective back to the first day of that fiscal year. This reading avoids any constitutional conflict because it does not reduce a county officer's compensation during the current term.
A statute must be "interpreted in a way that avoids placing its constitutionality in doubt." Because one interpretation of Act 24 of 2025 would render the act unconstitutional, while another would not, the latter must prevail. Accordingly, the county judge is entitled to back pay once the annual appropriation ordinance is adopted.
- Justices of the peace. Unlike county judges, Justices of the peace are not "county officers" under Amendment 55. Amendment 55, § 5, distinguishes between county officers, whose compensation is set within statutory ranges by the quorum court, and quorum court members, whose per diem compensation is fixed by law by the General Assembly. Therefore, the above analysis on reducing pay in violation of Amendment 55 that applies to county judges does not apply to justices of the peace.
Even so, the same statutory language, "shall not be paid until an annual appropriation ordinance is adopted," applies to both county judges and justices of the peace. It would be illogical to interpret the same phrase as allowing back pay for county judges while denying it for justices of the peace. Therefore, based on the plain language of the act and principles of statutory construction, justices of the peace are also owed back pay.
In sum, under Act 24 of 2025, both the county judge and justices of the peace are owed back pay once the annual appropriation ordinance is adopted.
Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General