Arkansas Supreme Court Empowers Legislature to Change Citizen-Initiated Constitutional Amendments in Session

by Kristin Higgins - December 16, 2025

Arkansas legislators now have the authority to change citizen-initiated constitutional amendments without putting those changes before voters on the statewide ballot to decide. Now the question is, when will they use their new authority?

Legislators convene as the General Assembly on April 8 for a fiscal session, itself the result of a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in 2008. Fiscal sessions take place in even-numbered years, and legislators consider budgetary issues and appropriation bills. 

Non-appropriation bills can be considered if two-thirds of the members of the House and Senate approve a resolution allowing their consideration. In 2022, attempts to introduce abortion bills failed in committee. The 2026 fiscal session calendar suggests that non-appropriation bills can be filed for consideration between April 8 and April 22.

The next regular session of the Arkansas General Assembly is in 2027.

How We Got Here

Arkansans approved the citizen initiative process in 1910 and again in 1920. However, the Arkansas Supreme Court at the time said the 1920 measure wasn't in effect. Justices said a majority of all voters needed to approve a constitutional amendment on Election Day rather than it passing with a simple majority vote (more FOR votes than AGAINST votes).

In 1925, the Court reversed itself and said the 1920 direct democracy amendment was in effect and measures only need to receive a majority of the votes cast on the proposal itself to pass.

The ability of legislators to make changes to citizen initiatives became a legal gray area after a Jan. 15, 1951 Arkansas Supreme Court opinion in Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. Edgmon.

The lawsuit involved a dispute over payment for wolf scalps and whether the legislature could direct how the commission could spend its funds. The lawsuit opened a deeper question about the ability of the legislature to change constitutional amendments, including one that made the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission an independent agency. Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution defines “measure” as including any bill, law, resolution, ordinance, charter, constitutional amendment, or other legislative proposal or enactment of any character.

The 1951 Arkansas Supreme Court said it was “inconceivable” that Arkansans meant to give legislators the ability to repeal or change constitutional amendments in the very amendment that allowed them to refer measures to the voters to decide.

“These amendments are spoken of as "measures," hence if the definition in Amendment and Repeal is applied throughout, then any or all of the more than forty amendments to the constitution could be repealed by the required vote of the legislature,” the 1951 opinion states.

“The clear intent of the Initiative and Referendum Amendment was to give the people enlarged legislative and constitutional powers. Certainly if the purpose had been to take away fundamental security then enjoyed or to be acquired under the Amendment, the right of two-thirds of those elected to the General Assembly to treat amendments as though they had been referred to it would have been expressed in more emphatic terms,” the court opinion states.

Arkansas Supreme Court Overturns 1951 Opinion

In recent years, legislators and Attorney General Tim Griffin have sought to overturn the 1951 Court decision. Griffin issued an Attorney General opinion in November 2024 saying the Arkansas Supreme Court should follow the plain language of Amendment 7. 

“Amendment 7’s plain language gives the General Assembly power to amend initiated constitutional amendments,” Griffin wrote in Opinion No. 2024-024. “In my opinion, if the Supreme Court were faced with your question today, it would most likely hold that Edgmon was wrongly decided, employed a form of reasoning that is now rejected, and should thus be overturned.”

On Dec. 11, 2025, the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed with Griffin's sentiment and similar arguments made in an appeal over legislative changes to the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment of 2016. 

In State of Arkansas v Good Day Farm, the Arkansas Supreme Court wrote: 

It is perfectly conceivable that the authors of said provision provided yet another opportunity
for further diffusion of power that is emblematic of our system of checks and balances.
While the wisdom of this particular grant might be questioned and while such authority
may be perceived as inconvenient given one’s perspective on the role and power of the
legislative branch, such public policy arguments underlying these criticisms appropriately lie
outside the scope of this court’s prerogative. We remain steadfast in rejecting any effort to
substitute our own judgment for that of the plain, unambiguous constitutional language,
especially when that judgment has the effect of achieving a preferred public policy outcome
reserved to the people and their elected representatives.

In a footnote, the majority opinion states: "Edgmon was decided 74 years ago, long before this court’s modern line of cases interpreting article 5, section 1, and reflects the era’s limited engagement with the initiative and-referendum process." It's unclear whether that reference refers to citizen involvement or the court's involvement. 

In 2024, Arkansas legislators asked voters to approve changes to the 2008 citizen-initiated amendment establishing the state lottery. Specifically, the legislature asked voters in 2024 to expand how lottery proceeds could be used, allowing the state to use the funds to provide scholarships and grants to citizens enrolled in vocational technical schools and technical institutes. This 2024 ballot issue would have been unnecessary had the Court overturned Edgmon earlier. 

What Amendments Exist?

An analysis of various historical documents about the Arkansas Constitution shows voters approved 37 citizen-initiated constitutional amendments since 1910. Some of the facts about these amendments have been lost to time. For example, were the two legislative session proposals in 1912 actually one and the same amendment? Was the 1916 amendment voided?

The Secretary of State's Office table online only provides data between 1938-2020. Meanwhile, a book about the Arkansas Constitution by Kay Goss goes back to 1910.

Scroll through the table's three pages of citizen-initiated constitutional amendments. The table does not include citizen-initiated acts, or state laws that legislators always had the authority to change by introducing a bill during the legislative session.