Press Releases

Request for review and certification of the popular name and ballot title of a proposed constitutional amendment with the popular name, “An Amendment to Amend the Initiative and Referendum Process.”

Brief Response: Having reviewed the text of your proposed constitutional amendment, as well as your proposed popular name and ballot title, I have concluded that, due to (1) ambiguities in the text of your proposed measure and ballot title and (2) ambiguities created by your proposed summary of your text, I must reject your proposed popular name and ballot title and instruct you to redesign them. These ambiguities prevent me from either ensuring that your ballot title is not misleading or substituting a more appropriate ballot title.

Question 1: What is the process for increasing the salaries of employees of elected county officials—such as employees of the tax collector and circuit clerk?

Brief Response: As discussed further in the opinion, the county quorum court has the sole authority to set and appropriate increases in the salaries of employees of elected county officials. And while the county judge may veto a quorum court’s decision to increase county-employee salaries, the quorum court may override that veto.

Question 2: If an employee’s salary was improperly increased, how much of the salary should the county fund: none of it, the salary before the improper increase, or the improperly increased salary?

Brief Response: If the increase was improper because someone gave a salary increase without the quorum court’s appropriation or setting of the salary increase, then the county would not fund any of that increase until the quorum court passes an ordinance appropriating and setting the increase. The employee would still receive the salary he or she was making before the improper increase if that salary was already set and appropriated by the quorum court.

Question 3: Can the quorum court ratify an improperly increased salary?

Brief Response: Yes.

Question 1: A.C.A. § 21-1-402(f)–(g) bans former members of the General Assembly from registering as lobbyists for two years after their term ends and bans former constitutional officers and their former employees from registering as lobbyists for one year after their term or employment ends. Are these total bans unconstitutional?

Brief response: Yes. It is my opinion that a court would apply strict scrutiny to these bans and hold that they violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Question 2: A.C.A. § 21-8-102(c) bans—for one year after employment—a list of former state officials and employees from being a principal or agent in specified matters that “were within the former state official’s or former state employee’s official responsibility” and in which “the state is a party or has a direct or substantial interest.” Is this one-year ban unconstitutional?

Brief response: Possibly. A.C.A. § 21-8-102(c) applies to many situations, including situations other than lobbying that are not protected by the First Amendment. If a person brought a proper as-applied challenge based on lobbying, a court would likely apply strict scrutiny. But because the outcome of an as-applied challenge is dictated by real-world facts, I am unable to opine whether any particular as-applied challenge would be successful.

Question 3: If A.C.A. § 21-1-402(f)–(g) and A.C.A. § 21-8-102(c) are unconstitutional, would “our State Government or [the Attorney General’s Office] (or ethics commission) … enforce [these] law[s]”?

Brief response: The Arkansas Ethics Commission has authority to investigate and discipline violations of A.C.A. § 21-1-402(f)–(g). And the Prosecuting Attorneys have authority to prosecute violations of both A.C.A. § 21-1-402(f)–(g) and A.C.A. § 21-8-102(c). I am unable to opine on what actions those officials may or may not take.