To Create The "protect Our Constitution Act"; And Amending A Portion Of The Arkansas Constitution As Authorized By Arkansas Constitution, Article 5, § 1.
Summary
SB586, titled the "Protect Our Constitution Act," would change the vote threshold for approving constitutional amendments referred to Arkansas voters under Article 5, Section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution. Under current language, measures submitted to the people generally become law by a majority of votes cast; this bill would carve out constitutional amendments and require approval by at least two-thirds of the votes cast on the measure for it to take effect. The bill also retains the existing rule that, when conflicting measures are approved at the same election, the measure with the highest number of affirmative votes prevails.
The bill includes an emergency clause stating that the higher threshold is needed to protect the public peace, health, and safety and to ensure the change is in place for the 2026 general election. If enacted, it would immediately amend the constitutional provision governing voter-approved measures and make it harder for future constitutional amendments to pass at the ballot box.
Impact
SB586 would directly amend Arkansas Constitution, Article 5, § 1, altering the legal standard for adoption of voter-referred constitutional amendments from a simple majority of votes cast to a two-thirds supermajority. This would affect the initiative and referral process for constitutional amendments, making passage significantly more difficult and potentially reducing the number of amendments that can be adopted by voters. The bill does not change the process for ordinary measures generally, and it preserves the existing rule for resolving conflicting measures.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill was politically divisive rather than broadly supported: it reached third reading and then split evenly at 13 yeas and 13 nays. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate broader consensus or opposition themes. The emergency clause language shows proponents viewed the change as urgent and necessary for constitutional stability, while the close vote indicates substantial resistance to raising the approval threshold.
Contention
The main point of contention is the proposed shift from majority rule to a two-thirds requirement for constitutional amendments. Supporters appear to argue that constitutional changes should require broader voter consensus before altering the state constitution, especially given the emergency clause and the stated goal of having the rule in place for the 2026 general election. Opponents likely object to making it harder for voters to approve amendments and to changing the constitutionally established initiative process, but no transcript is available to identify specific arguments or sponsors beyond the bill text.