Judiciary Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (64)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1937
Act 868
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1937 Dalby CONCERNING THE TRANSITION FROM LOCAL DISTRICT COURTS…”
|
CONCERNING THE TRANSITION FROM LOCAL DISTRICT COURTS TO STATE DISTRICT COURTS. | Dalby | Notification that HB1937 is now Act 868 |
|
HB1880
Act 909
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1880 Dalby CONCERNING THE DISTRICT COURTS OF INDEPENDENCE, FULTO…”
|
CONCERNING THE DISTRICT COURTS OF INDEPENDENCE, FULTON, AND IZARD COUNTIES. | Dalby | Notification that HB1880 is now Act 909 |
|
HB1789
Act 1022
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1789 Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF TRAFFICKIN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF TRAFFICKING; AND TO CREATE AN OFFENSE FOR … | Penzo | Notification that HB1789 is now Act 1022 |
|
HB1235
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1235 Petty CONCERNING THE PAYMENT OF COSTS AND FEES ORDERED BY A…”
|
CONCERNING THE PAYMENT OF COSTS AND FEES ORDERED BY A COURT. | Petty | Sine Die adjournment |
|
HB1238
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1238 Petty CONCERNING THE TIME PERIOD APPLICABLE FOR AN APPLICAT…”
|
CONCERNING THE TIME PERIOD APPLICABLE FOR AN APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE OF A SENTENCE. | Petty | Sine Die adjournment |
|
HB1488
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1488 Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ADOPTION PROCESS WHEN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ADOPTION PROCESS WHEN A LICENSED CHILD PLACEMENT AGENCY IS … | Penzo | Sine Die adjournment |
|
HB1609
Act 1014
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1609 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA. | Gazaway | Notification that HB1609 is now Act 1014 |
|
HB1612
Act 904
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1612 Maddox TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CHILD SUPPORT AND THE CE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CHILD SUPPORT AND THE CENTRALIZED CLEARINGHOUSE. | Maddox | Notification that HB1612 is now Act 904 |
|
HB1625
Act 962
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1625 Gazaway TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF ENCOURAGING THE SUICIDE OF…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF ENCOURAGING THE SUICIDE OF ANOTHER PERSON. | Gazaway | Notification that HB1625 is now Act 962 |
|
HB1633
Act 1017
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1633 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING WITNESS INTIMIDATION, RETAL…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING WITNESS INTIMIDATION, RETALIATION, TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE, JURY TAMPERING, AND BRIBERY. | Tosh | Notification that HB1633 is now Act 1017 |
|
HB1634
Act 842
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1634 Petty TO INCLUDE ACTS COMMITTED BY A VICTIM OF HUMAN TRAFFI…”
|
TO INCLUDE ACTS COMMITTED BY A VICTIM OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING UNDER THE STATE'S RAPE SHIELD … | Petty | Notification that HB1634 is now Act 842 |
|
HB1673
Act 1037
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1673 Petty CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF A NO CONTACT ORDER.”
|
CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF A NO CONTACT ORDER. | Petty | Notification that HB1673 is now Act 1037 |
|
HB1686
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1686 A. Collins TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "MARITAL PROPERTY" FO…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "MARITAL PROPERTY" FOR PURPOSES OF DIVISION OF PROPERTY IN AN … | A. Collins | Died on House at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1695
Act 1020
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1695 Scott TO PROTECT CHILDREN WHO ARE BEING TRAFFICKED FROM BEI…”
|
TO PROTECT CHILDREN WHO ARE BEING TRAFFICKED FROM BEING PROSECUTED FOR PROSTITUTION. | Scott | Notification that HB1695 is now Act 1020 |
|
HB1708
Act 849
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1708 V. Flowers TO END CHILD MARRIAGE; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONC…”
|
TO END CHILD MARRIAGE; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MINIMUM AGE REQUIREMENT FOR … | V. Flowers | Notification that HB1708 is now Act 849 |
|
HB1732
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1732 Womack TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE STATE OR A SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE; … | Womack | Sine Die adjournment |
|
HB1733
Act 969
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB 1733”
|
CONCERNING A THREAT TO COMMIT AN ACT OF MASS VIOLENCE ON SCHOOL PROPERTY. | Gazaway | Notification that HB1733 is now Act 969 |
|
HB1734
Act 905
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB 1734”
|
CONCERNING THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO A VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION. | Gazaway | Notification that HB1734 is now Act 905 |
|
HB1755
Act 971
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1755 Scott CONCERNING THE PUNITIVE ISOLATION OR SOLITARY CONFINE…”
|
CONCERNING THE PUNITIVE ISOLATION OR SOLITARY CONFINEMENT OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE UNDER EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS … | Scott | Notification that HB1755 is now Act 971 |
|
HB1759
Act 906
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1759 Hawks TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING JOINT CUSTODY AND THE MOD…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING JOINT CUSTODY AND THE MODIFICATION OF A CHILD CUSTODY DECREE. | Hawks | Notification that HB1759 is now Act 906 |
|
HB1762
Act 833
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1762 Crawford TO AMEND THE QUALIFICATIONS OF A GUARDIAN.”
|
TO AMEND THE QUALIFICATIONS OF A GUARDIAN. | Crawford | Notification that HB1762 is now Act 833 |
|
HB1765
Act 1021
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1765 Maddox TO ESTABLISH THE DIRECTED TRUST ACT.”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE UNIFORM DIRECTED TRUST ACT. | Maddox | Notification that HB1765 is now Act 1021 |
|
HB1782
Act 1044
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1782 Capp CONCERNING COURT COSTS AND FEES FOR SPECIALTY COURT IN…”
|
CONCERNING COURT COSTS AND FEES FOR SPECIALTY COURT IN THE STATE'S DISTRICT COURTS. | Capp | Notification that HB1782 is now Act 1044 |
|
HB1802
Act 907
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1802 Lowery TO REVISE THE FAMILY SUPPORT CHART TO REFLECT PAYOR…”
|
TO REVISE THE FAMILY SUPPORT CHART TO REFLECT PAYOR AND RECIPIENT INCOME. | Lowery | Notification that HB1802 is now Act 907 |
|
HB1809
Act 1046
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1809 Love TO CREATE AN ADDITIONAL TERM OF IMPRISONMENT FOR OFFEN…”
|
TO CREATE AN ADDITIONAL TERM OF IMPRISONMENT FOR OFFENSES THAT CONSTITUTE SERIOUS ACTS OF VIOLENCE … | Love | Notification that HB1809 is now Act 1046 |
|
HB1810
Act 1047
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1810 Penzo TO PROVIDE FOR QUALIFIED SPOUSAL TRUSTS IN ARKANSAS.”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR QUALIFIED SPOUSAL TRUSTS IN ARKANSAS. | Penzo | Notification that HB1810 is now Act 1047 |
|
HB1814
Act 1049
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1814 Rushing CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS.”
|
CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS. | Rushing | Notification that HB1814 is now Act 1049 |
|
HB1851
Act 908
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1851 Bentley CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION.”
|
CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION. | Bentley | Notification that HB1851 is now Act 908 |
|
HB1866
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1866 Petty CONCERNING EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY, PARDON, AND COMMUTATIO…”
|
CONCERNING EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY, PARDON, AND COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE. | Petty | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB13
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB13 A. Clark CONCERNING DRUG TESTING UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATME…”
|
CONCERNING DRUG TESTING UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; CONCERNING CHILD MALTREATMENT INVESTIGATION REPORTS; TO AMEND … | A. Clark | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB139
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB139 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAWS CONCERNING VENUE IN THE JUDICI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAWS CONCERNING VENUE IN THE JUDICIARY; TO PROMOTE EFFICIENT VENUE TRANSFER; AND … | M. Johnson | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB191
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB191 Rapert TO CREATE THE COURT OR JURY FINDING OF GUILTY BUT WI…”
|
TO CREATE THE COURT OR JURY FINDING OF GUILTY BUT WITH A MENTAL ILLNESS; CONCERNING … | Rapert | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB198
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB198 B. Ballinger REQUIRING THAT THE ARKANSAS COMMISSION ON LAW…”
|
REQUIRING THAT THE ARKANSAS COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT STANDARDS AND TRAINING CONDUCT A STUDY ON … | B. Ballinger | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB230
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB230 K. Hammer CREATING A STATUTORY CIVIL ACTION FOR INVASION OF…”
|
CREATING A STATUTORY CIVIL ACTION FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY. | K. Hammer | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB251
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB251 Irvin CONCERNING THE PAROLE OF A PERSON WHO WAS RELEASED OR…”
|
CONCERNING THE PAROLE OF A PERSON WHO WAS RELEASED OR IS SCHEDULED TO BE RELEASED … | Irvin | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB279
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB279 M. Pitsch TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONDEMNATION ACTIONS;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONDEMNATION ACTIONS; AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CALCULATION OF ATTORNEY'S FEES … | M. Pitsch | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB280
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB280 M. Pitsch TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COMPENSATION AWARDED…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COMPENSATION AWARDED IN A CONDEMNATION ACTION. | M. Pitsch | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB283
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB283 T. Garner TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE PARTITION AND SAL…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE PARTITION AND SALE OF LAND; AND TO REPEAL THE … | T. Garner | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB313
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB313 Elliott REQUIRING THE PAROLE BOARD TO ISSUE AND RELEASE FIN…”
|
REQUIRING THE PAROLE BOARD TO ISSUE AND RELEASE FINDINGS OF FACT WHEN IT DENIES PAROLE … | Elliott | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB344
Act 806
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB344 B. Ballinger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE FILING OF A ME…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE FILING OF A MECHANIC'S OR MATERIALMAN'S LIEN. | B. Ballinger | Notification that SB344 is now Act 806 |
|
SB350
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB350 T. Garner CONCERNING THE PENALTY FOR AN UNLAWFUL AUTOMATED…”
|
CONCERNING THE PENALTY FOR AN UNLAWFUL AUTOMATED TELEPHONE SOLICITATION | T. Garner | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB352
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB352 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROTECTIONS FOR CHILD…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROTECTIONS FOR CHILD WELFARE AGENCIES. | A. Clark | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB378
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB378 Elliott TO BE KNOWN AS "THE EQUITY IN SENTENCING ACT".”
|
TO BE KNOWN AS THE "PAROLE EQUITY ACT. | Elliott | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB474
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB474 T. Garner CREATING A CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A PERSON…”
|
CREATING A CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A PERSON THAT ENGAGES IN TELEPHONE CALLER IDENTIFICATION … | T. Garner | Returned to the Senate. |
|
SB484
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB484 B. Ballinger CONCERNING THE DEFENSE OF A PERSON WITH THE US…”
|
CONCERNING THE DEFENSE OF A PERSON WITH THE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE OR DEADLY FORCE. | B. Ballinger | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB496
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB496 B. Ballinger TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE LAW CONCERNING ALIM…”
|
TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE LAW CONCERNING ALIMONY SUPPORT. | B. Ballinger | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB500
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB500 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CUSTODIAL INTERRO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION OF MINORS. | G. Leding | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB507
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB507 L. Chesterfield TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONSIDERATI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PREFERENCE OF A CHILD IN A … | L. Chesterfield | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB517
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB517 Bond CONCERNING LIFE SENTENCES IMPOSED FOR NONVIOLENT FELON…”
|
CONCERNING LIFE SENTENCES IMPOSED FOR NONVIOLENT FELONY OFFENSES INVOLVING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE; CONCERNING CRIMINAL SENTENCES; … | Bond | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB545
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB545 Irvin TO ESTABLISH RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FOR NECESSARY MEDICA…”
|
TO ESTABLISH RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FOR NECESSARY MEDICAL CARE, TREATMENT, OR SERVICES RENDERED. | Irvin | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB558
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB 558”
|
TO REPEAL ARKANSAS CODE § 16-30-104 CONCERNING THE CONTRACTUAL WAIVER OF A JURY TRIAL; TO … | G. Stubblefield | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB568
Act 935
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB568 Caldwell CONCERNING THE TWENTY-FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT; CON…”
|
CONCERNING THE TWENTY-FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT; CONCERNING DISTRICT COURT JUDGES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | Caldwell | Notification that SB568 is now Act 935 |
|
SB570
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB570 Hester TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL CIRCUIT JUDGESHIPS FOR CER…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL CIRCUIT JUDGESHIPS FOR CERTAIN JUDICIAL DISTRICTS. | Hester | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB578
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB578 A. Clark TO REMOVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION OR REVOCAT…”
|
TO REMOVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION AS AN AVAILABLE PENALTY FOR OFFENSES NOT … | A. Clark | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB607
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB607 Irvin CONCERNING THE SENTENCING OF A JUVENILE OFFENDER.”
|
CONCERNING THE SENTENCING OF A JUVENILE OFFENDER. | Irvin | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB608
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB608 Irvin TO AMEND THE FAIR SENTENCING FOR MINORS ACT OF 2017.”
|
TO AMEND THE FAIR SENTENCING FOR MINORS ACT OF 2017. | Irvin | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB609
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB609 Irvin TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CHILD LABOR TRAFFICKING.”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CHILD LABOR TRAFFICKING. | Irvin | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB610
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB610 Irvin TO BE KNOWN AS "SARA'S LAW"; CONCERNING THE SENTENCIN…”
|
TO BE KNOWN AS "SARA'S LAW"; CONCERNING THE SENTENCING OF A JUVENILE. | Irvin | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB630
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB630 G. Stubblefield CONCERNING THE COMPENSATION OF A RETIRED JU…”
|
CONCERNING THE COMPENSATION OF A RETIRED JUDGE APPOINTED TO TEMPORARY SERVICE; CONCERNING THE RECUSAL OF … | G. Stubblefield | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB661
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB661 Bond CONCERNING THE POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA BY A FIRST-TIME…”
|
CONCERNING THE POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA BY A FIRST-TIME OFFENDER; AND CONCERNING THE POSSESSION OF A … | Bond | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB674
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB 674”
|
TO REDUCE THE SENTENCE CLASSIFICATIONS FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES FROM A FELONY TO A MISDEMEANOR. | A. Clark | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB78
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB78 L. Chesterfield CONCERNING THE FEE TO ATTEND A VICTIM IMPAC…”
|
CONCERNING THE FEE TO ATTEND A VICTIM IMPACT PANEL THAT IS REQUIRED BY LAW OF … | L. Chesterfield | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB88
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB88 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PETITIONS TO REINSTATE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PETITIONS TO REINSTATE PARENTAL RIGHTS. | A. Clark | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB89
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB89 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CLOSED AND CONFIDE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CLOSED AND CONFIDENTIAL NATURE OF RECORDS UNDER THE ARKANSAS … | A. Clark | Sine Die adjournment |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 9, 2026
Speaker 2
0:00
Quorum. We're going to start our meeting again. I'm
going to ask Senator Stubblefield that has a seniority to come and take the chair
while I present House Bill 1937 again.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:03
everybody have a copy of 1937 it's house bill 1937 i'm sorry house bill 1937 senator flowers you're recognized
to present house bill 1937 members we heard the arguments uh for and against this morning um i'm just here to urge again uh motion do pass are not closed are there any questions
Speaker 22
1:34
senator ballinger thank you mr chair i just know that there was a uh an amendment rolling around and you're not interested in
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:46
that amendment there is no amendment okay thank you there's no
amendment all right any other discussion by committee we have a motion do pass and a second all those in favor say aye all
opposed Your bill passes, Senator Flaher. Thank you, committee.
Senator Sturge, you have a bill. What's the bill number? 1880. would
Speaker 36
2:37
you say that again house bill 1880 ma'am
1880 you're recognized to present house bill 1880 did everybody have it copy okay go ahead thank
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
2:54
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, committee. Committee members, this basically deals just with district courts in my Senate district with Independence, Izzard, and Fulton counties. These courts, district courts, were already transitioning from county and cities, and by current law, they were supposed to have this done by 2021, but they've asked for that delay in implementation until 2025. This is also the recommendation of the district court resource assessment board, and so we're just allowing this legislation to be until 2025, Give them four more years to transition from local district courts to the state district courts.
Speaker 42
3:26
And that's essentially what the bill does. Thank you. Senator Ballinger, you have a question you recognize?
Speaker 24
3:34
Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, so we kind of just went through this. So I just want to verify. So apparently there's two different ways to do this. There's a process that you actually go to them and ahead of time. So the district court board or association is actually on board with and supporting this? Yes, sir. They helped us
Speaker 43
3:52
with the bill. Okay. All right. Thank you.
And it was after a request. Yes, ma'am. The law was that it would be 2021 that they would transition. Yes. So there was some explanation offered. Yes, ma'am. Any other questions by the committee?
Anybody here to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none, what's the will of the, you want to close for your bill, Senator Sturge? Appreciate a good vote. Thank you. What's the will of the committee? Senator Letting moves do pass. Senator Bunn moves second.
Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor
say aye. Those opposed, no. Ayes have it. You've passed
your bill, Senator Sturge. Senator Ballinger, since we started and stopped
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
5:15
in the middle of your bill, the House bill that you were running
earlier today, why don't we go ahead and finish that up now? There were individuals here that were speaking against the bill. It was interrupted. What bill
number was that again? House bill 1789? Okay. Here it is.
Okay, if we can just go ahead and start where we left
off, I think the gentleman was in the middle. And so if you go ahead and wrap
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
6:36
up and go on to the next against. And state
John Tribble
Unverified
6:43
your name again. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. My name is John Tribble. I'm an
Jp Tribble
Unverified
6:49
attorney in Little Rock. As I was saying before we adjourned, the statistics available to us show that the The portion of Marshallese adoptions to the overall adoptions in the state of Arkansas is very, very small. This bill is designed to address certain problems that have arisen in the Marshallese community. And it's my belief that the bill will punish 90% or more of the population, 90% or more
of adoptions to correct some issues of a very small portion. THE ADOPTION TRIAD IS A COOPERATION BETWEEN THE CHILD BIRTH PARENTS AND ADOPTIVE PARENTS, AND THIS BILL, IN SHORT, MAKES THAT RELATIONSHIP STRAINED AND CAUSES MORE OF AN ADVERSARIOAL NATURE TO ADOPTION IN THAT ADOPTIVE PARENTS CAN BE LIABLE FOR CRIMES UNBENOONST TO THEM.
IF THEY MAKE CERTAIN PAYMENTS TO THE BIRTH PARENTS, THAT WOULD BE TYPICALLY BEFORE AN AGENCY OR AN ATTORNEY BECOMES INVOLVED. THE BILL ALSO, THROUGH CRIMINAL PENALTIES, DISCOURAGES ATTORNEYS TO, EXCUSE ME, NOT CRIMINAL PENALTIES, CIVIL PENALTIES, DISCOURAGES ATTORNEYS FROM HANDLING EXPENSES FOR ADOPTIVE PARENTS. And they would be best, an attorney or an agency would be best educated on what expenses are reasonable and what are allowed, whereas adoptive parents are not.
Lastly, the bill is an unreasonable intrusion upon attorneys in that it governs conduct of attorneys, which is really the purview of the Supreme Court through the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Professional Conduct. It's my belief that it would be a violation of the separation of powers to regulate attorneys in such detail, and in many instances it would cause a really, it would almost force attorneys to violate the rules of professional conduct by requiring them to disclose identities of the full identities of the adoptive parents and birth parents in certain cases.
So, with that, I would rest. One more comment, though, please. I would like to ask the committee to not pass this bill because of the punitive nature to the majority of bona fide adoptions in Arkansas. Thank you. Questions of this witness? Next.
Ma'am, please identify yourself. And there may be questions later for the four of you.
Candy Cox
Unverified
9:48
Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Candy Cox, and I am the founder of Ob Adoption here in the state of Arkansas. I'm a licensed child placement agency. We have been in existence since 2004. Prior to that, I was a director at a different adoption agency prior to that. I was a co-founder of a pregnancy resource center. I have been involved in close to 500 adoptions.
And as I appreciate wanting to fix some of the issues of the Marshallese adoptions, and the adoptions that we have done through ABBA adoption, we have only had one Marshallese adoption through our agency. We do have some issues with this bill. One is, as my colleagues have talked about, the civil penalties against attorneys and licensed child placement agencies on the expenses.
You know, this, in good faith, in working with a mom and helping with those expenses that can be incurred, this is left up to the discretion of a judge on if those expenses were reasonable. And what one judge may see as reasonable, another judge may see as unreasonable. The law already defines those expenses that can be paid. However, this bill also creates a new broad and generalized category for expenses,
which we feel would increase the cost of adoption and encourage expected women to seek higher expenses than typically paid already. just by some of the language in here. Another issue that I have with this bill is that in here it states that if a mom chooses to revoke her consent to an adoption, that we shall assist her
or him, the birth father, in revoking their consent. As a licensed child placement agency, See, my job is to do what's in the best interest of the child. And so, you know, shall, what does that mean? That is very broad. Where is that
Speaker 66
12:18
language? Yes, ma'am. It's in page, let's see.
Candy Cox
Unverified
12:29
yeah it's on page nine section five uh section six
where it says if the person whose consent to adoption is required wishes to revoke his or her consent the attorney or licensed child placement agency that assisted him or her in executing the consent shall assist him in revoking their revoking it. I take a huge issue with this in that how shall that be done? Am I to provide transportation for them? We in the consent to
adoption that mom's already signed it and birth father's already signed it states in there how the process that they need to revoke their consent, it already states that in there. And so this, I believe, takes it a step further and takes me outside of doing what is in the best interest of a child. In addition, the section above that where it says that we are too certified under oath in writing for the records in the adoption proceeding that a
license placement agency has reasonable steps to ensure that the person whose consent to the adoption is required to not consent under fraud, duress, undue influence, or coercion. Well, that's already in our laws. It's under the Adoption Registry Act 99505. We are asking auto-adoption, and I know many other agencies are not, and we do not want this bill passed.
Speaker 68
14:16
We're asking that it does not, that there is a
no vote. Questions by the committee? Senator Stubblefield, you
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
14:25
recognize one question. Where's DHS on this in reference to the International Compact for Adoption? What would
Speaker 22
14:35
probably be helpful is to have DHS come up to speak to that.
Speaker 74
14:46
It's supposed to be 78. Senator Stubblefield, are you? Yes. Okay. I would,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
15:09
I just ask where's DHS on this in reference to the International Compact Law on Adoption?
Speaker 77
15:19
Yes, Gerald, Chair. I'm Senior General Counsel for the Department of Human Services.
ma'am excuse me would you turn your mic off okay
Speaker 78
15:27
thank you madam chair um to answer your question senator uh the department does not have a position on this bill as far as the interstate compact on the placement of children is that what you were referring to yeah okay so it's the internet i'm not a i'm not familiar with that particular compact our position on the interstate compact on the placement of children is that this bill is a step in a good direction um related to that
That compact, for a couple reasons, one of which is the compact has some jurisdictional requirements related to residency that this bill addresses by ensuring that the residency of the mother is clearly laid out. So for that reason, the department, I mean, we believe that it is a step in the right direction. But again, we don't have an official position
Speaker 82
16:14
one way or the other on this bill. That is in
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
16:18
regard to interstate. Interstate compact. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Sharon, what about domestic or in-state adoptions?
Have you studied this bill to see
if it affects the practice of adoptions, the process that we have now, and what, if anything, in which way, positive or
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
16:37
negative, it might affect the process? Well, let me be clear. This bill probably won't
Speaker 78
16:45
affect the Department's adoptions too much at all, just because we are not the ones procuring the consent. We don't have the expense issue that this bill addresses.
But I will say, I mean, it clearly will change the practice of law related to adoptions. But the Department does not have a position as to whether it's good or bad, just on the effect of the
practice for adoption. Any other questions by the committee? Okay, seeing no other questions, anyone else signed?
Oh, I'm sorry, Senator Bunn, you recognized. So the one thing in reading through the bill
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
17:29
a couple days ago, and the fog is sort of setting
in here, is I thought the bill was, from a 60,000 foot level, was going to make the adoption process harder. Am I reading that wrong? And I thought, I read it as discouraging, sort of, in a way, adoptions. I don't, any one of the four practicing lawyers there, I guess.
Speaker 90
17:56
Yes, Senator Bond, it is discouraging. And as I said earlier, the old days of being embarrassed about adoption or closed adoptions, those are over. All parties now want a more open
transparency, and this bill does not encourage adoptions, and it does discourage, and when I'm dealing with birth parents, they understand their rights, and to, for this almost remedial treatment that we're giving them in this is a step backward. Thank you. Well, and just to follow up on that, and this
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
18:30
may not be an issue you have with the bill, but in reading the criminal sections of the bill, I had a hard time determining as to all the conduct that would fall under these
criminal felony protections. If anything was given to a birth mother or, I mean, I know we already have some laws on that, but I was confused about what qualifies as a felony offense now and what didn't. Is there, am I reading that wrong? Is this just clarifying the law we have or is it sort of, seems to me
Candy Cox
Unverified
19:10
these felony definitions? Yes, I agree. That's the problem that we have with it. And so when we are working with birth moms, we're making the best determination that we can. The law allows for living-related expenses, birth-related expenses, pregnancy-related expenses.
expenses. And so this is one of the biggest issues that we have is as an agency or as an attorney or as an adoptive parent, when you're paying these expenses, are you going to be held in a civil suit over those expenses? As I said, what one judge deems as okay, another judge could deem as unnecessary. Thank
Okay. Any other questions of the committee? Okay. Senator,
Kay Mcleod
Unverified
20:07
yes, would you like to... Senator, yes, Madam Chair. My name is Kay McLeod.
Speaker 100
20:13
I'm also here to speak against the bill. Okay, I thought we got you
this morning, but we didn't. No, we did not. Okay, I'm
Speaker 100
20:22
sorry. Go ahead. I am a practicing attorney, and family formation practice is my only practice, and I have done this for 38 years.
I am a founding fellow of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys. I also am a member of the Arkansas Bar Association. The Arkansas Bar Association is opposed to this bill as being far overreaching. I also work with a lot of adoption agencies in the state of Arkansas. I'm very familiar with the payment of expenses to birth parents. This is a bill that is intended to curtail Marshallese adoptions and predatory practices in one county or two counties of the state.
We are trying to change the law to accommodate about less than 10% of the adoptions. And it adversely impacts the overall number of adoptions throughout the rest of the state by creating more steps, more liabilities, more risk for anybody that attempts to do an adoption that doesn't have that type of practice. Again, as Ms. Bradshaw testified to earlier this morning, when you represent a birth mother, there should be no reason why you cannot notarize your client's consent to the adoption.
In the real world of adoption, we do this 24-7, 365. Adoptions don't take place 9 to 5. They take place nights, weekends, holidays. I've traveled at night to Fort Smith, Arkansas to do an adoption case in the middle of the night. everyone sitting here has done this and to try to find a notary separate to be able to notarize a mother's consent when she's anxious to get out of the hospital and leave as soon as possible
and you're trying to find a notary at 10 o'clock at night on a saturday that's almost impossible hospital notaries will not notarize your documents their hospital chief counsel won't allow them to do that they won't allow their staff to witness your documents so you have to bring in another notary. Ms. Bradshaw had a case one time where she had to get a notary out of, was it in Mississippi? She paid $500 for a notary to notarize her clients' documents. So it does
increase the cost of adoption. It creates a lot of civil liability for attorneys who in good faith are trying to do the best they can for their clients, where we would have to pay back any expenses that the adoptive parents paid if we're found negligent in any of our actions, plus a 6% per annum civil penalty on top of that. There are also some criminal liabilities for adoptive parents can be charged with a class A misdemeanor if they unknowingly pay expenses
that are later found to be unreasonable. And again, in the adoption world, a lot of these clients are matched together through other sources before they even come to an attorney. They don't have benefit of counsel when they're helping this woman who claims that she's on the street and doesn't have a place to live and they put her in a hotel. If a judge later finds that to be unreasonable, that adoptive parent is charged with a class A misdemeanor. If the attorney handles those funds for their client to help that mom get off the street and it's later found
unreasonable, the attorney can be charged with a civil penalty for paying that. That is simply not part of what the adoption community is about. We do the best thing we can with boots on the ground trying to help these women and trying to help these families form a unit. And we do the best we can in making assessments about the cost of the expenses that the mother needs at the time. I think this is a very penalizing statute or bill. I don't think it is warranted at all.
I think it's trying to correct a minuscule problem in the northwest part of the state. I've heard testimony that it's starting to move out into other parts of the states. I've done over 2,000 adoptions. I've done one marshalese. And that was a case because it disrupted with the original attorney who recently filed bankruptcy and is no longer practicing. I don't think we need to have this bill. I also am able to speak on behalf of several licensed adoption agencies who are also in opposition to this bill. We've heard from Candy Cox with ABBA Adoptions.
I have talked with an Angel's Choice adoption, Michelle Oglesby, who's an African-American woman who runs an agency in Sherwood, Arkansas. She is opposed to this. She feels it would be an unnecessary imposition on how her agency assists birth mothers with their expenses and creates liability for the agency. I've talked with Bethany Christian Services. They said no. They're for the trafficking part of the bill, but they don't feel that the rest of the bill is helpful to their clients or to the birth parents.
I've talked with Grace Adoptions, which is a licensed agency in Conway, Arkansas. They are opposed to it. And I've talked with Bill Barling at Families Are Special in
Speaker 105
25:32
North Little Rock. He is opposed to it. I don't think we have
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
25:40
the majority of agency in favor of this bill, and I would ask the committee do not pass. Let me ask you, do you think the bill inhibits relationships, normal types of relationships between even family members who have pregnant teenagers or young mothers-to-be?
Does it inhibit them, the things
that they customarily do, helping their child or relative, knowing that they probably will adopt and have agreed, the mother birth mother has agreed for them to adopt? Well, if it's a family member, then,
Speaker 100
26:27
of course, there's probably not going to be the expense issue involved. But certainly the...
Sometimes families do contribute to the expenses. That's true. And so whatever attorney that they're working with is going to have to go through that laundry list of substantiating and giving justification for all of those expenses. It puts the attorney at risk. If the family member helps out and
the judge says, oh, wait a minute, that was too much, that's unreasonable. Because that birth mother or the mother-to-be may be living with that family
member that's planning to adopt and that the birth mother wants to adopt the child.
Speaker 100
27:09
Correct. And in most of these cases, the birth mother in private adoptions, agencies and private attorney-assisted, she selects the family that she wants to adopt her baby. So it is a collaborative relationship between the birth parents. In the Marshallese community, not so much. In the Marshallese community, I'm pretty familiar with what goes on with those adoptions, and they have Marshallese runners that bring pregnant women to a couple of attorneys up there, and the attorney chooses the family. The mother really doesn't have much say in it.
She doesn't have representation by an attorney in agency and private attorney-assisted adoptions. The best practices is we get an attorney to represent the birth mother's interests, So she has her own independent counsel. In the situation you're talking about with a family member adopting, the consent requirements under this bill would also apply to a family member adopting. So she has to be advised of all of these things by her attorney or an attorney for the petitioner
about what public assistance benefits are available to her, how she has to be able to revoke her consent. They have to assist her in being able to revoke her consent if she decides she doesn't want her auntie to adopt her baby. So there's a lot of requirements put forth in this bill that do not reflect what the actual practice of
adoption law is in Arkansas. Thank you,
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
28:36
Attorney McLeod. Any other questions by the committee? If not, we have one person signed up to speak for Jeff Williams.
Please be cognizant of the time. Thank you, Madam
Speaker 114
28:54
Chair and members of the committee. I just want to speak very generally. First, of course,
Speaker 115
28:59
I want to express that I am not here in my official capacity. I'm here simply as a citizen of Arkansas and also the person, I guess you could say, that begun this process a couple of years ago in doing this.
And I want to give a very quick summation of what occurred and why we started this process. I was asked to have a meeting when I was still a state representative. I was asked to have a meeting with the circuit judges in Washington County because they had seen some issues coming in their courts in reference to adoptions. They had various concerns that they expressed to me about lack of understanding of the proceedings, the percentage of adoptions that were occurring within a very limited population within it,
and the high percentage that was occurring in their courts, concerns about seeing the concerns that they were seeing kept continuously coming from each of the cases that they were seeing in front of their courts. So we started looking into this a little deeper, started understanding a little bit better. We started putting the legislation together, and we started having conversations with entities from all over the state trying to understand and trying to find what we believe would be the best piece of legislation to be able to
address the issues that are of a concern for the state of Arkansas. What I want to talk about very quickly, of course, is they talked, you know, I've been hearing a lot of talk about regionally, how it's just happening in Washington and Benton County. And, of course, that may have been true in the past, but this is starting to spread across the state of Arkansas as different vulnerable populations exist in the state of Arkansas. One of the largest growing populations, specifically the Marshallese, is over in the Jonesboro area of the state, where we believe that this is simply just going to bleed over into those
other areas, but it goes beyond the Marshallese population. It goes into other vulnerable populations, as we're seeing as well, and also why we're seeing the support amongst those community organizations in reference to within the Latino population and referenced in some other vulnerable populations, such as with populations that are dealing with opioid addictions and different populations like that. So that was kind of a quick understanding of the background. And, of course, we've all seen or we all may be aware of the recent activities that we've
seen, the recent arrests that have occurred in here, and in a very timely situation, just in fact this morning, Judge Zimmerman was down here, and she spoke with me about her support of this legislation saying specifically that she had had the someone who was brought before her court who they ended up finding out that the the girl was a minor and they they had attempted to do an adoption with her finding out of course that she was a minor and there was all the issues that have to go with that so she and these into this girl had gone through many
the same attorneys that many of these issues are concerning with so obviously some of the attorneys aren't concerned about the fact that they're dealing or doing it properly with adults or not. I admit this will absolutely cause additional work to be necessary for adoption. No question about that. The question, I think, that needs to be considered, or the counterpoint to that, needs to be considered is the impact of this. And I understand that it will impact adoptions across the state of Arkansas
by requiring a little bit of additional work to be done in each of those options. But let's talk, and I want to kind of get to, very quickly, get to some numbers so we understand. When we start talking about adoptions, let's just say we're only talking about a couple of hundred options across the state of Arkansas. But what are we really talking about there? We're talking about a couple of hundred biological mothers, a couple of hundred biological fathers, a couple of hundred adoptive fathers, a couple of hundred adoptive mothers, a couple of hundred vulnerable children. Now, what are we up to at that point? We're up to 1,000 people being impacted currently with the current situation here in Arkansas.
And that's just, I think that's the low end of the numbers of those that are being impacted. What I am willing, or I believe, based upon all of the work that I've done over these last couple of years, that this will be a positive move for adoptions here in Arkansas. There's talk about increasing costs. Well, that will just depend on the relationship or the financial relationship between the attorneys, the agencies, and the individuals involved in these cases. I know there will be additional work that will be required with that, and I believe the attorneys will probably charge for those additional works.
But there's also additional accountability in this piece of legislation, which I think will help control some of those costs that you're going to be seeing coming across, you'll be seeing with this legislation. And my final point that I'm going to make, and I'm speaking to this more on a very personal level, because I am an adoptive father, my daughter. I have a 15-year-old daughter who was adopted. We were very fortunate in the adoption that we went through in the aspect that we had a beautiful, healthy young girl who, when she was born, was handed to my wife.
I mean, just immediately after birth was handed to my wife. and we've had that opportunity to have a child because of the adoption loss and i can guarantee you that if if if these additional requirements were on me or were part of my adoption that i went through i would have jumped through any hoop to go through get that adoption i would have provided any additional paperwork that would be necessary i would sign off on anything i would have vetted any hour i would have done anything because and that's what most adoptive parents would do in this situation.
And I can tell you, and I'll finish with this, if I truly believed that this would harm adoptions in Arkansas, being an adoptive father, I would have never, I wouldn't be here speaking in support of it, nor would I have ever brought it to this body. Even though I officially didn't bring this to the body, I would have never brought it to this body. So if I thought anything that was in this bill was harming or would potentially harm adoptions, I would not be here sitting here providing this testimony. So thank you, members.
I appreciate the opportunity to come and speak with you, and I'll be available if somebody should have some questions, but obviously I may be the only non-attorney sitting at this table, so, but thank you. Questions by the
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
35:30
committee? Madam? No. No questions by the committee? Okay. You want
to close for your bill, Senator Ballinger? Yes,
Speaker 22
35:39
Madam Chair. And just to be able to address a couple things, Josh hadn't had a chance to speak yet.
Mr. Josh Bryant, whose attorney, helped us in drafting this. And so he's just going to address
Speaker 117
35:52
some concerns. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, so you see the clock?
Yes, ma'am, I do. Okay. We were here earlier today, and we went at least 15, 20 minutes. So I thought you
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
36:03
had presented already. He came to the table with you. He did. And
Speaker 42
36:10
at that point, we didn't. I would appreciate if you would close for your bill.
Speaker 22
36:15
Yeah. And that's what I've asked him and told him to keep really
Speaker 122
36:21
be very brief. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I
Josh Bryant
Unverified
36:25
will be brief. I did want to just touch on real four brief things that this bill does in response to some of the objections that have been raised. Number one, it does provide criminal sanctions for people who traffic in human beings. That's what's happening in Arkansas. Babies are being bought and sold in the state of Arkansas right now. And somebody has been arrested in another country for offering $10,000 and a free ticket to America
if they'd come over here and place their child up for adoption. That's happening in this state time and time again. You want to just list the four things? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And so that would criminalize that action. Number two, it does tighten down the jurisdictional requirements. All it does is say, biological mothers, if you are placing your child up for adoption to an out-of-state parent, you have to state that in the consent. That's all it says. What's your residential history? You just have to put it in the consent. Third thing it does is it follows the advice that Bob Woodward got, follow the money.
It opens up some transparency there. We've said we wanted open and transparency and more open adoptions in Arkansas. It does that. It provides transparency in how the money is flowing and what it's being spent on. It's not difficult to figure out exactly what the categories are that are supposed to be paid into and whether or not it is a pregnancy or an adoption-related expense. And the final thing it does is it does take care of some of these conflicts of interest by raising the standard of care that an attorney or an adoption practitioner must use when working with both adoptive parents and biological parents.
The reason this is important is because we've got some biological parents who'll go to the same practitioner four, five, eight times and place their children up for adoption to four, five, or eight different sets of adoptive parents. Now, where does that practitioner's loyalties lie when they literally have a supply chain of children that they can place up for adoption and turn into revenue? And so we've seen time and time again the harm that that type of a conflict causes, and all this requires is that you disclose that conflict and that the consent be a little bit more robust than the law requires now.
If a judge is going to convict somebody of a crime on a plea and sentence them to 10 days in jail, they're going to ask all these questions. Are you under the influence of anything? Is anybody forcing you to do this? Why would we not ask the same questions of somebody when we're going to take their child away for life and then they have no constitutional rights to do anything about that after that fact? And so this particular legislation would fix that. It's supported by the Arkansas Coalition of Marshallese. We've talked to multiple judges, attorneys, adoptees, adoptive parents, biological parents, all support it.
I visited last night with the Hub of Hope in northwest Arkansas, which is a multidisciplinary nonprofit organization of law enforcement agencies, children's shelters, women's shelters, all dedicated to stopping human trafficking. They support this. And so there's multiple organizations who support the bill, support the legislation. It's necessary. 160 years ago, this kind of stuff was okay. It's not anymore, and we've got to stop the buying and selling of children in Arkansas. Thank you, sir. What's the will of the committee?
I'll make a motion. Do pass. Second by Senator Stubblefield. Any discussion? If not, all those in favor of the motion? Aye. All those opposed? No. I'll request a roll call. Roll call. Senator Stubblefield?
Speaker 128
40:01
Senator Cooper? No. Senator Rice? No. Senator Bond? No. Senator Ballinger? Aye. Senator Letting? Aye. Bill fell. He said,
well, four to three, it still fell.
Okay. Well, it couldn't have been four to three. It's seven of us in here. I did not vote. I did not vote.
Speaker 137
40:58
Okay, so 4-2 then, I guess. Letting voted for it. Yeah.
Speaker 22
41:03
Yes, Senator Ballinger. I just had an announcement. I know there's a lot of folks here, but we are actually not going to run the Senate Bill 484. Thank
you very much. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. Senator Bunn, you have
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
41:18
a bill. Let's get your bill done. I think that's a, is that a Senate bill? No, it's their
House bill. Okay, okay. 1782 would be first. 1782? House Bill 1782? Will you
Speaker 141
41:31
let them know, the public know, we put a sign-up sheet on that back table back there.
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
41:37
We put a sign-up sheet on the back table there. If anybody wants to speak on any of these bills, for or against,
you really need to sign up with the bill number and whether you're for or against or just want to speak on
it. I'm sorry, Senator Bone, what did you say the bill number is? It is House Bill 1782. 1782.
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
42:09
Okay. And thank you, Madam Chairperson. This is the bill. We discussed this about a week ago. Exactly. So you don't have to go. Senator Flowers, you had a couple questions about it. But this involves specialty courts at the district court level, and it essentially just gives them the exact same type statutory scheme as those at the circuit court level. There's many of these specialty courts at the district court level and a lot of districts across the state. Have with me here Judge Keith Cavanaugh if you have any questions.
I think the committee has a good idea of what the bill does, but we're
happy to answer any questions. Right. I
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
42:48
was satisfied with the response that I got to my questions. Any questions of the committee? Motion at the proper time. Are you closed for your bill? Is there anybody to speak for or against the bill besides
you, Judge Cavanaugh? No, ma'am. Okay. All right. So, motion do pass by Senator Stubblefield.
Second. Second by Senator Bunn. Senator Bunn seconds the motion. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
Aye. All those opposed, no. Ayes have it. You've passed the bill. What bill do you
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
43:27
have next? I have, I'll be totally up front with the committee. We have 1633, which has an amendment, and I know there's some people opposed to that bill. The Municipal League's in favor of it. I'm happy to get back out of line and let others, if they have non-contros, go.
Senator, it's up to the committee. Well, let's get some of the House out of here. Okay, thank you. Senator, I mean, Representative Bentley, what
do you have? House bill 1851. Hopefully it's non-contro. Should not be. House Bill 1851.
Okay. You recognize and present House Bill 1851. Thank you, Senator. Colleagues, this bill
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
44:22
is simply trying to take Arkansas statute and line up with federal statute in regards to an order of protection. plain and simple. We've
worked with it with AG's office with the Judicial Council to make sure everything was done correctly. I'm not a lawyer nor judge but I believe that's exactly what we've done with this bill and I'd be happy to take any questions if you
have any. So it's lined up with the federal law? Yes ma'am.
Okay any questions by the committee? Seeing none. Anybody here to speak for
against the bill Kristen Clark you know okay all right so that are
you closed for your bill representative Bentley I'm closed senator okay the will of the committee senator stubblefield moves
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
45:07
do pass senator Cooper seconds the motion all those any discussion seeing none all those in favor say aye those opposed no eyes
have it thank you all very much to take you take
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
45:20
me out of order I I appreciate it.
Representative Lowry, you have two bills or one?
House Bill 1802. You're recognized.
Speaker 167
45:44
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
Speaker 169
45:48
Committee, for squeezing me in. Just a little bit of background on this.
Speaker 171
45:54
Four years ago, I started
looking at child support guidelines in the state of Arkansas and what other states are doing. At that point, 35 states had adopted what is called the income shares model, where the income of both parents, custodial, non-custodial, are evaluated, and then the child support amount is determined at that point. I was asked then by Judge Mackey Pierce if I would pull the bill down because the Supreme
Court committee looking at child support was actually working on that and leaning towards income shares. I did that. It did pass a resolution in the House showing that the legislature had support for income shares. However, we're four years later and nothing has happened. Well, what has happened is we're up to 40 states now that do this. So I've sponsored this legislation. Judge Pierce is no longer chairing that committee,
but he said probably something needed to be done to light a fire under the committee. The Administrative Office of the Courts and the Judicial Council support this bill. Justice Womack, who is now the liaison for the Supreme Court or acting as liaison to the committee, came to me and just asked for one change, which was that the implementation date of January 1, 2020 be changed to March 1, 2020. So there is no known opposition to this, and this would make Arkansas the 41st state to adopt income shares.
I appreciate, and I'm open for any
questions. so then the the chart the family support chart is going to reflect both
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
47:47
the recipient and the payer's income yes so uh it'll be added together and you'll see a line across one child to judge uh pierce would you help us with this since he mentioned your name oh hey i didn't
Speaker 176
48:06
No, you're here. That's fine. That's fine. Judge Mackey Pierce, 17th Division Circuit, 6th Judicial District. As Representative Lowry said, I've been the chair, past chair now, of the Supreme Court Committee on Child Support. We worked diligently for four years
Speaker 177
48:24
in trying to create a model to present to the Supreme Court who would then consider it, And if they wanted to, then would publish it for opinions and comments from not only attorneys, but bench and bar, as well as the public.
As Representative Lowry said, the income shares model is the prevalent model of child support. We are in a minority with the payor-payee system. You know, I simply opened my chart. If you make $300 a week, I opened it. Two children, I go to the chart, two children, $300 a week. that amount of support, that is the presumptive correct amount of child support that you owe. It leaves litigants feeling like they get no say in setting support. My wife makes twice that. My ex-wife, why isn't that considered? This is a presumptively more fair, and it's perceived as
more fair by litigants. Now, Madam Chair, you mentioned that, you know, you look at both and you go across. Let me state, and Representative Lowry and I had lunch, and I asked him, I said, please hold off on this. This is not something that we can do in a short period of time. We got derailed last year for a lot of reasons, and I won't bore you with those, but bids are out now for a consultant to change or give us a representative child support chart showing
the income shares model in Arkansas. That's not something that somebody can sit down to a computer and generate in a few minutes. There are a lot of factors that go into that. We have attempted to model this when I was chair after South Carolina's model. We have spoken with the attorney that created that, helped create it, helped create the computer program for that, and utilized that for the bench and the bar and the public on a website where anybody can utilize it. For example, Illinois took
Speaker 176
50:16
11 years or more to create their income shares approach.
Do they seem to be uniform across all the states that have adopted these different models? No, ma'am.
Speaker 177
50:25
They are not uniform in that they are uniform in that they are an income shares approach. So if I've got a true joint custody situation, which I will tell you is not the norm, it is just not that where a child is with dad one week and mom the next week, that is not the norm. I understand that joint custody is favored and it's okay to award it, just doesn't happen that often.
So if I've got a true joint custody arrangement, I would look at the chart for dad. He makes $500 a week. I look at the chart for mom. She makes $600 a week. I can then set support based upon that offset. It's pretty easy. What gets hard is when mom has the children 35% of the time and dad has 65% of the time, then you start factoring in the wages and the income. It is not exceedingly difficult, but it is a lot more difficult than looking at a chart. There is a sheet, a flow sheet, a sheet that you have to utilize that involves algebraic equations.
You have to plug in factors and time and percentages. It is not going to be something that folks, old folks on the bench like me, 20-plus years, I've told people they want it. I've had no one say they don't, But I don't know that the bench nor the bar recognizes the extra effort and work that's going to be required. When we implement this and do this, it's not going to be something that we say, is it March next year, March 1 or March 30? It's March 1 of 2020. Is that reasonable?
It's going to happen and everybody's going to be on board. It's going to be chaos. And it's going to be chaos for a lot of reasons. It's not something that's going to be simply adopted and simply done. But I have no problem with that because it should have been done before now, but for various reasons it has not been. And again, that's water under the bridge. But it needs to be done, and we need to do this, and we need to come into the majority, and it's a better way of doing business. But it's a more complicated way of doing business for Mr. Bond as an attorney.
If he comes in my court, it's a much more complicated way of doing business for me as I sit on the bench and try to figure out a proper amount of child support. but I am in favor of it. It is something we need to adopt. Just one year, they don't even have the computer model up and running yet. They don't even have the adjusted charts yet because we haven't been able to select an expert because that's out for bid.
So that's where it is as I understand it. Well,
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
52:55
my concern is that the, says the chart shall be revised at least once every
time? Every four years, according to federal statute. Yes, ma'am. And I don't know how often the committee meets, but would it be more reasonable to set the deadline for this revision of the family support chart in four years? No, ma'am. That's by federal statute that we
Speaker 177
53:21
have to do that. So we're meeting federal requirements by revising or at least considering revisions every four years. And that's something that's done, again, we hire an expert to look at that and make
any recommendations regarding revisions because of changing economic factors and, you know, that type of thing. And there's a lot of data. The report is lengthy and complex and detailed. But this lady that does it is a lady named Jane Van Orr. She is who we have talked with about revising the charts, but it has to go out for a bit as I understand it. The Office of Child support enforcement has assisted us. There's a member of OCSE on that child support committee as there are attorneys, people from OCSE attorneys. Representative Charlene Fite is our
representative liaison from the House. And Justice Womack is our liaison with the Supreme Court. And then there are trial judges like myself, appellate judges. So it's a broad base of people. We have to come together with everybody's schedule. It is not something we can say we're going to meet every week and get this done next week. It's just, with the makeup, it's almost impossible to do that. Are you saying that the
feds are requiring us to do this by March 1st of 2020?
Speaker 177
54:37
No, ma'am, I am not. I'm saying that every four years we have to look at our child support chart and at least say we're keeping what we have, we're making these adjustments or not under federal statute. So when is the last time they met and revised or
looked at it for a review to revise? Again,
Speaker 176
54:57
I am no longer the chair, but it is my understanding that the revision is due now, and then you have a window of a year within which to make any revisions or to say we're keeping what we have.
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
55:09
Well, but my point is, is it reasonable to try to do something that you have described as very difficult to do within one year? It's almost less than
Speaker 176
55:19
a year. They don't have to start from ground zero. There has been a lot of work done. We have a draft of administrative order number 10
Speaker 177
55:27
issued by the Supreme Court deals with child support. We had that redrafted in the mode of income shares. We hired an attorney who went through there paragraph by paragraph, line by line, and then this committee met and we went through that administrative order number 10 line by line and paragraph by paragraph.
That is one facet of this. There will have to be legislative changes made in the statutes as it relates to child support. We haven't even begun to address those when I left as chair because there will have to be revisions made in legislation as it relates to modifications, other things, because we're going from a payor-payee system to an income shares mode, and we haven't even addressed those changes. How many? I can't answer that. I don't know. We didn't get there at that point.
So the revision, the bill says, has to be done by on or before March 1, 2020. Yes, ma'am. We don't have
another legislative substantive session until 2021. Yes, ma'am, I'm aware.
Speaker 171
56:29
And that's why this legislation is necessary, is that you would be authorizing the model of income shares, not dictating the South Carolina model per se, but to the commission, so that we would not have to wait until 2021, until another legislative session, to give this direction.
The Supreme Court has the full authority to make this transition.
So they can get it revised by 2020, you think, March 1, And then
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
57:02
whatever legislative pieces that need to be put in place, that can happen later. So what we're saying is just revise the chart, but you don't have to have it up and running by March 1, 2020.
Is that what you're saying? Because if you have to have legislation
to carry it out, how are you
Speaker 176
57:28
going to do that? For example, there's a statute, and I'm sorry the number escapes me at the moment, but if
Speaker 177
57:35
a person's income changes by $100 a month or 10%, you're entitled to file a motion to modify child support. And it can be filed to modify it up or down. That is in statute. And those statutes that we talk about child support in Article 9, Code Section 9, those deal with child support.
and there's more than one that deal with certain issues with child support. Whether there's one paragraph in those statutes or a lot of paragraphs that need to be modified to reflect that we no longer use payor payee, I can't answer. We never got that far of addressing what would be necessary changes that we would have to come to this body and ask. I'm simply saying that we have a revised draft. It is not a final draft of Administrative Order No. 10. The AOC's attorneys, their IT staff, have told us they can create a computer model.
They have not done that yet because that involves money and spending money. We have attempted to hire someone to modify our child support charts to reflect an income shares model. That money has not been allocated yet, nor has it been spent yet because no contract has been let for that individual to do that. then once that is done, then it has to be put in some coherent form to submit to the Supreme Court. And I don't fault Representative Lowry for losing patience on this.
I applaud him for giving me four years. We just couldn't get it done because of various facts and circumstances that are really outside the scope of interest of anyone in this room. Senator
Rice, you have a question. No, because I did
that the other day, and, well, I don't agree, I don't agree with you.
Okay. Yeah, but I mean, I'm just asking about the practicality of it and how is it going to be carried
out. He has a motion to limit the debate for five minutes. And Senator Ballinger seconds. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
Those opposed, no. Okay, we'll limit the debate for five minutes.
I'll stop asking any questions. is somebody signed up to speak
against it okay well judge if you want to talk for five more minutes or yeah senator bunn
has a bright enough to know you don't want to hear me for thank you senator bunn your record so um just so
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
1:00:38
i'm clear we've they've been working on it for four years this bill says the committee shall revise the family support chart does that
does that mean that it has to be in effect then? I mean, I'm trying to, I want to be for it in a sense that it seems like it's something that you're saying needs to be done. And you haven't sat through all these committee meetings, but some of the angst on the committee from the non-lawyers particularly is that the judiciary does not move at a quick enough pace, as you might suspect. And so,
four years plus one, this bill's fixing to come out of here, I'm pretty sure, but I wanted to make
Make certain I understand. You're just saying the committee revised, does that put it into practice immediately?
Doesn't somebody have to say yes or something judge or the sponsor? Senator
Speaker 177
1:01:25
Bond, I'm not going to get into that debate as to what the Supreme Court has to do or does not have to do. As I understand it, this would be a mandate that we will revise the family support chart to utilize an income shares approach versus pay or payee system. It would be a requirement that that's what the system that we would use. Now, you know, you can say we do that, but what I, you know, like I said, Illinois used 11 years.
Tennessee's, folks, if you looked at Tennessee's rules, like our administrative order number 10, I'd rather read the IRS regs than read their rules that they created on this. It is exceedingly complex, way more so than needs to be in my opinion. South Carolina is more akin to Arkansas, economically, population, other factors, and it is not so complex that it takes three attorneys to sit down for a week and figure out what some of those things mean and how to do it. But it is not going to be a simple just one day, March, April 1,
we start using this process and everything's going to go smooth. It is not. And, you know, I'm not going to get into the ramifications of, you know, what the Supreme Court has to do or doesn't have to do or want to do. they can speak for themselves on that. I know as chair, I was charged with the responsibility of trying to create a model that they could consider. Representative Lowry and I talked about that, and I asked him to give us time. He was kind enough to do that as far as putting under a time limit. And if that's this body's will that they say at one year, then I say the
Supreme Court needs to light a fire under me and us to get that done within the next year. I'm just telling you, it's going to be, it may not be what we actually would like to have. It may not be the Cadillac that we want, but it'd at least be, you know, a Toyota Corolla that can get us from point A to point B. I don't know. Senator, do you have another question? Before the clock runs
out on me. No, we have one other question by Senator Stubblefield. Are you finished, Senator Bunn?
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
1:03:26
I think the sponsor was one to answer my question, but that's fine. I
Speaker 171
1:03:31
was just going to say that we've heard that the final implementation of this could be done by administrative order of the courts. That's why the Administrative Office of the Courts, that's why the Judicial Council supports this bill. They're not just neutral on it. They support this bill. And Justice Womack came to me. He only had one change that he wanted. He said he felt like they needed those two extra months to actually shift towards this model that 41 states already are doing.
Representative Fyde has indicated to me that the committee could, she is still on the committee as a legislative liaison, that they are leaning towards the South Carolina model. But I'm not dictating in this bill what specific model that they use, just that there is a revision towards income shares. Okay, Senator Stubblefield has
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:04:23
a question. Well, I mean, I understand why this would be such a lengthy process considering hundreds of different criteria from the income per capita
all the way to state income tax rates. There's hundreds of things that have to be factored in. Yes, sir. And it's a very fluid, this is a very fluid process. I can understand how it could take four years. But I agree. It's a good process. This has been long overdue, in my opinion, for a long, long time.
So I certainly support the bill, and I thank you for
Speaker 177
1:04:59
bringing it. Senator, I've spoken numerous occasions, numerous times to various groups, and I have said this is coming. I want this. I think the majority of the bench wants it.
I think the majority of the bar wants it. So I'm not against it, but it will make changes. For right now, we use a net income approach. You have less than a minute. Et cetera. You have less than a minute. Okay. This is going to be a gross income approach. We're going to try to get away from some of the depreciation issues, some of the things that people do to try to shelter income and show that on their tax return, I don't make that amount of money, but their lifestyle is they make three times that amount of
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
1:05:34
money. Thank you, Judge. What's the will of the committee?
Motion do pass from Senator Rice, second from Senator Ballinger. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. Ayes have it. Representative Lauer, you passed your bill. Appreciate it. Okay, do we have any other representatives in here? Representative Petty is here. Representative Petty. Okay, Senator Elliott has a Senate bill. You brought it here before. Representative Petty is right there. We're going to try to do the Senate.
We're going to try to keep it short because we have already voted to draft a resolution.
And so, I mean, you know, you want to present Senate Bill
Speaker 56
1:06:24
378 again? You have an amendment? Yes, and
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
1:06:36
it's already endorsed. And I'll just mention my resolution.
It went across the desk that we discussed in here, But it hasn't made it to the committee for our consideration, so I expect it in at the next meeting. Go ahead, Senator Elliott. Was your amendment adopted on the floor or what? It's already engrossed into the bill. It looks just the
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:07:01
way it should. So it was adopted on the floor?
It was adopted as a member's own and engrossed into the bill.
Okay. Go ahead. Okay. Madam Chair, what we did, and first thing, I do want to thank the committee for the resolution. I appreciate that because I think that could be helpful, but we have been here, I think this is the third or fourth time, so I certainly do not want to belabor this, but what we have done in this bill is replace what would have gone to the court and allow for it to be facilitated by the parole board, giving them the opportunity to hear from the person who is incarcerated,
and will allow that. It will give them the permission to consider what the charge was originally before Act 570, and they can factor that in according to what they consider in the hearing. They will have to factor that in, and then they will have the authority to decide whether or not they want to grant parole. But they also have the opportunity,
based on what we knew the prosecutors were concerned about, they can consider every other thing that is a part of that consideration. So that's what it does, Madam Chair. Questions from the committee?
Seeing anybody here to speak for or against
the bill, I have three to speak against the bill. Nathan Smith, Daniel Hsu, and Matt Durrett, will you please come to the
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
1:08:52
table and identify yourselves. And as much as you can, be brief. We've heard
My Name
Unverified
1:08:56
this before. It's amended, and so. I'm Matt Durrett, prosecuting
Daniel Shue
Unverified
1:09:07
attorney for the 4th Judicial District, Washington, Madison Counties. Daniel Hsu, prosecuting
attorney, 12th Judicial District, Sebastian County, legislative chairman for the Arkansas Prosecuting Attorneys Association. Just a couple of things, Madam Chairman and committee. We've examined this new bill, the Parole Equity Act, in two things. First of all, Arkansas Code 54104 says no defendant
convicted of an offense shall be sentenced otherwise than in accordance with this chapter. And 1693-612 reads a person's parole eligibility shall be determined by the laws in effect at the time of the offense for which he or she is sentenced to Department of Corrections. This bill does not amend, repeal, or change that statute. This is a nullity. This is just a statement of policy. Just like your resolution, we stay opposed to it.
Thank you very much. Any
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
1:10:10
questions by the committee? Okay. Anything else from you gentlemen there? Okay. Okay. Ryan Norris is here to speak for the bill. Is he here?
Okay. He's not here. Doesn't answer. Okay. Are you closed
for your bill, Senator Elliott?
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:10:33
Madam Chair, I'd just like Mr. Fulick to respond to what we just heard just quickly, and I'm
closed beyond that. Okay, we have heard you before, sir, but go ahead, please, quickly. I know how short
Speaker 230
1:10:49
works. I just wanted to draw to the committee's attention that under this bill, it will be easier for law enforcement and the prosecutors to have input. They were concerned about that.
Under this bill, no sentences will be shortened. They were concerned about that. It grants the parole board the authority, and, of course, they have the skill and experience necessary to determine if an inmate will be likely to succeed. And so it has a more informal procedure rather than the court. So this is an attempt to meet the objections that were raised earlier. Thank you. Thank you.
What's the will of the committee?
Senator Letting moves do pass. Second. Senator Bond seconds. Any discussion? Not seeing any. All those in favor say yes. Aye. All those opposed? No. Bill failed. Thank you, Larry. Thank you. Representative Petty, what
bill do you have? 1673, 1673, 1673, and our other, in 1866.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:12:22
Madam Chair, do you want me to wait to do 313 or go ahead and do that one now?
Speaker 238
1:12:34
I'm sorry. Yes. Yeah. That's okay. Okay. It's Senate Bill 313. Senate
Bill 313. Yes, ma'am. Sure. Go ahead.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:12:53
Madam Chair and members, I have to bring this bill because of hearing from constituents and others that when they go to a parole hearing, they want to be able to have the finding of fact on which their denial was based. And all this, what this bill does is says, as I work with Mr. Gasper in trying to make sure we get the language right, it just says that whatever fine and effect there is that
is already in place, it's not in any additional work, that that should be, that will be shared with anybody who's been denied, that shall be shared with them. And that's all it does, Madam Chair. I'll take any questions if anybody has any. Questions by the committee? Senator Bond, do you have any questions?
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
1:13:55
Is there anybody signed to speak for or
against the bill? Do you know whether it's supported by the parole board, Senator
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:14:10
Elliott? The parole board said to me they were concerned about additional work that it might cause, which we didn't come to any kind of understanding about that, because I'm simply asking them to share what they used, and that's it.
And that's at the request of anybody, it's not something that happens automatically, it's just that if I request it, give me those findings of facts that you based your decision
on. Questions? Okay, are you closed for your bill? I'm closed, Madam Chair. Did you want to
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
1:14:49
ask something? Well, I was going to ask one question. So I'm unclear. Do they make detailed findings of fact on parole denials at this time?
Do we know? They do. Okay. Yes. Thank you.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:15:01
As far as they said to me that they make those findings of fact. They did tell
me that. Thank you. You're welcome. So if they make the findings a fact, why are you bringing this
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:15:17
bill? Because I hear from families that said that they haven't been able to get the finding a fact. That's the only reason.
Okay. IS THE INMATE GIVEN THE FINDING OF FACT? I APPARENTLY
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:15:37
NOT, BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT, I DON'T KNOW IN SOME CASES THEY MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT, BUT THIS IS WHAT I'M HEARING FROM FOLKS IN THE STATE THAT THEY ARE NOT GETTING THE FIND OF FACT, AND THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO REQUEST THEM AND BE FOR CERTAIN THAT THEY GET THEM. AND I DIDN'T SEE IT AS NECESSARILY A BIG ISSUE IF THAT'S SOMETHING THEY HAVE
already done just simply being sure they share
it. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. What's the will of the committee? Senator Letting moves
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
1:16:11
do pass. Senator Bunn seconds the motion. Any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? You passed your bill.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Petty, we're back to you with 1673, House Bill 1673. Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee.
Nathan Smith
Unverified
1:16:45
And if I could have my prosecutor, Nathan Smith, at the end of the table with me. If he would identify himself. Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 253
1:16:55
My name is Nathan Smith. I'm the prosecuting attorney in Benton
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
1:16:58
County. Okay. And you have an amendment to this bill, Representative Patty.
Yes, ma'am. Can we get a motion to adopt her amendment? And second.
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
1:17:12
All those in favor say aye. Aye. Okay. The amendment has been adopted. You
Nathan Smith
Unverified
1:17:18
can present your bill as amended. Thank you. So, this is a bill that's actually adding one line to a bill, and it is concerning the issuance of a no-contact order. So, I would like to open that for Prosecutor Smith.
Speaker 257
1:17:34
Just briefly, right now, the law in Arkansas says
Speaker 253
1:17:38
that a no-contact order is essentially issued at or after arraignment. Now, many judges, most judges, I would imagine, issue those even at bond hearings. And the issue that a few judges have run into in Benton County is when a person violates a no-contact order issued at a bond hearing, some of those judges have viewed that as unenforceable, meaning law enforcement, if they make an arrest for a violation of a no-contact order at a bond hearing,
since it's not at or after arraignment, they don't view that as enforceable. So this is just a fix for that to ensure that whenever a court issues a no-contact order, that is enforceable. So that's all the bill
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
1:18:18
does. Questions from the committee? Seeing none. Is there anybody here to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none. Are you closed for your bill, Representative Petty? Yes, ma'am. I'm closed for the bill. What's the will of the committee? Motion do pass from Senator Cooper.
Second from Senator Stubblefield. Any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor, say aye. All those
opposed, no. Ayes have it. You've passed your
bill. You have another bill here? Yes, ma'am. As amended. As amended, yes.
Nathan Smith
Unverified
1:18:54
Thank you. The second one is House Bill 1866. And if I could have Joe West join me at
the table. Please have him identify himself for the committee.
Speaker 264
1:19:07
Good evening, Madam Chair and Committee. Joe West, Assistant Attorney General with the Attorney General's Office.
Nathan Smith
Unverified
1:19:12
And this is an act concerning executive clemency. So with that, I would like to open
Speaker 265
1:19:18
this for Mr. West. Thank you. Prior to joining the Attorney General's Office, I was the criminal justice counsel for the governor from 2016 to 2018. and it was in that capacity, I helped the parole board draft this bill. And I know clemency has come up a couple of times in this committee during this session. And I think everybody agrees that the clemency process takes a while and probably takes too long.
This bill will do three things with that idea in mind to streamline the process. Section 1 will create a five-year waiting period from the time of discharge of sentence before an individual can apply for a pardon. This will bring Arkansas in line with 26 states and the District of Columbia and the federal guidelines to create this waiting period. This will reduce the number of applications, many of which within that original five-year period.
Just those applicants do not have time to show the rehabilitation really necessary for a governor to make the decision to grant a pardon. And we'll allow other applicants who are more meritorious to get to the front of the line in a quicker amount of time. Section 2 of the bill will remove a 30-day notice and comment period in the middle of the application process. Presently, the prosecutor, sheriff, and judge in the jurisdiction of conviction
receive three separate notices during the time of the application. Originally, they receive one when an applicant applies. They receive one when the parole board votes favorably on the application, and they will receive one if the governor issues a notice to grant that application. this will remove that second notice after the board vote it will take away the 30-day comment period which will streamline the process the parole board will still have to issue their vote
publicly but they there will not be a 30-day delay and those applications can move from the parole board to the governor quicker and the last part of the bill section three changes the four year denial waiting period from beginning on the date of the applications, date of reception by the parole board to the date the governor's denial letter is issued. This serves two purposes.
This will bring it in line with the other clemency denial period, which is for life without parole sentences, which is eight years from the date of the denial letter, and it will also remove a large bottleneck in the already-burdened system by requiring the full years before refiling. There are two groups of people that will probably benefit the most from this bill, meritorious applicants whose applications will move closer to the front of the line and move through
the process quicker as well as victims who will receive fewer notifications from those who have victimized them in the past. This bill had no opposition when it ran in the House Judiciary Committee and it passed the House with 79 votes. With that, I'm open for questions. Questions by
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
1:22:50
the committee? Senator Bunn. Just on page two where you're deleting that comment
period or notice, the second notice you call it, which comes after the parole board's decision. Prosecutors, I guess, they're
okay with that, that that's being deleted. I see
Speaker 265
1:23:07
Mr. McMahon's nodding his head. And as I said, Senator Bond, they will still receive the notice at the very beginning, which is honestly the most important notice. The notice after the parole board vote is after the board's non-binding vote and recommendation to the governor. This will not take them out of the process. I'm not arguing with it. I just wondered
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
1:23:33
if they had an opinion about it. Thank you. I appreciate it.
I have a question about, you say, a person is not eligible to file an application for pardon for a period of five years from the discharge date of the sentence for which pardon is sought. Yes. So, they would have, So, okay, discharge date of the sentence, what does that mean? That means when... They get out of jail or what?
Speaker 265
1:24:04
No, when they receive their discharge of either probation or
parole. Okay, so, and this is for any offense, felony, misdemeanor? Felony
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
1:24:29
or misdemeanor, yes. What is the practice now? I mean,
do people generally file right after they have been discharged from or completed probation?
And then what about the people? I
don't know if we have deferred adjudication or something. I mean,
Speaker 265
1:24:54
does it? Well, Senator, a deferred adjudication, that would not be a conviction. So that individual would not need a pardon. And to answer your question, do people file immediately when their sentence ends? Yes. Some people will file
while they're still serving their sentence even. And what is the percentage of
those that get pardons now that file?
Speaker 265
1:25:24
I can tell you, I do have the letter that the governor sent to the lieutenant governor and the Speaker of the House totaling up the pardons and commutations he granted in 2017 and 2018. He granted 289 pardons. He gave 11 restorations of firearm rights only. And he granted 10 commutations.
And that's compared to 944 denials of application. What
was the time period from the discharge date that these applications were made? Do you know? I
Speaker 271
1:26:06
don't have that. I can tell just off the top of
Speaker 265
1:26:11
my head of that 289, I can think of maybe three that fell within that five-year waiting period that were granted. So we're talking a very small percentage of pardons that were actually granted.
Again, that's just me anecdotally thinking. I don't have hard statistics, but that's to the best of my recollection. This only deals
with pardons. It doesn't deal with commutations. Correct. This would
Speaker 265
1:26:47
not change that. Any inmate, if this bill passes, any inmate who wants to request a commutation who is eligible will still be able to do that, whether it's the day they arrive at Ouachita River Unit for their intake or if they've been in prison 20, 25 years.
This will not affect that. Okay. Any other questions? Anybody
here to speak for or against the bill? You want to close for your bill, Representative Petty? Yes, Madam Chair. I'm closed,
Nathan Smith
Unverified
1:27:25
and I would ask for a good vote.
Thank you. Motion do pass from Senator Rice. Second from Senator Cooper. Any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no.
Ayes have it. You've passed the other bill. Thank you, Madam Chair, committee. Representative Gassaway, you see we talk fast over here, Representative Gassaway. Representative Gassaway, what bill
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:28:04
do you have? I remember that, Madam Chair. Thank you. House Bill 1625.
You are recognized to present House Bill 1625. Thank you,
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:28:31
Madam Chair, Committee. We had previously discussed this bill the last time I appeared before this committee, And my understanding was that Senator Bledsoe had another bill that on the same code section
that we thought might conflict with it, and so Senator Bledsoe and I had discussed it in her bill. My understanding was amended to take out the portion that was very similar to this bill. Hers was promoting a suicide. This was encouraging a suicide, and I think I explained it the last time I was before the committee. I'm happy to do that again, but in the interest of time, if everybody remembers, her bill has been amended. out the part about promoting and left in the part that applied to health care providers and so now this one will stand alone. Thank you Representative
Gassaway. Any questions for Representative Gassaway's bill? No. Are you closed
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:29:23
for your bill? I'm closed and would appreciate a
good vote. Okay. What's the will of the committee? Motion to pass from Senator Cooper. Second from Senator Letting. Any discussion?
Seeing none. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. Your bill passed. Do
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:29:40
you have something else? I have two more.
1733. Okay. Okay, you're recognized for House Bill 1733.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:30:08
Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill will create the offense of threatening to commit an act of mass violence on school property. This will make that a Class C felony in order to do that. Mass violence is very specifically defined, and school property is defined, and if you threaten to commit an act of mass violence, and if that reasonably places other people in fear for their safety, then that would be a class C felony. This differs from our terroristic threatening statute which is
only currently a class D felony. The case law for terroristic threatening for example and this is one of the distinctions between the two. You don't see this in the terroristic threatening statute but if you ever try a terroristic threatening case one of the things you have to prove is that the defendant acted with the intent to fill the victim with intense fright And so the question is what the defendant's state of mind was when they made the threat. And in this case, it shifts it to whether or not the person against whom the threat was made,
and again, we're talking about a school to cause physical injury or death to more than two people, whether or not they reasonably feared for their safety. And I think that, you know, of course, our schools are one of our most sacred places that we need to protect. As many of you know, we had a school shooting in Prescott just two days ago. And I think it's a very serious issue, and we need to punish it appropriately and let people know that they can't engage in this type of conduct.
Questions from the community? Senator Ballinger.
Speaker 286
1:31:49
Thank you, Madam Chair. Something that I think that we
Speaker 22
1:31:53
ought to be careful about is over-criminalizing things. I mean, you know, across the board, it's something that we're not good at. What I'm a little bit concerned about, and actually we have an example in Huntsville, right in my neighborhood, of a stupid kid saying stupid things
Speaker 24
1:32:09
on Facebook, right? And so the stupid kid said stupid things on Facebook. He got suspended because literally it made people scared.
He got suspended from school. He actually was on track to get a scholarship, ruined his scholarship. I don't know where he's at now. I haven't heard anything more, but this stupid comment, you know, which was his fault, it messed him up bad. Now, if this passes, it may mess him up bad, and he's a felon. And so that's what I'm, I would just say, like, you know, I totally criminalize the people when they go out and they do acts. I mean, even criminalizing, you know, things that are legitimate threats. But when you
remove it from what's in the mind of this stupid kid to how other people feel, that now, all of a sudden, you know, the fact that there really is now no mens rea, it's, you know, it could be totally something that was just that he had no mechanism to do that, he had no plan to do that, but other people who were really scared, now this guy's a felon. I mean, you understand where I'm coming from, right?
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:33:14
Sure, yeah, and if I can have the opportunity to address that. Yeah, please do. Yeah, and I think you make a good point. So there still is a mens rea requirement.
The person has to act knowingly. They have to make the threat knowingly. So there's the mens rea element for the actor. But with regard to the concerns that you mentioned, you get into those First Amendment issues. And the First Amendment has never protected what they call, like, true threats. And so there are certain types of speech. And whether it was joking or whether, you know, sometimes politically motivated type comments that could be taken as threatening,
those things are all protected under the First Amendment currently. And the threat is whether or not it was a true threat. And those, you know, when you look at the First Amendment, are judged under the reasonable person standard. And so what I think this does really is kind of codifies that reasonable person standard before somebody is going to be charged. Now, ultimately, you know, these things come down to prosecutorial discretion. And the reason that I even brought this bill is because I had to deal with this when I was a prosecutor at one time on a very similar case of what you talked about. We had a young man in Poinsett County in Harrisburg, Arkansas, who had posted a lot of these comments on Facebook and Twitter that be right back, murdering the senior class, he posted.
Gunplay at school. I actually checked the prosecutor's office and pulled some of these comments. He was posting these things on Twitter. Well, the problem is, is those type of comments have the ability to induce mass hysteria, especially in the day and age in which we live, among people who read them. And there needs to be, in my opinion, a strong deterrent in our law for people who make those kinds of threats. You know, and some people could say, and we
see this, they make threats against the president,
and then they say, oh, I was just
joking. Well, try to make that argument when the FBI shows up at your door that you were just joking when you threatened the president. It's probably not going to go very well. And there are certain, you know, circumstances and institutions that we really have to, I think, afford special protection for, and I think our schools are that. But I think to really address your question, I think that that goes back to the prosecutorial discretion, and I would hope that our prosecutors, of course, will be mindful of the First Amendment.
They'll be mindful of that reasonable man standard. They'll be mindful of all the circumstances that surround, you know, the issue when they're making those decisions. Because we don't want to make someone a felon who has just, you know, who's just making offhand comments. But we certainly want to provide a strong deterrent for the people who are, you know, invoking mass hysteria by making these comments. It's not a joking matter, especially in this day and age.
Speaker 22
1:36:13
And I mean, that's what, and I agree with that. Although I think the stupid kids don't, I mean, the deterrent
Speaker 24
1:36:18
factor is not there like it should be. But, you know, I think that that's, I mean, you said that you don't want to, you don't want to criminalize somebody. You don't want to make them a felon if they're just making stupid comments. But I think that that's exactly what would have happened in this situation. I think that, you know, I don't know what the prosecutor would have done. but the truth is at least under the letter of the law people were really scared and and he made the
comments without even the the the intent of ever doing anything you know he wanted to make people scared and i think that's a terrible thing that he did no doubt about it but the question of now that that kid should be a felon forever makes makes it where i'm a little hesitant yeah and
Speaker 22
1:37:01
yeah so that's what honestly i you know i really am honestly wanting to hear his response to that So
Speaker 24
1:37:06
if you would respond to that, please. Will you respond to that? That's a
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:37:11
question, I guess. Sure, yeah, absolutely. And I think your concern is a legitimate one,
and I think that what we have to say there is we have to trust our prosecutors to make the right decision in those cases. You know, if it is just a joke, if it is just an offhand comment, if it's somebody who's quoting rap lyrics, for example, that have a violent overtone to them and they're just quoting them on Facebook or whatever you know people do and say strange things sometimes and we just hope that in those cases that you know the prosecutors exercise proper discretion but I still think that this is a good bill that addresses a serious problem and that you know will create hopefully a good
deterrent. Thank you. Senator Cooper you
Speaker 291
1:37:54
have a question. Thank you Madam Chair. Several times Now, you used the term discretion. When something is in the statute like this as a felon, do they have discretion to file that lesser in that situation? Or is it that or nothing? Or can they file something lesser down below that? How does that work? Yeah, I think there are
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:38:17
a lot of charges that might be available.
I mean, I'll tell you, and again, part of the reason I brought this bill is the case that I had, we really struggled with on, number one, making the charging decision. I remember when we, you know, had several meetings and convened several meetings, like, well, you know, we really don't know how serious he was, but this is making everybody in town scared about what's going on, and all the people are saying they're not sending their kids to school. And, you know, so we really struggled with what to do there.
So in that case, we ended up charging with terroristic threatening. And, again, what we had to prove when we got to trial was is that he acted with the intent to fill the victims with intense fright. Now, he ultimately was found guilty of a terroristic threatening in the second degree. It was a misdemeanor. We tried it to the bench. But it made it to be a very difficult case to try because it was more about what it was in his mind
than the reaction that it caused to everybody else. But to your specific point, were there lessers that could be charged or would there be lessers that could be charged in this case? You know, you have things like disorderly conduct that have elements of threatening behavior. You've got, you know, you could possibly try the terroristic threatening if you thought that you could make a clear case that he acted with the intent to fill with intense fright, which is second degree is a misdemeanor. So there are lessers. There are other charges that are out there. But in the appropriate case, I think that this would be a good statute.
Thank you. Okay, any other, Senator Rice, you recognize
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:40:00
for a question? Thank you. Same concern Senator Ballinger had was running through my mind, and what I think of is what I call selective prosecution in what I see on the national news in certain parts of the country, even in some schools that's totally out of control.
I don't think we've got that problem in Arkansas with prosecutors right now, but as I told a colleague today, the next generation coming real quick has got a different set of eyes than I have, than I grew up with. And that's my concern, that we go to a level that doesn't allow us to use the common sense or the next prosecutor that takes more of a national policy-type stance
is not going to use the kind of judgment needs. And I can sit here and name you multiple things on the national news, and I can't try it with just what you hear on the news, but I can tell you it's one-sided. I think we'd have to agree with that. So that's a concern for me. I'm just asking, I guess you see the same thing I'm talking about.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:41:20
Yeah, absolutely, and I don't disagree with you. I think you're right.
You know, we are concerned, you know, as things change and the people that hold those offices and the views that they have, depending on what the issue is, but I will say with this issue, I would hope that we had a prosecutor that kind of erred on protecting people. Prosecutors can always drop the charges. They can always reduce the charges. They can always bleed it down. But when you're talking about people who are making threats to commit acts of mass violence on school property, I hope I have a prosecutor that errs on the side of almost of making a charging decision if the circumstance is justified.
And because it's just, you know, we live in a day and age where this is very dangerous. And some things you joke about and there's some things you don't. And this is one of them that, you know, I just would hope that I have a prosecutor there that will make good decisions. Any other
questions? Seeing none, is there anyone to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none, do you want to close for
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:42:34
you, Bill? I'm closed for the bill and would appreciate a good vote.
Okay. What's the will of the committee? Motion. do pass by Senator Bunn. Second by Senator Cooper. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? No. No. The ayes have it. You've
passed your bill. You have one more. One more. 1734. You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:43:08
This bill concerns the criminal offense of violation of an order of protection, and it creates two affirmative defenses to the criminal charge for violation of an order of protection. I think that they're very kind of common sense type affirmative defenses that if you've ever practiced much family law or you've been in the criminal
courts much, you see these kinds of incidents take place. but the affirmative defenses that it would create would be that if you have a person that goes out and they give an order of protection,
now they've asked for it from the court, and the court's awarded them an order of protection, and then they start contacting the person who they got the order against and start trying to arrange a meeting and say, for example, so one of the defenses is if
you arrange a meeting at a location or if you tell the person, and this just comes, you know, 13 years of practicing law. I can't tell you how many times I've seen this. Or they say, meet me at the Walmart parking lot. I promise if you meet me. I just, I want to talk to you so bad.
I promise if you meet me at Walmart, I won't call the cops. And then a person shows up at Walmart, next thing you know, the cops are there too. And they're arrested. Or, for example, the defendant is at their home or that they're at their place of employment and they're minding their own business. They have not in any way coerced or placed the person under duress or exercised undue influence to get the person to come to them, but the person just shows up at their house or just shows up at their place of work. And it puts the defendant in violation. And
technically, the defendant could be arrested, even if they were minding their own business. And I've just seen this countless times. I think most practitioners who practice family law and other things have probably seen it too. This just creates an affirmative defense. It doesn't mean the person can't be charged. It just means that if they are charged, then they can raise this,
and they can argue it and let the judge make the decision. Representative Gassway, I really appreciate this bill. I had some bills filed, like, for this several sessions ago.
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
1:45:17
I didn't get anywhere, but, you know, but these are good bills because people try to manipulate, petitioners try to manipulate defendants sometimes in these orders of protection and you know when it's a love relationship or girlfriend boyfriend uh you know or maybe somebody's cheating on the other one and they try to you know use the order of protection to get back at anybody have any questions senator bunn well and that senator balance
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
1:45:44
and i were just joking see i think this bill is is what i said about
one of his bills was picking up snakes creating a lot of work for the court to determine who enticed to to do what and that that's the point of an order of protection is to say do not go around that person period whether they invite you or not so i just have a fundamental disagreement about the bill and i know you don't agree so that's all i'll say and we can move on thank you well but
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
1:46:14
you can show through text messages uh recordings and all kinds of stuff people do But anyway, Senator Ballinger, you got a question?
Speaker 24
1:46:22
Yeah, and I would say, correct me if I'm wrong, the truth is that this doesn't change it. It just makes it a defense so that they would have to put on evidence to do the demonstration. So the evidence, the burden will be on the person
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
1:46:39
who violated the order. Correct. Okay. Any other questions? Seeing
none, anybody here to speak? Okay. Anybody here to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none. You close for your bill? Closed for the bill. Senator Ballinger moves do pass.
We have a second. Second from Senator Cooper. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. You say no.
Okay, but you passed your bill. Is that it? That's it. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you,
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:47:08
committee. Senator Bunn, you got, oh my God,
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
1:47:10
I think we better gavel on out of here now. Now, wait a minute.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. We'll get this on another day, okay?
You're going to mess around and we'll be in here forever. Stop giving this thing. Oh, shit. Please, please don't come in here. Okay, Senator Brun, what
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
1:48:08
amendment on 1633 hopefully addressing the committee's
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
1:48:12
concern from the last time. Okay, does everybody have the amendment? We want to move to adopt his amendment. It's been moved to be adopted
and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed know the amendment has been adopted. You can
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
1:48:34
present your bill as amended. I may need to get my amendment back, but so this bill was presented and this Representative Tosh and Representative Collins and I think the Municipal League also this is a one of their bills when
we brought it up before there there was a particular issue with regards to the tampering section and there was a lot of discussion about the tampering section and so to make it sort of clear in the amendment they've listed the whole section so what we did is just went back we left everything in the bill the same but for in the tampering section which would be section three of the bill instead of raising everything to a felony we just say the only one that's raised
to a felony is if you testify or inform falsely and everything else would be left as a misdemeanor and so hopefully that would satisfy the committee's concerns and some of the concerns made by other attorneys in the meeting the last time saying, look, you shouldn't raise this to a level for withholding unprivileged testimony, those types of things. And I'm happy to
take any questions. Questions by the committee? Seeing none,
is there anyone here to speak for or
against the bill? Attorney Rosenzweig, you're here to speak for the
Speaker 311
1:50:03
bill, against the bill? Against, this obviously, this does reflect the concern, one of the concerns we had, and I appreciate that, that that is, that Senator Bond is willing to, and the other sponsors are willing to, not felonize things that shouldn't even be against the law at all, but have been
misdemeanors in the tampering statute. There is one other problem with the bill in another section, and you need to be aware of what you're doing. And that would be in Section 4, the tampering with physical evidence. The
Speaker 312
1:50:41
problem with that is right now, tampering with physical evidence is a felony if it's a felony offense you're messing with. It's a misdemeanor if it's a misdemeanor you're messing with. This bill would make everything a felony.
Now, the problem there is there are all sorts of misdemeanors that you don't want to felonize. Let's take a bunch of 20-year-olds sitting around having a beer. The police come up. They're committing minor in possession, drinking in public, or some other misdemeanor. They throw their beer cans in the woods.
Speaker 311
1:51:20
At least technically, they've now committed a felony because they have done something to tamper with the evidence by,
Speaker 312
1:51:30
of course, because you don't have the statute in there that you're messing with. A person gets the offense of tampering with physical evidence if he or she alters, destroys, suppresses, removes, or conceals any record, document, or thing with the purpose of impairing the verity, legibility, or availability in any official proceeding or investigation. So, again, the kid throwing the beer can into the woods when the police came would at least technically be a felony.
I think that's dangerous. I think the legislature has been wise for the past 40-something years by saying if you're tampering with physical evidence
Speaker 311
1:52:12
of a misdemeanor, it is a misdemeanor. And I think the law should be left as is in that section. Questions by the committee? You're making this a
felony. Seeing no questions, we have Lanny
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
1:52:31
Richmond second for the bill.
Will you come to the
table and identify yourself? Yes, my
Speaker 318
1:52:44
name is Lanny Richmond. I'm with the Arkansas Municipal
would you cut your mic off? Is your mic off? No. Yes, the
Speaker 318
1:53:06
Municipal League supports this bill. It originated from us.
Our local law enforcement agencies brought this concern to our board and explained that they didn't think the penalties were quite sufficient for the crimes that were occurring. And they asked that we raise the penalties on these things to make them just to penalize this behavior more, and that's what this bill does. I'd be happy to answer any
questions about it. Any questions? Okay. Are you closed for your bill, Senator Vine?
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
1:53:41
yes i am the let me one second what i what i would like
to do is to get it right if the committee would entertain i know we can do technical amendments we may want to
discuss that i think it would be best if we just unstruck lines two and three, would that fix it?
Speaker 325
1:54:20
Yes, if you unstruck the strikeout of line 36 on page one and lines one through three on page two. If we could unstrike those, I think it would be
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
1:54:32
perfect. I don't know if the committee wants to do that verbally. It would just be unstriking the
stricken language on line 36, page 1, and lines 1 through 3 on page 2.
Speaker 306
1:54:50
Senator Cooper has a point of order.
Speaker 291
1:54:53
Just a question. Don't we have a rule in here about not doing verbal amendments? That's right. Can
you just pull it and get the amendment? We can try. This is a House bill. Right. I can try and get it run over. Tonight? If he's
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
1:55:07
still here, I don't think it's any big deal.
But, yeah, I'll call him right now. I'll pull mine down for just a second and see if he can get it.
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
1:55:21
Okay. I mean, I'd like to be on the road to go home at least by 8 o'clock. has a bill that he wants to run. It's a Senate bill. We'll have to vote to hear it. Okay. Do you know the number?
674. It's a Senate bill.
674. We need six votes if somebody wants to make
a motion. Senator Cooper makes a motion to hear the bill, suspend the rules, and hear the bill. And Senator Stubblefield seconds. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. And those opposed note that the
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
1:56:08
rules are suspended. And you recognize this present. What's the name of the number? 674. And I
think we need to get it because I don't think it's in our packet. Allison has handed it out.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:56:23
Yes, ma'am. Senate Bill 674. You may proceed. I want to ask Sylvester Smith to come to the table
to help present this bill, since he's the one who
Sylvester Smith
Unverified
1:56:41
brought me the bill. That's okay, Madam Chair. Good evening, members of the committee. Good to see you again today. I
have, over the last several years, as a lot of you know, been practicing law, and I've run into several felony charges that, in my opinion,
and in the opinion of a few others, really ought to be misdemeanors, mostly because these charges have the serious potential of capturing young people, people who are starting their lives, or people who are college students. And so looking at several of these statutes, I spoke to Senator Clark and a few others and asked if there was a way that we could possibly reduce those from, I believe they're all de-felonies to a misdemeanor, a being the most serious misdemeanor. And so the first one deals with the offense of manipulating your own driver's license for a person under the age of 21 to make it appear on their driver's license as if they are a person under 21 making it appear that they are an adult for the purpose of buying alcohol or entering a place where alcohol is sold.
And so, believe it or not, I think we would all agree that that should be misdemeanor activity, but it has been charged as a felony. The second one deals with the issue of possession of the drug called ecstasy. The scientific term is MDMA. Right now, possessing any amount of ecstasy in Arkansas is a felony crime. And I think it's important for the committee to note ecstasy is a college party drug.
And you are creating a circumstance in which these college students can become felons, cannot vote, have problems getting jobs, and will lose their college aid because they have one ecstasy appeal. And I think it's important for the committee to know ecstasy really is a party drug. It does what it sounds like. It makes a person feel euphoric. Ecstasy sells now for about $6 a appeal. And I really don't believe that the General Assembly and the citizens of the state of Arkansas ought to be managing felony prosecutions and looking to potentially give people felony-type incarcerations and paying $30,000 a year because someone had a $6 appeal.
And so the next one deals with the offense of failure to file a tax return. That statute, in my opinion as an attorney, is not well written. Presently, the statute says that any person who is required to pay a tax or file a tax return and quote-unquote willfully fails to do so shall be guilty of a Class D felony. Willful is not a term that you normally see in the criminal code, because really the defense to doing it willfully is I did it by accident, or I did it negligently, or hey, I was planning to file my taxes.
And it's important for the committee to note, under federal law, failure to file a tax return is a misdemeanor. And so this would marry the Arkansas law to federal statute. I know DF&A opposes this section, but I've researched this extensively, and I've only found three cases in the last 20 years where anyone in Arkansas was charged with this crime. And so if they're not using it, really, we ought to modify it so that it makes sense, and then maybe they will use it more. And then finally, the last one is possessing a temporary tag or license plate that has been
altered. If right now under the statute, if I buy a car and I don't have the money to pay the taxes and I change the date on the temporary tag to next month and my friend Senator Clark borrows my car gets pulled over, he has committed a felony because he possessed the tag because he was driving the car. And really, that ought to be something that's a misdemeanor. I've talked to several criminal defense attorneys about this, and there's a lot of consensus that these are all charges that the General Assembly should take a firm look at. I'm sure that my esteemed colleagues in the
prosecution bar will have something to say about this, but I would say to you as a taxpayer that you all have the responsibility of ensuring that our tax dollars are used to make real criminals felons, and people who are negligent or youthful making these indiscretions should face punishment, but it shouldn't ruin their lives and make them unable to vote, unable to work, and unable to carry or possess a firearm. And so that's the nature of the bill. Questions by the
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
2:01:26
committee? do you want to speak
on this bill Attorney Smith when
you say ecstasy is a party drug and it's not that bad because it's six dollars and somebody can take it a college student can take it and if they're on
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
2:01:46
a second floor or third floor all of a sudden feeling your they jump off the balcony so you don't have any concern about that uh
Sylvester Smith
Unverified
2:01:59
no ma'am i i do not i um
i do not use this drug never have never then why do you make such so light of it i know young people who have utilized it and i cannot think of any incident in the past decade in arkansas in which someone uh did such a thing while they were on that drug and i may have missed something but I have great concern for it's a crime of it's not about your intent it's the fact that you have it and so I'm concerned about a young person who may take the peel off of a friend for the purpose
of keeping the friend from taking it and because they possessed it one peel they can now be charged with a felony I think that and again it's less than one ounce and so if you have one ounce or more I'm sorry excuse me if you have more than one ounce then you're treated like anybody you're likely selling it and so you would still face a felony charge but possess one peel that is worth six dollars should not be a felony offense in my in my humble opinion but uh madam chair have you ever tried it no ma'am okay so you don't really know what it does i've i've know people who have
tried it madam vice chair and um again i'm not saying it should be treated as not a dangerous drug but i am saying that possessing one pill of it should not be a felony okay uh so identify yourself
Speaker 226
2:03:22
please yes ma'am my name is my name is matt durrett prosecuting attorney for the fourth judicial district um the the major objection we have is to the uh it's a section two possession of mdma we are uh we are opposed to that um i'm not sure off the top of my head but i want to say
that it's a Schedule 1. It may be a Schedule 2, but it's a Schedule 1 controlled substance. It has no medicinal therapeutic value. It's a very dangerous drug. There are a number of drugs that college kids take. College kids take cocaine. So simply because college kids take it, I don't think that lessens the seriousness of it. It's what I would consider a dangerous drug.
And so we are opposed to reducing that to a misdemeanor. I think it's appropriately scheduled where it should be. And so we think it should remain a felony regardless of how many pills you have of it. A person that takes away a pill, one pill from a friend, you know, and you'll carry it around for a couple days, they're going to take it away and they're going to get rid of it, flush it down the commode or whatever. But I don't see many legitimate instances of someone who just actually did take a drug away from someone
and then gets arrested for a felony and convicted for a felony. As it pertains to altering your I.D. or the tax laws, we don't have any position on those. We don't have any issue with the I.D. law and the others. We don't have a position on one or the other. It's just Section 2 with the MDMA that we're opposed to. And we
have two others that are against it.
But Senator Stubblefield has a question. I don't know if it's
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:05:20
for you or not. Well, any one of you. Sylvester can answer this. This MDMA,
Speaker 336
2:05:24
isn't that considered what they call a date-break drug? Some people have attempted to use it for that
Sylvester Smith
Unverified
2:05:31
purpose, and so I'm not going to try to suggest that it has not been used for that purpose, but so have other things. I'd like to speak to his point, though. I had a guy who had a bag in his backseat of a car that belonged to a girlfriend, and there was an MDA pill in it, and he got charged with a felony.
And so I want to make sure that the committee understands it's not possessing it to sell it or possessing it to drug somebody. It's you have it. And so a college student who buys one pill pays six bucks. College students are not very, you know, bright in some instances. And you think if you pay six dollars for something, it's not going to ruin your life and make you a felon. But in the case of this drug, it would. And so I want to be very clear. One ounce, you're talking about 12 pills, 10, 10 pills, something like that. And so if you walk around with eight, nine, 10 of these things, you need to be a felon.
But if you've got two pills and you just plan on trying it for yourself that one time, you know, we've all been young and dumb. And I think this sets people up for a life of a hole
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:06:34
that they've got to dig their way out of. I understand what your intent is, Master, but
my problem with this is that if somebody only has one of these in their backpack and they happen to take it home and a one-year-old, two-year-old gets a hold of that,
Speaker 336
2:06:53
then what are the consequences of that? I think
Sylvester Smith
Unverified
2:07:00
the consequences are quite severe. However, I would say that in that fact pattern that you just gave, this gentleman or his colleague is going to charge that young person with child endangerment, and they're going to have to suffer the consequences allowing the child to get access to that drug. And so I think there are statutes on the book. The thing about the statute, the way it's written, is there's really not discretion for the prosecutor or the law enforcement officer.
You had it. You're a felon. It's that simple. It doesn't matter what you're trying to do with it. And so I just think it's
Speaker 34
2:07:34
something that the committee ought to take a look at. Any other questions?
Senator Cooper, will you turn off Senator Stubblefield's mic? Any other questions? Seeing none, we have Chris McNeil to speak against the bill and a Joel DePippa. Will you both come to the table if you're here?
Speaker 338
2:07:54
Is Chris McNeil here? Mr. McNeil is not here this
evening. He was here earlier this morning. Okay. So please identify yourself and
Speaker 339
2:08:03
you recognize. Thank you, Senator Flowers. Joel DePippa, Senior Counsel, DFA. DFA is strongly opposed to Section 3 of this bill, which takes a tax failure to file or pay from a felony to a misdemeanor. As Mr. Smith noted, there have been very few prosecutions. It is used with hesitance and reluctance. DFA has to actually work with prosecutors in determining whether or not charges will be brought.
It's not DFA's decision at the end of the day whether those are brought after it's referred to that prosecutor. It is something that enhances compliance, and an issue to bring up on restitution, failure to pay and failure to file can be a $100,000 crime. If you have one year under a Class A misdemeanor for restitution, you are going to have a hard time making that restitution in that period. Questions by the committee?
Seeing none. Are you closed for your bill, Senator Clark? I'm sorry. Senator, I mean, Colonel Bryant, you recognize the speaking on the bill.
Kay Mcleod
Unverified
2:09:05
Thank you, Madam Chair, especially for the promotion
Speaker 340
2:09:13
from Senator to Colonel to Senator. I appreciate that. I just want to share a little thing about methamphetamine. Before I came to the Director of the Arkansas State Police, I was a DA special agent for 30 years.
MDMA really came in in the 80s when it became the rave drug, when you see them use it at rave parties. It is a very dangerous drug. It's a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law. Same as heroin. These drugs are not manufactured by a pharmaceutical company here in the U.S. It's usually manufactured in clandestine laboratories in Amsterdam, Belgium area, and smuggled in the United States. What we're seeing now is a dangerous trend, not only with the ecstasy, they're mixing fentanyl with the ecstasy tablets.
So just one tablet can cause the death of a person. I think it's a very serious drug. You know, it can increase your body temperature to where basically your organs can melt. It causes bruxism, where you can grind your teeth. A lot of these rave parties, you see the kids with pacifiers, and that would keep them from grinding their teeth. So it is a very dangerous drug, and I would strongly oppose it. Thank you. Questions? Seeing none. I don't think
we have anybody else here that signed up to speak for or against the bill.
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
2:10:31
Do you want to close for your
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:10:36
bill, Senator Clark? Yes. Yes. Mr. Smith tells me that when he originally visited with some prosecutors, they didn't seem to have a problem with the ecstasy, whatever it's called. I am going to pull the bill down for now until we deal with that.
Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay, do you have another bill? Do you really? So
what? What is it? Oh, really? I want to see it first before you go down. What
bill do you have? 558. Senate bill? Have we run that before?
Yes, we have. Okay, so we'll be short with this.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:12:00
Senate Bill 558. Senator Stubblefield, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair.
This bill came about as a result of a
bill we passed back in the special session of 2018 in what I would deem extraordinary circumstances. We extracted the bill out of this committee, didn't pass. It was rushed through, signed out, rushed through. And I told somebody the other day, you know, I think we all have a conscience because it tells us when we do something right or wrong. Well, that day I felt bad all day long because my conscience told me I'd done something wrong.
So anyway, this restores the right to a trial by jury, and I think it's one of the most basic rights we have. You know, sometimes I think we forget the importance of a trial by jury because it's enshrined in both our state and our federal constitution. Anytime you have a government where there's no trial by jury, then you have a government who has— Senator Stubblefield, you know, we heard
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
2:12:58
this bill the other day, so— I
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:13:01
know, I'm just closing for it altogether. I just want to say this.
Anytime you have a government who has unlimited command over every man and woman who has everything to lose, I believe it's by far the most important feature in a judiciary department in a free country is to have a trial by jury. So this bill would simply restore the right to
a trial by jury. So that's your close. That's it. Okay. Okay, anybody here to speak for or against? We've heard the against, and you can come to the table.
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
2:13:42
You know, we were on this bill the other day for quite some time, so if you would just keep it short, please, and just identify
Speaker 351
2:13:51
yourselves. Yes, Madam Chair. My name is Hunter Wendell. I'm legal counsel for Malvern National Bank, and I'm here again on behalf of the bank and the Bankers Association to speak in opposition to the bill. Like you said, I think we voiced our opposition pretty thoroughly last time around. I just want to stress that, again, I'm an attorney that works in-house for a bank.
I negotiate contracts and loan documents. I negotiate jury waivers. I've removed them from loan documents. It doesn't happen that often, but it does occur. And as I mentioned last time, you know, the concerns voiced in legislative findings of this bill are concerns that are already addressed by the court. Before they decide to enforce a waiver, they look into whether it was willingly and voluntarily entered into. So I think Senate bill is respectfully unnecessary to protect consumers. And I think that's good because really it doesn't. There's
still arbitration, other alternatives to jury trials that are out there. And so really this bill just removes the most reasonable alternative to them. So I'm happy to answer any questions, but again, would voice our opposition for the bill. I think it's bad for business and commerce in the state, and I think it doesn't even help consumers, you know, as it's
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
2:15:09
proposed. Okay, so does the committee have any questions of these gentlemen that we heard from the other day? We don't have any questions. We remember. Do you all remember? Do you want to hear again?
Okay. We heard you. And Senator Stubblefield, you
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:15:34
want to close? Yeah, I just want each committee. I would like to ask each committee member to ask themselves, could the waiver of a right to a trial by jury change the outcome of a potential loan from a bank? Just ask yourself that question, and I'm
closed. What's the will of the committee? Senator Bunn makes a motion, I guess, do pass, and Senator Rice seconds. Any
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
2:15:58
discussion? All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? The bill fails. You
Speaker 128
2:16:20
can have a roll call. Roll call, please. Senator Stubblefield, Senator Cooper, Senator Rice, Senator Bond, Senator Ballinger, Senator
Senator Letting. Senator Flowers. I'm not voting. Senator Clark.
Expunge. I'll give you what you asked for. And Okay, so we
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
2:17:15
vote. We don't have any discussion. So all those in favor of expunging the vote by which the bill fell, say aye. And those opposed, ayes have it. It's been expunged.
Can we deal with it later in another day and time, please? Thank you. that's correct
Speaker 306
2:18:09
I got some tired if it isn't right we'll just hold it
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
2:18:30
on the floor is this easy this is easy 1633, and Representative Tosh and
Representative Collins, thank you, and the Municipal League, thanks you. There was concern expressed by Mr. Rosen-Swag that we had made a misdemeanor, a felony.
We've just deleted that section of the bill. We'll need to move to expunge the amendment that we previously adopted and adopt this amendment, and we should have it
fixed. I would move to expunge the prior amendment we adopted. Okay, got a motion
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:19:00
and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All for the motion. Signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Then I need to adopt this new amendment. We got a motion to adopt. We got a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All for the motion. Signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Bond. Your bill is amended.
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
2:19:21
All right. Now, I think this
addresses all the concerns that they have. It does raise certain offenses by one felony level, but it addresses the committee's concerns, and I think it addresses at least two of Mr. Rosenzweig's concerns. The bill's more palatable. Municipally still would like to pass the bill, and so would I, so I'm closed or answer questions, whatever the committee wants. I appreciate the patience. Questions from the committee?
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:19:51
Seeing none, anyone here to speak against? Quickly.
Speaker 312
2:19:55
Very quickly, I just wanted to sign up to speak against it. This amendment is responsive to the specific concerns that we had. I appreciate that that has been fixed. The question is just the policy decision at this point, whether you want to raise felonies to one level. I don't think it's necessary, but that's a policy decision you have to make. Well, you saw me
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:20:16
trying to take felonies and misdemeanors, so you know I'm sympathetic.
Okay, anyone for? Municipal League doesn't necessarily get my vote right
Speaker 318
2:20:30
now, but go ahead. I completely understand. Yes, we're still for this bill. We think it's still a good bill. It preserves our intent. And if you look at the original bill, I think it was 1454, it was similar to this in that it was closer to the sliding scale. So we are still in support of this bill, and we thank you for your
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:20:48
patience. Anyone else against? Anyone else for? questions from
the committee hearing none center bond would you like to close for your bill
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
2:20:56
i'm closed appreciate the patience i've moved
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:20:58
to pass got a motion to pass second from senator stubblefield any further discussion uh that's motion to pass as amended any further discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye aye all opposed Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Bond. You have passed your bill as amended. Representative Penzo, House Bill 1810.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. representative penzo i'll ask you to wait just a minute i'm gonna call representative collins first apologize but there is a reason trying to be as accommodating as i can thank you mr chair you've already been in here once today
yes sir everybody's heard you okay yes sir uh and what bill are you presenting This is House Bill 1686. 1686. Do you have anything to present that you didn't present earlier? I appreciate the opportunity. I just want to advise the committee that I wouldn't
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:22:26
be back three times on this if it wasn't important. It's 30 years of case law we're trying to restore. I'll keep it brief and leave it to that unless you have any questions for me.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:22:39
Questions from the committee? Anything you don't already know? Mr. Spitt, do you want to speak against it again? Yes, I've got a member, Mark Jones from Colorado, and let me use his name. He said, please don't do this. Okay. And Joel Burroughs from Rockwell. Okay. Motion at the proper time. Okay, no one else speak against or to speak for. Any more questions from the committee? Hearing none, Representative Collins, are you closed for your bill?
Closed for my bill. We've got a motion due pass from Senator Flowers. We've got a second from Senator Letting. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all from the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Motion carried. Congratulations, Representative Collins. You have
passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Ballinger? I was just going
Speaker 22
2:23:33
to ask, and I mentioned this to you, just so that we can get it out. I think the votes are here on that adoption bill, House Bill 1789. Would it be appropriate to take that up
and see if we can go
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:23:46
ahead and get a vote on that real quick? I
Speaker 383
2:23:52
was bringing him right now, Representative Penzo.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:23:55
I'm going to do that, too. I'm very accommodating to legislators. Thank you,
Speaker 374
2:24:02
sir. Did you want me to go ahead and do House Bill 1810? I'm sorry, what bill, Representative Penzo? Well, the House Bill 1810, the one you called up before, was my Qualified Spousal Trust Bill.
Yes, Silver. But if we want to do what Bollinger said, or Bounder, we can... I think you probably ought to do the one
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:24:27
he suggested first. Okay, let's do that. Thank you. If you want to
Speaker 22
2:24:32
pass it. I'll go ahead and make a motion do pass on House Bill 1789. Okay, and that
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:24:41
is? That is the adoption bill that we heard earlier. House Bill 1789, the adoption bill that we heard earlier that failed. Is that okay with everyone on the committee?
No. No? I'm closed. It's not okay. Do you have a question? Well, we've had, this bill was run,
it started this morning before we adjourned a recess for the session. Yes, ma'am. And we went over, I'd say, 30 to 45 minutes. Yes, ma'am. It seemed like a long time. There were at least four or five people that showed up to speak against the bill.
Yes, ma'am. We came back after recess, after the session ended, and spent another 30 or 40 minutes on it. Yes, ma'am. and I just think most of these people have
gone, and you were not here. You did not have the benefit of hearing the...
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:25:45
It's all on video. I've had lots of time today.
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
2:25:53
Oh, okay. Okay, well, you know, what strikes me about
it is how it's going to affect our whole process
that we have become accustomed to in adoption law in Arkansas and the fact that the Bar Association of Arkansas is against it. I understand.
Speaker 41
2:26:14
I withdraw my motion. Do what? I withdraw
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:26:21
my motion. Okay, fine. Let's do
Speaker 374
2:26:28
that. Let's hear House Bill 1810. Good night. Thank you, Mr. Chair. House Bill 1810 sets up qualified spousal trusts.
I'll do the quick version instead of reading everything I've got here since it's late. But pretty much when a married couple owns a piece of property, they own it jointly, they have certain asset protections. If they move that property into a trust, they lose asset protections. This bill sets up a joint trust that allows the same protections.
I'll go ahead and read what I've got here. This bill gives married couples the same amount of asset protection after they prepare an estate plan, first before they set up an estate plan. Prior to creating a joint trust, most spouses hold property jointly. This type of ownership is called joint tenancy by the entirety. Under Arkansas current law, if a married couple owns the property jointly and one of the spouses is sued, the creditor cannot seize assets that are owned jointly. However, if a married couple puts their assets inside of a joint trust,
they currently lose that same level of asset protection, meaning that if a married couple puts their joint property into a trust and only one of the spouses is sued, that creditor can come after the property in the trust. this would allow assets that married couples transfer into a joint trust to maintain the same level of asset protection that those assets had when the married couple owned such assets and their joint names out of the 26 states that recognize tenancy by the entirety ownership for
married couples 10 of those states have adopted similar statutes allowing qualified spousal trusts you open for questions represent the penzo sure
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:28:19
questions from the committee central bond i know everybody's is it based
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
2:28:27
on this is kind of a uniform law or where's it come from i guess i i'm i think we're all a little foggy i'm just trying to get a sense of
Speaker 395
2:28:38
it i'm not can you clarify specifically what you're asking i'm not sure i'm not an attorney like you
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
2:28:43
are well no i understand so sometimes they they these there's uniform
laws uniform trusts that are passed in a lot of states i think you mentioned there were 24 states that had something like this i just didn't know if it was there's a uniform laws commission out there i didn't know if it was something particular like that not trying to put you on the spot kind of
Speaker 374
2:29:05
where did it come from i guess um there was uh some attorneys that do uh estate planning and this issue comes up where People come in and want to put their property in a trust to protect it,
and they actually lose protections because there's more protections when they owned it with the husband and wife owning a property. And when it goes into the trust, it loses some of that asset protection. And so, you know, a lot of people think that they're putting property in a trust and it's getting protected, and it actually loses protection. Thank
Speaker 24
2:29:45
you, Representative Penza. All right, thanks. have you heard from the bar at all on this
Speaker 396
2:29:51
the the attorneys there's been no opposition or thank
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:29:54
you other questions from the committee hearing none is there
anyone here to speak against the bill anyone here to speak for the bill hearing none represent penzo would
Speaker 204
2:30:10
you like to close for your bill Yes,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:30:13
I'm closed. Appreciate a good vote. Got a motion. I do pass from Senator Leading. Second from Senator Ballinger. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried.
Congratulations. Representative Penzo, you have passed your bill. Thank you. Senator Stubblefield. what
Speaker 398
2:30:46
what are we presenting so we're looking at 558 senate bill 558 and
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:30:54
i see we've lost one of our committee members
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:30:56
it couldn't be better timing you are recognized to present your bill center stubblefield
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:31:06
Okay. Listen, I've already presented it. I would add one thing. When we passed that bill
in the session, it was retroactive. It went back, and it hurt. In fact, you met the guy that was here. It wiped him out financially, and some others as well. So that's all I want to add.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:31:26
I would ask for a good vote. Questions from the committee? I know we have heard all kinds of testimony on this. Anyone here to speak against? Anyone here to speak for? Are you closed for your bill? And did you
make a motion? A second from Senator Bond. All for the motion signify by saying aye.
All opposed? No. Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Stubblefield. Do you have passed your bill?
Speaker 128
2:32:22
Roll call. Roll call. Senator Stubblefield. Senator Cooper.
Senator Rice. Senator Bond. Senator Ballinger. Senator Letting. Senator Letting. Senator Flowers. the roll call center so field is three two so
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:32:51
bill did not pass okay uh is there anything else
committee we are scheduled to meet friday unless if we hear there's nothing but i imagine there will be something so we'll plan it being being here friday morning at nine thank you You
Agenda
Call to Order
SB344 B. Ballinger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE FILING OF A MECHANIC'S OR MATERIALMAN'S LIEN.
SB545 Irvin TO ESTABLISH RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FOR NECESSARY MEDICAL CARE, TREATMENT, OR SERVICES RENDERED.
SB13 A. Clark CONCERNING DRUG TESTING UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; CONCERNING CHILD MALTREATMENT INVESTIGATION REPORTS; TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "NEGLECT"; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INVESTIGATIVE DETERMINATIONS.
SB88 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PETITIONS TO REINSTATE PARENTAL RIGHTS.
SB89 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CLOSED AND CONFIDENTIAL NATURE OF RECORDS UNDER THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989.
SB139 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAWS CONCERNING VENUE IN THE JUDICIARY; TO PROMOTE EFFICIENT VENUE TRANSFER; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB191 Rapert TO CREATE THE COURT OR JURY FINDING OF GUILTY BUT WITH A MENTAL ILLNESS; CONCERNING THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF NOT GUILTY BY WAY OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT; AND CONCERNING CLAIMS OF INSANITY BY A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT.
SB283 T. Garner TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE PARTITION AND SALE OF LAND; AND TO REPEAL THE UNIFORM PARTITION OF HEIRS PROPERTY ACT.
SB350 T. Garner CONCERNING THE PENALTY FOR AN UNLAWFUL AUTOMATED TELEPHONE SOLICITATION
SB352 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROTECTIONS FOR CHILD WELFARE AGENCIES.
SB378 Elliott TO BE KNOWN AS "THE EQUITY IN SENTENCING ACT".
SB474 T. Garner CREATING A CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A PERSON THAT ENGAGES IN TELEPHONE CALLER IDENTIFICATION SPOOFING.
SB484 B. Ballinger CONCERNING THE DEFENSE OF A PERSON WITH THE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE OR DEADLY FORCE.
SB496 B. Ballinger TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE LAW CONCERNING ALIMONY SUPPORT.
SB313 Elliott REQUIRING THE PAROLE BOARD TO ISSUE AND RELEASE FINDINGS OF FACT WHEN IT DENIES PAROLE OR TRANSFER TO A PERSON OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE ON PAROLE OR TRANSFER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION.
SB500 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION OF MINORS.
SB507 L. Chesterfield TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PREFERENCE OF A CHILD IN A CHILD CUSTODY PROCEEDING.
HB1609 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA.
HB1633 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING WITNESS INTIMIDATION, RETALIATION, TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE, JURY TAMPERING, AND BRIBERY.
HB1673 Petty CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF A NO CONTACT ORDER.
SB517 Bond CONCERNING LIFE SENTENCES IMPOSED FOR NONVIOLENT FELONY OFFENSES INVOLVING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE; CONCERNING CRIMINAL SENTENCES; ESTABLISHING RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY FOR CERTAIN SENTENCES.
HB1625 Gazaway TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF ENCOURAGING THE SUICIDE OF ANOTHER PERSON.
SB280 M. Pitsch TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COMPENSATION AWARDED IN A CONDEMNATION ACTION.
SB279 M. Pitsch TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONDEMNATION ACTIONS; AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CALCULATION OF ATTORNEY'S FEES ON AN HOURLY BASIS.
SB570 Hester TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL CIRCUIT JUDGESHIPS FOR CERTAIN JUDICIAL DISTRICTS.
SB568 Caldwell CONCERNING THE TWENTY-FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT; CONCERNING DISTRICT COURT JUDGES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1488 Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ADOPTION PROCESS WHEN A LICENSED CHILD PLACEMENT AGENCY IS NOT USED; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB578 A. Clark TO REMOVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION AS AN AVAILABLE PENALTY FOR OFFENSES NOT RELATED TO DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE.
HB1686 A. Collins TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "MARITAL PROPERTY" FOR PURPOSES OF DIVISION OF PROPERTY IN AN ACTION FOR DIVORCE.
SB607 Irvin CONCERNING THE SENTENCING OF A JUVENILE OFFENDER.
SB608 Irvin TO AMEND THE FAIR SENTENCING FOR MINORS ACT OF 2017.
SB610 Irvin TO BE KNOWN AS "SARA'S LAW"; CONCERNING THE SENTENCING OF A JUVENILE.
SB609 Irvin TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CHILD LABOR TRAFFICKING.
SB 558
SB230 K. Hammer CREATING A STATUTORY CIVIL ACTION FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY.
SB630 G. Stubblefield CONCERNING THE COMPENSATION OF A RETIRED JUDGE APPOINTED TO TEMPORARY SERVICE; CONCERNING THE RECUSAL OF A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE; AND CONCERNING THE JUDICIARY.
HB1634 Petty TO INCLUDE ACTS COMMITTED BY A VICTIM OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING UNDER THE STATE'S RAPE SHIELD LAW.
HB1695 Scott TO PROTECT CHILDREN WHO ARE BEING TRAFFICKED FROM BEING PROSECUTED FOR PROSTITUTION.
HB1708 V. Flowers TO END CHILD MARRIAGE; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MINIMUM AGE REQUIREMENT FOR MARRIAGE.
HB1765 Maddox TO ESTABLISH THE DIRECTED TRUST ACT.
HB1782 Capp CONCERNING COURT COSTS AND FEES FOR SPECIALTY COURT IN THE STATE'S DISTRICT COURTS.
HB1612 Maddox TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CHILD SUPPORT AND THE CENTRALIZED CLEARINGHOUSE.
HB1814 Rushing CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS.
HB1759 Hawks TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING JOINT CUSTODY AND THE MODIFICATION OF A CHILD CUSTODY DECREE.
SB 674
HB1732 Womack TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE STATE OR A SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE; AND TO ALLOW FOR INCOME TAX REFUNDS TO BE SUBJECT TO GARNISHMENT BY JUDGMENT CREDITORS.
HB1755 Scott CONCERNING THE PUNITIVE ISOLATION OR SOLITARY CONFINEMENT OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE UNDER EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS OF AGE.
HB1809 Love TO CREATE AN ADDITIONAL TERM OF IMPRISONMENT FOR OFFENSES THAT CONSTITUTE SERIOUS ACTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST A PERSON AT A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP.
HB1866 Petty CONCERNING EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY, PARDON, AND COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE.
SB661 Bond CONCERNING THE POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA BY A FIRST-TIME OFFENDER; AND CONCERNING THE POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE.
HB1762 Crawford TO AMEND THE QUALIFICATIONS OF A GUARDIAN.
HB1789 Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF TRAFFICKING; TO CREATE AN OFFENSE FOR THE UNLAWFUL SOLICITATION FOR THE RELINQUISHMENT OF PARENTAL RIGHTS; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ADOPTIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1802 Lowery TO REVISE THE FAMILY SUPPORT CHART TO REFLECT PAYOR AND RECIPIENT INCOME.
HB1810 Penzo TO PROVIDE FOR QUALIFIED SPOUSAL TRUSTS IN ARKANSAS.
HB1880 Dalby CONCERNING THE DISTRICT COURTS OF INDEPENDENCE, FULTON, AND IZARD COUNTIES.
HB1851 Bentley CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION.
HB1937 Dalby CONCERNING THE TRANSITION FROM LOCAL DISTRICT COURTS TO STATE DISTRICT COURTS.
SB78 L. Chesterfield CONCERNING THE FEE TO ATTEND A VICTIM IMPACT PANEL THAT IS REQUIRED BY LAW OF ANY PERSON CONVICTED OF DRIVING OR BOATING WHILE INTOXICATED, REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO A CHEMICAL TEST, OR POSSESSION OF ALCOHOL BY A MINOR.
HB1235 Petty CONCERNING THE PAYMENT OF COSTS AND FEES ORDERED BY A COURT.
SB198 B. Ballinger REQUIRING THAT THE ARKANSAS COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT STANDARDS AND TRAINING CONDUCT A STUDY ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT BEING ALLOWED TO ESTABLISH ITS OWN LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
HB1238 Petty CONCERNING THE TIME PERIOD APPLICABLE FOR AN APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE OF A SENTENCE.
SB251 Irvin CONCERNING THE PAROLE OF A PERSON WHO WAS RELEASED OR IS SCHEDULED TO BE RELEASED UNDER THE FAIR SENTENCING FOR MINORS ACT OF 2017.
HB 1733
HB 1734
Adjourned
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Speaker 2
Senator Stephanie Flowers Chair
Unverified
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Speaker 22
Speaker 36
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
Speaker 42
Speaker 24
Speaker 43
Hunter Wendell
Unverified
John Tribble
Unverified
Jp Tribble
Unverified
Candy Cox
Unverified
Speaker 66
Speaker 68
Speaker 74
Speaker 77
Speaker 78
Speaker 82
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
Speaker 90
Speaker 63
Speaker 97
Kay Mcleod
Unverified
Speaker 100
Speaker 105
Speaker 114
Speaker 115
Speaker 117
Speaker 122
Josh Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 128
Speaker 137
Speaker 141
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
Speaker 167
Speaker 169
Speaker 171
Speaker 176
Speaker 177
Speaker 56
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
My Name
Unverified
Daniel Shue
Unverified
Speaker 230
Speaker 238
Nathan Smith
Unverified
Speaker 253
Speaker 257
Speaker 264
Speaker 265
Speaker 271
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
Speaker 286
Speaker 291
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 304
Speaker 4
Speaker 311
Speaker 312
Speaker 318
Speaker 174
Speaker 325
Speaker 306
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Sylvester Smith
Unverified
Speaker 226
Speaker 336
Speaker 34
Speaker 338
Speaker 339
Speaker 340
Speaker 351
Speaker 361
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Speaker 383
Speaker 374
Speaker 41
Speaker 395
Speaker 396
Speaker 204
Speaker 398