Court Overturns 1951 Ruling, Giving Lawmakers Authority Over Voter Approved Measures

Last week, the Arkansas Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling giving state lawmakers the authority to amend constitutional amendments approved by voters. In a unanimous ruling Thursday, the court overturned a 74-year-old precedent that had consistently prevented the Legislature from modifying or repealing citizen-initiated amendments.

The decision reverses the 1951 case Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. Edgmon, in which the court held that the General Assembly could not alter a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment, even though the Constitution’s language suggested otherwise.

A plain reading of the amendment that created the initiative and referendum process shows that the Legislature can amend voter-approved measures, including constitutional amendments, with a two-thirds vote in both chambers. This interpretation guided the court’s ruling, signaling a major shift in how Arkansas handles voter-approved amendments.

How a Medical Marijuana Dispute Sparked a Landmark Case

The ruling, which carries significant implications, grew out of a lengthy legal battle initiated by medical marijuana dispensaries against the state. Thursday’s decision brought an end to that years-long lawsuit.

The dispute began in 2016, when Arkansas voters drafted and approved Amendment 98, legalizing medical marijuana. Since then, state lawmakers have enacted nearly 30 changes that narrowed the amendment’s scope. Two medical marijuana companies sued the state, arguing that lawmakers did not have the authority to alter a citizen-led constitutional amendment.

The challenge was filed by two license holders, Good Day Farms and Capital City Medicinals, who questioned the Legislature’s authority to pass restrictive laws modifying the amendment. Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chip Welch sided with the companies, relying on the 1951 Edgmon ruling, which held that lawmakers could not amend voter-approved constitutional amendments without submitting the changes to voters.

Had Welch’s ruling been upheld, its effects would have reached far beyond the medical marijuana industry. On Thursday, however, the Arkansas Supreme Court rejected that reasoning and ruled that lawmakers do have the authority to make such changes. The decision also reverses a 2023 Pulaski County Circuit Court ruling that struck down more than two dozen legislative amendments to Amendment 98.

Reading Between the Lines of the Constitution

Justice Cody Hiland, writing for the court, said the lower court relied on precedent that had been wrongly decided. He pointed to Article 5, Section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution, which he said clearly grants the Legislature the authority to amend voter-approved constitutional amendments by a two-thirds vote in each chamber. “The Edgmon court’s reasoning substituted judicial preference for plain constitutional text,” Hiland wrote, referring to the 1951 decision.

Two of the court’s seven justices issued separate concurring opinions.

Justice Rhonda Wood agreed with the court’s interpretation of Article 5, Section 1 but said that overturning Edgmon was unnecessary. “Overruling Edgmon goes a step too far,” Wood wrote. She cited the court’s 2018 decision in Martin v. Haas, which involved Amendment 51. Like Amendment 98, that amendment explicitly outlined a process for legislative changes. “The majority’s suggestion that we implicitly overruled Edgmon in Haas is misplaced,” Wood wrote. Wood added that the legal questions were different because the amendment at issue in Edgmon did not include language allowing legislative amendment.

In a separate concurrence, Justice Shawn Womack said he agreed with reversing the circuit court’s ruling and dismissing the case, but based his conclusion on the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which holds that the state cannot be sued in its own courts. Chief Justice Karen Baker and Special Justices Barbara Halsey and Don Curdie joined that opinion. Justices Courtney Hudson and Nick Bronni did not participate.

Praise From the Attorney General, Worries From Advocates

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, who represented the Finance and Administration department and the Alcoholic Beverage Control Division, praised the court’s decision, saying it restores an accurate interpretation of the state constitution. “The Constitution is clear that the General Assembly has the power to amend laws initiated by the people by a two-thirds vote in both chambers,” Griffin said in a statement. “In 1951, the Arkansas Supreme Court ignored the plain meaning of Amendment 7, and today the court has corrected that constitutional error.”

The decision prompted immediate reactions from advocacy groups focused on protecting Arkansas’s direct democracy process. Protect AR Rights, which is working to place a measure on the 2026 ballot, said the ruling strengthened its determination. “One thing is clear. Arkansans must protect our own power,” the group said in a statement. “By overturning long-standing precedent, the court has made it easier for politicians to change and weaken constitutional amendments passed by voters.” The group said the ruling underscores the need for its proposal, which would explicitly state that only voters can amend voter-approved constitutional amendments.

The League of Women Voters of Arkansas also raised concerns, warning that the decision will have a significant impact on voters’ constitutional rights. David Couch, the League’s general counsel and board director and the author of the 2016 medical marijuana amendment, called the ruling a landmark moment. “While this is incredibly unfortunate, the League has been aware of this potential issue for many years and has closely monitored the case as it moved through the judicial process,” Couch said.

Couch said the League anticipated this outcome and included language in its proposed ballot measure that would bar lawmakers from amending citizen-initiated constitutional amendments. He also warned that the ruling could discourage future citizen-led constitutional amendments. “Nobody will ever do a constitutional amendment again,” he said. “Why would you, when an initiated act takes far fewer signatures and the Legislature can change both in the same way.”

He said it was never the intent of the 1910 initiative and referendum amendment to grant lawmakers such broad authority, even as he acknowledged the constitution’s plain language. “If I were a justice, I might have voted the same way,” Couch said.

Attorney Silverstein criticized the ruling, saying earlier courts believed it was inconceivable that lawmakers were meant to have such power. “The Court yesterday said it is quite conceivable and that is how the language reads,” Silverstein said. The decision relies on Article 5, Section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution, which states that no measure approved by voters shall be amended or repealed by the Legislature except by a two thirds vote.

Bill Kopsky, executive director of the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, also voiced opposition. “It’s very problematic,” Kopsky said. “The will of the voters is clear, and the Legislature should not be able to change that on a whim.”

The Battle Over Direct Democracy

Arkansas remains one of the few states where voters can amend the state constitution without legislative approval. However, that process now faces significant uncertainty.

Many advocates are refusing to back down. David Couch, attorney for the League of Women Voters ballot committee Save AR Democracy, is leading efforts to place a constitutional amendment on the 2026 ballot that would overturn the court’s ruling. The group has gathered roughly 8,000 signatures so far, with more than 90,000 required by July. Couch described the proposed amendment as straightforward. “I just crossed out ‘constitutional amendment’ from the definition of measure and said the General Assembly cannot change an initiated constitutional amendment, period,” he said.

Despite the clarity of their proposal, the effort faces substantial challenges, as recent rulings have increased legislative authority and created new obstacles for direct democracy.

The battle over citizen-initiated amendments in Arkansas is far from over, but the Supreme Court’s decision has shifted the landscape in favor of legislative control.