Arkansas Senate Bill SJR3

Arkansas 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/17/25
• Refer: 1/21/25
• Failed: 5/5/25

Caption

A Constitutional Amendment Concerning The Membership Of The State Highway Commission.

Summary

SJR 3 proposes a constitutional amendment to restructure how members of the Arkansas State Highway Commission are selected, qualified, and removed. The measure replaces the current at-large appointment framework with five geographic districts, each commissioner being required to reside in and represent a specific district made up of listed counties. It also sets out a staggered implementation schedule tied to existing commissioners’ term expirations, beginning in 2027 and continuing through 2035. The resolution also changes the Senate’s role in the appointment process. Under the proposal, only senators who reside in the district affected by a nomination would participate in advice and consent for that commissioner, and a majority of those senators would be required for confirmation. If the Governor fails to act after a rejection or vacancy, the resident senators from the district would be authorized to make the appointment. The amendment further requires commissioners to remain residents of their districts during their terms, and it directs removal and vacancy procedures if a commissioner moves out of district or otherwise leaves office.

Impact

If adopted, SJR 3 would amend Arkansas Constitution Amendment 42 and significantly alter the legal structure governing the State Highway Commission. It would replace the existing statewide appointment model with district-based representation, impose residency requirements, revise Senate confirmation procedures, and clarify vacancy and removal rules. The amendment also repeals Amendment 42, § 3, and updates §§ 4 and 5 to align with the new district system and appointment process. Because it is a constitutional amendment, it would supersede inconsistent statutory or constitutional provisions governing commission membership and appointments.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available materials. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to be presented as an administrative and structural reform focused on representation, accountability, and clearer appointment procedures rather than a policy change affecting highway operations. The absence of recorded votes or discussion prevents a reliable assessment of legislative sentiment beyond the fact that the proposal was formally introduced as a joint resolution for voter approval.

Contention

The main likely points of contention are the shift from statewide to district-based representation, the concentration of confirmation power in senators from the affected district, and the possibility that district senators could make appointments if the Governor does not act. Critics could view this as reducing the Governor’s statewide appointment authority and creating a more regionalized selection process, while supporters may argue it ensures local representation and accountability. Another possible issue is the detailed county map and the need to adjust districts after each federal census, which could raise questions about political balance and future redistricting authority.