Ark. Code Ann. § 26-74-208 (2020)
Form of ballot
“[ ] FOR adoption of a percent ( %) sales and use tax within (Name of county).”
“[ ] AGAINST adoption of a percent ( %) sales and use tax within (Name of county).”
History. Acts 1981 (1st Ex. Sess.), No. 26, § 3; 1983, No. 278, § 3; A.S.A. 1947, § 17-2023; Acts 1991, No. 765, § 7; 1995, No. 565, § 1; 1999, No. 1478, § 1; 2003, No. 1156, § 1; 2005, No. 1160, § 1; 2009, No. 298, § 1; 2009, No. 383, § 1; 2019, No. 910, § 4368.
Amendments. The 2003 amendment redesignated former (c) as present (c)(1)(A) and added (c)(1)(B) and (c)(2) through (c)(5).
The 2005 amendment substituted “sales and use tax” for “sales or use tax” throughout this section; inserted “county's share of the” in (c)(1)(B); and, in (c)(2)(A), inserted “levied by the county” and “but a change … within the county.”
The 2009 amendment by No. 298, in (d), inserted (d)(1) through (3) and redesignated the remaining text as (e)(1) and (e)(2).
The 2009 amendment by No. 383 inserted (b)(3).
The 2019 amendment substituted “Secretary” for “Director” in (b)(3)(D)(i).
Case Notes
Ballot Title.
Where the official ballot and voting instructions used at a county-wide special election called for the voters to vote for or against the adoption of a 1% sales tax pursuant to the provisions of Acts 1981, No. 991, as amended by Acts 1981, No. 26, First Extraordinary Session, but no mention was made of a 1% compensating use tax, a subsequent attempt by the quorum court to impose a 1% use tax pursuant to the favorable vote at the special election was invalid, because the ballot title used at the special election did not mention a possible use tax nor were the references to the acts of the legislature sufficient to put the voters on notice that they were also voting on a use tax. Ragan v. Venhaus, 289 Ark. 266, 711 S.W.2d 467 (1986).