To better communicate with the public, press, and interested parties, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin publishes a monthly digest of recently issued opinions. This month’s digest includes all opinions issued during July 2025.
"Clicking on the opinion numbers in this digest will take you to the full opinion. To find other opinions, please visit our opinions search page here," according to the release.
OPINION 2025-015
Requested by State Representative Karilyn B. Brown
Question 1: What is the legal meaning and intent of Act 1018 of 2013?
Question 2: How does this Act apply to the voting procedures for turning a dry defunct township wet?
Question 3: Given the dissolution of townships, what is the appropriate procedure for conducting a local option election in a previously dry area?
Brief Response: To answer the first three questions together—and as discussed further in the opinion—local option alcohol elections follow the process under A.C.A. § 3-8-602, which incorporates other local option election statutes. The extent to which such other statutes apply depends on whether the local option election is special.
Question 4: Are there two possible paths for a local option election: (1) reinstating an old township solely for the purpose of holding an election, or (2) conducting a local option election within the municipality that encompasses the defunct township?
Brief Response: While it is unclear under what authority a city could temporarily reinstate an old township for a local option election, a city has one primary path if it has a defunct voting district within its boundaries: the process under A.C.A. § 3-8-602—which may vary depending on whether the election is special.
Question 5: How does the concept of a “defunct voting district” apply in this context? Specifically, when a municipality is located within the boundaries of a former dry voting district that exists within a wet county, what process must be followed to permit the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages under Ark. Code Ann. § 3-8-602?
Brief Response: As discussed in the opinion, such a municipality would follow the process set forth in A.C.A. § 3-8-602, which only authorizes the sale of beer, malt beverages, vinous beverages, and spiritous liquor for on-premises consumption.
Question 6: If a dry vote was previously conducted in an area that is now considered defunct, does that dry designation remain in effect unless there is a superseding vote?
Question 7: What constitutes a “superseding vote” in this context?
Brief Response: To answer questions 6 and 7 together, the applicable local option alcohol statutes do not use the phrase “superseding vote.” But if an area is a “defunct voting district,” one must use the local option process for defunct voting districts under A.C.A. § 3-8-602 (which incorporates other local-option statutes).
Question 8: What are the procedural requirements for initiating such a vote under the current statutory framework?
Question 9: Does Act 1018 of 2013 provide a means for municipalities within defunct townships to conduct a local option election independently, or would a county-wide vote be required?
Brief Response: To answer questions 8 and 9 together—and as discussed further in the opinion—A.C.A. § 3-8-602 applies. And the extent to which other statutes apply, largely depends on whether the election in question is special.
OPINION 2025-024
Requested by State Senator Gary Stubblefield
Question 1: In public libraries, do staff members serve in loco parentis?
Brief Response: No. I have not been able to locate any statute or case law that imposes in loco parentis responsibility onto public libraries or their staff during a traditional visit to a public library.
Question 2: In public libraries, are staff members considered mandated reporters?
Brief Response: While public libraries’ staff members are not specifically listed as mandated reporters under A.C.A. § 12-18-402(b), they have the same obligations as any other adult to notify the Child Abuse Hotline if they observe abuse, sexual abuse, or sexual exploitation of a child.
OPINION 2025-027
Requested by State Representative DeAnn Vaught
Question 1: Pursuant to Amendment 55 to the Arkansas Constitution, can a county judge execute a contractual agreement without the approval of the county quorum court?
Brief Response: Yes. The quorum court determines what goods and services are needed by the county and appropriates county funds for those needs. But the county judge executes the contract after choosing a specific vendor to provide the goods or a person to do the work.
Question 2: Are there any limitations or restrictions, financial or otherwise, to contractual agreements executed solely by the county judge?
Brief Response: Yes. The county judge’s contracting authority has several limitations, which are discussed in the opinion.
OPINION 2025-028
Requested by State Senator Ricky Hill
Question 1: Is the Ward Fire Department considered a “Volunteer Fire Department” under Act 673?
Brief Response: No. Cities of the first class—like the City of Ward—cannot use A.C.A. § 14-20-108, as amended by Act 673 of 2025, to levy volunteer fire department dues.
Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is “no,” under what status would the Ward Fire Department be allowed to levy dues similar to those in Act 673? If none, how do such fire departments levy dues and/or collect “fire dues,” or do they just send invoices as allowed in A.C.A. § 14-53-102?
Brief Response: Multiple forms of “volunteer fire departments” exist, and I lack the facts to opine on whether a particular entity fits a particular type of volunteer fire department. But a city of the first class would generally follow A.C.A. § 14-53-102, including the process for reimbursing for services.
OPINION 2025-046
Requested by Ms. Jennifer Waymack Standerfer
Question: Request for review and certification of the popular name and ballot title of a proposed constitutional amendment with the popular name, “The Arkansas Ballot Measure Rights Amendment.”
Brief Response: Having reviewed the text of the proposed constitutional amendment, as well as the proposed popular name and ballot title, I must reject the popular name and ballot title for two reasons: (1) the ballot title does not comply with Act 602 of 2025, and (2) a key ambiguity in the text of your proposed measure prevents me from ensuring that your ballot title is not misleading or substituting a more appropriate ballot title.
OPINION 2025-053
Requested by Mr. John T. Huett, Sr.
Question: Is the custodian’s decision to release the requested records with redactions consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
Brief Response: The North Little Rock Police Department’s custodian of records has determined that the records should be released with certain redactions. I cannot determine whether the custodian’s decision to redact that information is consistent with the FOIA because I was not provided with an unredacted copy of the documents. As to your specific objections—and for reasons discussed in this opinion—the custodian should release the employment-evaluation records if (1) the former employee resigned in the face of “certain, impending termination,” (2) the redacted records formed the basis for the “constructive termination,” and (3) the public has a compelling interest in the records’ disclosure.
OPINION 2025-055
Requested by Mr. Justin Delvalle
Question: Is the custodian’s decision to release the requested records with redactions consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
Brief Response: In my opinion, the custodian’s decision to release the records as redacted is partially consistent with the FOIA. The records the custodian intends to release are properly classified as personnel records, and the custodian has correctly determined that they are subject to release with redactions. But I have identified several additional pieces of information that must be redacted before the records can be released, as well as information that may be improperly redacted.
OPINION 2025-056
Requested by Ms. Jennifer Waymack Standerfer
Question: Request for review and certification of the popular name and ballot title of a proposed constitutional amendment with the popular name, “The Arkansas Ballot Measure Rights Amendment.”
Brief Response: I have certified your popular name as submitted, and I have substituted and certified the ballot title indicated in the opinion.
OPINION 2025-059
Requested by Officer Tommy Norman
Question: Is the custodian’s decision to release the requested record with redactions consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
Brief Response: The North Little Rock Police Department’s custodian of records has determined that the records should be released with certain redactions. The custodian’s decision to release the records is partially correct under the FOIA for the reasons outlined in the opinion.
OPINIONS 2025-060
Requested by Captain Joel Ware
Question: Is the custodian’s decision to release the requested records with redactions consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
Brief Response: In my opinion, some of the custodian’s decisions are inconsistent with the FOIA. Specifically, several of the records are better classified as personnel records, and employees’ personal contact information and date of birth and any information in the 2024 records related to the claim from which you were exonerated should be redacted before the records are released. Otherwise, the custodian’s decisions are consistent with the FOIA.
OPINION 2025-061
Requested by Sergeant William Wiegand
Question: Is the custodian’s decision to release the requested records with redactions consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
Brief Response: In my opinion, the custodian’s decision to release the suspension letter is partially consistent with the FOIA. The letter should be released, but the written reprimand contained in the letter should be redacted. Birth certificates held in an employee’s personnel files should be released. But because I was not provided a copy of the birth certificate, I cannot opine on whether redactions made to it are consistent with the FOIA.
OPINION 2025-062
Requested by Warden Thomas Hurst
Question: Is the custodian’s decision to release the requested records with redactions consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
Brief Response: In my opinion, the custodian has properly classified the employee’s personnel records and employee evaluations. And the custodian’s decisions to release the employee’s personnel records and employee-evaluation records are consistent with the FOIA. But the custodian has failed to redact the employee’s income tax withholdings and net pay. Additionally, the custodian has incorrectly redacted information regarding the employee’s race, sex, and salary.
OPINION 2025-063
Requested by Sheriff Jay Cantrell and Mr. Daniel L. Ingram
Question: Is the custodian’s decision to withhold the requested records with redactions consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
Brief Response: The custodian’s decision to withhold the records is partially correct under the FOIA. While most of the records should be withheld, the copy of a signed employee handbook memorandum is best classified as a personnel record subject to release.
OPINION 2025-064
Requested by Ms. Rayvern D. Lewis
Question: Is the custodian’s decision to release the requested records with redactions consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
Brief Response: The custodian’s decision to release the job application records as personnel records is consistent with the FOIA. But, as discussed in the opinion, the custodian will need to review the salary information contained in the application and make redactions to private-employer salary information. And to the extent that a job reference listed in the application is employed in the private sector, his or her information is not exempt from release and should not be redacted.
OPINION 2025-066
Requested by Officer Brittany Byrd
Question: Is the custodian’s decision to withhold certain employee evaluation records consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
Brief Response: The FOIA specifically authorizes a public employee to gain access to his or her own personnel records and employee evaluations. While I have not seen the requested records and cannot definitively opine on their contents, the information provided to me suggests that the requested records are the requester’s own evaluation records. Therefore, the custodian’s decision to withhold those records is likely inconsistent with the FOIA.
