To Create An Election Procedure To Determine Fluoridation Of A Public Water System.
SB613 creates a new Arkansas election procedure that allows registered voters served by a public water system to petition for an election on whether that system should fluoridate its water. The bill defines key terms such as public water system, canvasser, paid canvasser, sponsor, and petitioner, and sets out detailed rules for petition circulation, signature verification, notice of election, ballot wording, recounts, and record retention. A petition must be signed by registered voters equal to 38% of the voters supplied by the system, and the county clerk must verify sufficiency and coordinate across counties when the system serves multiple counties.
If the petition is sufficient, the question is placed on the ballot at a general, primary, or special election depending on the year. If a majority votes against fluoridation, the water system must stop fluoridating within 30 days after certification of the results, and another election on the issue cannot be held for four years. The bill also amends existing Arkansas law governing fluoridation programs so that water systems must maintain the Department of Health’s fluoride standard unless fluoridation is prohibited by an election under the new subchapter.
The bill would add a new subchapter to Title 14 of the Arkansas Code establishing a local referendum process for fluoridation decisions in public water systems serving 5,000 or more people. It also amends Arkansas Code § 20-7-136(b) to make compliance with the state fluoridation program conditional on the outcome of an election held under the new procedure, effectively creating an exception to the statewide fluoridation framework for systems where voters prohibit fluoridation. The bill imposes new duties on county clerks, election commissioners, and public water system boards, and creates penalties for petition fraud, false affidavits, and other canvassing violations.
The bill appears to have received majority support on the floor, passing third reading 27-7, which suggests a generally favorable sentiment among legislators who voted. The structure of the bill indicates a strong emphasis on election integrity and procedural safeguards, which may have helped support from members concerned about petition fraud and verification. At the same time, the close-to-moderate level of opposition indicates the fluoridation issue itself remained politically divisive.
The main point of contention is likely the policy choice to let local voters decide whether to fluoridate public water systems, which could override the existing statewide public health approach. Supporters would view the bill as expanding local control and voter choice, while opponents may see it as undermining a Department of Health standard and public health practice. The bill also contains strict petition and canvassing requirements, including paid canvasser registration, photo identification, affidavit requirements, and criminal penalties, which may reflect concerns about fraud but could also be viewed as burdensome for petition organizers.