Why did the Arkansas Attorney General reject the proposed ballot title for changing justice-of-the-peace and constable terms from two years to four?

Subject

Sponsor David E. Dinwiddie submitted a proposed initiated constitutional amendment to extend justice of the peace and constable terms from two years to four. AG Griffin rejected the popular name and ballot title because the title referenced a December 31, 2026 effective date the amendment text never mentioned, and instructed the sponsor to redesign. The AG also flagged a Flesch-Kincaid reading level problem and a "township electors" ambiguity.

Plain-English summary

Arkansas requires anyone proposing an initiated constitutional amendment or initiated act to submit the original draft, ballot title, and popular name to the Attorney General for review. The AG has ten business days to do one of three things: certify them as submitted, substitute and certify a more suitable version, or reject them and explain why so the sponsor can redesign.

David Dinwiddie submitted a draft amendment to change the term of office for justices of the peace and constables from two years to four years. His proposed ballot title said the change would apply to "any Justice of the Peace or Constable, sworn in after December 31, 2026." The amendment text itself, however, contained no such date.

That mismatch was the killing problem. The AG cannot fix the inconsistency by amending the text of the measure (the AG has no authority to do that under § 7-9-107), and the AG cannot fix the inconsistency by removing the date from the ballot title because doing so would alter the substance of what the sponsor may have intended. So the AG had to reject and instruct redesign.

The AG also pointed out two additional issues the sponsor should consider:

1. Reading level. Act 602 of 2025 prohibits the AG from certifying a ballot title with a reading level above 8th grade as measured by the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level formula (as it existed on January 1, 2025). Dinwiddie's submitted ballot title scored 18.6 (graduate level), driven largely by being a single long sentence.

2. "Qualified electors of each township." The proposed amendment text revived the phrase "qualified electors of each township" to describe the electorate for justices of the peace. The Arkansas Constitution's Amendment 55 (1974) shifted JP elections from township-based to quorum-court-district-based voting, impliedly repealing the township language in Article 7, Section 38. Bringing the township language back without explanation creates ambiguity about whether the sponsor is trying to revive township-based voting or just leave the existing election structure alone. The AG flagged it as a potential basis for a future court ruling that the ballot title would be misleading.

The opinion also walks through the legal standards the AG applies to popular names and ballot titles generally: popular names exist primarily to identify the proposal for discussion and must not be misleading or partisan; ballot titles must impartially summarize the measure, give voters a fair understanding of the issues, avoid technical terms voters cannot understand, include essential facts that would give voters serious ground for reflection, be brief enough that voters can read them in the time allowed (10 minutes per A.C.A. § 7-5-309(b)(1)(B)), be free from misleading tendencies, and convey an intelligible idea of the scope of change. Importantly, the ballot title can fail not just because of its own wording but because the underlying text of the measure is itself ambiguous.

What this means for you

If you are sponsoring an initiated amendment or act

The most reliable way through AG review is to write the amendment text first and the ballot title second, with no internal inconsistencies. Any operative date, any defined term, any threshold or trigger condition that appears in the ballot title must also appear in the amendment text. The AG has no authority to add to the text to match the title, and removing detail from the title can change what the sponsor intended.

Two procedural points matter. First, since 2025, the ballot title cannot exceed an 8th-grade reading level on Flesch-Kincaid. Run your draft through a Flesch-Kincaid checker before submission. Long single sentences and Latinate vocabulary are the typical culprits. Second, since Act 154 of 2025, the AG can also reject a ballot title that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute, or that comes packaged with conflicting initiatives. Check those before submitting.

If you are an Arkansas voter or good-government advocate

This opinion is a window into how proposed constitutional amendments are screened before they ever circulate for signatures. A rejected popular name and ballot title goes back to the sponsor to fix and resubmit. The opinion is not on the merits of the proposed amendment; it is purely about whether the title accurately describes the measure and complies with statutory standards. You can track which initiatives clear AG review by watching the AG's opinion list.

If you are a constitutional or election lawyer advising sponsors

The AG's framework is laid out in detail here and is reusable across submissions. Two of the substantive grounds for rejection introduced by Act 154 of 2025 (federal-law conflict and conflicting-measures bundling) are relatively new and likely to generate further opinions. The Flesch-Kincaid 8th-grade ceiling created by Act 602 of 2025 is a hard rule the AG reads literally; ballot titles that break it are routinely substituted or rejected.

If you are a county election official

When an initiated amendment makes it onto the ballot, the certified popular name and ballot title are what voters will see. The certification process is the gatekeeping step that ensures voters see something accurate, impartial, and readable. Your office's role begins after certification, when sponsors begin gathering signatures.

Background and statutory framework

A.C.A. § 7-9-107 is the central statute. Under § 7-9-107(a), sponsors of statewide initiated measures must submit the original draft to the AG. Under § 7-9-107(b), the "original draft" includes the full text of the measure, the ballot title, and the popular name. Under § 7-9-107(d)(1), the AG has ten business days to (1) approve and certify the title and name as submitted, (2) substitute and certify a more suitable and correct version, or (3) under § 7-9-107(f), reject and instruct the sponsor to redesign.

Section 7-9-107(f) authorizes rejection when (a) the ballot title or nature of the issue is presented in a way that would be misleading, (b) the title or nature of the issue is designed so that a vote for the measure would actually be a vote for the opposite of what the voter intends, or (c) the text conflicts with the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute (this third basis was added by Act 154 of 2025).

Section 7-9-107(l), enacted by Act 602 of 2025, prohibits the AG from certifying a ballot title with a reading level above 8th grade as measured by the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level formula as it existed on January 1, 2025. Under § 7-9-107(l)(1), an above-grade title fails. Under § 7-9-107(l)(2), the AG can either substitute a compliant title under § 7-9-107(d)(1) or reject the proposed title and instruct redesign.

The popular name. Popular names exist primarily as identification tools. They need not contain detailed information or include exceptions that would be required of a ballot title, but they must not be misleading or partisan. A popular name can be misleading if it references only a subset of the topics covered in the measure's text. The popular name and ballot title are considered together in determining sufficiency.

The ballot title. The ballot title must summarize the proposed amendment. The Arkansas Supreme Court has developed general rules: the title must impartially summarize the amendment's text, give voters a fair understanding of the issues, avoid technical terms that voters do not readily understand (or define them), include essential facts that would give voters serious ground for reflection, be brief and concise so voters can read it within the 10-minute statutory time limit at § 7-5-309(b)(1)(B), be free from any misleading tendency by amplification, omission, or fallacy, avoid partisan coloring, and convey an intelligible idea of the scope and significance of the proposed change. The title need not summarize existing law or address every legal argument the proposal might evoke. A statement that a measure "will repeal inconsistent laws" is enough to inform voters that conflicting laws will be repealed. Describing some changes specifically while describing others generally can render the title misleading.

The text-of-the-measure problem. The Arkansas Supreme Court in Roberts v. Priest held that a ballot title cannot be approved if the text of the proposed amendment itself contributes to confusion and disconnect between the title language and the measure language. Even though the AG cannot modify the measure's text under § 7-9-107, the AG must still review the text because an ambiguous or misleading text means the title cannot be certified.

The Dinwiddie inconsistency. Dinwiddie's submitted ballot title said the change would apply to JPs and constables sworn in after December 31, 2026. The text of the amendment contained no such date. The AG could not add the date to the text (no statutory authority) and could not remove the date from the title (doing so would alter the substantive intent the AG cannot determine). So the AG had to reject and instruct redesign.

The Flesch-Kincaid problem. Dinwiddie's ballot title scored 18.6 (graduate level) under Flesch-Kincaid. Act 602 caps it at 8th grade. The AG noted the issue but did not lean on it as the basis for rejection because the text-title inconsistency was independently sufficient.

The "township electors" problem. The proposed amendment text used the phrase "qualified electors of each township" to describe the electorate for justices of the peace. Amendment 55 to the Arkansas Constitution (Section 2(a)) shifted JP elections from township-based to quorum-court-district-based voting in 1974, impliedly repealing the "township" language in Article 7, Section 38. Bringing "township" language back into a 2026 amendment without explanation creates ambiguity: is the sponsor trying to revive the pre-Amendment 55 township structure, or just leaving the current quorum-court-district structure alone? The AG suggested the sponsor consider limiting the text of the proposed measure to only the language being edited (citing Op. 2015-139 as a model), to avoid this kind of ambiguity.

Common questions

What does the AG do when a sponsor submits a ballot title?

Within 10 business days, the AG must do one of three things under A.C.A. § 7-9-107(d)(1) and (f): certify the title and name as submitted, substitute a more suitable version and certify that, or reject both and instruct redesign with reasons. The AG cannot evaluate the merits of the proposed measure, only the sufficiency of the title and the clarity of the text.

Can the AG fix a problem in the proposed measure's text?

No. The AG can substitute the title and the popular name, but cannot modify the text of the measure itself. If the text is ambiguous in a way that prevents the AG from certifying any title, the only remedy is to reject and instruct redesign.

What is the Flesch-Kincaid 8th-grade rule?

Act 602 of 2025, codified at A.C.A. § 7-9-107(l)(1), prohibits the AG from certifying a ballot title with a reading level above 8th grade as measured by the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level formula as it existed on January 1, 2025. Long sentences, Latinate vocabulary, and stacked clauses tend to raise the score. The AG can substitute a compliant title or reject and instruct redesign.

What was wrong with Dinwiddie's submission?

Three things. First (the rejection ground), the ballot title said the term-length change would apply to officers sworn in after December 31, 2026, but the amendment text contained no such date. Second (flagged but not the basis for rejection), the title was at a 18.6 grade reading level, well above the 8th-grade ceiling. Third (also flagged), the amendment text used "qualified electors of each township" language that was impliedly repealed by Amendment 55, creating ambiguity about whether the sponsor was reviving township-based JP elections.

What is Amendment 55 and why does it matter here?

Amendment 55 to the Arkansas Constitution (1974) restructured county government, including the election of justices of the peace. Section 2(a) of Amendment 55 shifted JP elections from township-based voting (under Article 7, Section 38) to quorum-court-district-based voting. Reintroducing "township" language in a 2026 amendment without explaining whether the sponsor wants to revive the pre-Amendment 55 structure is ambiguous, and the AG warned a court could find the resulting ballot title misleading.

Can a sponsor resubmit after rejection?

Yes. The sponsor can revise the measure text or the title and resubmit. Dinwiddie did so, and AG Griffin certified the revised submission in Opinion 2026-030 (issued April 2, 2026), with substituted popular name and ballot title.

What is the difference between a popular name and a ballot title?

The popular name identifies the proposal for discussion. It need not contain detailed information or include exceptions a ballot title would require. Pafford v. Hall (1950) describes it as "primarily a useful legislative device." The ballot title summarizes the proposed amendment with enough specificity that a voter can understand its scope and significance. The two are considered together in evaluating sufficiency.

What was Act 154 of 2025?

Act 154 added a third ground for AG rejection: the text conflicts with the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute. Act 154 also prohibits a sponsor from submitting multiple initiative or referendum petitions that are "conflicting measures" and requires the AG to reject all such petitions.

Citations

• Arkansas statutes: A.C.A. § 7-9-107 (initiated measure review and certification); § 7-9-107(a) (submission to AG); § 7-9-107(b) (definition of "original draft"); § 7-9-107(d)(1) (three review options); § 7-9-107(d)(2) (concise statement requirement); § 7-9-107(f) (rejection grounds); § 7-9-107(l), (l)(1), (l)(2) (Flesch-Kincaid 8th-grade ceiling); § 7-5-309(b)(1)(B) (10-minute voting time limit).
• Legislation: Act 154 of 2025 (federal-law conflict ground; conflicting-measures bar); Act 602 of 2025 (8th-grade reading-level ceiling).
• Constitutional: Ark. Const. amend. 55, § 2(a) (JP elections from quorum court districts); Ark. Const. art. 7, § 38 (impliedly repealed township-based JP election structure).
• Cases on popular name and ballot title sufficiency: Pafford v. Hall, 217 Ark. 734, 233 S.W.2d 72 (1950); Paschall v. Thurston, 2024 Ark. 155, 699 S.W.3d 352; Kurrus v. Priest, 342 Ark. 434, 29 S.W.3d 699 (2000); Chaney v. Bryant, 259 Ark. 294, 532 S.W.2d 741 (1976); Moore v. Hall, 229 Ark. 411, 316 S.W.2d 207 (1958); May v. Daniels, 359 Ark. 100, 194 S.W.3d 771 (2004); Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. 219, 604 S.W.2d 555 (1980); Wilson v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 334, 500 S.W.3d 160; Cox v. Daniels, 374 Ark. 437, 288 S.W.3d 591 (2008); Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994); Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654, 841 S.W.2d 139 (1992); Shepard v. McDonald, 189 Ark. 29, 70 S.W.2d 566 (1934); Becker v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 482, 798 S.W.2d 71 (1990); Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 241, 884 S.W.2d 605 (1994); Armstrong v. Thurston, 2022 Ark. 167, 652 S.W.3d 167; Richardson v. Martin, 2014 Ark. 429, 444 S.W.3d 855; Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 20 S.W.3d 376 (2000); McGill v. Thurston, 2024 Ark. 149, 699 S.W.3d 45.

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. 2026-022
March 16, 2026
David E. Dinwiddie
8608 Princeton Pike
Pine Bluff, AR 71602
Dear Mr. Dinwiddie:
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.

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
CHANGE THE TERMS OF OFFICE FOR JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, AND CONSTABLES FROM TWO YEARS TO FOUR YEARS

Ballot Title
A Constitutional Amendment changing the Term of Office for Justice of the Peace, and Constable from Two (2) Years to (4) Years, commencing with any Justice of the Peace or Constable, sworn in after December 31, 2026

2. Rules governing my review. Arkansas law requires sponsors of statewide initiated measures to "submit the original draft" of the measure to the Attorney General. An "original draft" includes the full text of the proposed measure along with its ballot title and popular name. Within ten business days of receiving the sponsor's original draft, the Attorney General must respond in one of three ways:

• First, the Attorney General may approve and certify the ballot title and popular name in the form they were submitted.
• Second, the Attorney General may "substitute and certify a more suitable and correct ballot title and popular name."
• Third, the Attorney General may reject both the popular name and ballot title "and state his or her reasons therefor and instruct" the sponsors to "redesign the proposed measure and the ballot title and popular name." This response is permitted when, after reviewing the proposed measure, the Attorney General determines that (1) "the ballot title or the nature of the issue" is "presented in such manner that the ballot title would be misleading"; (2) "the ballot title or nature of the issue" is "designed in such manner" that a vote for or against the issue would actually be a vote for the outcome opposite of what the voter intends; or (3) the text of the proposal conflicts with the United States Constitution or a federal statute. This response is also permitted when a proposed ballot title fails to comply with Act 602 of 2025, which prohibits the Attorney General from certifying "a proposed ballot title with a reading level above eighth grade as determined by the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Formula as it existed on January 1, 2025." If a proposed ballot title is written above an eighth-grade reading level, I am authorized to substitute a "more suitable" ballot title or to reject the proposed ballot title, state the reasons for the rejection, and "instruct the petitioners to redesign the proposed ballot title or proposed measure in a manner that does not violate [Act 602]."

3. Rules governing the popular name. The popular name is primarily a useful legislative device, and its purpose is to identify the proposal for discussion. While it need not contain detailed information or include exceptions that might be required of a ballot title, the popular name must not be misleading or partisan. And it must be considered together with the ballot title in determining the ballot title's sufficiency. Thus, a popular name can be misleading if it references only a subset of the topics covered in the measure's text.

4. Rules governing the ballot title. The ballot title must summarize the proposed amendment. The Arkansas Supreme Court has developed general rules for what must be included in the summary and how that information must be presented. Sponsors must ensure their ballot titles impartially summarize the amendment's text and give voters a fair understanding of the issues presented. The Court has also disapproved the use of terms that are "technical and not readily understood by voters." Ballot titles that do not define such terms may be deemed insufficient. And, as mentioned above, the General Assembly has prohibited ballot titles "with a reading level above eighth grade."

Additionally, sponsors cannot omit material from the ballot title that qualifies as an "essential fact which would give the voter serious ground for reflection." Yet the ballot title must also be brief and concise lest voters exceed the statutory time allowed to mark a ballot. The ballot title is not required to be perfect, nor is it reasonable to expect the title to address every possible legal argument the proposed measure might evoke. The title, however, must be free from any misleading tendency, whether by amplification, omission, or fallacy, and it must not be tinged with partisan coloring. The ballot title must be honest and impartial, and it must convey an intelligible idea of the scope and significance of a proposed change in the law. The ballot title need not summarize existing law though. The court has held that a statement that a measure "will repeal inconsistent laws" is sufficient to inform the voters "that all laws which are in conflict will be repealed." But if a ballot title describes some of a measure's changes with specificity while describing other changes more generally, this can render the ballot title misleading.

Finally, the Court has held that a ballot title cannot be approved if the text of the proposed amendment itself contributes to confusion and disconnect between the language in the popular name and the ballot title and the language in the proposed amendment. Yet a ballot title need not account for all possible legal effects and consequences of a proposed amendment.

5. 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. A problem in the text of your proposed amendment prevents me from (1) ensuring your ballot title is not misleading or (2) substituting a more appropriate ballot title. Specifically, your proposed ballot title states that the change in term lengths will apply to "any Justice of the Peace or Constable, sworn in after December 31, 2026." But the text of your proposed measure contains no reference to this operative date. Because A.C.A. § 7-9-107 does not authorize me to revise or supplement the text of a proposed measure, I cannot add an effective date to the measure's text in order to reconcile it with the ballot title. Although I am authorized to substitute a more suitable ballot title, doing so here would require me to remove the date from the ballot title, thereby altering the substance of what you may intend the measure to accomplish. Because I cannot determine the importance of the December 31, 2026, date to your intended measure, and because I cannot modify the measure's text to include that date, I must return the submission so that you may correct this inconsistency and resubmit a ballot title that accurately reflects the text of your proposed measure.

6. Additional issues. The foregoing defect provides sufficient grounds for me to reject your submission. But please note that your proposed measure contains other issues that, while not bases for my decision to reject your proposed measure, you may wish to correct or clarify:

• Reading level. As explained above, Act 602 prohibits me from certifying ballot titles that are above an eighth-grade reading level under the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level formula. The ballot title you have submitted ranks at grade 18.6, due primarily to its construction as a single, extended sentence. While I am authorized to substitute and certify a revised ballot title that complies with Act 602, you may prefer to draft the new ballot title yourself.

• Use of "township." A potential ambiguity also arises from the proposed amendment's recitation of the phrase, "qualified electors of each township," to describe the electorate for justices of the peace. Amendment 55 to the Arkansas Constitution transferred the election of justices of the peace from township-based voting to elections from quorum court districts, thereby impliedly repealing the "township" language in Article 7, § 38. By reintroducing the "township" language verbatim in your proposed amendment, it is unclear whether you intend to revive the pre-Amendment 55 structure and return these offices to township-based elections or whether you do not intend to alter the current method of election. You may wish to limit the text of your proposed measure only to the text being edited, as you did with the submission that formed the basis for Attorney General Opinion No. 2015-139.

Deputy Attorney General Kelly Summerside prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.

Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General