Really? These are the most pressing constitutional issues in Arkansas today?
The state's legislators voted last week to refer to voters proposed constitutional amendments to:
-- Require a 60 percent vote rather than a majority vote for public approval of most ballot measures; and
-- Allow the Legislature to call itself into special session.
The first, House Joint Resolution 1005, would limit the power of the people of Arkansas to alter the state Constitution or to petition for initiated acts. Acts the Legislature wants to refer to voters would still require only a majority vote to pass.
The second proposed amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 10, would give the Legislature more power than it has had, since special sessions now may be called only by the state's governor, who also sets the agenda.
The issues will go to voters in the 2022 general election.
A third ballot question is in the works, even as the Legislature moves toward recess, supposedly this week.
Its simplified title is the "Arkansas Religious Freedom Amendment." It would supposedly guarantee that governments cannot "burden" religious exercise without compelling justification.
The Senate has passed it, as has a House committee. The full House was to consider it this week.
These three options came from a list of 43 ballot proposals offered for consideration by different lawmakers this year.
Granted, some of them were just shell bills that the lawmakers might have pursued, if they saw an opening. But others were more fleshed-out offerings that might have interested the average voter more than those chosen.
They included items as diverse as a recall provision for constitutional officers and for state justices and judges, protections for tenants in Arkansas and authorization for the Legislature to reduce or eliminate property taxes.
Since 2000, state voters have considered on their general election ballots 35 proposed amendments, some referred by the Legislature and others proposed by citizen initiative.
HJR1005 would affect both, so consider for a minute how the 60 percent approval requirement might have changed the results.
Of those 35 proposed amendments, a total of 26 have been adopted. Of those, 11 passed with less than 60 percent of the vote.
What were the 11 that might have failed under this new proposal?
Nine were referred by the Legislature. Some were designed to improve financing for cities, counties and the state. They include last year's extension of a sales tax for highways and the latest term limits change for lawmakers.
Others were a major 2000 amendment revising the Constitution's judicial article and the 2012 amendment that first funded that sales tax dedicated to highways.
The only initiated amendments that passed by less than 60 percent were those that authorized medical marijuana in 2016 and casino gambling in 2018.
Both were controversial, but popular with enough voters (53 percent or more) to be embedded in the state Constitution.
Only four initiated acts have been approved by voters since 2000. Three of them passed by more than 60 percent.
The only one that passed with less than 60 percent was a 2006 act to prevent people cohabitating outside a "valid marriage" from adopting or fostering children.
The state's lawmakers may not have taken a real close look at which amendments and initiated acts fell in that gap where they passed by a majority but less than 60 percent.
Based on the history, the issues most likely to fall are those the Legislature proposes, not initiatives.
As for this business of the Legislature wanting to call itself into special session, it is just one more way for lawmakers to weaken the office of governor.
The office is already weak enough, as illustrated by how easily the Legislature can override the governor's veto.
Lawmakers already shoved one significant veto back downstairs to Gov. Asa Hutchinson this session and were on their way to a second this week. It only takes a simple majority in both houses.
The bills that Hutchinson has vetoed this year passed the Legislature by solid majorities, but he vetoed them anyway because he thought it the right thing to do.
He doesn't support the amendment to empower the Legislature to call itself into special session but can't veto it. Referral of amendments or acts of the Legislature to voters is solely the Legislature's prerogative.
The main reason the Legislature wants to be able to call itself into special session ties back to the pandemic and the governor's related mandates, including mask-wearing.
The mandates riled many constituents and spurred lawmakers to complain about the governor's emergency powers and his control over when they can meet outside of regular and fiscal sessions.
Really?
That's no reason to be changing the Constitution to give the Legislature -- and particularly this Legislature -- more power.