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 is sponsoring an initiated amendment to the Arkansas Constitution that would create a "right to a clean and healthy natural environment" and impose duties on the legislative and executive branches to protect, preserve, and allow use of "Arkansas's natural environment." The proposed popular name was "The Natural Environment Amendment."

This is the third version Standerfer has submitted under A.C.A. § 7-9-107 for AG certification. The AG rejected versions one and two in Opinions 2025-098 and 2025-110. AG Tim Griffin rejected this third version too. The reasons:

1. Vague duties on government. The amendment requires the executive and legislative branches to (a) protect the natural environment from "unreasonable depletion and degradation," (b) preserve it for "future recreational enjoyment, economic enhancement, and public health benefits," and (c) allow for "efficient, limited, and adequate use" for current uses. Each phrase is undefined. Voters can't tell what governmental actions are compelled or constrained, or how conflicts among the duties would be resolved. Vagueness gives voters "serious ground for reflection," which is the test the Arkansas Supreme Court uses for misleading ballot titles. The vagueness in the text itself prevents the AG from drafting a non-misleading ballot title.

2. Ambiguity about General Assembly's authority. Section 1(f) says the measure, once approved, "shall not be amended or repealed by the General Assembly." Article 5, Section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution lets the General Assembly amend or repeal voter-approved measures by a two-thirds vote. Article 19, Section 22 lets the General Assembly refer constitutional amendments to the voters. The proposed amendment doesn't clearly say which of those it limits. Without that clarity, the ballot title can't tell voters whether they're locking the General Assembly out only of direct amendment, or also of referring questions back to voters.

3. Other "additional issues" worth fixing even though the above are dispositive:
   - The amendment creates a "right" without explaining what the right means or how it's measured. The previous version used "fundamental right"; this version dropped "fundamental" but the ambiguity remains.
   - Section 2 says all "Constitution, statutes, and common law" inconsistent with the amendment is "null and void." The ballot title says "all inconsistent state laws" are repealed. But the text doesn't expressly mention rules and regulations, while the ballot title is broad enough to imply they are also repealed.
   - The ballot title omits several material provisions voters would want to see: the definitional language for "natural environment," the nonretroactivity clause and its exception for amended legislation, the duties on "executive and legislative governmental entities," and other features. Omitting material text from a ballot title can render it misleading by omission. Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994).

The AG made clear, repeatedly, that this is not about the merits of the proposed measure. Under § 7-9-107, the AG cannot consider whether environmental rights are good policy or bad policy. The AG can only review whether the text and the title work together to give voters a non-misleading description of what they'd be voting on.

What this means for you

If you're a sponsor of an initiated constitutional amendment

The AG's review under § 7-9-107 is not a rubber stamp. Three things to know:

1. The AG can reject the ballot title because of vagueness in the underlying text. Even if your title is well-drafted, if the text leaves duties or rights undefined, the AG can't certify. Drafting tip: every operative clause needs either an objective definition or a clear judicial standard.
2. You don't get unlimited tries, but you do get tries. The AG didn't suggest he was running out of patience. But each rejection delays your signature-collection timeline.
3. The opinion is detailed enough to function as a roadmap. Read sections 3 and 4 carefully. The AG flagged specific phrases and provisions to fix. Take the time to address each one before resubmitting.

For Standerfer specifically, the path forward looks like:

• Define "unreasonable depletion and degradation" with a workable standard.
• Specify whether the General Assembly is foreclosed from amendment under Article 5 only, or also from referral under Article 19, Section 22.
• Tighten the inconsistency-clause/ballot-title gap so they're symmetric.
• Add the nonretroactivity clause, the definition of "natural environment," and the duty language to the ballot title.

If you're an environmental-rights advocate

This is the third rejection of an amendment that would have given Arkansans a constitutional environmental right. The substantive policy is unaffected by AG rejection: voters can still ultimately approve such a right if a successor draft is certified. But each rejection consumes time, and Arkansas's ballot deadlines are tight. Sponsors of similar measures in other states (Pennsylvania, Montana, New York) have succeeded with more specific drafting.

If you're a constitutional law attorney advising a sponsor

The recurring drafting problem in this opinion is undefined operational language. Constitutional rights generally need either (a) a clear standard the courts can apply or (b) explicit legislative direction to define the standard. "Right to a clean and healthy environment" without further specification falls into the trap.

If you're a journalist tracking ballot initiatives

The decline-and-resubmit pattern is common but noteworthy. Three iterations on the same measure suggest the sponsor and the AG haven't yet aligned on what's needed. The opinion is an unusually detailed annotation; readers can compare versions of the proposed text by looking at Opinions 2025-098, 2025-110, and 2025-128.

If you're a state legislator

This opinion illustrates the AG's role as a backstop against vague constitutional amendments. The detailed feedback shows § 7-9-107 working as intended. If you're considering legislation to streamline the ballot-title certification process, this opinion is a good case study in why the current friction exists.

Common questions

Q: What's a "popular name" versus a "ballot title"?
A: The popular name is the short label voters see on the ballot ("The Natural Environment Amendment"). The ballot title is the longer summary explaining what the measure does. Both are subject to AG certification under § 7-9-107.

Q: Why does the AG review the underlying text and not just the title?
A: Under Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813 (2000), a ballot title can't be certified when the text it describes is itself ambiguous or misleading. The AG can't draft a non-misleading title for an inherently ambiguous measure. So the AG's review reaches both.

Q: Can the AG modify the ballot title to fix problems instead of rejecting?
A: For some defects, yes. § 7-9-107 lets the AG substitute a more appropriate ballot title. But the AG cannot modify the underlying amendment text. When the text is the source of the vagueness, substitution doesn't fix the problem, and rejection is the only available outcome.

Q: Does AG rejection mean the measure is dead?
A: No. The sponsor can revise and resubmit. After the AG certifies, the sponsor begins collecting signatures.

Q: Can the sponsor appeal an AG rejection?
A: Yes. The Arkansas Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over ballot-title disputes. A sponsor can file a petition challenging the AG's rejection. Roberts v. Priest and Bailey v. McCuen are common citations in such petitions.

Q: What's the standard the AG applies?
A: From Bailey v. McCuen and similar cases: the ballot title must include all material that would give a voter "serious ground for reflection." Material omissions or ambiguity render the title misleading.

Q: Why does the AG keep saying "I'm not opining on the merits"?
A: To make clear that rejection is not a substantive policy judgment. The AG's role under § 7-9-107 is purely procedural: does the proposed text plus title give voters a non-misleading basis to vote? Whether environmental rights are good or bad policy is for voters and legislators.

Background and statutory framework

A.C.A. § 7-9-107 requires the AG to certify the popular name and ballot title of every proposed initiated act and constitutional amendment before sponsors can begin collecting signatures. The AG can certify, modify and certify, or reject and instruct the sponsor to redesign.

The AG's review derives from constitutional protections for voter informed-consent. Article 5, Section 1 reserves to the people the power of initiative and referendum. The Arkansas Supreme Court has consistently held that ballot titles must be sufficient to allow a voter to make an informed decision without consulting the underlying text. Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277 (1994), is the foundational case for the "serious ground for reflection" standard. Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813 (2000), held that ballot-title certification fails when the underlying text is ambiguous or misleading.

The proposed Natural Environment Amendment fits a national pattern of state-level efforts to enshrine environmental rights. Pennsylvania (1971) and Montana (1972) included environmental rights in their constitutions; New York amended its constitution in 2021 to include a right to clean air and water. Each of those was carefully drafted with specific operative language. Arkansas sponsors have, so far, struggled to match that specificity.

The cited prior AG rejections of ballot titles "due to ambiguities in the text" of the proposed measure are a long line: Op. 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. The AG rarely creates new doctrine in these cases; the issues recur because each new sponsor underestimates how specific the text needs to be.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 7-9-107, AG certification of popular name and ballot title
- Ark. Const. art. 5, § 1, initiative, referendum, and supermajority for legislative amendment
- Ark. Const. art. 19, § 22: legislative referral of amendments

Cases:
- Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 20 S.W.3d 376 (2000), ballot title fails when underlying text is ambiguous
- Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994), "serious ground for reflection" standard

Prior versions of this measure:
- Op. 2025-098 (first rejection)
- Op. 2025-110 (second rejection)

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. 2025-128

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 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:

• 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 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." 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";
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