Issue 1: The 'Citizens Only Voting' Amendment
This proposed constitutional amendment would add explicit language to the Arkansas Constitution stating that 'only a citizen of the United States' who meets the state's other qualifications is allowed to vote in any state or local election. While Arkansas law already requires voters to be U.S. citizens, supporters of Issue 1 argue this change is a necessary safeguard. They contend that the current wording could be interpreted as a 'floor, not a ceiling', potentially allowing non-citizens to vote in certain local elections if a city or county chose to permit it. Opponents counter that the measure is redundant and unnecessary, as no non-citizens are currently voting in Arkansas elections. They argue it sends a message that immigrants are not welcome
and wastes taxpayer resources to solve a non-existent problem. A 'yes' vote supports adding the more explicit, restrictive language to the constitution, while a 'no' vote would leave the existing citizenship requirement as is.
Issue 2: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Amendment
Issue 2 seeks to expand the section of the state constitution that protects the right to bear arms. Currently, the constitution says citizens have the right 'for their common defense'. This amendment would add language to include lawful hunting, recreational use, and 'any other lawful purpose'. More significantly, it would declare this right 'natural, fundamental, and individual', and explicitly protect the possession of ammunition, firearm accessories, and components 'without limitation'. Proponents, including the measure's legislative sponsors, say this update strengthens constitutional protections and aligns with a broader interpretation of the Second Amendment. Opponents raise concerns that the 'without limitation' clause is too broad and could be used to challenge future firearm safety regulations. A 'yes' vote supports expanding the constitutional language, while a 'no' vote would maintain the current, more concise provision focused on 'common defense'.
Issue 3: Economic Development Districts and Programs
This amendment would give the State Legislature new powers to promote economic growth. If passed, it would authorize lawmakers to create special 'Economic Development Districts' and use public money for loans and grants to spur development, prevent unemployment, and improve commercial properties. Supporters argue this is a flexible and modern tool needed to attract major projects and compete with other states for jobs and investment. They believe it will allow for targeted growth in specific areas. However, some critics argue the measure could create powerful, un-elected boards to govern these districts, leading to a lack of accountability. There are also concerns that it opens the door to vaguely defined corporate subsidies and could exempt districts from constitutional debt limits and certain taxes. A 'yes' vote grants the legislature these new economic powers. A 'no' vote prevents these specific changes to the constitution's economic development rules.
Issue 4: Water and Waste Disposal Bond Act
Unlike the first three measures, Issue 4 is not a constitutional amendment but a bond issue. It asks voters to authorize the state to issue up to $500 million in general-obligation bonds to fund a variety of water-related infrastructure projects. The money would be used for projects including water treatment facilities, waste disposal systems, pollution abatement, flood control, irrigation, and wetlands restoration. These bonds are essentially loans the state takes out and pays back over time. Proponents position this as a critical investment in the state's aging infrastructure, ensuring clean drinking water and a healthy environment for future generations. The main argument against such measures typically centers on the cost to taxpayers, as issuing bonds creates long-term state debt that must be repaid with interest. A 'yes' vote authorizes the state to borrow the $500 million for these projects, while a 'no' vote would deny that authorization.
