Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ballot Initiatives topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee passes bill to require signatures from 50 counties for ballot initiatives; opponents call it unconstitutional
Summary
SB260 would raise the county‑signature minimum for citizen initiatives from 15 to 50 counties and increase the county share threshold; proponents said it reduces outside influence, while Common Ground and other witnesses argued the statutory changes conflict with Article 5 §1 and the 'unwarranted restrictions' clause.
Representative Kendon Underwood (House District 16) and Senate sponsors presented SB260 to raise the number of counties required to qualify a citizen‑initiated petition from the constitutional floor of 15 counties to a statutory minimum of 50 counties and to increase the fraction of designated electors required in each county. Proponents said the change would require broader geographic support and make it harder for well‑funded, out‑of‑state special interests to "bypass" rural Arkansans during signature gathering.
Multiple senators raised constitutional concerns. Sen. Tucker read and cited Article 5, Section 1 and asked whether the legislature was changing the balance of power between the people and the General Assembly; Representative Underwood and sponsors argued the constitution sets a floor, not a ceiling, and cited state and U.S. case law they said supports statutory floors. Constitutional scholars and advocates testified against the bill: Misty Orpen (Common Ground Arkansas) and Ross Noland argued the measure effectively alters constitutional signature requirements by statute and pointed to a similar proposal that voters rejected in 2020. Rebecca Zerman (Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families) warned the bill would make citizen initiatives viable only for well‑funded campaigns and urged a 'no' vote.
Sen. Tucker and others pressed sponsors for analysis of cumulative effects (whether combining a higher county minimum with a higher per‑county fraction would inadvertently increase the total number of statewide signatures required). A witness said that exact numeric consequence had not been fully analyzed and urged further study. Despite objections and predictions of litigation, the committee voted to pass SB260 as amended; sponsors said the change was intended to increase geographic buy‑in and protect rural counties.
