To Amend The Law Concerning Initiative Petitions And Referendum Petitions; To Require A Canvasser To Submit An Affidavit Before Signatures Can Be Counted; And To Declare An Emergency.
Summary
SB211 amends Arkansas law governing initiative petitions and referendum petitions by adding a new affidavit requirement for canvassers. Under the bill, a canvasser must file a true affidavit with the Secretary of State certifying compliance with Arkansas constitutional and statutory rules on canvassing, perjury, forgery, and fraudulent practices during the current election cycle before the signatures they collected may be counted. The bill also provides that signatures gathered by a canvasser who has not filed the required affidavit will not be counted.
The measure includes limited exceptions and related restrictions. If a canvasser cannot submit the affidavit because of death or medical disability, the signatures they gathered are not automatically disqualified, though the canvasser is still subject to other affidavit requirements in existing law. The bill also bars a canvasser who has filed the affidavit from collecting additional signatures unless the Secretary of State determines the petition sponsor is eligible for an amendment to the petition under the Arkansas Constitution. An emergency clause states that the act is immediately necessary to protect the integrity of the initiative process and to avoid disruption to the 2026 general election.
Impact
SB211 changes the petition-sufficiency process in Arkansas by making a canvasser’s affidavit a prerequisite to counting signatures on initiative, referendum, and constitutional amendment petitions. It amends Arkansas Code §§ 7-9-111 and 7-9-126 to add a new disqualification rule for signatures submitted without the required affidavit, thereby increasing administrative oversight by the Secretary of State and tightening compliance requirements for petition circulators and sponsors. The bill affects petition sponsors, canvassers, and voters participating in the citizen initiative process, and it is designed to take effect immediately under the emergency clause.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests the bill had meaningful support but also notable opposition. The Senate and House votes on third reading and the emergency clause show clear majorities in favor, indicating that many lawmakers viewed the measure as a needed integrity safeguard for the initiative process. At the same time, the repeated nays in both chambers show that a substantial minority opposed the bill, likely reflecting concern about added procedural burdens on citizen-led ballot access efforts.
Contention
The main point of contention is the balance between election integrity and access to the citizen initiative process. Supporters framed the bill as a way to strengthen confidence in petition signatures and prevent fraud, while opponents likely viewed the affidavit requirement and the rule withholding signature counting until the affidavit is filed as an additional barrier that could make it harder for grassroots campaigns to qualify measures. The emergency clause also appears potentially controversial because it accelerates implementation and is justified by the need to avoid disruption to the 2026 election cycle.