The Arkansas Supreme Court has delivered a landmark ruling concerning the power of the state’s General Assembly to amend voter-approved constitutional changes, specifically those related to the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment of 2016 (Amendment 98). In a decision that overturns decades-old precedent, the Court found that the legislature *does* possess the authority to amend Amendment 98, provided it adheres to strict procedural requirements.
The case pitted licensed medical marijuana businesses—Good Day Farm Arkansas, LLC (GDFA) and Capital City Medicinals, LLC (CCM)—against the State of Arkansas and its regulatory bodies. The businesses challenged the constitutionality of twenty-eight amendments passed by the General Assembly since 2016, arguing that only the voters could alter a citizen-initiated amendment.
The Supreme Court disagreed, reversing the lower court’s decision and validating the legislative changes.
Overruling 74 Years of Precedent
The core of the dispute hinged on the interpretation of Article 5, Section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution, which dictates how laws initiated by the people can be changed. For decades, the controlling interpretation came from the 1951 case, *Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. Edgmon*.
In *Edgmon*, the Court had held that the General Assembly lacked the authority to amend or repeal a constitutional amendment initiated by the voters, despite Article 5, Section 1 appearing to allow it. The *Edgmon* court found the idea of the legislature overriding the voters’ will “inconceivable.”
However, the Supreme Court majority in the current opinion explicitly rejected this reasoning. Justice Cody Hiland, writing for the majority, stated that the *Edgmon* decision substituted “judicial preference for plain constitutional text.” The Court found that the text of Article 5, Section 1, which defines a “measure” to include a “constitutional amendment,” clearly grants the General Assembly the power to amend initiated measures with a two-thirds vote of both houses.
The Court noted that a more recent 2018 ruling, *Martin v. Haas* (which dealt with a different voter-initiated amendment, Amendment 51), had already signaled a move away from the *Edgmon* interpretation. The majority concluded that *Edgmon* was “demonstrably erroneous” and justified overruling it entirely to prevent the “perpetuation of pernicious error.”
Interpreting the “Germaneness” Clause
The second major issue involved a specific constraint within Amendment 98, Section 23(a). This section allows the General Assembly to amend the marijuana amendment, but requires those changes to be “germane to this section and consistent with its policy and purposes.”
The businesses argued that because Section 23 is titled “Amendment by General Assembly,” any legislative change had to be relevant *only* to Section 23 itself. Since Section 23 also prohibits amendments to itself (Section 23(b)), this interpretation would effectively mean the General Assembly could never amend Amendment 98 at all.
The Supreme Court agreed with the State that this reading rendered the provision absurd and inoperative. The Court employed several interpretive tools—including examining the original ballot title, comparing the language to similar provisions in other amendments (like Amendments 51 and 89, which use the word “amendment” in the same context), and applying the “absurdity doctrine”—to conclude that the word “section” in Section 23(a) was a clear drafting error.
The Court officially construed the phrase to mean “germane to this amendment,” thereby allowing the legislature to amend any part of Amendment 98 not explicitly barred by Section 23(b).
A Note on Sovereign Immunity
While the majority focused on constitutional interpretation, one concurring justice raised a jurisdictional objection. Justice Shawn Womack argued that the entire case should have been dismissed based on sovereign immunity, which generally bars lawsuits against the State.
Justice Womack contended that the narrow exception to sovereign immunity mentioned in Article 5, Section 1 only covers challenges to the *sufficiency of initiative petitions*, not the validity of subsequent legislative amendments. Because GDFA and CCM were challenging the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature, Justice Womack believed the courts lacked jurisdiction from the start.
The majority opinion, however, noted that the plaintiffs alleged illegal state action (unconstitutional amendments), which traditionally falls within an exception to sovereign immunity, allowing the Court to proceed to the merits.
The final outcome is a win for the State and the existing regulatory framework: the twenty-eight legislative amendments to the medical marijuana law stand, and the General Assembly is confirmed to have the authority to make future changes to the amendment, provided it secures a two-thirds vote in both legislative houses.