Press Releases

Question 1: When may someone revoke an anatomical gift by a donor, other than those by an unemancipated minor?

Brief Response: While a donor may revoke an anatomical gift at any time, no one else may revoke—either before or after the donor’s death—an anatomical gift made by the donor. Only an anatomical gift made by someone other than the donor can be revoked by someone other than the donor.

Question 2: When may “a party enforcing a donor’s choice to make an anatomical gift be penalized or held legally responsible in any legal proceeding brought by the donor’s surviving family members who were opposed to the donation”?

Brief response: One who follows, or attempts in good faith to follow, the Revised Arkansas Anatomical Gift Act or the anatomical gift act of another state cannot be held liable in a civil action, criminal prosecution, or an administrative proceeding brought by anyone, including the donor’s surviving family members opposed to the donation. 

Request for review and approval of an interlocal cooperation agreement between the City of Fort Smith, Arkansas, and Sebastian County, Arkansas, entitled “Mutual Aid/Interlocal Agreement for the Establishment of Consolidated Public Safety Answering Point and Dispatch Center.”

Brief Response: Having reviewed the agreement, I find that it meets the requirements of the Interlocal Cooperation Act. Thus, I approve the agreement as submitted.

Question: Can the General Assembly under Amendment 7 amend an initiated constitutional amendment by a 2/3 majority?

Brief Response: The plain language of Amendment 7 gives the General Assembly power to amend initiated constitutional amendments. In 1951, the Arkansas Supreme Court reasoned that—read literally— Amendment 7 does just that. But the Court departed from the text because it did not believe the people could have intended to give the General Assembly that power. In my opinion, that decision employed an erroneous form of reasoning and was wrongly decided. If this issue were raised today, I believe the Supreme Court would overturn that case and hold that the plain language controls.