Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin issued an opinion Friday concluding that county judges and justices of the peace are entitled to receive back pay under Act 24 of 2025 once a county’s annual appropriation ordinance is adopted.
The opinion, requested by Eleventh-West Judicial District Prosecuting Attorney S. Kyle Hunter, addresses whether Act 24 conflicts with the Arkansas Constitution when pay for county officials is withheld until a quorum court passes a budget ordinance.
Hunter’s inquiry noted that under the act, County Judge Gerald Robinson has remained unpaid for 11 pay periods until an appropriation was adopted, prompting the judge to file a claim in county court. At that hearing, which the judge presided over, he argued that Act 24 violates Section 5 of Amendment 55, which prohibits decreasing a county officer’s pay during a current term.
Griffin wrote that two interpretations of Act 24 are possible — but only one is constitutional.
Under one reading, county judges would permanently forfeit salary for the period before the budget is passed. Griffin said that interpretation would violate Amendment 55 because it would amount to a reduction in compensation mid-term.
The constitutional interpretation, he said, is that county judges are not paid until the appropriation ordinance is adopted, at which point they must receive the salary set for the year, including retroactive pay back to the start of the fiscal year.
“A statute must be interpreted in a way that avoids placing its constitutionality in doubt,” Griffin wrote, concluding that the law must therefore be read to allow back pay.
While Amendment 55 protections apply specifically to county officers — a category that includes county judges but not justices of the peace — Griffin said the statutory language in Act 24 applies identically to both positions. It would be illogical, he wrote, for the same wording to permit back pay for one office but not the other. Under that reasoning, justices of the peace are also entitled to receive back per-diem compensation once an appropriation ordinance is adopted.
Act 24 automatically re-adopts the prior year’s appropriation if a quorum court fails to pass a budget by January 1, but it suspends pay for county judges and justices of the peace until a new budget is formally approved.
Griffin’s opinion clarifies that once that occurs, back pay must be issued.
