Arkansas Issue 1, Cap on Attorney’s Fees and Damage Awards in Lawsuits Amendment (2018)

Arkansas Issue 1

Election date
November 6, 2018
Topic
Tort law
Status
Not on the ballot
Type
Constitutional amendment| Origin
State legislature

* * *

List of Arkansas measuresArkansas Issue 2Arkansas Issue 4Arkansas Issue 5Submit

* * *

Arkansas Issue 1, the Cap on Attorney’s Fees and Damage Awards in Lawsuits Amendment was certified but later ruled invalid by the State Supreme Court and did not appear on the ballot on November 6, 2018.[1][2]

Click here to learn what the terms used in this article mean.

## Contents

* 1 Overview
* 2 Amendment design
* 3 Text of measure
* 3.1 Popular title
* 3.2 Ballot title
* 3.3 Constitutional changes
* 3.4 Readability score
* 4 Support
* 4.1 Supporters
* 4.2 Arguments
* 5 Opposition
* 5.1 Opponents
* 5.2 Arguments
* 6 Campaign finance
* 6.1 Support
* 6.1.1 Donors
* 6.2 Opposition
* 6.2.1 Donors
* 6.3 Methodology
* 7 Polls
* 8 Background
* 8.1 Tort law in Arkansas
* 8.1.1 Constitutional prohibition of caps
* 8.1.2 Issue 4 of 2016
* 8.2 Tort law in the United States
* 8.2.1 Limits on non-economic damages
* 8.2.2 Limits on contingency fees
* 8.3 Referred amendments on the ballot
* 8.4 What the terms mean
* 9 Path to the ballot
* 9.1 House vote
* 9.2 Senate vote
* 9.3 Lawsuit
* 10 How to cast a vote
* 10.1 Poll times
* 10.2 Registration requirements
* 10.3 Automatic registration
* 10.4 Online registration
* 10.5 Same-day registration
* 10.6 Residency requirements
* 10.7 Verification of citizenship
* 10.8 Verifying your registration
* 10.9 Voter ID requirements
* 11 State profile
* 11.1 Presidential voting pattern
* 11.1.1 Pivot Counties (2016)
* 11.1.2 Pivot Counties (2020)
* 12 See also
* 13 External links
* 13.1 Support
* 13.2 Opposition
* 14 Recent news
* 15 Footnotes

## Overview[edit]

What was the law in Arkansas going into the election?

Going into the election the Arkansas Constitution prohibited limitations on compensation for non-economic damages, such as injuries to persons or property or wrongful death. Provided no caps are set, the constitution allows the legislature to pass laws governing court awarded compensation for personal damages. For example, the legislature passed a law to establish that, if the plaintiff in a case is at fault but less so than the defendant, damages can still be awarded to the plaintiff but diminished in proportion to his or her fault. Another example is the statutory law allowing defendants to use compliance with government standards as a defense, but not necessarily a complete defense, against a damages suit.[3][4]

Going into the election Arkansas did not set a limit on attorney contingency fees.[5]

What would this amendment have done?

Issue 1 was designed to set caps on the compensation that could be awarded for non-economic damages and on punitive damages. It would have also limited the contingency fees of lawyers to one-third of the net amount recovered. Finally, the amendment would have decreased from 66.67 percent to 60 percent the supermajority vote requirement in the legislature to amend or repeal court rules regarding pleading, practice, or procedure prescribed by the Arkansas Supreme Court and would have required a two-thirds (66.67%) vote for the legislature to make certain changes to the limits in the amendment.[2]

How did other states compare?

Eleven states had caps on non-economic damages for general tort or personal injury cases, 20 states had provisions capping non-economic damages specifically in cases of medical malpractice but not for personal injury cases generally, and 19 states had no caps on non-economic damages as of 2017. Among the 19 with no caps were five states—including Arkansas—that had constitutional provisions prohibiting caps at least in certain areas.[3]

The following is a break down of the status of limits on lawyer contingency fees in the 50 states according to a 2013 study released by the New York Law School's Center for Justice and Democracy:[5]

* 21 states do not have limitations on contingency fees;
* 11 states have a general cap on contingency fees;
* 16 states have a cap on contingency fees specifically for medical malpractice cases; and
* 2 states have both general restrictions and separate caps specifically for medical malpractice cases.

Ballot measure campaigns

Note: The campaign finance information on this page covers activity through September 30, 2018. It was not updated after the measure was invalidated from appearing on the ballot.

Business and medical interests—including the Arkansas Chamber of Commerce, the Arkansas Trucking Association, the Arkansas Medical Society, and the Arkansas Hospital Association—backed Issue 1, arguing that it would have protected hospitals, nursing homes, and businesses from frivolous lawsuits, thereby allowing economic growth and lower healthcare costs. Attorneys and law firms aligned with certain faith and community interests in opposition to Issue 1, arguing that it was an effort by business interests and corporations to protect their profits at the cost of the rights of Arkansas residents and that it assigns an unfair and arbitrary value to life and health.

Ballotpedia identified one committee registered to support Issue 1: Arkansans for Jobs and Justice. The committee had raised $2.57 million and had spent $2.17 million. The largest donor was the Arkansas Hospital Association, which contributed $500,000.[6]

Four committees—Protect AR Families, Defending Your Day in Court, the Family Council Action Committee LQC and the Liberty Defense Network, LLC—were registered in opposition to Issue 1.[7][8] Together, the four opposition committees had raised $3.78 million and had spent $3.49 million. A majority of donors, including the largest donors, were attorneys or law firms. The largest contributor was attorney Brad Hendricks, who gave over $600,000.[9][10][11]

## Amendment design[edit]

Issue 1 would have limited the fee paid to attorneys if the claimant recovered money from a civil lawsuit, also known as a contingency fee, to one-third (33.33 percent) of the net amount recovered. The amendment did not define what net money recovered would have meant but states that the legislature would have needed to define it in legislation implementing the amendment starting in the 2019 session. The Arkansas General Assembly would have been empowered to change the maximum percentage for contingency fees by a two-thirds vote (66.6 percent).[2]

Issue 1 would have also limited the punitive damages awards for claimants in lawsuits for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death to the greater of $500,000 or three times the amount of compensatory damages awarded. Punitive damages would have been defined as "damages to punish and deter wrongful conduct."

Non-economic damages awards in lawsuits for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death would have been limited to $500,000 for each claimant or $500,000 for all beneficiaries. The amendment would have defined non-economic damages as damages that cannot be measured in money, including "pain and suffering, mental and emotional distress, loss of life or companionship, or visible result of injury."

The legislature would have been required to pass laws in 2019 on how the limits on punitive damages awards and non-economic damages would have been adjusted to account for inflation or deflation.

Issue 1 would have decreased the supermajority requirement from a two-thirds vote (66.67 percent) to a three-fifths vote (60 percent) for the state legislature to amend or repeal court rules regarding pleading, practice, or procedure prescribed by the Arkansas Supreme Court. It would have also allowed the legislature to make the following changes through a two-thirds (66.67%) vote in each house:

* amend the maximum contingency fee percentage allowed;
* increase the restrictions on punitive damages, but not decrease the restrictions; and
* increase the restrictions on non-economic damages, but not decrease the restrictions.

Explanation of terms:

* Contingency fees: A contingency fee is compensation for an attorney that is based entirely on awards given to the person claiming damages. It is generally an agreed upon percentage of the money received because of a successful lawsuit. Issue 1 defined contingency fee as "an attorney's fee that is paid only if the claimant recovers money by way of settlement, arbitration, or judgment."[12]
* Non-economic damages: Non-economic damages are damages that cannot be measured by a specific monetary value. Issue 1 defined non-economic damages as "damages that cannot be measured in money, including pain and suffering, mental and emotional distress, loss of life or companionship, or visible result of injury."
* Punitive damages: Punitive damages are monetary awards granted in civil cases above and beyond damages to the injured party specifically to punish the defendant. They are also known as exemplary damages. Issue 1 defined Punitive damages "as damages assessed to punish and deter wrongful conduct."[13]

Click here for more details about these terms and to read pro and con arguments for each.

## Text of measure[edit]

### Popular title[edit]

The popular title for Issue 1 was as follows:[2]

“  | An Amendment Concerning Civil Lawsuits and the Powers of the General Assembly and Supreme Court to Adopt Court Rules.[14] | ”

|
|

### Ballot title[edit]

The ballot title for Issue 1 was as follows:[2]

| “  | A proposed amendment to the Arkansas Constitution providing that a contingency fee for an attorney in a civil lawsuit shall not exceed thirty-three and one-third percent (33 1/3 %) of the net recovery; defining “contingency fee” as an attorney’s fee that is paid only if the claimant recovers money; providing that the General Assembly may amend the foregoing percentage by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of each house; limiting punitive damages awards for each claimant in lawsuits for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death to the greater of (i) five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), or (ii) three (3) times the amount of compensatory damages awarded; defining “punitive damages” as damages assessed to punish and deter wrongful conduct; providing that the General Assembly may not decrease the foregoing limitations on punitive damages but may increase the limitations by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of each house; providing that the limitations on punitive damages do not apply if the factfinder determines by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant intentionally pursued a course of conduct for the purpose of causing injury or damage to the claimant and that such intentional conduct harmed the claimant; limiting awards of non-economic damages in lawsuits for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death to (i) five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for each claimant, or (ii) five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for all beneficiaries of an individual deceased person in the aggregate in a lawsuit for wrongful death; defining “non-economic damages” as damages that cannot be measured in money, including pain and suffering, mental and emotional distress, loss of life or companionship, or visible result of injury; providing that the General Assembly may not decrease the foregoing limitations on non-economic damages but may increase the limitations by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of each house; providing that the General Assembly shall adopt a procedure to adjust the dollar limitations on punitive damages and non-economic damages in future years to account for inflation or deflation; providing that the Supreme Court’s power to prescribe rules of pleading, practice, and procedure for courts is subject to the provisions of this amendment; providing that the General Assembly, by a three-fifths vote of each house, may amend or repeal a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court and may adopt other rules of pleading, practice, or procedure on its own initiative; providing that rules of pleading, practice, and procedure in effect on January 1, 2019, shall continue in effect until amended, superseded, or repealed under the provisions of this amendment; providing that a rule of pleading, practice, or procedure enacted by the General Assembly shall supersede a conflicting rule of pleading, practice, or procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court; providing that certain other rules promulgated by the Supreme Court may be annulled or amended by a three-fifths (3/5) vote of each house of the General Assembly instead of a two-thirds (2/3) vote as presently stated in the Arkansas Constitution; and providing that this amendment becomes effective on January 1, 2019.[14] | ”

|
|

### Constitutional changes[edit]

Arkansas Constitution

Preamble
Articles
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • Schedule • Proclamation
Amendments

See also: Article 7, Arkansas Constitution

Issue 1 would have added a Section 53 to Article 7, would have amended Section 32 of Article 5, and would have amended Sections 3 and 9 of Amendment 80 of the Arkansas Constitution. The following underlined text would have been added and ~~struck-through~~ text would have been deleted:[2] Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

Article 7

§ 53. Contingency fees.

(a) As used in this section, "contingency fee" means an attorney's fee that is paid only if the claimant recovers money by way of settlement, arbitration, or judgment.

(b) A contingency fee for legal representation in a civil action shall not exceed thirty-three and one-third percent (33 1/3 %) of the net amount of the recovery, whether obtained by settlement, arbitration, or judgment.

(c) Beginning with the 2019 regular session, by a majority vote of each house, the General Assembly shall enact laws necessary for the proper implementation of this section, including without limitation laws:

(1) Establishing penalties for contingency fees that exceed the maximum under this section; and

(2) Defining terms in subsection (b) of this section as necessary, including without limitation defining the phrase "net amount of the recovery".

(d) By a two-thirds vote of each house, the General Assembly may enact laws amending the maximum percentage for contingency fees for legal representation under subdivision (b) of this section.

Article 5

§ 32. Workmen's Compensation Laws - Actions for ~~personal~~ injuries resulting in death or injuries to persons or property.

(a) As used in this section:

(1) "Non-economic damages" means damages that cannot be measured in money, including without limitation any loss or damage, however characterized, for pain and suffering, mental and emotional distress, loss of life or companionship, or visible result of injury; and

(2) "Punitive damages" means damages to punish and deter wrongful conduct.

(b) The General Assembly shall have power to enact laws prescribing the amount of compensation to be paid by employers for injuries to or death of employees, and to whom said payment shall be made. It shall have power to provide the means, methods, and forum for adjudicating claims arising under said laws, and for securing payment of same. Provided ~~,~~ that otherwise, except as provided in subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section, no law shall be enacted limiting the amount to be recovered for injuries resulting in death or for injuries to persons or property; and in case of death from such injuries the right of action shall survive, and the General Assembly shall prescribe for whose benefit such action shall be prosecuted.

(c) (1) Punitive damage awards for each claimant in actions for injuries resulting in death and actions for injuries to persons or property, including without limitation medical injuries, shall not exceed the greater of:

(A) Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000); or

(B) Three (3) times the amount of compensatory damages awarded to the claimant.

(2) Subdivision (c)(1) of this section does not apply if the finder of fact determines by clear and convincing evidence that:

(A) The defendant intentionally pursued a course of conduct for the purpose of causing injury or damage to the claimant; and

(B) The defendant's intentional conduct harmed the claimant.

(3) (A) Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, by a two-thirds vote of each house, the General Assembly may enact laws increasing the limitations under subdivisions (c)(1)(A) and (B) of this section.

(B) Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, the General Assembly shall not enact laws decreasing the limitations under subdivisions (c)(1)(A) and (B) of this section.

(d) (1) Non-economic damage awards in actions for injuries resulting in death and actions for injuries to persons or property, including without limitation medical injuries, shall be limited to:

(A) Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for each claimant; and (B) Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for all beneficiaries of an individual decedent in the aggregate in an action for injuries resulting in death.

(2) (A) Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, by a two-thirds vote of each house, the General Assembly may enact laws increasing the limitations under subdivisions (d)(1)(A) and (B) of this section.

(B) Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, the General Assembly shall not enact laws decreasing the limitations under subdivisions (d)(1)(A) and (B) of this section.

(e) (1) By a majority vote of each house, the General Assembly during its 2019 regular session shall enact laws adopting a procedure to adjust the dollar figures under subsections (c) and (d) of this section for inflation or deflation in future years.

(2) The procedure for adjustment under subdivision (e)(1) of this section shall:

(A) Provide for adjustments intended only to compensate for inflation or deflation;

(B) Be based upon the Consumer Price Index or a comparable index chosen by the General Assembly; and

(C) Permit rounding to the nearest one hundred dollars ($100).

(3) Beginning with the 2021 regular session, by a two-thirds vote of each house, the General Assembly may enact laws amending the procedure enacted by law under subsection (e)(1) of this section.

Amendment 80

§ 3. Rules of pleading, practice, and procedure.

(a) The Supreme Court shall prescribe ~~the~~ rules of pleading, practice, and procedure for all courts, subject to subsections (b)-(e) of this section; provided these rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right and shall preserve the right of trial by jury as declared in this Constitution.

(b) (1) By a three-fifths vote of each house, the General Assembly may enact laws:

(A) Amending or repealing a rule of pleading, practice, or procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court; and

(B) Adopting on its own initiative a rule of pleading, practice, or procedure.

(2) A rule of pleading, practice, or procedure enacted by law by the General Assembly shall supersede a conflicting rule of pleading, practice, or procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court.

(c) Rules of pleading, practice, and procedure under this section shall preserve the right of trial by jury as declared in this Constitution.

(d) Rules of pleading, practice, and procedure in effect on January 1, 2019, shall continue in effect until amended, superseded, or repealed under this section.

(e) Rules of pleading, practice, and procedure under this section include without limitation rules governing the presentation and admission of evidence.

Amendment 80

9\. Annulment or amendment of rules.

Any rules promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to Sections 5, 6(B), 7(B), 7(D), or 8 of this Amendment may be annulled or amended, in whole or in part, by a ~~two-thirds (2/3)~~ three-fifths vote of the membership of each house of the General Assembly. [14]

### Readability score[edit]

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The state legislature wrote the ballot language for this measure.

The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 196.8, and the FRE is -441.6. The word count for the ballot title is 491, and the estimated reading time is 2 minutes 10 seconds.

In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.
Because the formulas used to calculate reading ease and required grade level has no maximum or minimum limits in place, the formulas produced the impossible results shown.

## Support[edit]

Arkansans for Jobs and Justice led the campaign in support of Issue 1.[15][16]

### Supporters[edit]

* The Arkansas Chamber of Commerce[17]
* Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas Tim Griffin (R)[18]
* The Arkansas Medical Society[19]
* Pulaski County Medical Society[20]
* Arkansas Trucking Association[20]
* Arkansas Health Care Association[20]
* The Poultry Federation[20]
* Arkansas Hospital Association[20]
* Arkansas Economic Developers and Chamber Executives[21]

### Arguments[edit]

Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas Tim Griffin (R) wrote the following in Talk Business:[18]

“  | Issue 1 allows victims to recover for injuries and damages. It does not limit economic damages. Victims may be fully compensated for 100% of economic losses, including lost wages, medical bills and loss of property, for example. And while Issue 1 provides common sense limits on non-economic damages of $500,000, it does not limit punitive damages in cases involving intentional misconduct and caps punitive damages in other cases at the greater of $500,000 or three times total compensatory damages. ... While we pursue the critical ingredients of tax reform, regulatory reform and education reform, let’s add the much-needed ingredient of lawsuit reform. Most states already have and are seeing the results. Let’s pass Issue 1 and give Arkansans a recipe for a more prosperous, healthier Arkansas.[14] | ”

|
|

Randy Zook, the president and CEO of the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce and Associated Industries of Arkansas, made the following argument:[22]

“  |

It’s time to once again level the playing field in Arkansas with commonsense reforms that strike a balance between protecting the rights of everyday Arkansans while creating an environment of economic growth and job creation in Arkansas. Unfortunately, the progress made on tort reform in 2003 has been stripped away, piece by piece, over the last 14 years by the Arkansas Supreme Court, making a constitutional amendment necessary. The passage of SJR8 [Issue 1] by the voters will make Arkansas more competitive with surrounding states while still protecting the right to a jury trial and damages.[14]

| ”

|
|

Randy Zook also made the following statement:[21]

“  |

Without lawsuit reform, Arkansas small businesses face a constant threat of frivolous lawsuits. It unfairly hurts our entire state's ability to grow jobs and recruit and retain doctors to care for Arkansans in communities large and small. Farmers, job creators, truckers, doctors and hospitals have joined together to pass lawsuit reform that protects everyday Arkansans from being overcharged with ridiculous contingency fees and while still allowing them to recover 100% of their actual damages in civil cases. We know from examples like Texas, that lawsuit reforms benefit our state and grows jobs. That's why just last week, the Arkansas Economic Developers and Chamber Executives voted to endorse Issue 1 and I look forward to the continued growth of support as our campaign progresses.[14]

| ”

|
|

Rep. Bob Ballinger (R-97) made the following argument:[23]

“  |

Businesses are being extorted, because they come in and they're faced with, 'Do I go ahead and defend this even though I know it's a frivolous lawsuit, or do I pay it because in the end a jury may very well slap on me a $10 million judgment and I can't afford that? For some small businesses, a $1 million judgment, that's enough to put us out of business.[14]

| ”

|
|

Carl Vogelpohl, the campaign manager for Arkansans for Jobs and Justice, made the following argument:[24]

“  |

Arkansas ranks 48th in the nation in infant mortality and 44th in the nation for maternity mortality. Expecting mothers in Arkansas often face long drives past local rural hospitals to deliver their babies. Arkansas is ranked 50th in terms of environment for emergency care and the American College of Emergency Physicians has said, ‘to help combat its workforce shortages and improve overall access to emergency care, Arkansas should enact medical liability reforms.[14]

| ”

|
|

Cole Peck a Republican candidate for the Arkansas House of Representatives in the 53rd district said:[25]

“  |

I think frivolous lawsuits add a cost to business. I think we'd see some cost saving [if the amendment passes]. I also think we'd see increased access to health care.[14]

| ”

|
|

## Opposition[edit]

Four committees registered to oppose Issue 1: Protect AR Families, Defending Your Day in Court, Family Council Action Committee, and the Liberty Defense Network, LLC.[26][7]

### Opponents[edit]

* The Arkansas State Bar Association[17]
* The Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association[27]
* Jess Mallett, a lawyer running for Arkansas House District 32 in 2018[28]
* The Family Council Action Committee[21][29]

### Arguments[edit]

Chad Gallagher of the Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association said, "My concern about Issue 1 is that it was a total overreach by the General Assembly. It was unnecessary. This version went too far. I believe it's morally wrong. [The proposal might be more accurately called] "the price of life amendment" or the "corrupt power expansion amendment."[27]

The Protect AR Families website featured the following argument:[26]

“  |

It is wrong to put an arbitrary limit on the value of life and loss. Imagine that immoral practice applied in tragic deaths or permanent, debilitating injuries. Imagine the government assigning an arbitrary value – or lack of value – to a person's life. Don't let it happen in our state. [...]

Issue 1 is an attempt to change the Arkansas Constitution that guarantees your right to a jury trial with jurors unencumbered by arbitrary boundaries and limits. [...] It is an attempt by big government and special interests to take away an inherent right of the citizens of this state to determine for themselves what value human life has.[14]

| ”

|
|

Mike Masterso, in an opinion piece published in the Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, made the following arguments:[30]

“  |

The attempt to rig the justice system in favor of defendants in injury cases for me represents nothing less than the nursing home industry's greatest betrayal to the residents it should serve above all. Sadly enough, it seems every day we Arkansans somehow come out on the losing end when big money and friendly politicians join forces. [...]

By needlessly amending our state's Constitution that has served us well since 1874, SJR8 assigns an arbitrary legal value to any life or catastrophic injury. It basically states no matter what happens, regardless of how terrible the circumstance, our lives can never be worth more than $500,000. The injured person then deducts any fees and expenses from that figure.

Anyone else believe such an un-realistic restriction provides justification to vote against this issue that so heavily favors those responsible for injury?[14]

| ”

|
|

Jerry Cox, leader of the Family Council, argued that Issue 1 set a dollar amount on life and said, "Issue 1 allows the powerful to hurt what I call the least of these."[21]

Annabelle Imber Tuck, retired Supreme Court Justice and chairwoman of Defending Your Day in Court, said, "Rulemaking will become a process of political wherewithal, basically money. Regular people are not going to have that power, because we're not going to contribute to campaigns in terms of big money. It would be who has the money to lobby at the Legislature for a rule. If you're going to make the political process the way you determine due process, the tilting of the scales of justice will grow in favor of those with resources."[31]

Ken Yang, political director of Family Council Action Committee, said, “As a Christian, pro-life organization, Family Council Action Committee believes human life is sacred from the moment of conception until natural death. Without that threat, some facilities – especially those owned by large corporations – may put their profits ahead of adequate care. Without the threat of litigation, Arkansas has no other means of holding the owners of nursing homes and other long-term care facilities accountable."[32]

## Campaign finance[edit]

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Arkansas ballot measures

The campaign finance information on this page covers activity through September 30, 2018. It was not updated after the measure was invalidated from appearing on the ballot.

Total campaign contributions:

Support: | $2,573,219.00
Opposition: | $3,779,488.22

Ballotpedia identified one committee registered to support Issue 1: Arkansans for Jobs and Justice. The committee had raised $2.57 million and had spent $2.17 million. The largest donor was the Arkansas Hospital Association, which contributed $500,000.[6]

Four committees—Protect AR Families, Defending Your Day in Court, the Family Council Action Committee LQC and the Liberty Defense Network, LLC—were registered in opposition to Issue 1.[7][8] Together, the four opposition committees had raised $3.78 million and had spent $3.49 million. A majority of donors, including the largest donors, were attorneys or law firms. The largest contributor was attorney Brad Hendricks, who gave over $600,000.[9][10][11]

### Support[edit]

| Committees in support of Arkansas Issue 1

Supporting committees| Cash contributions| In-kind services| Cash expenditures
Arkansans for Jobs and Justice[8]| $2,519,679.00| $53,540.00| $2,118,863.60
Total| $2,519,679.00| $53,540.00| $2,118,863.60
| Totals in support

Total raised:| $2,573,219.00
Total spent:| $2,172,403.60

#### Donors[edit]

Following are donors who had given $150,000 or more to the support committee:[6]

Donor  | Cash  | In-kind  | Total

|
|
|

Arkansas Hospital Association | $500,000.00 | $0.00 | $500,000.00
Jim Walton | $300,000.00 | $0.00 | $300,000.00
Arkansas Medical Society | $264,378.00 | $0.00 | $264,378.00
Tyson Foods | $150,000.00 | $0.00 | $150,000.00
Walmart | $150,000.00 | $0.00 | $150,000.00
Stephens Investments Holdings | $150,000.00 | $0.00 | $150,000.00
Southern Administrative Services | $150,000.00 | $0.00 | $150,000.00

### Opposition[edit]

| Committees in opposition to Arkansas Issue 1

Opposing committees| Cash contributions| In-kind services| Cash expenditures
Protect AR Families| $2,786,352.60| $28,123.58| $2,615,560.65
Defending Your Day in Court| $111,443.04| $2,885.76| $89,528.57
Liberty Defense Network, LLC| $523,377.27| $6,132.97| $459,342.29
Family Council Action Committee| $150,995.00| $170,178.00| $121,803.01
Total| $3,572,167.91| $207,320.31| $3,286,234.52
| Totals in opposition

Total raised:| $3,779,488.22
Total spent:| $3,493,554.83

#### Donors[edit]

The top donors to the opposition campaign were as follows:[9][10][11]

Donor  | Cash  | In-kind  | Total

|
|
|

Brad Hendricks (attorney) | $603,737.41 | $19,438.23 | $623,175.64
Rainwater, Holt & Sexton, PA (lawfirm) | $348,680.00 | $170,178.00 | $518,858.00
Bailey & Oliver Lawfirm | $200,000.00 | $0.00 | $200,000.00
Bobby McDaniel (attorney) | $173,680.00 | $0.00 | $173,680.00
Reddick Law Firm | $150,000.00 | $0.00 | $150,000.00

### Methodology[edit]

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

## Polls[edit]

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls and 2018 ballot measure polls

A September 2018 poll conducted by Talk Business & Politics and Hendrix College asked 1,701 likely Arkansas voters the following question:[33]

“  |

The Arkansas General Assembly has referred a constitutional amendment to voters, called Issue 1, that will cap attorney fees, limit damages in personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death lawsuits, and give the legislature the authority to control the rules of court procedure. If the election were today, would you vote for or against this constitutional amendment?[14]

| ”

|
|

The results of the poll are below:[33]

Arkansas Issue 1

Poll | Support | Oppose| Don't know| Margin of error| Sample size
Talk Business & Politics- Hendrix College
9/5/18 - 9/7/18 | 25.0%| 47.0%| 28.0%| +/-2.4| 1,701
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

## Background[edit]

Voting on Tort Law

Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot

### Tort law in Arkansas[edit]

#### Constitutional prohibition of caps[edit]

Going into the election on this amendment, the Arkansas constitution prohibited laws that cap non-economic damages. The constitution stated the following prior to the election on this amendment:

“  |

The General Assembly shall have power to enact laws prescribing the amount of compensation to be paid by employers for injuries to or death of employees, and to whom said payment shall be made. It shall have power to provide the means, methods, and forum for adjudicating claims arising under said laws, and for securing payment of same. Provided, that otherwise, except as provided in subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section, no law shall be enacted limiting the amount to be recovered for injuries resulting in death or for injuries to persons or property;[14]

| ”

|
|

Examples of laws that the legislature has passed governing lawsuits concerning personal damages are below:[3][4]

* The legislature passed law to establish that, if the plaintiff in a case has fault, but less fault than the defendant, damages can still be awarded to the plaintiff but diminished in proportion to his or her fault.
* Another example is the statutory law allowing defendants to use compliance with government standards as a defense, but not a complete defense, against a damages suit.

#### Issue 4 of 2016[edit]

See also: Arkansas Cap on Medical Malpractice Attorney Fees, Issue 4 (2016)

An amendment to cap awards for non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits at $250,000 was proposed for the ballot in 2016. Between April and June 2016, more than 130,000 signatures were collected to get Issue 4 certified to appear on the ballot.[34] About $9.52 was spent per signature to collect the 84,859 valid signatures required to put the initiative before voters. The measure received support from the Arkansas Hospital Association and Arkansas Medical Society.[35] On October 13, 2016, the Arkansas Supreme Court struck Issue 4 from the ballot on the basis of not defining the term non-economic damages in the amendment or ballot title. Associate Justice Paul Danielson explained the ruling, saying, “We have disapproved the use of terms that are technical and not readily understood by voters… The term 'non-economic damages' is a 'technical term' that is not readily understood by voters. Without a definition of this term, the voter would be in the position of guessing as to the effect his or her vote would have unless he or she is an expert in the legal field.”[36]

### Tort law in the United States[edit]

#### Limits on non-economic damages[edit]

As of June 2017, 11 states had caps on non-economic damages for general tort or personal injury cases, 20 states had provisions capping non-economic damages specifically in cases of medical malpractice, and 19 states had no caps on non-economic damages. Among the 19 with no caps were five states—including Arkansas—that had constitutional provisions prohibiting caps at least in certain areas. This data was compiled and released by the New York Law School Center for Justice and Democracy. The map below shows the status regarding caps on non-economic damages for each state. Hover over each state to see details.[3]

#### Limits on contingency fees[edit]

According to a study released in 2013 by the New York Law School's Center for Justice and Democracy, the status of laws restricting contingency fees in all 50 states is below.[5]

* 21 states do not have limitations on contingency fees;
* 11 states have a general limit cap on contingency fees;
* 16 states have a cap on contingency fees specifically for medical malpractice cases; and
* 2 states have both general restrictions and separate caps specifically for medical malpractice cases.

Details can be seen on the map below by hovering over each state.

### Referred amendments on the ballot[edit]

From 1996 through 2016, the state legislature referred 27 constitutional amendments to the ballot. Voters approved 21 and rejected six of the referred amendments. All of the amendments were referred to the ballot for general elections during even-numbered election years. The average number of amendments appearing on the general election ballot was between two and three. The Arkansas State Legislature is allowed to refer up to three constitutional amendments to the ballot for each general election. The approval rate of referred amendments at the ballot box was 77.8 percent during the 20-year period from 1996 through 2016. The rejection rate was 22.2 percent.

Legislatively-referred constitutional amendments, 1996-2016

Total number | Approved | Percent approved | Defeated | Percent defeated | Annual average | Annual median | Annual minimum | Annual maximum
27 | 21 | 77.78% | 6 | 22.22% | 2.45 | 3.00 | 1 | 3

### What the terms mean[edit]

* Contingency fees: A contingency fee is compensation for an attorney that is based entirely on awards given to the person claiming damages. It is generally an agreed upon percentage of the money received because of a successful lawsuit. If a lawyer agrees to take a case based on a contingency fee and loses the court case, the attorney does not receive payment. Issue 1 defined contingency fee as "an attorney's fee that is paid only if the claimant recovers money by way of settlement, arbitration, or judgment."
* Pros: The benefits of contingency fees are that no money is required up front and no attorney fees are required if someone claiming damages loses the case, according to Legal Match. This makes attorneys accessible to those without funds and reduces the risk of loss for the claimant.[12]
* Cons: The disadvantages of contingency fees are that they motivate lawyers and firms to take cases solely based on whether or not they think they can be won easily and that ultimately attorney costs in successful cases might be higher than hourly billing, according to Legal Match. These disadvantages can reduce the amount of money received by those claiming damages and can reduce the accessibility to legal counsel for certain cases.[12]
* Non-economic damages: Non-economic damages are damages that cannot be measured by a specific monetary value. Issue 1 defined non-economic damages as "damages that cannot be measured in money, including pain and suffering, mental and emotional distress, loss of life or companionship, or visible result of injury."
* Punitive damages: Punitive damages are monetary awards granted in civil cases above and beyond damages to the injured party specifically to punish the defendant. They are also known as exemplary damages. They are often awarded in cases where it is determined that the following descriptions apply to a defendant's actions: "bad faith, fraud, malice, oppression, outrageous, violent, wanton, wicked, and reckless." Issue 1 defined Punitive damages "as damages assessed to punish and deter wrongful conduct."[13]
* One pro of the use of punitive damages is that punitive damages might deter similar actions by the defendant and by others in similar positions or industries,, according to Legal Dictionary. Proponents also argue that it is just to punish those that inflict damage on others for civil wrongdoing and that injured parties deserve retribution according to Legal Dictionary.[13]
* Opponents argue that punitive damages are often unfair because they provide claimants with undeserved monetary compensation and amount to criminal fines in civil cases that do not have the burden of proof requirements of criminal cases, according to Legal Dictionary. Opponents also argue that the amounts of punitive damages are often inconsistent and established through emotion and bias and that use of punitive damage insurance reduces the ability of punitive damage awards to deter action, according to Legal Dictionary.[13]

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Amending the Arkansas Constitution

In Arkansas, a proposed constitutional amendment must be approved by a simple majority in both houses of the state legislature during one legislative session. The amendment was introduced into the legislature as Senate Joint Resolution 8 on February 2, 2017. The Senate first approved the amendment, 21 to 10, on February 16, 2017. On February 27, 2017, the House approved an amended version of the amendment, 66 to 33, with four members not voting. On March 1, 2017, the Senate approved the amended bill, with 20 senators in favor and 11 against.[37] Senate Joint Resolution 8 was enrolled on the same day.[38]

The 2017 legislative session ran from January 9, 2017, through April 3, 2017.

### House vote[edit]

February 28, 2017[38]

|  Arkansas SJR 8 House Vote

Result| Votes| Percentage
a Yes|  66|  66.67%
No| 33| 33.33%

### Senate vote[edit]

March 1, 2017[37]

|  Arkansas SJR 8 Senate Vote

Result| Votes| Percentage
a Yes|  20|  64.52%
No| 11| 35.48%

### Lawsuit[edit]

Former Judge Marion Humphrey v. Arkansas Secretary of State Mark Martin

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the initiative is unconstitutional since it combines separate constitutional amendments into one ballot measure, whether the initiative violates provisions regarding separation of powers in the Arkansas Constitution
Court: Filed in Circuit Court of Pulaski County, appealed to Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, the judge ordered the secretary of state not to count any votes cast for the measure. Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. On October 18, 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling to not count any votes on the measure
Plaintiff(s): Former Judge Marion Humphrey| Defendant(s): Arkansas Secretary of State Mark Martin (R)
Plaintiff argument:
The measure is actually four different constitutional amendments disguised as one, which violates the single-subject rule. It violates the separation of powers of the legislative and judicial branches of government.| Defendant argument:
The measure is constitutional and should go on the ballot.

Source: Court Filings

Humphrey argued "Issue 1 is a power grab fueled by the corruption we have seen in our legislature. If Issue 1 passes, our state’s judiciary will simply become another agency controlled by lobbyists and special interests whose recent acts have proven to be ethically and morally bankrupt.”[39]

On September 6, 2018, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Mackie Pierce ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Pierce said the plaintiffs "clearly demonstrated Issue 1 fails to meet the single-subject test [and] clearly demonstrated the four parts of Issue 1 are not reasonably germane to each other nor are those four parts reasonably germane to the subject (whatever that subject may be) of the amendment. lf the subject of the amendment is judicial power, the four parts do not relate to judicial power nor are they reasonably germane to each other. lf the subject of the amendment is the courts and the judiciary, the four parts of the amendment do not relate to the courts and the judiciary nor are they reasonably germane to each other. The Arkansas General Assembly, in proposing and passing lssue 1, has engaged in impermissible logrolling.” Defendants appealed the decision to the Arkansas Supreme Court and said they expected a final decision in October.[40]

On September 13, 2018, Chief Justice Dan Kemp recused himself from the case. Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson named Sebastian County Circuit Judge Stephen Tabor to serve as special justice in the case.[41]

On October 18, 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling ordering elections officials to not count any votes for the measure.[42][2]

## How to cast a vote[edit]

See also: Voting in Arkansas

### Poll times[edit]

In Arkansas, all polls are open from 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on Election Day. Anyone in line when the polls close must be allowed to vote.[43]

### Registration requirements[edit]

Check your voter registration status here.

To vote in Arkansas, one must be a citizen of the United States and a resident of Arkansas. A voter must be 18 years of age or older on or before Election Day, not be a convicted felon whose sentence has not been discharged or pardoned, and not be adjudged as mentally incompetent.[44]

Registration must be submitted or postmarked no later than 30 days before the election in which a voter wishes to participate. Citizens must complete and submit a voter registration application to their county clerk or other authorized voter registration agency. For voters that submit applications by mail, the date of postmark will be considered the submission date. Applications may be obtained at the following locations:[44]

* County clerk's office
* The Arkansas Secretary of State Elections Division
* Local revenue or DMV office
* Public library
* Disability agency
* Military recruitment office
* Online

### Automatic registration[edit]

See also: Automatic voter registration

Arkansas does not practice automatic voter registration.[45]

### Online registration[edit]

See also: Online voter registration

Arkansas does not permit online voter registration.

### Same-day registration[edit]

See also: Same-day voter registration

Arkansas does not allow same-day voter registration.[46]

### Residency requirements[edit]

Arkansas law requires 30 days of residency in the state before a person may vote.[47]

### Verification of citizenship[edit]

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Arkansas does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual must attest that they are a U.S. citizen when registering to vote. According to the state's voter registration application, a voter who provides false information "may be subject to a fine of up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 10 years under state and federal laws."[48]

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment.[49] Six states — Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring individuals provide proof of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. Two states, Georgia and Mississippi, require a person provide proof of citizenship if their citizenship status cannot be verified by other means. One state, Ohio, requires proof of citizenship only when registering to vote at a Bureau of Motor Vehicles facility. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

### Verifying your registration[edit]

The site Voter View, run by the Arkansas Secretary of State's office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

### Voter ID requirements[edit]

Arkansas requires voters to present photo identification while voting. The identification must include the voter’s name and photograph. It must be issued by "the United States, the State of Arkansas, or an accredited postsecondary educational institution in the State of Arkansas." If the identification has an expiration date on it, it cannot have been expired for "more than four (4) years before the date of the election in which the voter seeks to vote."[44]

The following list of accepted ID was current as of November 2025. Click here for the Arkansas Secretary of State's page on accepted ID to ensure you have the most current information.

“  |

Documents and identification cards that will be accepted as verification of voter registration include without limitation:

* A driver’s license;
* A photo identification card;
* A concealed handgun carry license;
* A United States passport;
* An employee badge or identification document issued by an accredited postsecondary education institution in the State of Arkansas;
* A United States military identification document;
* A public assistance identification card if the card shows a photograph of the person to whom the document or identification card was issued;
* A voter verification card as provided under Ark. Code § 7-5-324.

A person who is a resident of a long-term care or residential care facility licensed by the state of Arkansas is not required to verify his or her registration by presenting a document or identification card as described above when voting in person, but must provide documentation from the administrator of the facility attesting that the person is a resident of the facility.[14]

| ”

|
|

Voters can obtain a voter verification card at their county clerk's office: "[V]oters will be required to complete an affidavit stating they do not possess such identification, and must provide documentation containing their full legal name and date of birth, as well as documentation containing their name and residential address."[50]

## State profile[edit]

Demographic data for Arkansas

| Arkansas| U.S.
Total population:| 2,977,853| 316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):| 52,035| 3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:| 78%| 73.6%
Black/African American:| 15.5%| 12.6%
Asian:| 1.4%| 5.1%
Native American:| 0.6%| 0.8%
Pacific Islander:| 0.2%| 0.2%
Two or more:| 2.1%| 3%
Hispanic/Latino:| 6.9%| 17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:| 84.8%| 86.7%
College graduation rate:| 21.1%| 29.8%
Income
Median household income:| $41,371| $53,889
Persons below poverty level:| 22.9%| 11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015)
Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Arkansas.

* * *

**Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

### Presidential voting pattern[edit]

See also: Presidential voting trends in Arkansas

Arkansas voted Republican in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

#### Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, one is located in Arkansas, accounting for 0.5 percent of the total pivot counties.[51]

#### Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Arkansas had one Retained Pivot County, 0.55 percent of all Retained Pivot Counties.

More Arkansas coverage on Ballotpedia

* Elections in Arkansas
* United States congressional delegations from Arkansas
* Public policy in Arkansas
* Endorsers in Arkansas
* Arkansas fact checks
* More...

## See also[edit]

2018 measures

* 2018 ballot measures
* Tort law on the ballot

Arkansas

* Arkansas ballot measures
* Arkansas ballot measure laws

News and analysis

* Ballot measure lawsuits
* Ballot measure readability
* Ballot measure polls

|
|

## External links[edit]

* Arkansas Senate Joint Resolution 8

### Support[edit]

* Arkansans for Jobs and Justice website
* Arkansas for Jobs and Justice Facebook
* Arkansas for Jobs and Justice Twitter

### Opposition[edit]

* Protect AR Families website
* Protect AR Families Facebook
* Protect AR Families Twitter

|

## Recent news[edit]

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Arkansas 2018 damages lawsuits amendment. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Arkansas Issue 1, Cap on Attorney’s Fees and Damage Awards in Lawsuits Amendment (2018) - Google News

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ https://www.chron.com/news/article/Arkansas-court-blocks-tort-reform-measure-13317925.php Chron, "Arkansas court blocks 'tort reform' measure, keeps wage hike," accessed October 18, 2018]
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Arkansas Legislature, "Senate Joint Resolution 8," accessed February 17, 2017
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 New York Law School: Center for Justice and Democracy, "Fact Sheet: Caps On Compensatory Damages: A State Law Summary," June 22, 2017
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 The two examples provided of legislation concerning suits over personal damages are taken from Ark. Code Ann. § 16-116-105(a) and Ark. Code Ann. § 16-64-122(b).
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 New York Law School: Center for Justice and Democracy, "Contingency Fees and Their Importance for Everyday Americans," January 2013
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Arkansas Ethics Commission, "Arkansans for Jobs and Justice," accessed May 16, 2018
7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Arkansas Ethics Commission, "List of local/ballot/legislative question committees," accessed January 31, 2018
8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Other donor organizations were required to register as a legislative question committee, but they provided all of their funds to Arkansans for Jobs and Justice or other committees and didn't make any significant expenditures in support of this measure directly. For this reason, they are treated as donors rather than committees in this article.
9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Arkansas Ethics Commission, "Protect AR Families," accessed January 31, 2018
10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 Arkansas Ethics Commission, "Defending Your Day in Court," accessed May 16, 2018
11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 Arkansas Ethics Commission, "Liberty Defense Network, LLC," accessed January 31, 2018
12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 Legal Match, "Pros and Cons of Contingency Fees," accessed February 6, 2018
13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 Legal Dictionary, "Punitive Damages," accessed February 6, 2018
14. ↑ 14.00 14.01 14.02 14.03 14.04 14.05 14.06 14.07 14.08 14.09 14.10 14.11 14.12 14.13 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content
15. ↑ Arkansans for Jobs and Justice, "Home," accessed February 1, 2018
16. ↑ U.S. News, "Group Launches Campaign for Civil Justice Reform in Arkansas," October 16, 2017
17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "Funding pours in on ballot proposal," January 17, 2018
18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Talk Business, "Lawsuit reform is key ingredient for Arkansas’ future," accessed August 7, 2018
19. ↑ The Arkansas Medical Society, "Advocacy: The Campaign for Real Tort Reform," accessed February 1, 2018
20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 Pulaski County Medical Society, "SJR 8 tort reform constitutional amendment information," accessed February 2, 2018
21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "Plans set by group to oppose ballot bid," March 9, 2018
22. ↑ Arkansans for Jobs and Justice, "About," accessed February 1, 2018
23. ↑ Southwest Times Record, "Arkansas House approves ballot amendment to limit civil lawsuits," February 28, 2017
24. ↑ Times Record, "Proposed amendment to Arkansas Constitution sparks debate," accessed April 23, 2018
25. ↑ Arkansas Online, "Medicaid, tort reform top issues in District 53 race," accessed April 30, 2018
26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 Protect AR Families, "Home," accessed February 1, 2018
27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 Arkansas Online, "Backers, foes debate merits of Arkansas tort ballot proposal," accessed July 21, 2018
28. ↑ Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "LR lawyer going for seat in House," July 28, 2017
29. ↑ Family Council, "Home," accessed March 13, 2018
30. ↑ Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "Mike Masterso: SJR8 on ballot," January 21, 2018
31. ↑ The Sentinel Record, "Judge says Issue 1 will 'close courthouse doors'," accessed May 29, 2018
32. ↑ Hot Springs Village Voice, "Speakers oppose ballot Issue 1," accessed June 6, 2018
33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 Talk Business & Politics, "Poll: Overwhelming support for voter ID, term limits; tort reform 2-to-1 against," accessed September 16, 2018
34. ↑ Arkansas News, "Groups submit signatures in support of ballot proposals," July 8, 2016
35. ↑ UALR Public Radio, "Arkansas Hospital, Medical Groups Endorse Proposed Issue 4 Tort Reform Measure," October 10, 2016
36. ↑ Arkansas Supreme Court, "Per Curiam Orders," September 8, 2016
37. ↑ 37.0 37.1 U.S. News, "Arkansas Lawmakers Put Cap on Lawsuit Damages on '18 Ballot," March 1, 2017
38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 Arkansas Legislature, "SJR 8 Overview," accessed February 28, 2017
39. ↑ KARK News, "Suit Filed Against Issue 1 on Court Rules as Constitutional Overreach," accessed July 14, 2018
40. ↑ Talk Business, "Issue 1 supporters look to the Arkansas Supreme Court for decision by ‘mid-October’," accessed September 7, 2018
41. ↑ 5 News Online, "Arkansas Governor Appoints Fort Smith Judge For Lawsuit Limits Case," accessed September 18, 2018
42. ↑ https://www.chron.com/news/article/Arkansas-court-blocks-tort-reform-measure-13317925.php Chron, "Arkansas court blocks 'tort reform' measure, keeps wage hike," accessed October 18, 2018]
43. ↑ LexisNexis, "Ark. Stat. Ann. § 7-5-304," accessed November 19, 2025
44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 44.2 Arkansas Secretary of State, "Voter Registration Information," accessed November 19, 2025
45. ↑ NCSL, "Automatic Voter Registration," accessed November 19, 2025
46. ↑ NCSL, "Same-Day Voter Registration," accessed November 19, 2025
47. ↑ Arkansas Secretary of State, "Voter Registration FAQs," accessed November 19, 2025
48. ↑ Arkansas Secretary of State, "Arkansas Voter Registration Application," accessed November 19, 2025
49. ↑ Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
50. ↑ Arkansas Secretary of State, "Frequently Asked Questions," accessed November 19, 2025
51. ↑ The raw data for this study was provided by Dave Leip of Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.

v • e

2018 ballot measures

I&R States|

• Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington

Non I&R States|

• Alabama • Connecticut • Georgia • Hawaii • Indiana • Kentucky • Louisiana • New Hampshire • New Jersey • North Carolina • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Virginia • West Virginia • Wisconsin

Political topics|

• Abortion‎ • Administration of government‎ • Bond issues‎ • Business regulation‎ • Campaign finance‎ • Civil and criminal trials‎ • Civil rights‎ • Civil service‎ • Constitutional conventions‎ • Constitutional language‎ • County and municipal governance‎ • Definition of a corporation‎ • Direct democracy measures‎ • Education‎ • Elections and campaigns‎ • Energy‎ • Environment‎ • Federal constitutional issues‎ • Forests and parks‎ • Gambling‎ • Government accountability‎ • Healthcare‎ • Housing‎ • Hunting and fishing‎ • Labor and unions‎ • Law enforcement‎ • LGBT issues‎ • Marijuana‎ • Natural resources‎ • Pension‎ • Property‎ • Redistricting measures‎ • State and local government budgets, spending and finance‎ • State executive official measures‎ • State judiciary‎ • State legislatures measures‎ • Statehood‎ • Suffrage‎ • Supermajority requirements‎ • Taxes‎ • Term limits‎ • Tobacco‎ • Tort law‎ • Transportation‎ • Veterans‎ • Water‎ • Welfare‎

Other|

Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines and requirements • Polls • Lawsuits • Readability analysis • Signature costs • Cost per required signatures analysis • Campaign finance • Media editorial endorsements • Voter guides • Potential measures • Ballot Measure Monthly • Changes in 2018 to laws governing the initiative process • Not on the ballot • Filed initiatives

v • e

State of Arkansas
Little Rock (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy