Why did the Arkansas Attorney General reject 'The Natural Environment Amendment' ballot title for the third time, and what would the sponsor need to fix?

Plain-English summary

Jennifer Waymack Standerfer submitted a revised proposed constitutional amendment called “The Natural Environment Amendment” for certification of its popular name and ballot title. The Attorney General had rejected her two earlier versions in Opinions 2025-098 and 2025-110. He rejected this version as well and instructed her to redesign the name and title. He emphasized that certification does not turn on his view of the measure's merits.

The first decisive problem was the text's description of duties for executive and legislative governmental entities. It calls for protection against “unreasonable depletion and degradation,” preservation for future recreation, economic benefit, and public health, and “efficient, limited, and adequate use” for present purposes. The Attorney General found those phrases vague and undefined: voters could not tell what governmental action they would require or restrict, or how the duties would work together. That uncertainty prevented him from assuring voters a nonmisleading title, whether submitted by the sponsor or substituted by his office.

The second decisive problem was a clause barring the General Assembly from amending or repealing the measure. The Attorney General could not tell whether it addressed only the Assembly's authority under Article 5, § 1, or also its power under Article 19, § 22 to refer an amendment to voters. The ballot title could not resolve an ambiguity in the measure itself.

The opinion also identified issues the sponsor might clarify: the meaning and measurement of the proposed environmental “right,” a discrepancy between the text's inconsistent-provisions clause and the title's “all inconsistent state laws” wording, and material details absent from the ballot title. The omitted details included the precise governmental entities and duties, the definition of “natural environment,” and the nonretroactivity rule with its exception for later amended legislation. These additional issues were not needed for the rejection, but the Attorney General invited correction or clarification.

What this means for you

If you sponsor a proposed amendment

Compare the measure's operative language with the ballot title. This opinion explains why a title could not be certified where the underlying duties and legislative-amendment restriction were unclear. It identifies the precise provisions the Attorney General wanted clarified before another submission. Footnote 1 says his office cannot change the measure's text itself.

If you are evaluating the proposed ballot language

The rejection was a certification decision about whether voters could understand the proposal from its title. The Attorney General expressly declined to judge the proposal's policy merits. His concern was that the text and title left material questions unresolved.

Common questions

Q: Why was this third submission rejected?
A: The Attorney General found two decisive ambiguities in the proposal itself: undefined governmental duties concerning the natural environment and uncertainty about which General Assembly powers the amendment would restrict.

Q: Could the Attorney General simply rewrite the title?
A: He said the ambiguities also prevented him from ensuring that a substituted ballot title would not mislead voters. Footnote 1 explains that he cannot modify the proposed amendment's text.

Q: Did the opinion reject the environmental right as a policy? A: No. The Attorney General said his certification decision was unrelated to his view of the measure's merits.

Q: What other provisions did the opinion flag?
A: It asked how the proposed environmental right would be measured, noted the mismatch between the inconsistent-provisions clause and the title, and identified omitted material terms, including the definition of “natural environment” and a nonretroactivity exception.

Q: Did the opinion cite earlier rejections for ambiguity in a proposed measure? A: Yes. Footnote 1 cites Roberts v. Priest and lists earlier Arkansas AG opinions, including 2016-015, 2015-132, and 2014-105, as examples of rejected titles where the proposed text was ambiguous.

Background and statutory framework

The request was made under A.C.A. § 7-9-107. The opinion incorporates by reference the review standards explained in Opinions 2025-098 and 2025-110. Footnote 1 quotes Roberts v. Priest on ambiguity in a proposed amendment's text and lists prior AG rejections on that ground. Footnote 2 cites Bailey v. McCuen for the requirement to include an essential fact that would give a voter “serious ground for reflection” in the ballot title.

Citations and references

• A.C.A. § 7-9-107, cited in the opening of the opinion.
• Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 20 S.W.3d 376 (2000), opinion footnote 1.
• Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994), opinion footnote 2.
• Arkansas AG Opinions 2025-098 and 2025-110, incorporated by reference in section 2; additional opinions listed in footnote 1.

Source

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

Original opinion text

TIM GRIFFIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 2025-128

December 29, 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 Nos. 2025-098 and 2025-110, I rejected prior versions 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 Natural Environment Amendment
   
                                       Ballot Title
   

   This measure amends the Arkansas Constitution. It determines that the people’s
   will is to protect “The Natural State” for Arkansans today and in the future. It
   determines that the people’s will is to preserve the outdoors and natural resources
   for Arkansans’ recreation, economy, and public health. It gives Arkansans the right
   to a clean and healthy natural environment. The government will maintain and
   improve a clean and healthy environment. The government will allow people to use
   the environment for recreation, economy, and public health. The government will
   preserve the environment for those uses in the future. The government will protect
   the environment form unreasonable misuse today. The measure defines “natural
   environment.” The measure is not retroactive. The measure shall not be amended
   or repealed by the legislature. This measure repeals all inconsistent state laws. This
   BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
   101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
   LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201

Ms. Jennifer Waymack Standerfer
Opinion No. 2025-128
Page 2

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 Nos. 2025-098 and 2025-110, issued in response to
   your first two submissions 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 to your ballot title. 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

   • Duties. The proposed amendment imposes certain duties on executive and legislative
   governmental entities. In 2025-098 and 2025-110, I noted that the obligations imposed
   were unclear. That lack of clarity persists in your current submission. The proposed
   amendment requires executive and legislative governmental entities to:

    (A) Protect Arkansas’s natural environment from unreasonable depletion and degradation;
   
    (B) Preserve Arkansas’s natural environment for future recreational enjoyment, economic
        enhancement, and public health benefits; and
   
    (C) Allow for the efficient, limited, and adequate use of Arkansas’s natural environment
        for current recreational enjoyment, economic enhancement, and public health benefits.
   
    Each of these phrases is vague and undefined. Voters have no way to know what
    governmental actions would be compelled or constrained or how conflicts among these
    duties would be resolved. 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.
   

   • Amendment by General Assembly. Section 1(f) states that the proposed measure, “once
   approved by a vote of the people, shall not be amended or repealed by the General
   Assembly.” But this language is ambiguous. It is unclear whether you intend solely to
   restrict the General Assembly’s authority to amend the measure under Article 5, § 1 of the

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. 2025-128
Page 3

Arkansas Constitution—which permits amendment or repeal of voter-approved measures by a two-thirds vote of each house—or whether you seek to also seek to limit the General Assembly’s power under Article 19, § 22 to refer a proposed constitutional amendment to the voters. This ambiguity 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.

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.

   • Rights. The proposed amendment creates a “right” to a clean and healthy natural
   environment. In Opinion No. 2025-110, you used the phrase “fundamental right,” and I
   noted that the lack of clarity regarding that right prevented me from ensuring that the ballot
   title was not misleading. In this current submission, the word “fundamental” has been
   removed, but the core ambiguity remains: what does the “right to a clean and healthy
   natural environment” mean? How is this right measured or determined? Is it defined by
   objective standards, scientific benchmarks, or the subjective judgment of each individual
   voter?

   • Inconsistent provisions. Section 2 of the proposed measures still states, “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.” As
   noted in 2025-110, this provision does not expressly reference rules or regulations, yet the
   ballot title states that “all inconsistent state laws” would be repealed. Voters reading only
   the ballot title would not know that inconsistent rules or regulations are not expressly
   repealed by the text.

   • 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.”2 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 could render it misleading by omission:

          o The use of the phrase “executive and legislative governmental entities,” while the
            ballot title uses the broader term, “government”;
   
          o The requirement that those governmental entities “perform their duties under law”;
   
          o The duty to “[p]rotect Arkansas’s natural environment from unreasonable depletion
            and degradation”;
   

2
Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 285, 884 S.W.2d 938, 942 (1994).

Ms. Jennifer Waymack Standerfer
Opinion No. 2025-128
Page 4

o The duty of to “[p]reserve Arkansas’s natural environment for future recreational enjoyment, economic enhancement, and public health benefits”;
o The duty 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”;
o The definition of “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”; and
o The nonretroactivity clause, which provides that “this amendment does not retroactively apply to legislation enacted, procurement or purchasing completed, or construction completed before this amendment becomes effective,” but does apply to previously enacted legislation that is “amended after the effective date of this amendment.”

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

Sincerely,

TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General