Will the Arkansas Attorney General certify the proposed Natural Environment Amendment ballot measure for circulation, and what would the proponent need to fix?

Subject

Why the Arkansas AG rejected the proposed popular name and ballot title for the Natural Environment Amendment and directed the sponsor to redesign them.

Plain-English summary

The AG had rejected three earlier versions of this proposal in Opinions 2025-098, 2025-110 and 2025-128. He again rejected the popular name and ballot title. He said the submitted ballot title was misleading because it omitted or misstated provisions of the amendment that could give voters serious ground for reflection. His examples included the different words “government” and “governmental entities,” the title's inaccurate summary of three requirements, missing definitions, a mismatch between the title's claim that the legislature cannot amend the measure and the text's two-thirds-vote wording, abbreviated descriptions of appeals, and an incomplete account of the nonretroactivity clause.

The submitted ballot title itself scored at an eighth-grade reading level under the Flesch-Kincaid formula. The AG said that a substitute title adequately summarizing the measure would far exceed that level and would not comply with Act 602. That is a problem with producing an accurate compliant substitute, not a finding that the submitted title failed the reading-level test.

The AG identified separate ambiguities in the measure's enforcement and appeal provisions. The text allows both governmental entities and residents to ask the Commissioner of State Lands to review certain actions, but expressly allows only residents to appeal specified decisions to circuit court. It does not make clear whether governmental entities lack a court appeal. The measure also does not clearly explain how the Commissioner's power to approve, deny or require changes to rules, contracts and expenditures relates to the executive and legislative branches' constitutional powers. The AG said these uncertainties prevent him from ensuring a substituted title would not mislead voters.

He listed further issues for the sponsor to consider, apart from the grounds for rejection: possible Contracts Clause concerns, uncertainty about how the nonretroactivity clause treats some preexisting governmental contracts, and a mismatch between the text's list of laws declared null and void and the title's reference to “all inconsistent state laws.” He did not decide whether the proposal violates the Contracts Clause or Act 154 of 2025.

What this means for you

Proposal sponsor

The AG returned this submission for redesign because he could not certify the proposed wording or supply a nonmisleading substitute. The current title meets the grade limit, but the AG concluded an adequately detailed substitute would exceed it. The opinion identifies the specific omissions and ambiguities in the text for the sponsor to address.

Voters and ballot researchers

The opinion evaluates the proposed popular name and ballot title, not the policy merits of the amendment. The submitted title leaves out details of the Commissioner's authority, appeals and retroactivity that the AG said could matter to a voter's decision. This version was rejected; the opinion does not decide what a future submission might contain.

Common questions

Q: Did the submitted ballot title exceed the eighth-grade limit? A: No. The AG said it was at an eighth-grade reading level. He said a title rewritten to summarize the measure adequately would far exceed the limit.

Q: What made the title misleading?
A: The AG identified omitted definitions and appeal details, an inaccurate description of the measure's three requirements, different wording about legislative amendment, and an incomplete account of retroactivity, among other examples.

Q: Did the AG decide that the proposal violates the Constitution? A: No. He identified a possible Contracts Clause issue in the additional-issues section and said a violation would depend on facts. The stated grounds for rejection were the deficient title and unclear enforcement and appeal provisions.

Background and statutory framework

Under A.C.A. § 7-9-107, the AG reviews submitted popular names and ballot titles. The opinion states that the AG may modify a proposed title to make it more accurate but may not create an independent product. Act 602 requires a ballot title at no more than an eighth-grade reading level under the Flesch-Kincaid formula. The opinion applies both constraints: the submitted title failed to summarize material parts of the amendment, while a sufficiently detailed substitute would exceed the reading-level limit.

Citations and references

• Arkansas authorities: A.C.A. § 7-9-107; Act 602; Act 154 of 2025.
• Federal constitutional provision: U.S. Const. Art. 1, § 10.
• Cases cited for the Contracts Clause discussion: Gen. Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503 U.S. 181 (1992); Energy Rsrvs. Grp., Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. 400 (1983); U.S. Tr. Co. of New York v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 (1977).

Source

• Official opinion search: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

TIM GRIFFIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 2026-034

April 7, 2026

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. 2025-128, 2025-110, and 2025-098, 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 affirms the people’s will to
   protect “The Natural State” for Arkansans today and in the future. It affirms the
   people’s will 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 must maintain and improve a clean
   and healthy environment. If government makes a law or spends money, it must do
   three things. First, it must protect resources from elimination and for use. Second,
   it must preserve Arkansas’s natural environment for future Arkansans to enjoy for
   pleasure, prosperity, and health. Third, it must allow today’s Arkansans to use the
   natural environment for those same purposes. The “government” does not include
   the courts. The measure defines “natural environment”. The Commissioner of State
   BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
   101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
   LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
   Ms. Jennifer Waymack Standerfer
   Opinion No. 2026-034
   Page 2

      Lands will resolve disputes within government. Arkansans may appeal to the
      Commissioner or the courts. The measure is not retroactive. The measure can only
      be amended by vote of the people. The legislature cannot amend this amendment.
      This measure repeals all inconsistent state laws. This amendment is severable. If
      part of it is held invalid, the rest remains valid if it can stand on its own.
   

2. Rules governing my review. In Opinion Nos. 2025-128, 2025-110, and 2025-098, issued in
   response to your prior 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. Having reviewed the text of your proposed initiated amendment, as well as your
   proposed popular name and ballot title, I have concluded that, for reasons explained below, I must reject your proposed popular name and ballot title and instruct you to redesign them.

   • Insufficient summaries. The proposed ballot title is misleading because it does not
   summarize the measure’s text in a way that complies with the law. As my predecessors and
   I have consistently noted, although the Attorney General is authorized to “modify a
   proposed ballot title to render it a more accurate summary” of the underlying measure, the
   Attorney General is “not authorized to craft a ballot title that amounts to an independent
   product.”1 For example, your proposed constitutional amendment contains material
   provisions that do not appear in your ballot title, and 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 “governmental entities,” while the ballot title uses the broader
            term, “government”;
   
          o The “three things” that must happen if “the government makes a law or spends
            money” are not an accurate summary of the three requirements contained in the
            measure’s text;
   
          o The definitions of “economic enhancement,” “law or financial obligation,” “public
            health benefits,” “recreational enjoyment,” and “unreasonable depletion and
            degradation”;
   
          o The ballot title states that “The legislature cannot amend this amendment,” when
            the measure’s text provides that the measure “shall not be amended or repealed by
            two-thirds vote of the General Assembly”;
   
          o The definition of “natural environment” as “living and non-living things that occur
            naturally, without human creation or significant human alteration,” including
   

1
See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2024-031, 2023-098, 2018-112, 2013-112.
Ms. Jennifer Waymack Standerfer
Opinion No. 2026-034
Page 3

without limitation, “natural resources, ecosystems, wildlife, plant-life, and native species”;
o The provisions to appeal to the Land Commissioner and to circuit court—which may include notice, hearings, evidence, and the approval, denial, or modification of the rule, contract, or expenditure, and require decisions to be made within certain timeframes—while the ballot title says, “The Commissioner of State Lands will resolve disputes within government” and “Arkansans may appeal to the Commissioner or the courts”; 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.”

Even if I were to modify the ballot title to adequately summarize the measure’s text, the ballot title must still comply with Act 602. While the ballot title is currently at an eighth- grade reading level under the Flesch-Kincaid Level formula, a substitution and certification that adequately summarizes the measure’s text would far exceed that reading level and does not comply with Act 602.

• Unclear enforcement and appeal provisions. Although both a “governmental entity” and an “Arkansas resident” may appeal “any rule, contract, or expenditure alleged to violate this Amendment by filing a written request for review with the Commissioner of State Lands,” only an “Arkansas resident may appeal” an “act, ordinance, executive order, appropriation, or decision of the Commissioner of State Lands” to circuit court. The text does not clearly indicate whether a governmental entity is prohibited from appealing a decision of the Commissioner of State Lands to circuit court, creating uncertainty regarding the scope of available judicial review.

Additionally, the measure authorizes the Commissioner of State Lands to “[a]pprove, deny, or require modification of the rule, contract, or expenditure.” The measure does not clearly explain how this authority operates in relation to the constitutional powers of the Executive Branch or Legislative Branch, including whether the Commissioner may compel either branch to modify or abandon actions otherwise within its constitutional authority. These unresolved ambiguities would give voters “serious ground for reflection,” and they prevent 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 other issues that you may wish to correct or clarify.

• Constitutional concerns. As noted above, the measure’s text contains a legal appeal
process by which the Commissioner of State Lands may “[a]pprove, deny, or require
Ms. Jennifer Waymack Standerfer
Opinion No. 2026-034
Page 4

          modification of [a] rule, contract, or expenditure.” Under U.S. Const. Art. 1, § 10, “No
          State shall ... pass any ... law impairing the Obligation of Contracts[.]” While courts have
          not interpreted such constitutional language as an absolute prohibition, they apply a
          multi-part test that includes asking whether (1) there is an existing contractual
          relationship;2 (2) the change in the law impairs that relationship;3 (3) the impairment is
          substantial;4 (4) the State has a “significant and legitimate public purpose behind the
          regulation”;5 and (5) the adjustment of “the rights and responsibilities of contracting parties
          [is based] upon reasonable conditions and [is] of a character appropriate to the public
          purpose justifying its adoption.”6 Although whether a law as applied to a particular contract
          violates the Constitution is a highly factual question, the question of whether the proposed
          measure’s text as applied to governmental contracts violates the Constitution likely would
          give voters “ground for serious reflection.” Without additional facts, it is unclear whether
          the proposed measure violates Act 154 of 2025, but a court could find that it does.

      •   Retroactivity. The measure’s text applies to contracts entered into by “governmental
          entities” except the judicial branch. But the nonretroactivity clause in the measure’s text
          only mentions “legislation enacted, procurement or purchasing completed, or construction
          completed before this amendment becomes effective,” and there are types of governmental
          contracts that do not fall under one of those categories. Is the measure retroactive—altering
          the past legal consequences of a past action—as to previously entered governmental
          contracts that don’t fit under the text’s nonretroactivity clause? The answer to this question
          likely would give voters “ground for serious reflection.”

      •   Inconsistent provisions. Section 2 of the proposed measure 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 Opinion Nos. 2025-110 and 2025-128, 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.

2
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503 U.S. 181, 186 (1992).
3
Id.
4
Id.
5
Energy Rsrvs. Grp., Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. 400, 411–12 (1983).
6
U.S. Tr. Co. of New York v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1, 22 (1977).
Ms. Jennifer Waymack Standerfer
Opinion No. 2026-034
Page 5

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

Sincerely,

TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General