How do you get a citizen initiative on the Arkansas ballot, and why does the AG reject proposed ballot titles?

Plain-English summary

Before a citizen group can gather signatures to put a proposed law on the Arkansas ballot, it has to send the Attorney General an "original draft" with three parts: the full text of the measure, a ballot title, and a popular name. The AG then either certifies them, substitutes better wording, or rejects them with reasons. Attorney General Tim Griffin stressed at the outset that this review has nothing to do with whether he agrees with the idea; he is not allowed to weigh the measure's merits.

David Dinwiddie submitted a proposed initiated act with the popular name "Medical Marijuana Patient Employment Protection Act," meant to protect medical marijuana cardholders from being fired or refused employment over marijuana in a drug test. The AG rejected the submission. The single dispositive reason: it included no ballot title at all, which by itself requires rejection. He also flagged deeper problems in the text that would block certification even with a ballot title:

• No enacting clause. The Arkansas Constitution requires every initiated act to contain "Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Arkansas." Without it, a court would declare the measure legally insufficient.
• Conflicts with Amendment 98. The proposal would protect a cardholder from any adverse action over marijuana "detected in drug testing" regardless of the job. Amendment 98 (the state's medical marijuana amendment) is narrower: it allows employers to act on safety-sensitive positions and does not shield use that would be negligence, professional malpractice, or driving under the influence. A proposal that is more permissive than the constitution it sits under would be unconstitutional.
• Undefined and ambiguous terms. Words like "marijuana," "patient," "drug testing," "personal interviews," and "certain fields listed" were left undefined or unclear, so the AG could not be sure any ballot title would fairly and accurately describe the measure.

The AG returned the submission and invited a corrected resubmission, listing additional issues (a misleading popular name, unaddressed interactions with federal employment law, and grammatical problems) for the sponsor to consider.

What this means for you

People trying to put a measure on the Arkansas ballot

The opinion is a practical checklist of what the office requires before a petition can circulate. Based on this opinion, a sponsor must submit all three parts (full text, ballot title, popular name) under A.C.A. § 7-9-107; a missing ballot title is an automatic rejection. The text must carry the constitutional enacting clause, must not be more permissive than a controlling constitutional amendment, and must define its key terms so the ballot title can honestly summarize it. The opinion also notes the newer statutory limits: Act 602 of 2025 bars certifying a ballot title written above an eighth-grade reading level, and Act 154 of 2025 lets the AG reject a measure whose text conflicts with the U.S. Constitution or federal law.

Medical marijuana cardholders and employers

The opinion does not change anyone's rights. It explains, in the course of the constitutional analysis, that Amendment 98 already lets employers treat safety-sensitive positions differently and does not protect on-the-job impairment. A ballot measure trying to expand cardholder job protections beyond Amendment 98 could not be certified in this form.

Voters

The opinion shows the gatekeeping function behind ballot titles: they exist so a voter reading the ballot gets a fair, impartial, and intelligible summary of what a "yes" or "no" vote does. The AG rejected this one partly because ambiguous text made an honest summary impossible.

Common questions

Q: Does the AG's rejection mean he opposes protecting medical marijuana users at work?
A: No. The opinion states the certification decision "is unrelated to my view of the proposed measure's merits" and that the AG is not authorized to consider the merits.

Q: Why was the proposal rejected?
A: The dispositive reason was that it contained no ballot title, which the opinion says is a sufficient reason to reject. The AG also identified a missing enacting clause, a conflict with Amendment 98, and several undefined terms.

Q: What are the three parts a ballot initiative sponsor must submit?
A: Under A.C.A. § 7-9-107, the "original draft" must include the full text of the proposed measure, its ballot title, and its popular name.

Q: What is an "enacting clause"?
A: For a statewide initiated act, the Arkansas Constitution requires the text to include "Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Arkansas." The opinion says a measure lacking it would be declared legally insufficient.

Q: Can the sponsor try again?
A: Yes. The opinion returns the submission and instructs the sponsor to resubmit with all required items, and it lists the problems to fix first.

Background and statutory framework

Arkansas's initiative and referendum process runs through A.C.A. § 7-9-107. A sponsor must submit the "original draft" before circulating a petition, and within ten business days the AG must approve and certify, substitute more suitable wording, or reject with reasons and instructions to redesign. Rejection is proper when the ballot title would be misleading, when a "yes" vote would produce the opposite of what a voter intends, when the measure conflicts with the U.S. Constitution or federal law (a basis added by Act 154 of 2025), or when a ballot title violates the eighth-grade reading-level limit set by Act 602 of 2025.

The opinion draws on a long line of Arkansas Supreme Court ballot-title cases. The popular name is a "useful legislative device" to identify the measure for discussion (Pafford v. Hall, 217 Ark. 734, 233 S.W.2d 72 (1950)), but it cannot be misleading or partisan and must be read together with the ballot title (Paschall v. Thurston, 2024 Ark. 155, 699 S.W.3d 352). A ballot title must impartially summarize the measure and give voters a fair understanding (Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. 219, 604 S.W.2d 555 (1980)), must not omit any "essential fact which would give the voter serious ground for reflection" (Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994)), must avoid technical terms voters would not readily understand (Wilson v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 334, 500 S.W.3d 160), and cannot be certified when the measure's own text creates the confusion (Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 20 S.W.3d 376 (2000)). The enacting-clause requirement comes from Ark. Const., art. 5, § 1, and the medical marijuana framework from Ark. Const., amend. 98.

Citations and references

Statutes and constitutional provisions:
- A.C.A. § 7-9-107 (submission, review, and certification of initiated measures)
- Act 602 of 2025 (eighth-grade reading-level limit for ballot titles)
- Act 154 of 2025 (rejection for conflict with U.S. Constitution or federal law; conflicting-measures rule)
- A.C.A. § 7-5-309(b)(1)(B) (time allowed to mark a ballot)
- Ark. Const., art. 5, § 1 (Amendment 7; initiative and referendum; enacting clause)
- Ark. Const., amend. 98 (Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment)
- Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (federal law noted as affected)

Cases:
- 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)
- Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. 219, 604 S.W.2d 555 (1980)
- Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994)
- Wilson v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 334, 500 S.W.3d 160
- Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 20 S.W.3d 376 (2000)
- Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 241, 884 S.W.2d 605 (1994)

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. 2026-047
June 2, 2026
David E. Dinwiddie
8608 Princeton Pike
Pine Bluff, Arkansas 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 initiated act.
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 for
a proposed initiated act, without submitting a ballot title:
Popular Name
Medical Marijuana Patient Employment Protection Act
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.1 An “original draft” includes
the full text of the proposed measure along with its ballot title and popular name.2 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.3
1 A.C.A. § 7-9-107(a)(1).
2
Id. § 7-9-107(b).
3
Id. § 7-9-107(d)(1).

Mr. David E. Dinwiddie
Opinion No. 2026-047
Page 2
• Second, the Attorney General may “substitute and certify a more suitable and correct ballot
title and popular name.”4
• 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.”5 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.6 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.”7
If a proposed ballot title is written
above an eighth-grade reading level, I am authorized to substitute a “more suitable”8
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].”9
3. Rules governing the popular name. The popular name is primarily a useful legislative
device,10 and its purpose is to identify the proposal for discussion.11 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.12 And it must be considered together with the ballot title in
4
Id.
5
Id. § 7-9-107(f).
6
Id. Act 154 of 2025 created this third basis for rejection. It also prohibits a sponsor from submitting multiple initiative
petitions or referendum petitions that are “conflicting measures,” and it requires the Attorney General to reject all such
petitions.
7 Act 602 of 2025, § 2, as codified at A.C.A. § 7-9-107(l)(1).
8 A.C.A. § 7-9-107(d)(1).
9
Id. § 7-9-107(l)(2).
10 Pafford v. Hall, 217 Ark. 734, 739, 233 S.W.2d 72, 75 (1950).
11 Paschall v. Thurston, 2024 Ark. 155, at 10, 699 S.W.3d 352, 359 (citing Kurrus v. Priest, 342 Ark. 434, 29 S.W.3d
699 (2000)).
12 E.g., Chaney v. Bryant, 259 Ark. 294, 297, 532 S.W.2d 741, 743 (1976); Moore v. Hall, 229 Ark. 411, 414–15, 316
S.W.2d 207, 208–09 (1958).

Mr. David E. Dinwiddie
Opinion No. 2026-047
Page 3
determining the ballot title’s sufficiency.13 Thus, a popular name can be misleading if it references
only a subset of the topics covered in the measure’s text.14
4. Rules governing the ballot title. The ballot title must summarize the proposed initiated act.
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 proposed initiative act’s text and give voters a fair understanding of the
issues presented.15 The Court has also disapproved the use of terms that are “technical and not
readily understood by voters.”16 Ballot titles that do not define such terms may be deemed
insufficient.17 And, as mentioned above, the General Assembly has prohibited ballot titles “with a
reading level above eighth grade.”18
Additionally, sponsors cannot omit material from the ballot title that qualifies as an “essential fact
which would give the voter serious ground for reflection.”19 Yet the ballot title must also be brief
and concise lest voters exceed the statutory time allowed to mark a ballot.20 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.21 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.22 The ballot title must be honest and impartial,23 and it must convey an
intelligible idea of the scope and significance of a proposed change in the law.24 The ballot title
13 May v. Daniels, 359 Ark. 100, 105, 194 S.W.3d 771, 776 (2004).
14 Paschall, 2024 Ark. 155, at 13–16, 699 S.W.3d at 361–63.
15 Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. 219, 226, 604 S.W.2d 555, 558 (1980).
16 Wilson v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 334, *9, 500 S.W.3d 160, 167 (citing Cox v. Daniels, 374 Ark. 437, 288 S.W.3d 591
(2008)).
17 Id.
18 Act 602 of 2025, § 2, as codified at A.C.A. § 7-9-107(l).
19 Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 285, 884 S.W.2d 938, 942 (1994).
20 A.C.A. §§ 7-9-107(d)(2) (requiring the ballot title “submitted” to the Attorney General or “supplied by the Attorney
General” to “briefly and concisely state the purpose the proposed measure”); 7-5-309(b)(1)(B) (allowing no more than
ten minutes); see Bailey, 318 Ark. at 288, 884 S.W.2d at 944 (noting the connection between the measure’s length and
the time limit in the voting booth).
21 Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654, 658, 841 S.W.2d 139, 141 (1992).
22 Bailey, 318 Ark. at 284, 884 S.W.2d at 942 (internal citations omitted); see also Shepard v. McDonald, 189 Ark.
29, 70 S.W.2d 566 (1934).
23 Becker v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 482, 489, 798 S.W.2d 71, 74 (1990).
24 Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 241, 250, 884 S.W.2d 605, 610 (1994).

Mr. David E. Dinwiddie
Opinion No. 2026-047
Page 4
need not summarize existing law though.25 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.”26 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.27
Finally, the Court has held that a ballot title cannot be approved if the text of the proposed measure
itself contributes to confusion and disconnect between the language in the popular name and the
ballot title and the language in the proposed measure.
28 Yet a ballot title need not account for all
possible legal effects and consequences of a proposed measure.
29
5. Application. Having reviewed the text of your proposed initiated act, as well as your proposed
popular name, I have concluded that I must reject your proposal.
Your submission does not include a “ballot title.” Before a petition can be circulated for signatures,
the sponsor must first submit an “original draft” of the proposed petition to the Attorney General.30
This “original draft” must include each of the following:31
• The full text of the proposed measure;32
• The ballot title of the proposed measure;33 and
• The popular name of the proposed measure.34
Thus, the absence of a ballot title from your submission is a sufficient reason to reject your proposal
and return it so that you may resubmit with all the required items.
25 Armstrong v. Thurston, 2022 Ark. 167, 10, 652 S.W.3d 167, 175.
26 Richardson v. Martin, 2014 Ark. 429, 9, 444 S.W.3d 855, 861.
27 See Paschall, 2024 Ark. 155, at 16, 699 S.W.3d at 363.
28 Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 825, 20 S.W.3d 376, 382 (2000).
29 McGill v. Thurston, 2024 Ark. 149, at 14–15, 699 S.W.3d 45, 55.
30 A.C.A. § 7-9-107(a) (“Before any initiative petition or referendum petition ordering a vote upon any amendment or
act shall be circulated for obtaining signatures of petitioners, the sponsors shall submit the original draft with the
Attorney General.”).
31 Id. § 7-9-107(b).
32 Id. § 7-9-107(b)(1).
33 Id. § 7-9-107(b)(2).
34 Id. § 7-9-107(b)(3).

Mr. David E. Dinwiddie
Opinion No. 2026-047
Page 5
Additionally—in case you would like to resubmit your proposal—the following problems in the
text of your proposed initiated act prevent me from (1) ensuring that any ballot title would not be
misleading or (2) substituting a more appropriate ballot title:35
• No enacting clause. Our state constitution requires that the following language be included
in the text of all statewide initiated acts: “Be It Enacted by the People of the State of
Arkansas.”36 Because your text concerns a proposed initiated statutory act—not a
constitutional amendment—and lacks this enacting clause, a court would declare it legally
insufficient.
• Unconstitutional. Some portions of your proposed measure would be clearly
unconstitutional if enacted because they would expressly conflict with Amendment 98. As
the Arkansas Supreme Court and several of my predecessors have noted, when a proposal
is clearly unconstitutional, its sponsors are not entitled to invoke the legislative process at
all.37 Your proposed measure’s text is more permissive than Amendment 98 when it
protects someone with a “valid Arkansas Medical Marijuana Identification Card” from
being “disqualified or dismissed from employment” if “Marijuana [is] detected in drug
testing.” Amendment 98 does not go that far and excludes qualifying patients from being
employed in or performing a safety-sensitive position based on the employer’s good faith
belief that the qualifying patient is engaged in the current use of marijuana. Further,
Amendment 98 does not permit a person to undertake any task under the influence of
marijuana when doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice. It also
prohibits a person from possessing, smoking, or otherwise engaging in the medical use of
marijuana when on the grounds of a daycare center, preschool, primary or secondary
school, college, or university; on public transportation; in a public place; or while operating
a motor vehicle, aircraft, or any vehicle drawn by power other than muscle power while
under the influence of marijuana.38 An act that protects someone from the results of drug
testing regardless of the job or circumstances would be unconstitutional.
• Full text. Under subdivision (b)(3) of your proposed measure, it appears you are attempting
to incorporate one state statute into another by reference, using only the statute’s citation.
35 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 [measure] itself” is ambiguous or misleading. Roberts, 341 Ark. at
825, 20 S.W.3d at 382. 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, 2001-397,
2001-129, 2001-074, 2000-084, 99-430.
36 Ark. Const., art. 5, § 1 (“Enacting Clause”); see Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2023-098, 2023-103, 2016-017.
37 E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2023-116, 2013-128, 2013-113, 2011-163. Of course, unconstitutional language
appearing in only the popular name or ballot title can be substituted with “more suitable” language.
38 Ark. Const., amend. 98, § 6.

Mr. David E. Dinwiddie
Opinion No. 2026-047
Page 6
A court could find that this violates the full-text requirement and renders the measure
misleading by omission. A voter reviewing your ballot title may not be sufficiently advised
about the content of the statute you are attempting to incorporate. Amendment 7 (Ark.
Const., art. 5, § 1) to our state constitution requires that the “full text” of the initiated
measure accompany each petition. Consequently, under A.C.A. § 7-1-107, all sponsors
must provide the Attorney General with “[t]he full text of the proposed measure.” Because
your proposed measure expressly incorporates another statute by reference, a court could
conclude that voters reviewing the ballot title are not sufficiently informed of its content
and that the absence of the full text renders the ballot title misleading by omission.
• Card titles. The text of your proposed initiated act uses the phrases “Arkansas Medical
Marijuana Card” and “Medical Marijuana Identification Card” without defining either
term. But Amendment 98 to the Arkansas Constitution defines and uses the term “registry
identification card.” Do the phrases used in your proposed measure mean something
different from Amendment 98’s “registry identification card”? This ambiguity prevents me
from ensuring that any ballot title would not be misleading.
• “Personal interviews.” Subsection (a) of your proposed measure states that “[n]o person
who has a valid Arkansas Medical Marijuana Identification Card shall be disqualified or
dismissed from employment … because of … personal interviews that reveal possession
of a valid Arkansas Medical Marijuana Card.” But this phrase is neither defined nor used
anywhere else in the proposed measure’s text. As a result, it is unclear what this phrase
means and whether it broadly includes interviews conducted by someone other than the
person’s employer. Under this proposed language, could an employee not be fired if the
employee “reveals possession” of a card during an interview with a friend, a news reporter,
or law enforcement? This lack of clarity prevents me from ensuring that any ballot title
submitted—or any ballot title I might substitute—would not be misleading.
• “Drug testing.” Subsection (a) of your proposed measure states that “[n]o person who has
a valid Arkansas Medical Marijuana Identification Card shall be disqualified or dismissed
from employment … because of Marijuana detected in drug testing.” Does “drug testing”
include tests conducted by law enforcement, medical staff, or anyone outside of the
employer? And does the amount of marijuana detected in a drug test matter, particularly
when some regulations concerning multiple modes of transportation establish threshold
levels of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) that trigger a failed drug test? In addition, how
would this provision apply to post-accident, on-the-job drug testing policies, drug testing
for safety-sensitive positions, or drug testing based on incidents in which the employer’s
observations indicate with reasonable suspicion that the employee is impaired by marijuana
while on the job? The answers to these questions likely would give voters “grounds for
serious reflection.”
• “Marijuana.” The proposed measure uses the word “marijuana” but does not define it.
Does “marijuana” include substances that are not permissible under Amendment 98 and

Mr. David E. Dinwiddie
Opinion No. 2026-047
Page 7
that fall outside the scope of what may be possessed with a registry identification card?
This ambiguity prevents me from ensuring that any ballot title would not be misleading.
• “Certain fields listed.” Section (a) of your proposed measure applies to “certain fields
listed,” but it is unclear whether the six items listed are intended to be exhaustive or merely
illustrative. Is it your intent to include only the six items listed in (a)(1)–(6) as those that
are covered? This ambiguity prevents me from ensuring that any ballot title would not be
misleading.
Because your submission does not include a “ballot title,” it is incomplete.
39 I must therefore return
your submission and instruct you to resubmit the text of your proposed initiated act along with a
proposed popular name and ballot title. If you choose to submit a redesigned draft, you should
carefully consider all the issues noted above. Since you have not provided a ballot title for my
consideration, I have not attempted to identify every issue with this version of your draft, but I
note some additional issues below that you may wish to consider.
6. Additional issues. The foregoing defects are sufficient grounds for me to reject your
submission. But please note that your proposed measure contains several other issues that, while
not bases for my decision to reject your proposed measure, you may wish to correct or clarify:
• Popular name. Your popular name uses the term “Medical Marijuana Patient,” but
“patient” is neither defined nor used in the proposed measure’s text. Additionally, the word
“patient” is ambiguous, given that Amendment 98 authorizes the issuing of registry
identification cards to several categories of individuals: “qualifying patients,” “dispensary
agents,” “cultivation facility agents,” and “designated caregivers.” Thus, the use of
“patient” here would be misleading. “Medical Marijuana” is also misleading because the
text of your proposed measure is not limited to “medical marijuana” but broadly applies to
any “Marijuana detected in drug testing.” Because I am authorized to substitute language
in the popular name, I am flagging this issue for you now in case you would like to make
changes before resubmitting.
• Impact on existing law. Because the text of your measure does not address how it would
relate to existing law on the same subject matter, it would be difficult to ensure that any
ballot title meets the Arkansas Supreme Court’s requirement that ballot titles convey the
scope of the proposed change in law.40 While your proposed measure adds to existing state
drug-testing law, it would also impact other federal and state laws regulating employment,
including the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, U.S. Department of
Transportation regulations, Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations,
and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
39 See A.C.A. § 7-9-107(b).
40 Christian Civic Action Comm., 318 Ark. at 250, 884 S.W.2d at 610.

Mr. David E. Dinwiddie
Opinion No. 2026-047
Page 8
• Grammatical issues. The text of your proposed initiated act contains several grammatical
issues. A semicolon is used instead of a colon in both subsections (a) and (b). Additionally,
the lists in (a)(1)–(6) and (b)(1)–(3) contain inconsistent punctuation: two of the listed
items precede commas, one precedes a period, and the others contain no punctuation. I lack
authority to edit the text of a proposed measure. You may wish to correct these issues.
Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General