An Amendment To The Arkansas Constitution To Repeal The Office Of Lieutenant Governor.
Summary
SJR5 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would repeal the office of Lieutenant Governor in Arkansas. The resolution does not itself change statutory law; instead, it places a constitutional question before voters at the next general election, where approval by a majority would remove the office from the state constitution.
If adopted, the amendment would eliminate the constitutional basis for the lieutenant governor position and likely require follow-up changes to state law and constitutional provisions that reference the office, including succession, presiding duties, and any related administrative or electoral procedures. Because the text is brief, it does not specify a replacement structure or how duties currently assigned to the lieutenant governor would be reassigned.
Impact
The measure would directly amend the Arkansas Constitution by deleting the office of lieutenant governor, affecting constitutional provisions and any statutes or procedures that rely on that office. Its practical impact would extend to executive succession, legislative leadership functions, and election administration only if and when implementing changes are made to align state law with the revised constitution.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or roll-call evidence in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text alone, the proposal appears straightforward and structural rather than policy-driven, with the main public question likely centered on whether the office is necessary and what should replace it if repealed.
Contention
The primary point of contention would be the elimination of a statewide constitutional office and the uncertainty over succession and governance responsibilities after repeal. Supporters would likely favor reducing government structure or duplicative offices, while opponents would likely argue that the lieutenant governor provides an important constitutional backup and institutional continuity. The bill text does not identify any specific factions, but those are the likely lines of disagreement.