Opinion ID: 2428656
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 7

Text: Turning to the merits of the petitioner's remaining arguments, we first consider the context of Amendment 7. The relevant portion of Ark. Const. amend. 7 provides that: The legislative power of the people of this State shall be vested in a General Assembly, which shall consist of the Senate and House of Representatives, but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose legislative measures, laws and amendments to the Constitution, and to enact or reject the same at the polls independent of the General Assembly[.] Furthermore, through Amendment 7, the voters of this state essentially have, within constitutional limits, a right to change any law or any provision of our Constitution they deem appropriate. Donovan v. Priest, 326 Ark. at 357-58, 931 S.W.2d 119 (citing Dust v. Riviere, 277 Ark. 1, 4, 638 S.W.2d 663, 665 (1982)) (emphasis added). According to Amendment 7, the sufficiency of statewide petitions for initiatives shall be decided in the first instance by the Secretary of State subject to the review of this court, which has original and exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. Id. at 357, 931 S.W.2d 119. Initially, the Secretary of State must ascertain and declare the sufficiency of each initiative and referendum within thirty days of filing. However, when a proposed initiative is challenged, Amendment 7 places the burden of proof upon the person or persons attacking the validity of the petition. Id.