Keith Gibson, Marie Holder, Robert S. Moore, Jr., Alec Farmer, and Philip Taldo, Members of the Arkansas State…

Summary

The court held that the appellees’ challenge to Amendment 101 presented a justiciable controversy because the State had committed substantial future Amendment 101 revenue to a specified highway project and collection of the revenue was imminent. On the merits, the court held that Amendment 101 does not restrict its funds to four-lane highway improvements because its plain language authorizes revenue for the state highway system, county roads, and city streets without a lane limitation. The court reversed the summary judgment and injunction and remanded for entry of an order consistent with its opinion.