Issue 3 — Economic Development Districts Amendment (SJR 15 of 2025) — Overview

Page last updated October 4, 2026 · Analysis validated October 4, 2026 · Sources last checked October 4, 2026

Issue 3 — Economic Development Districts

What this measure is

Arkansas voters will decide on November 3, 2026 whether to add a new economic development amendment to the Arkansas Constitution. The measure was placed on the ballot by the General Assembly itself, through Senate Joint Resolution 15 of the 2025 regular session, sponsored by Senator Jonathan Dismang and Representative Howard Beaty Jr. The Senate adopted it on April 14, 2025 and the House on April 16, 2025. Measures referred by the legislature reach the ballot directly; they do not go through the petition, signature, and county-distribution process that citizen-initiated measures must complete.

This measure is Issue 3 on the November 3, 2026 ballot. Under Arkansas law, the Secretary of State sets the number for each statewide measure and certifies the measures to the election commissioners of all seventy-five counties. ARvoters asked for a copy of that certification and received it on August 26, 2026. It lists this measure as Issue 3.

The resolution names its own ballot text. Its title serves as the ballot title, and its popular name is fixed in the resolution itself: "A Constitutional Amendment Concerning Economic Development in the State of Arkansas; and Authorizing the General Assembly to Provide for the Creation of Economic Development Districts Within Cities, Counties, or Cooperative Areas to Promote Economic Development Within the Economic Development District." If adopted, the amendment takes effect on January 1, 2027.

What the amendment would do

The amendment has nine sections of amendment text. Its central grant of authority is broad: notwithstanding any other provision of the Arkansas Constitution, the General Assembly may create programs and make loans and grants of public money for four stated purposes — developing and diversifying the state's economy, eliminating and preventing unemployment or underemployment, developing or expanding transportation or commerce, and developing or improving real estate that contributes to economic development. That authority expressly includes creating economic development districts: designated areas within a city, a county, or a cooperative area, established under authority the General Assembly grants, to promote economic development within the designated area.

A district could issue bonds to finance projects inside its boundaries. The amendment's text sets three rules for those bonds. They may be secured by and paid from any funds the district receives or is allocated. They are not counted toward the debt limits the constitution sets for local government bonds. They are also not subject to three existing constitutional provisions that currently govern public borrowing: Article 16, Section 1, which restricts state and local governments from lending credit or issuing interest-bearing debt; Amendment 62, which governs local capital improvement bonds; and Amendment 65, which governs revenue bonds. Each of those provisions ties public borrowing to procedural safeguards, including voter approval in defined circumstances, and district bonds would sit outside them.

The amendment would also change three sections already in the constitution: Article 12, Section 5; Article 16, Section 5; and Section 6 of Amendment 62.

First, it amends Article 12, Section 5. Since 1874, that section has barred counties, cities, and towns from becoming stockholders in any company and from appropriating money for, or lending credit to, any corporation, association, institution, or individual. Since 2016, when voters adopted Amendment 97, the section has also carried an exception: a local government may appropriate money for a corporation, association, institution, or individual to finance economic development projects or to provide economic development services. The section already defines those projects in detail. The list covers manufacturing and industrial facilities, research and technology facilities, recycling facilities, distribution centers, call centers, warehouses, job training facilities, regional or national corporate headquarters, and sports complexes that host local to national competitions.

This amendment would add to that exception. A local government could also appropriate money for a corporation, association, institution, or individual to provide funding or lend credit to an economic development district. The section would gain a definition of an economic development district, and a district would be added to the list of economic development projects.

The section already lets the General Assembly change the exception and its definitions by a three-fourths vote of each house, without a vote of the people, so long as the changes are germane to the section and consistent with its policy and purposes. That rule came with Amendment 97 in 2016, and this amendment keeps it word for word. If the amendment passes, the new language about economic development districts would fall inside the part of the section that rule reaches. [Corrected October 3, 2026: Earlier editions said this amendment would create an exception to Article 12, Section 5 for economic development projects and services, and would newly let the General Assembly change that exception by a three-fourths vote. Both are already in the constitution. Voters added them in 2016 as Amendment 97. What this amendment would add to that section is described above. Earlier editions also said ARvoters had not examined the Secretary of State's certification as of August 23, 2026. ARvoters received it on August 26, 2026. It lists this measure as Issue 3.]

Second, it amends Article 16, Section 5, the section requiring that property be taxed equally and uniformly according to its value. The amendment adds that property located within an economic development district is exempt from taxation, except for taxes, assessments, or other charges levied by the district itself. Property already tax-exempt — public property, churches, cemeteries, schools, charities — keeps its status if it ends up inside a district. In plain terms: property in a district would stop paying the ordinary property taxes that fund counties, cities, and school districts, and would instead pay only what the district levies.

Third, it amends Section 6 of Amendment 62, which governs elections on local bonds. Bonds a county or municipality issues for these programs that are payable from property taxes must be approved by a majority of qualified electors voting on the question. This voter-approval rule is new language. At the same time, the text provides that a district program, loan, or grant secured by a pledge of the district's property taxes, or financed by bonds payable from them, does not constitute or create a debt for the purpose of any provision of the constitution.

Finally, the amendment carries a supremacy provision. Any provision of the constitution that conflicts with it is repealed or deemed modified to give the amendment precedence, and the text states that it supersedes all previous constitutional provisions, amendments, laws, and judicial interpretations that conflict with its terms. A severability clause provides that if any part is held invalid, the remainder stands. The General Assembly is directed to provide by law for implementation, so the practical rules for creating and operating districts would be written in future legislation rather than in the amendment itself.

What would change from current law

Today, Article 12, Section 5 lets local governments appropriate public money for private entities only to finance economic development projects or provide economic development services, as that section defines them. Public borrowing generally runs through the election and procedural requirements of Article 16, Section 1, Amendment 62, and Amendment 65. Property taxation must be equal and uniform, with exemptions the constitution itself lists. The amendment would widen or open exceptions to each of these: local funding and credit for economic development districts, a class of district bonds outside the existing borrowing safeguards, and a property tax exemption for everything inside a district's boundaries. How far each reaches in practice would depend on laws the amendment leaves to the General Assembly to write.

Public activity

A supporting campaign is organized. Arkansans for Strong Communities, a committee associated with the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce, has been making the case for the measure publicly since at least April 2026, as reported by multiple Arkansas news outlets. Supporters argue that Arkansas is one of the few states without economic development districts and that communities lose projects to neighboring states as a result. A joint legislative committee received a briefing on the measure in Hot Springs in August 2026, according to statewide press coverage. ARvoters has not identified an organized opposition committee as of this report's date; that is an observation about what has been found, not a statement that none exists.

Questions worth asking

Property inside a district would be exempt from the ordinary property taxes that fund counties, cities, and schools, paying only what the district levies. How should a community weigh the growth a district might attract against the revenue its schools and local governments would not receive while the property is inside a district?
The constitution already lets the General Assembly revise its economic development exception by a three-fourths vote, without returning to the voters. This amendment would bring economic development districts inside that exception. Should changes that reach districts be made that way, or by the voters?
District bonds would sit outside the constitutional provisions that currently attach voter approval and other safeguards to public borrowing. When should borrowing backed by public revenues require a public vote, and what oversight would take the place of the safeguards this text sets aside?
The list of qualifying projects runs from factories and research facilities to call centers, corporate headquarters, and tournament sports complexes. Who should decide which projects deserve public money within a district, and by what standard, given that the implementing rules will be written by future legislatures rather than fixed in the amendment?
The amendment declares that it supersedes any conflicting constitutional provision, law, or judicial interpretation. Does that breadth give investors and local governments the certainty a development program needs, or does it create uncertainty about which parts of the rest of the constitution still apply where districts are concerned?
Should the General Assembly be able to create economic development districts with their own borrowing and tax rules, or should the constitution's current borrowing and tax rules stay as they are now?

[Corrected October 4, 2026: Question 6 was reworded so that it does not lean toward either side.]

[Corrected October 4, 2026, later the same day: The report now says that the voter-approval rule for these local bonds is new language. Question 1 said "while the exemption applies"; it now says "while the property is inside a district". A link to the Secretary of State's ballot notice was added.]

[Corrected October 4, 2026, a third time: The report said the amendment has ten sections. Senate Joint Resolution 15 has ten sections, but the tenth only sets the ballot title and popular name for the election. Nine are amendment text, and the Secretary of State's ballot notice prints those nine.]

[Corrected October 4, 2026, a fourth time: The report said a local government could also fund or lend credit to an economic development district. The amendment's text says a local government could appropriate money for a corporation, association, institution, or individual to provide funding or lend credit to an economic development district. The report now says that.]

Where to read it yourself

The Secretary of State publishes the ballot notice for Issue No. 3 — six pages: the popular name, the ballot title and the full text of the amendment. ARvoters holds a copy of that document. On October 4, 2026, we checked that our copy matches the one the State published.

What this report rests on

This report is built from the text of Senate Joint Resolution 15 as engrossed March 12, 2025 and adopted by both chambers in April 2025, obtained from the Arkansas General Assembly's website, and from the election statutes governing how statewide measures are certified and numbered, as published by the Arkansas Secretary of State. Statements about the supporting campaign and the legislative briefing rest on Arkansas press coverage and are attributed accordingly. The Secretary of State's certification of measures for the November 2026 ballot was received on August 26, 2026, and lists this measure as Issue 3. The current text of Article 12, Section 5 is taken from the Secretary of State's 2025 compilation of Arkansas election laws, which reprints the constitution.

The information above is provided as context for this issue. As additional primary-source data becomes available, this Overview will be expanded as warranted, and companion reports may be published providing more detailed analysis of the issue, including its examination through the three constitutional interpretive traditions recognized by ARvoters.com.

By policy, ARvoters.com builds its findings on published primary data. Material issued by a government body — an agency, a court, or an official office — is a source document, whether obtained directly or carried in news coverage. Independent reporting, commentary, opinion, and social-media discussion are radar indicators — signals of where to look. Where a finding rests on reporting that attributes a named official statement, it is presented as reported rather than established, until the issuing body's own record is obtained. Reporting that rests on unnamed sources is never treated as establishing a fact. Independent news is not considered qualifying source material, but may be cited for context as unverified information with respect to the actual source.

Standing disclaimers:

Video Content — Not Reviewed

ARvoters does not review video content posted to a public body's website or elsewhere relative to any ordinance, resolution or other adopted instrument, and assumes no responsibility for statements, assertions, or policy positions implied or specified in such video content. Any such policy content is outside the scope of this analysis unless formally documented in the text of the instrument. Whether policy may be formed or altered through statements made on video without corresponding entry into the text of the instrument is a legal question outside the scope of this framework.

Documentary Scope — Limited to the Cited Record

ARvoters analysis is limited to the text of the instrument as adopted or filed in the public record — a bill, act or amendment, or an ordinance, resolution, or other action of a city council, quorum court or comparable body — together with any other record this report expressly cites. ARvoters does not review, incorporate, or assume responsibility for any material this report does not cite — including but not limited to notes, minutes, committee reports, fiscal impact statements, official or unofficial comments, opinions, press releases, or any other discussion.

ARvoters also does not review or incorporate court opinions — whether pending, published, or prospective — that may relate, directly, indirectly, or by implication, to the instrument under analysis.

Whether policy may be formed, altered, or interpreted through materials outside the text of the instrument is a legal question outside the scope of this framework.