The Arkansas Supreme Court has overturned a 74-year-old precedent about citizen-led initiatives.
A 1951 court case barred the General Assembly from editing or changing amendments made by citizens. The case is called Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. Edgmon, and was decided unanimously. On Thursday, the state Supreme Court voted to reverse the decision. This changes the future of power-sharing between the people and the legislature.
The ruling came in a case about a dispute with medical marijuana dispensaries.
In 2016, voters approved an amendment legalizing cannabis use for certain medical conditions. The Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment of 2016 is the 98th amendment to the state constitution. Since then, the Arkansas Legislature has passed laws limiting cannabis distribution.
Two dispensaries, Good Day Farm in Pine Bluff and Capital City Medicinal in Little Rock, sued the state. They said the laws amounted to amending the state constitution, violating Edgmon.
The case hinges on the interpretation of Article 5, Section 1 in the state constitution. The section says the legislature has the power to pass laws, while the people have the power to pass citizen-led amendments, referenda and grassroots initiatives. The section ends with:
“No legislation shall be enacted to restrict, hamper or impair the exercise of the rights herein reserved to the people.”
But it also says the legislature can amend a “measure” by a two-thirds vote.
Writing for the majority, Justice Cody Hiland said the word “measure” applied to constitutional amendments, so overturning Edgmon is consistent with the text of the constitution.
Furthermore, he said that Amendment 98 about marijuana does allow some legislative edits. The final section of the amendment says:
“The General Assembly, in the same manner as required for amendment of laws initiated by the people, may amend the sections of this amendment so long as the amendments are germane to this section and consistent with its policy and purposes.”
Much of the justices' rulings hinged on the word “section.” In his decision, Hiland said: “we construe the word “section” to function as “amendment”
He is joined by every justice in agreement with the decision though individual justices differed on their reasoning.
