Arkansas Senate Bill SB398

Arkansas 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/6/25
• Refer: 3/6/25
• Failed: 5/5/25

Caption

To Amend Arkansas Law Concerning Initiative Petitions And Referendum Petitions; And To Allow A Cure Period For Insufficient Submissions.

Summary

SB398 would amend Arkansas law governing statewide initiative petitions and statewide referendum petitions to create a formal cure period when the Secretary of State determines that a petition or submitted signatures are insufficient. Under the bill, the Secretary of State must promptly notify the sponsor in writing of the specific insufficiency, and the sponsor would then have 30 days to correct or amend the petition or resubmit signatures. The Secretary of State would be required to re-review the resubmitted material within 10 days and notify the sponsor of the result. The bill also directs the Secretary of State, when feasible, to notify individual signers whose signatures were found insufficient. In addition, it amends existing verification provisions so that the new cure process is carved out from rules that otherwise prevent counting petition parts or accepting additional signatures after the filing deadline. The measure is framed as a clarification and support of the Arkansas Constitution’s reserved powers of initiative and referendum.

Impact

SB398 would change the procedures in Arkansas Code Title 7, Chapter 9, primarily sections 7-9-111 and 7-9-126, by adding a statutory cure period for statewide initiative and referendum petitions found insufficient by the Secretary of State. It would affect petition sponsors, signature gatherers, election officials, and voters participating in the initiative process by giving sponsors an additional opportunity to remedy deficiencies before a petition is finally rejected. The bill does not change the substantive subject matter of ballot measures; it changes the administrative review and verification process for qualifying measures for the ballot.

Sentiment

The bill’s stated purpose and structure suggest generally supportive sentiment toward ballot-access rights and the initiative/referendum process. The legislative findings emphasize the constitutional reservation of these powers to the people and describe the bill as clarifying and supporting that intent. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented opposition or support in the available materials beyond the bill’s pro-cure-period framing.

Contention

The main point of contention likely concerns whether a post-deadline cure period should be available for insufficient petition submissions and how much discretion or administrative burden this places on the Secretary of State. Supporters would view the bill as protecting direct democracy and preventing technical deficiencies from defeating citizen initiatives and referenda. Potential critics could argue that it weakens existing filing deadlines, complicates verification, or creates uncertainty in the ballot qualification process. The bill also raises practical questions about what counts as a curable insufficiency and when it is “feasible” to notify individual signers.