by Sonny Albarado, Arkansas Advocate
December 11, 2025
Arkansas lawmakers have the power to change constitutional amendments approved by voters, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The unanimous opinion overturns a 74-year-old decision that said the Legislature could not amend or repeal a citizen-initiated amendment to the state constitution.
The court’s decision also reverses a 2023 Pulaski County Circuit Court ruling that struck down more than two dozen changes that lawmakers had made to Amendment 98, the 2016 citizen-led measure that legalized medical marijuana in Arkansas with some restrictions. Since 2016, the Legislature has passed laws further restricting the medical marijuana industry, including outlawing the sale of combustible marijuana, requiring child-proof packaging, limiting the THC content of edibles and prohibiting advertising.
Two medical marijuana license holders — Good Day Farms and Capital City Medicinals — challenged the Legislature’s authority to pass restrictive laws that amended the amendment.
Circuit Judge Chip Welch agreed with the plaintiffs, basing his decision on a 1951 state Supreme Court ruling that said the Legislature cannot amend citizen-led constitutional amendments without seeking a vote of the people on the changes.
The implications of Welch’s ruling would extend beyond the medical marijuana industry if the high court upheld it.
But Justice Cody Hiland wrote in Thursday’s ruling that the plain language of the Arkansas Constitution’s Article 5, Section 1, gives the Legislature the authority to amend voter-approved constitutional amendments by a two-thirds vote of each legislative chamber.
The precedent used by the lower court was improperly decided, according to the high court.
“The Edgmon court’s reasoning substituted judicial preference for plain constitutional text …,” Hiland wrote, referring to Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v Edgmon, the 1951 case that said voter-approved constitutional amendments cannot be changed by unilateral legislative action.
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, who represented the state Department of Finance and Administration and its Alcoholic Beverage Control Division in the appeal, applauded Thursday’s ruling.
“The Constitution is clear that the General Assembly has the power to amend the laws initiated by the people by 2/3 vote in both chambers,” Griffin said in a statement. “The Arkansas Supreme Court ignored the plain meaning of Amendment 7 in 1951, and today the Supreme Court has corrected that Constitutional malady.”
Two groups seeking to get measures on the 2026 ballot to protect the state’s direct democracy process from legislative interference said the Supreme Court ruling makes them more determined to get the issue before voters.
“One thing is clear: Arkansans must protect our own power,” Protect AR Rights said in its statement. “By overturning long-standing precedent, the Court has made it easier for politicians to change and weaken constitutional amendments passed by voters.”
Thursday’s ruling exemplifies why Protect AR Rights’ measure is needed, according to the group’s statement.
“Our proposal includes clear language that states only the people — not politicians — can change a voter-approved constitutional amendment,” the statement reads. “We crafted this language intentionally. And today’s decision to green-light additional legislative power grabs proves how essential protecting the will of the voters is.”
The League of Women Voters of Arkansas said in a statement that Thursday’s ruling “will have an enormous impact on the voters’ constitutional right to pass and enact amendments.”
The nonpartisan group is pursuing its own ballot measure aimed at preserving the state’s direct democracy process.
David Couch, general counsel and board director for the League of Women Voters of Arkansas, said in the release that it’s “more important than ever” to protect direct democracy following this “landmark ruling.”
“While this is incredibly unfortunate, the League has been aware of this potential issue for many years and has been monitoring this case as it moved through the judicial process,” Couch said. “As such, we prepared for this outcome and included a provision in our proposed ballot measure that would prohibit the General Assembly from amending citizen-initiated and voter-approved constitutional amendments.”
Bonnie Miller, president of the LWVA, advised voters: “Don’t lose hope.”
Two of the seven Supreme Court justices issued separate but concurring opinions. Justice Rhonda Wood agreed with the rest of the court’s conclusions regarding the meaning of Article 5, Section 1 of the state constitution, but wrote that overturning the 1951 Edgmon decision was unnecessary.
“Overruling Edgmon goes a step too far,” Wood wrote. “In Martin v. Haas [the 2018 case], we were interpreting [A]mendment 51 which, like [A]mendment 98, specifies in its own text the process for legislative amendment. The majority’s suggestion that we implicitly overruled Edgmon in Haas is misplaced.”
The issues were different, Wood said, because the amendment under consideration in the Egmon case did not contain a provision for legislative amendment.
In the separate opinion, Justice Shawn Womack said he concurred with the decision to reverse the circuit court’s ruling and dismiss the case, but based his conclusion on the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which says the state cannot be sued in its own courts.
Chief Justice Karen Baker and Special Justices Barbara Halsey and Don Curdie joined in the opinion. Justices Courtney Hudson and Nick Bronni did not participate.
Updated to include the correct age of the overturned ruling.
Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com.
