In a unanimous decision Thursday, the Arkansas Supreme Court overturned a decades-old precedent that had limited the legislature’s ability to amend voter-approved constitutional amendments, a ruling that could significantly reshape the state’s initiative and referendum process.
According to KATV, the court overruled its 1951 decision in Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. Edgmon, which held that the General Assembly could not amend or repeal constitutional amendments adopted through citizen-led initiatives. The justices determined that the earlier ruling conflicted with the plain language of the Arkansas Constitution.
Under the initiative and referendum amendment adopted in 1910, the Constitution states that the General Assembly may amend any “measure” approved by voters with a two-thirds vote of both chambers. The definition of “measure” explicitly includes both initiated acts and constitutional amendments — language the court said was improperly ignored in the Edgmon ruling.
By overturning that precedent, the court affirmed that lawmakers do, in fact, have constitutional authority to amend or repeal voter-approved constitutional amendments by a two-thirds vote.
The ruling resolves a years-long lawsuit brought by medical marijuana dispensaries challenging legislative changes to the 2016 voter-approved medical marijuana amendment. The plaintiffs argued that the General Assembly’s passage of 27 amendments violated the Edgmon precedent, even though the medical marijuana amendment itself granted lawmakers limited authority to make changes.
David Couch, the attorney who drafted the 2016 medical marijuana amendment, told KATV that while he believes the original intent of the 1910 amendment was not to give lawmakers such broad authority, he does not dispute the Constitution’s wording.
“I don’t think that was the intent,” Couch said. “But if I were on the court, I might have voted the same way because that’s what the Constitution says.”
Couch warned that the decision gives the legislature sweeping power to alter or eliminate any citizen-initiated constitutional amendment passed over the past century.
“The General Assembly could eliminate medical marijuana just that easily,” Couch told KATV. “You have casinos. The General Assembly could decide we need ten casinos or we need no casinos. Any constitutional amendment that’s ever been initiated by the people — the General Assembly can change them or eliminate them.”
Couch said the ruling could have a chilling effect on future citizen-led constitutional amendments, noting that it requires significantly more signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot than an initiated act.
“Nobody will ever do a constitutional amendment again,” he said. “If the General Assembly can change either one of them with a two-thirds vote, why do a constitutional amendment?”
Couch represents the League of Women Voters of Arkansas, which has formed a ballot question committee called “Save AR Democracy.” The group is attempting to place a constitutional amendment on the 2026 ballot that would explicitly prohibit the legislature from amending citizen-initiated constitutional amendments.
The group has collected an estimated 8,000 signatures so far and must submit more than 90,000 by July to qualify for the ballot, according to KATV.
“When the initiative and referendum was passed in 1910, it says the General Assembly can amend any measure by two-thirds vote,” Couch said. “I just crossed out ‘constitutional amendment’ and said the General Assembly cannot change an initiated constitutional amendment — period.”
