The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and dismissed a Pulaski County Circuit Court ruling that would have restricted the General Assembly's authority to amend voter-initiated laws, particularly those concerning medical cannabis regulations.
The case, *State of Arkansas v. Good Day Farm Arkansas, LLC*, arose from a dispute between state agencies and medical marijuana companies Good Day Farm Arkansas, LLC and Capital City Medicinals, LLC. The litigation centered on fundamental questions about the constitutional limits of legislative power over laws created through the voter initiative process.
Associate Justice Cody Hiland delivered the opinion for the Arkansas Supreme Court on December 11, 2025, addressing two critical constitutional questions. First, the court examined whether the General Assembly possesses authority to amend voter-initiated laws under article 5, section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution. Second, the justices considered whether the term "section" in section 23(a) of amendment 98 should be interpreted as "amendment" when applying germaneness requirements to legislative changes.
The dispute originated in the Pulaski County Circuit Court, where Judge Morgan E. Welch had ruled against the state's position. The circuit court held that the General Assembly lacked authority under article 5, section 1 to amend voter-initiated laws, citing the precedent established in *Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. Edgmon* (1951). That case, decided by the Arkansas Supreme Court in 218 Ark. 207, 235 S.W.2d 554, had previously addressed similar questions about legislative authority over constitutional amendments.
The circuit court also determined that the use of the specific term "section" rather than "amendment" in the constitutional text limited how germaneness requirements should be applied to legislative modifications of voter-initiated laws. This interpretation would have significantly constrained the legislature's ability to make changes to laws passed through the initiative process.
The State of Arkansas, represented by the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration and its Alcoholic Beverage Control Division, appealed the circuit court's decision. The state agencies argued that the lower court had incorrectly interpreted both the scope of legislative authority under the state constitution and the application of germaneness requirements to amendments of voter-initiated laws.
The Arkansas Supreme Court disagreed with the circuit court's analysis and constitutional interpretation. In reversing the lower court's ruling, the high court effectively expanded the General Assembly's authority to amend laws that originated through the voter initiative process. The decision suggests that the legislature retains broader powers to modify citizen-initiated laws than the circuit court had recognized.
The case carries significant implications for the balance of power between direct democracy through voter initiatives and representative democracy through the legislative process in Arkansas. Medical cannabis laws have been a particular area of tension, as voter-approved measures have sometimes conflicted with legislative preferences or subsequent regulatory needs.
The ruling affects how future disputes over legislative amendments to voter-initiated laws will be resolved in Arkansas courts. By establishing that the General Assembly possesses authority under article 5, section 1 to amend such laws, the decision clarifies the constitutional framework governing interactions between citizen initiatives and subsequent legislative action.
The court's interpretation of germaneness requirements also impacts how closely related any legislative amendments must be to the original voter-initiated measures. This aspect of the ruling will likely influence how the legislature approaches future modifications to laws passed through the initiative process.
For the medical cannabis industry in Arkansas, the decision may affect regulatory stability and the extent to which legislative bodies can modify voter-approved cannabis programs. Companies like Good Day Farm Arkansas, LLC and Capital City Medicinals, LLC, which operate under frameworks established through voter initiatives, now face a legal environment where those frameworks may be more subject to legislative modification.
The reversal and dismissal of the circuit court's ruling means that the original constitutional interpretation limiting legislative authority will not stand. This outcome strengthens the position of state agencies seeking to implement or modify regulations related to voter-initiated laws, particularly in the medical cannabis sector.
The decision reflects ongoing tensions in Arkansas over the proper balance between direct and representative democracy, especially regarding controversial issues like medical cannabis that have been addressed through the initiative process. The ruling provides clarity for future legislative sessions about the scope of their authority to amend voter-initiated laws while maintaining constitutional requirements for germaneness in such amendments.