Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-209 (2026)
Qualifications of district judge — Term
- District judges shall be qualified electors within the geographical area from which they are chosen and shall have been licensed attorneys of this state for at least four (4) years immediately preceding the date of assuming office.
- Pursuant to Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 80, § 16(C), district judges shall serve four-year terms.
History. Acts 1927, No. 60 § 4; Pope's Dig., § 9900; Acts 1949, No. 210, § 1; 1951, No. 63, § 3; 1951, No. 254, § 1; 1953, No. 313, § 2; A.S.A. 1947, § 22-704; Acts 2003, No. 1185, §§ 125, 126; 2019, No. 445, § 1.
A.C.R.C. Notes. Acts 2019, No. 445, § 2, provided: “(a) The enabling legislation for Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 80, did not contain language concerning the date of the first election for district judges under Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 80, though the first election for district judges after passage of Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 80, occurred at the 2004 general election.
“(b) To avoid confusion in some areas of the state concerning the cycle for elections of district judges, the next election for a district judge in 2020 at the same date and at the same times and places as provided by law for preferential primary elections”.
Amendments. The 2019 amendment substituted “Pursuant to Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 80, § 16(C), district” for “District” in (b).
Cross References. District court generally, § 16-17-132.
Jurisdiction of circuit courts, Ark. Const. Amend. 80, §§ 6, 19.
Effective Dates. Acts 2003, No. 1185, § 126: Jan. 1, 2005, by its own terms.
Case Notes
Constitutionality.
The imposition of part of the expenses of municipal courts on the counties in which they are established is not violative of constitutional provisions vesting county courts with original jurisdiction in all matters relating to county affairs. Crawford County v. City of Van Buren, 201 Ark. 798, 146 S.W.2d 914 (1941).
This section does not violate the Constitution on the ground that it constitutes an encroachment by the legislature on the city in the matter of finances, since section does not impose court on any city, but merely sets minimum salary for municipal court established by the city. City of Stuttgart v. Elms, 220 Ark. 722, 249 S.W.2d 829 (1952).
Salary Increase.
Municipal judge was not estopped from recovering increased salary voted by legislature on the ground that he had agreed to take an increase in a less amount than that provided by the legislature, since contract was not binding in law. City of Stuttgart v. Elms, 220 Ark. 722, 249 S.W.2d 829 (1952).
Taxpayer Suit.
A resident taxpayer of a city is the equitable owner of public funds and is the proper party to bring suit to enjoin and collect the illegal payment of public funds to a person acting as municipal judge. Revis v. Harris, 217 Ark. 25, 228 S.W.2d 624 (1950).
Cited: Logan v. Harris, 213 Ark. 37, 210 S.W.2d 301 (1948); Russell v. Miller, 253 Ark. 583, 487 S.W.2d 617 (1972); Littleton v. Blanton, 281 Ark. 395, 665 S.W.2d 239 (1984); Lawson v. City of Mammoth Spring ex rel. Smith, 287 Ark. 12, 696 S.W.2d 712 (1985); Beshear v. Clark, 292 Ark. 47, 728 S.W.2d 165 (1987); State ex rel. Robinson v. Craighead County Bd. of Election Comm'rs, 300 Ark. 405, 779 S.W.2d 169 (1989).