Arkansas Supreme Court Blocks Votes on Issue 3 - Medical Marijuana Amendment

Two hours after early voting started Monday, Oct. 21, the Arkansas Supreme Court released a majority opinion saying votes cast on the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment will not be counted, effectively striking the measure from the General Election ballot.

Due to the timing, Issue 3 will still appear on statewide ballots but election officials will not count any of the votes cast for or against the proposed constitutional amendment seeking to expand the state's medical marijuana program.

The proposal also would have prevented state legislators from making changes to constitutional amendments without voter approval, and would have legalized the sale and possession of marijuana in Arkansas if the federal government ever decriminalized the drug. The Court, with two special judges sitting in for justices who recused themselves, honed in on those last two points in their reasoning for determining Issue 3's popular name to be misleading.

The Court also determined that the ballot title was misleading because it didn't go into detail about two sections of the existing marijuana amendment that would be deleted from the state constitution, and instead referenced only the section numbers of the current law. Voters would not know what those sections were based on the ballot title alone.

What the Court Opinions Say

The majority opinion written by Judge Shawn Womack showed a majority of justices agreed with arguments made by Protect Arkansas Kids, a ballot issue group formed by Jim Bell of Little Rock to oppose Issue 3.

"First, the popular name indicates to voters that the proposed amendment only concerns marijuana for medical purposes, yet it seeks to legalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana for all purposes if triggered by federal action. In the same vein, the popular name of the ballot title does not inform voters that they would be amending article 5, section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution––which is likewise wholly unrelated to medical marijuana. Finally, the ballot title does not adequately inform voters that it is stripping the General Assembly of its ability to amend Amendment 98. For these reasons, we hold that the proposed amendment is misleading." 

Chief Justice John Kemp and Justice Courtney Hudson recused themselves from hearing the case (CV-24-652). Gov. Sarah Sanders appointed Don Curdie and Bilenda Harris-Ritter to fill in as special judges. They along with Justice Barbara Webb made up the majority of the 4-3 decision.

A dissenting opinion released Oct. 21 strongly objected to the majority opinion, suggesting that the Court veered from past precedent over popular names.

"Because the majority disregards this court’s decades-long legal precedent as it relates to the sufficiency of popular names and ballot titles, I respectfully dissent," Justice Cody Hiland wrote in the opinion joined by Justices Rhonda Wood and Karen Baker. "Long ago, this court established definitive standards for evaluating the sufficiency of popular names and ballot titles. This court has not deviated from those standards until today. The majority expands our jurisprudence by supplementing the existing standard for popular names by weaving in a new scope requirement."

A popular name is meant to be a short reference for voters, and the ballot title longer with details of the proposal.

"The germane nature of a popular name as it relates to its resulting ballot title and/or amendment text has never before been a part of this court’s analysis," the dissent states.

The majority opinion and dissenting opinion reference each other and establish that justices disagree over each other's interpretation of their issued opinions.

In the footnotes, the majority opinion states:

"The dissent claims that it cannot join the majority because it, “disregards this court’s decades-long legal precedent as it relates to the sufficiency of popular names and ballot titles.” This is perplexing. To be clear, the majority is not creating a new standard of review. To the contrary, we are applying decades old legal precedent."

View the Opinions Online

Campaign Reactions

Sponsors - Arkansans for Patient Access
"We are deeply disappointed in the Court's decision. It seems politics has triumphed over legal precedent," read a statement from Arkansans for Patient Access issued after the decision. "The medical marijuana program is strongly supported by the people, evidently not so much by the politicians. More than 150,000 Arkansans hailing from all 75 counties signed petitions asking for an opportunity to vote on the Medical Marijuana Amendment of 2024. Today, the politicians ignored their requests. This is a setback for the growth and improvement of our existing program, but it will not be the last attempt to ease the barriers Arkansas's medical patients encounter. We will continue our fight to eliminate hurdles to access and lower costs. Patients across Arkansas have made it clear they want to build on the existing foundation; unfortunately, the anti-marijuana politicians have ignored their call. The people rule, our state motto, does not ring true today."

Lawsuit Intervenor and Opponent - Protect Arkansas Kids
"This ballot initiative was built on misinformation and half-truths, which epitomizes how Big Marijuana has relentlessly pushed commercial marijuana and THC drugs for 'medicinal' use. The reality is this ballot initiative wasn't about those suffering from debilitating pain, PTSD, cancer or other serious medical conditions. It was about legalizing addictive, highly potent drugs under the guise of medicine."

Lawsuit Background

Sponsors of the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment of 2024 filed the lawsuit on Oct. 1 asking the Arkansas Supreme Court to order Secretary of State John Thurston to count voter signatures they submitted during a "cure period."

Thurston initially declined to count the signatures because he argued sponsors should have signed canvasser paperwork instead of the company Arkansans for Patient Access hired to handle signature canvassing. This was the same argument the Court rejected in their recent Issue 2 decision. Thurston's office counted the contested signatures and declared the campaign had met the 90,704-voter signature threshold to qualify the proposed constitutional amendment for the ballot.

Although justices struck Issue 3 from the ballot over the popular name and ballot title, the majority opinion reiterated that campaign representatives can sign canvasser paperwork on behalf of sponsors.