Could Ledge send zero amendments to ballot?

There’s hope that the Arkansas Legislature may accomplish temporarily through voluntary restraint what it could not accomplish permanently in the last two elections.

That would be reducing how many new amendments are added to the Arkansas Constitution, or at least how many amendments voters are asked to choose from.

Lawmakers had filed only two proposed constitutional amendments as reported Sunday by the Arkansas Democrat-gazette, with the Feb. 8 deadline fast approaching. In 2021, lawmakers filed 42 proposed amendments and sent three of them to the voters.

Maybe a rush of amendments will be filed by Feb. 8. But Rep. Dwight Tosh, R-jonesboro, the chair of the House State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee through which the amendments would pass, said lawmakers hadn’t said anything to him.

The Arkansas Constitution has been amended 102 times since the Constitution was adopted in 1874. In comparison, the U.S. Constitution has been amended 75 fewer times despite being 85 years older.

That 102 times is too often, especially given the nature of some of those amendments. A Constitution should set up the structure of government and broadly define citizens’ rights, not grant casino licenses to specific entities, as Amendment 100 did.

That being the case, it’s understandable that lawmakers in the last two elections sent voters proposals to make it harder to amend the Constitution. The most recent proposal in 2022 would have, among other changes, raised the percentage required to pass an amendment from a simple majority to 60%. Voters rejected both that attempt and one in 2020 that would have changed the signature-gathering process and made other changes.

Legislators’ argument last time that we pass too many constitutional amendments was weakened by the fact that, once again, they proposed their maximum allowed limit of three of them. In 2022, they also asked voters to let them call themselves into session as well as pass a religious freedom amendment.

In recent years, in fact, most of the constitutional amendments listed on Arkansans’ ballots have been proposed by legislators. All three this last time failed, as did one initiated by voters that would have legalized recreational marijuana.

Apparently, voters were saying they’re not opposed to amending the Constitution, but they want to pick and choose when they do.

Perhaps the failure of those four amendments – three of which were crushed – in November has left legislators hesitant to propose them this session. They don’t want their name beside a losing cause.

At any rate, for whatever reason, we’re looking at only two potential ones as of this past weekend, with time remaining for others to be added. I would be mildly surprised if either of those two is referred to voters.

One sponsored by Rep. David Ray, R-maumelle, would abolish the Independent Citizens Commission that was created by voters in 2014. It establishes (and regularly increases) salaries for state elected officials.

The proposed amendment would put legislators in charge of salaries, which is how it used to be. One of Ray’s arguments is that the commission is raising salaries higher than legislators did.

I don’t think legislators want this responsibility back. They like the extra money, and they won’t want the political headache.

The other proposed amendment by Sen. Bryan King, R-green Forest, would create a nine-member commission to help redraw legislative districts after each census. The governor, attorney general and secretary of state each would appoint three members and then together have the final say. Currently, those three officials redraw the boundaries more directly with help from staff members.

Regardless of its merits, I expect it also would be a long shot to make the ballot. The next census won’t occur for another seven years, so there’s no urgency.

Dare we hope that lawmakers will give voters a break and refer zero proposed constitutional amendments this time? The ballot still might include constitutional amendments initiated by citizens.

Voters again would get the chance to pick and choose, which is not a bad thing, but they would have fewer to choose from, which also would not be a bad thing.