Will the Arkansas Attorney General certify the proposed Natural Environment Amendment ballot measure for circulation, and what would the proponent need to fix?
Subject
Whether to certify the popular name "The Natural Environment Amendment" and its accompanying ballot title under A.C.A. § 7-9-107. AG Tim Griffin (Assistant AG William R. Olson drafting) rejected the submission and instructed Ms. Standerfer to redesign both. This was the fourth rejection in the cycle, following Opinions 2025-098, 2025-110, and 2025-128.
Plain-English summary
Arkansas requires sponsors of citizen initiatives and constitutional amendments to get the AG's sign-off on the popular name and ballot title before they start collecting signatures. The AG cannot consider the measure's policy merits; the review is purely about whether the popular name and ballot title accurately and clearly tell voters what the measure does, in language that meets statutory requirements (including the Act 602 reading-level cap).
This was Jennifer Waymack Standerfer's fourth attempt at certifying a proposed Natural Environment Amendment. The AG rejected the popular name and ballot title for several reasons:
The ballot title does not accurately summarize the measure's text. The AG can modify a proposed ballot title to make it more accurate, but cannot rewrite it from scratch. Several material provisions of the amendment did not appear in the ballot title or appeared in misleading ways:
- The ballot title used "government" while the text used "governmental entities."
- The ballot title's description of "three things" the government must do "if it makes a law or spends money" did not match the actual three requirements in the text.
- Definitions of "economic enhancement," "law or financial obligation," "public health benefits," "recreational enjoyment," and "unreasonable depletion and degradation" were missing from the ballot title.
- The ballot title said "The legislature cannot amend this amendment," but the actual text said the measure "shall not be amended or repealed by two-thirds vote of the General Assembly." Those are different statements; the text leaves room for legislative amendment by some other vote threshold or process.
- The definition of "natural environment" (living and non-living things occurring naturally without significant human alteration, including natural resources, ecosystems, wildlife, plant-life, and native species) was absent from the ballot title.
- The detailed appeal pathway through the Land Commissioner and circuit court (with notice, hearings, evidence, decision deadlines) was reduced to "The Commissioner of State Lands will resolve disputes within government" and "Arkansans may appeal to the Commissioner or the courts."
- The nonretroactivity clause was simplified in a way that lost important conditions (the text says the 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 amended after the effective date).
The Act 602 reading-level cap is binding. Even if the AG modified the ballot title to accurately summarize the text, the resulting title would exceed the Act 602 reading-level cap (Flesch-Kincaid eighth-grade limit). The current title meets eighth grade, but a faithful summary of this measure's content would not. That alone is a procedural roadblock.
The enforcement and appeal mechanisms in the measure are unclear. The text lets a "governmental entity" or an "Arkansas resident" appeal to the Commissioner of State Lands, but only an "Arkansas resident" can appeal further to circuit court. The text leaves uncertain whether a governmental entity is barred from appealing a Commissioner decision to circuit court. The Commissioner's authority to "approve, deny, or require modification" of rules, contracts, and expenditures is not clearly cabined against the constitutional powers of the executive and legislative branches.
Additional substantive problems were flagged for the proponent's awareness, even though they were not the basis for rejection:
- The Commissioner's authority over governmental contracts could trigger U.S. Constitution Article 1, § 10 Contracts Clause issues. The opinion walked through the five-factor test from General Motors v. Romein, Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light, and U.S. Trust Co. v. New Jersey, suggesting that contract-impairment challenges would give voters "ground for serious reflection."
- The retroactivity clause is incomplete. It addresses "legislation enacted, procurement or purchasing completed, or construction completed" before effectiveness, but other governmental contracts may not fit those categories. Whether the measure applies retroactively to those is unclear from the text.
- Section 2's "null and void" language repeals "all provisions of the Constitution, statutes, and common law" inconsistent with the amendment, but does not expressly cover rules and regulations, even though the ballot title says "all inconsistent state laws" would be repealed.
The AG instructed the proponent to redesign both the popular name and the ballot title before resubmitting.
What this means for you
If you are sponsoring or considering a ballot initiative in Arkansas
Read this opinion as a checklist of common rejection grounds. The AG's review is mechanical and detailed. Key takeaways: (1) Your ballot title has to pull every material provision from the text; missing or simplified provisions will get flagged. (2) Definitions in the measure's text need to be summarized in the ballot title or you will be rejected for omitting them. (3) Act 602's reading-level cap is binding. If your measure is complex enough that an accurate summary exceeds eighth-grade reading level, the AG cannot certify it; you have to simplify the underlying measure, not the summary. (4) Internal inconsistencies between the text and the ballot title (different terms, different scope, different consequences) are fatal.
If you are a signature collector or volunteer for an environmental amendment in Arkansas
Without a certified popular name and ballot title, you cannot lawfully circulate petitions for signatures. This opinion blocks the Natural Environment Amendment from moving forward in its current form. Wait for a certified version before collecting signatures, or your collection effort risks being invalid.
If you are an Arkansas voter
You will not see "The Natural Environment Amendment" on the ballot under the version reviewed in this opinion. The proponent has been rejected four times in the cycle. Whether a future revised version makes it through certification, signature collection, and onto the ballot will depend on whether the proponent and the AG's office can agree on a popular name and ballot title that are accurate, complete, and within the Act 602 reading-level cap.
If you cover Arkansas ballot initiatives
This opinion is one of the more detailed rejection letters in the public record. It walks through specific defects (omitted definitions, mismatched amendment-process language, incomplete retroactivity clause, ambiguous enforcement) that are useful as a benchmark for evaluating other ballot measures' filings. The Act 602 reading-level constraint, in particular, is a practical limit on how complex a constitutional amendment can be in Arkansas.
If you draft constitutional amendment language
Be aware of how the Arkansas process works before drafting. The text can be as detailed and technical as you want, but the ballot title has to summarize it accurately and the summary has to fit eighth-grade reading level. That is a tight constraint. If your underlying text has too many definitions, too many enforcement layers, or too many cross-references to be summarized at eighth grade, you have a structural problem that no amount of redrafting at the ballot-title level will fix.
Background and statutory framework
The Arkansas certification process for popular names and ballot titles runs through A.C.A. § 7-9-107. Before a proponent can collect signatures for a citizen initiative or constitutional amendment, the AG must certify that the popular name and ballot title fairly inform voters of the measure's text.
The statutory standard the AG applies includes: (a) accurate summary of the measure's substantive provisions; (b) no material omissions that would mislead voters; (c) compliance with Act 602's Flesch-Kincaid reading-level requirement (eighth-grade level); (d) language that does not give voters serious ground for reflection that is left unexplained.
The AG's reviewing authority is "modify, not author." The AG can edit a proposed ballot title to make it more accurate but cannot create a new one. If accurate modification would still leave a noncompliant title, the AG must reject and direct the proponent to redesign.
The AG's authority does not extend to evaluating the measure's policy merits. Whether the Natural Environment Amendment is good policy or bad is not the AG's question. Whether the popular name and ballot title fairly inform voters is.
This rejection followed three earlier rejections in Opinions 2025-098, 2025-110, and 2025-128. The opinion incorporates the prior opinions' explanations of governing rules and standards by reference. By the fourth rejection, the proponent had narrowed some issues but introduced or left unresolved others.
The Contracts Clause analysis the opinion flags is a nod to substantive constitutional concerns. The U.S. Supreme Court applies a multi-factor test (drawn from Romein, Energy Reserves Group, and U.S. Trust Co.) when evaluating whether a state law impairs an existing contract: existing contractual relationship, impairment, substantial impairment, significant and legitimate public purpose, and reasonable conditions appropriate to the purpose. The AG flagged Contracts Clause concerns because the measure would let the Commissioner of State Lands "approve, deny, or require modification" of governmental contracts, which could implicate existing contractual obligations.
Act 154 of 2025 is referenced as a state-law limit that a court "could find" the measure violates as applied to governmental contracts. The opinion's footnote does not detail Act 154's content, but flags it as additional substantive review the proponent should consider.
Common questions
What does the AG actually review?
Whether the popular name and ballot title accurately and clearly summarize the measure's text in language voters can understand at eighth-grade reading level. The AG cannot consider whether the measure is good policy or whether it is constitutional in substance. (Substantive constitutional concerns can be flagged but are not grounds for rejection on their own.)
Why was this version rejected?
Several reasons. The ballot title omitted material provisions (definitions, the Commissioner's authority detail, the appeal mechanism). It misstated other provisions (the legislative-amendment language, the "three things" framing, the nonretroactivity scope). And even if rewritten to be accurate, the result would exceed the Act 602 reading-level cap.
Can the proponent fix this?
Maybe. The proponent has been rejected four times in this cycle, which suggests the underlying measure may be too complex to summarize accurately at eighth-grade reading level. The proponent's options are to simplify the underlying measure (cut definitions, narrow the Commissioner's authority, simplify the appeal pathway) or to find a way to summarize at eighth-grade level that is still accurate. The fourth rejection signals the second path may not be feasible without the first.
What is the Act 602 reading-level rule?
Arkansas Act 602 requires ballot titles for citizen-initiated measures to score at the Flesch-Kincaid eighth-grade reading level or below. This is a procedural prerequisite for certification. The AG's office checks the math.
What does "serious ground for reflection" mean?
A legal term of art in Arkansas ballot title review. If a measure has provisions that voters would find significant enough to reflect on before deciding how to vote, those provisions need to appear in the ballot title in a clear and accurate way. If they don't appear or appear misleadingly, the title is misleading by omission and cannot be certified.
What is the Contracts Clause concern about?
The U.S. Constitution's Contracts Clause (Article 1, § 10) prohibits states from passing laws that impair the obligation of contracts. The Supreme Court applies a five-factor test. The AG flagged that the Commissioner of State Lands' authority to modify governmental contracts under the proposed amendment could trigger Contracts Clause challenges. This was flagged as a substantive issue the proponent should address, not as a basis for rejection.
What was rejected before this opinion?
Opinions 2025-098, 2025-110, and 2025-128 rejected earlier versions of the same proposal. The opinions catalogued specific defects each time. This 2026-034 opinion incorporates the earlier rules and standards by reference.
Can the proponent appeal the AG's rejection?
The opinion does not discuss appeal procedures. Under A.C.A. § 7-9-107, AG rejection is generally followed by either redesign and resubmission or a court challenge. Most proponents redesign and resubmit. Direct judicial review of an AG ballot-title certification decision is a separate route.
Citations
The opinion's central authorities, drawn directly from its text:
- Arkansas certification statute: A.C.A. § 7-9-107.
- Reading-level statute: Act 602 (Flesch-Kincaid eighth-grade reading level for ballot titles).
- Substantive concern flagged: Act 154 of 2025.
- Federal Constitution: U.S. Const. Art. 1, § 10 (Contracts Clause).
- Contracts Clause cases: Gen. Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503 U.S. 181 (1992) (existing contractual relationship, impairment, substantial impairment); Energy Reserves Grp., Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. 400 (1983) (significant and legitimate public purpose); U.S. Tr. Co. of New York v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 (1977) (reasonable conditions appropriate to public purpose).
- Prior AG opinions in the same review chain: Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2025-128, 2025-110, 2025-098 (earlier rejections of the same proposal); Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2024-031, 2023-098, 2018-112, 2013-112 (modify-not-author standard).
Source
Original opinion text
BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
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.
- 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 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.
-
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.
-
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." 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 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.
- 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 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) the change in the law impairs that relationship; (3) the impairment is substantial; (4) the State has a "significant and legitimate public purpose behind the regulation"; 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." 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.
(Footnote: Gen. Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503 U.S. 181, 186 (1992).)
(Footnote: Energy Rsrvs. Grp., Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. 400, 411-12 (1983).)
(Footnote: U.S. Tr. Co. of New York v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1, 22 (1977).)
(Footnote: See, e.g., Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2024-031, 2023-098, 2018-112, 2013-112.)
Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General