State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (42)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB486
Act 955
· 17 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…AW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE. SB486 B. Johnson CONCERNING SAFETY AND PRIVACY IN CERTAIN ENTITIE…”
|
CONCERNING SAFETY AND PRIVACY IN CERTAIN ENTITIES; AND CONCERNING THE DESIGNATION OF MULTI-OCCUPANCY RESTROOMS, CHANGING … | B. Johnson | Notification that SB486 is now Act 955 |
|
HB1024
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1024 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; AND TO REPEAL THE LAW PROHIBITING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1028
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…S; AND TO REPEAL THE LAW PROHIBITING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. HB1028 A. Collins TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE LAW CONCERNING OBSCEN…”
|
TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE LAW CONCERNING OBSCENITY AND THE PROCESS FOR CHALLENGING MATERIALS INCLUDED … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1035
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ORITY GRANTED BY ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, § 19. HB1035 A. Collins TO CREATE THE ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 2…”
|
TO CREATE THE ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 2025; TO ALLOW ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION; TO … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1036
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1036 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO ALLOW VOTER REGISTRATION DURING EARLY VOTING AND … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1037
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1037 A. Collins AN ACT TO CREATE THE PREREGISTRATION TO VOTE ACT…”
|
AN ACT TO CREATE THE PREREGISTRATION TO VOTE ACT; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1038
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51. HB1038 A. Collins TO CREATE THE NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING ACT OF 2…”
|
TO CREATE THE NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING ACT OF 2025; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1039
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NG; AND TO REPEAL VOTER QUALIFICATIONS FOR ABSENTEE VOTING. HB1039 A. Collins TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOT…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOTS; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1040
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EE BALLOTS; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS. HB1040 A. Collins TO CREATE THE WATER IN LINE ACT OF 2025; AND TO…”
|
TO CREATE THE WATER IN LINE ACT OF 2025; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1041
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1041 R. Scott Richardson TO PROHIBIT DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DE…”
|
TO PROHIBIT DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES IN ELECTION COMMUNICATIONS. | R. Scott Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1042
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1042 A. Collins TO CREATE THE DIRECT DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2025; TO R…”
|
TO CREATE THE DIRECT DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2025; TO REPEAL THE ENSURING ACCESS FOR ALL … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1043
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…PROHIBITING BOOK BANNING IN ORDER TO RECEIVE STATE FUNDING. HB1043 A. Collins TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING OF NONCANDID…”
|
TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING OF NONCANDIDATE EXPENDITURES PERTAINING TO APPELLATE JUDICIAL ELECTIONS; AND TO … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1058
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ield TO ESTABLISH GOOD FRIDAY AS AN OFFICIAL STATE HOLIDAY. HB1058 Unger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF I…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FOR PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; … | Unger | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1059
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1059 Unger TO PROVIDE THE OPTION FOR A FREE LIFETIME HUNTING AND…”
|
TO PROVIDE THE OPTION FOR A FREE LIFETIME HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSE TO A COMMERCIAL … | Unger | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1069
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1069 S. Meeks TO OBSERVE STANDARD TIME YEAR ROUND IN ARKANSAS; A…”
|
TO OBSERVE STANDARD TIME YEAR ROUND IN ARKANSAS; AND TO ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME IN … | S. Meeks | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1078
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…PROVIDES CERTAIN INFORMATION RELATED TO HUMAN TRAFFICKING. HB1078 Long TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS; AND…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR A RUNOFF ELECTION FOR … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1162
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO ADOPT NEW LAWS CONCERNING APPELLATE JUDICIAL CAMPAIGNS. HB1162 Duffield TO ESTABLISH GOOD FRIDAY AS AN OFFICIAL STATE HOLI…”
|
TO ESTABLISH GOOD FRIDAY AS AN OFFICIAL STATE HOLIDAY. | Duffield | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1281
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1281 McAlindon TO AMEND REPORTING FOR A CANDIDATE FOR CERTAIN MU…”
|
TO AMEND REPORTING FOR A CANDIDATE FOR CERTAIN MUNICIPAL OFFICES AND FOR COUNTY OFFICE; AND … | McAlindon | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1415
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1415 L. Johnson TO REQUIRE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO RESPOND TO A…”
|
TO REQUIRE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO RESPOND TO A REQUEST FOR A FIRE INQUIRY. | L. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1459
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TATE AGENCIES TO PUBLISH FEDERAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS ONLINE. HB1459 L. Johnson CONCERNING RECURRING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GE…”
|
CONCERNING RECURRING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. | L. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1461
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ERNING RECURRING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. HB1461 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE EVALUATION OF NE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE EVALUATION OF NECESSITY OF VARIOUS COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS. | L. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1494
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1494 Hawk TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS GUIDANCE OUT OF THE DARKNESS AC…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS GUIDANCE OUT OF THE DARKNESS ACT; AND TO REQUIRE STATE AGENCIES … | Hawk | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1614
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EMENT ON FEDERALLY-RECOGNIZED TRIBAL LAND WITHIN THE STATE. HB1614 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATIONS RELATED…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRANT PROGRAMS. | Lundstrum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1621
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MENT TO BECOME OR BE EMPLOYED AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. HB1621 Wardlaw TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO EXEMPT PERSONAL INFORMATION OF … | Wardlaw | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1631
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1631 Wardlaw TO ADDRESS THE ISSUANCE OF HUNTING AND FISHING LICE…”
|
TO ADDRESS THE ISSUANCE OF HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENTS. | Wardlaw | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1667
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1667 Bentley TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | Bentley | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1720
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RKANSAS; AND TO ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME IN ARKANSAS. HB1720 Vaught TO CREATE THE BABIES AT WORK ACT; TO ALLOW STATE AGE…”
|
TO CREATE THE BABIES AT WORK ACT; TO ALLOW STATE AGENCIES TO PERMIT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES … | Vaught | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1753
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1753 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO OPT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO OPT-OUT OF THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1769
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1769 Barnett CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER STANDARDS; AND T…”
|
CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER STANDARDS; AND TO REQUIRE A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION OR ASSESSMENT TO BECOME … | Barnett | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1773
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1773 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR BA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR BALLOT QUESTION COMMITTEES AND LEGISLATIVE QUESTION COMMITTEES. | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1849
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NG OF A BALLOT INITIATIVE PETITION AND REFERENDUM PETITION. HB1849 Gramlich TO ALLOW FOR THE CROSS DEPUTIZATION OF MUNICIPAL,…”
|
TO ALLOW FOR THE CROSS DEPUTIZATION OF MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, STATE, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ON … | Gramlich | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1883
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1883 Long TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1884
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF ELECTRONIC DATA AND METADATA. HB1884 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MARKING AND COUNTING O…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MARKING AND COUNTING OF PAPER BALLOTS. | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1973
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NATIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRANT PROGRAMS. HB1973 B. McKenzie TO PROVIDE THAT A GOVERNMENTAL BODY SHALL NOT U…”
|
TO PROVIDE THAT A GOVERNMENTAL BODY SHALL NOT USE STATE OR LOCAL FUNDS TO ENTER … | B. McKenzie | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB12
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Y AND THE STATE LIBRARY BOARD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB12 B. King TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING … | B. King | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB184
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB184 D. Sullivan TO TRANSFER THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ARKANS…”
|
TO TRANSFER THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ARKANSAS EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION COMMISSION AND THE STATE … | D. Sullivan | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB376
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IONS REGARDING REDISTRICTING BY THE BOARD OF APPORTIONMENT. SB376 A. Clark TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; A…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | A. Clark | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB471
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. SENATE BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB471 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CANDIDATES FOR NONPART…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CANDIDATES FOR NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS; AND TO ALLOW CERTAIN CANDIDATES FOR … | A. Clark | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB536
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE TITLE OF THE NONPARTISAN JUDICIAL OFFICE ON THE BALLOT. SB536 D. Sullivan TO ABOLISH AND TRANSFER THE ARKANSAS STATE LIBR…”
|
TO ABOLISH AND TRANSFER THE ARKANSAS STATE LIBRARY AND THE STATE LIBRARY BOARD; AND TO … | D. Sullivan | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB569
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…QUARTERS IN CERTAIN ENTITIES BASED ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S SEX. SB569 M. Johnson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCER…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING BALLOT TITLES OF PROPOSED MEASURES; AND AMENDING THE … | M. Johnson | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB570
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. SB570 J. Dotson TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP O…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE. | J. Dotson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR15
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ROPOSING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Number Sponsor Subtitle SJR15 J. Dismang A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC D…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL … | J. Dismang | Approved by the Governor. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
quorum. We left off on Senate Bill 486. We were in the for and against testimony by witnesses, and I believe Dr. Gail Choate. Dr. Choate, if you would introduce
yourself to the committee, state the name of any organization you're here representing, and you'll be recognized to make your
Gail Choate
Unverified
0:24
remarks. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. My name is Gail Choate, and I'm here today as an Arkansan and speaking on my own behalf. I'm not here today as an expert, but I am here
today as a woman. A woman who, like far too many others, has experienced what no one should have to. That experience doesn't define me, but it does give me a certain clarity. Not special, not unique, but real and lived. Let me say plainly, I'm not afraid of someone who presents as a woman walking into the bathroom. I'm not triggered by their presence. That fear stays with me, the kind that lives in my bones and comes from someone who presents as a man.
That's who my body recognizes as danger. That's who my experience has taught me to fear. The women on this committee, as well as myself and many of the women in this room, know what it's like to be cautious, to scan the room, to feel vulnerable in places where we should feel safe. We know what fear feels like, and we know who to fear. But Senate Bill 486 ignores our lived reality. This bill would force people assigned female at birth, but who live and
present as men, to use the women's restroom. It would place people who clearly appear male into women's spaces. Not because of what's in their hearts, but simply because of what's under their clothes. Think about that. A man walks into the women's room, broad shoulders, deep voice, beard. Maybe he's polite. Maybe he's embarrassed. Maybe he's just trying to get through the day. But under this law, he belongs there. Not because he looks like a woman or feels like a woman,
but because as anatomy says so. This doesn't make women feel safer. It makes us more afraid. But more than that, even more than that, it strips away the dignity of all trans people who are just trying to live their lives authentically and safely. No one should have to explain their body or their identity at a bathroom door. No one should be told their identity is a threat, that their dignity is up for debate. To the men on this committee, I ask you to
listen. If you don't live with a daily calculation of risk, if you've never clenched your keys in your fist while walking to your car, then you don't really know what feels like safety to those of us who have. You shouldn't take this as an opportunity to override our experience. This bill doesn't protect women or girls. Instead, it endangers trans people, it triggers survivors, and replaces empathy with enforcement.
I urge you to vote no on Senate Bill 486, not just for me, but for every person who deserves to use a public restroom without fear, shame, or scrutiny. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Choate. Are there any questions by the committee?
Seeing no questions by the committee, thank you for
being here and thank you for those remarks. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill. Kristen Foster.
Ms. Foster, if you would state your name for the committee, the name of any organization you're here representing, and
Kristen Foster
Unverified
4:00
then you'll be recognized to make your remarks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Kristen Foster. I am not here representing any organization. I'm just here representing myself. And I didn't have an eloquently prepared statement like Dr. Choate, who always brings such amazing statements to y'all. But as a parent who has raised kids here in Arkansas and taken them into lots of public facilities, I've never felt afraid of the people I encounter in a public restroom.
I have, though, many times felt afraid of people I encounter in churches, in businesses here. And if we are really, really about protecting children, let's see some bills that actually focus on the folks who are in reality attacking children and perpetuating crime against children. And that is not trans people. There is plenty of evidence to show that. This bill is not about safety or privacy. It is about targeting a group of people that are already vulnerable for really no good reason.
But that's all I have to say. I just wanted to speak against it briefly.
All right, thank you, Ms. Foster. Are there any questions by the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee, thank you for being here. Thank you for those remarks. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill, Courtney Frierson. If
you would identify yourself for the record and state the name of any organization you may be here representing, then you'll be recognized to present your remarks. My name is Courtney Frierson.
Courtney Frierson
Unverified
5:33
I am a licensed social worker and an ASEC certified sex therapist with 17 years experience serving gender exceptional people here in Arkansas. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I stand with my transgender siblings and speak on behalf of all Arkansans who value body autonomy. This bill will cause deep harm to transgender people in prisons and across our state. This bill will embolden citizens to police each other's bodies. If you don't care about transgender Arkansans, know this bill will harm your cisgender constituents, too.
Transgender people have always existed across time and cultures, and no law will erase them. I don't think this legislative body cares about the harmful impact on its citizens, so I will focus on speaking your language and talk about money. This bill mirrors North Carolina's 2016 bathroom bill, which in language and intent is similar to Senate Bill 486, and it triggered widespread backlash. There were $3.76 billion in lost businesses.
This is a projection by the AP that was done in 2017. There were canceled events from the NBA, the NCAA, and major entertainers. There were withdrawn investments from companies like PayPal and Adidas. The lesson was clear. When states pass laws seen as discriminatory, business leaves. This will deter future investment in Arkansas, especially in health care. You may not hear objections from corporations already here, but future employers and providers are watching.
Health care is already in crisis. Provider shortages are real. Future employers are watching, and professionals, recruiting affirming professionals, is already hard. This bill tells future doctors, therapists, and other professionals that Arkansas is not a safe or welcoming place to work. This bill invites costly lawsuits. It allows private citizens to sue shelters, schools, and public institutions. These facilities already underfunded will be drained by legal costs, insurance hikes, and potential closure.
And taxpayers will foot the bill. The business community is watching. The bill doesn't just regulate restrooms. It regulates how Arkansas is perceived across the country. It tells industry and talent pipelines that Arkansas is closed for business. This bill creates economic harm, legal liability, and reputational damage that Arkansas cannot afford. You can pass this bill, but you cannot legislate reality. Transgender people exist.
Arkansas's economy, reputation, and conscience will bear the cost of pretending otherwise. I urge you to please vote no. And thanks for those of you that listened. All right, thank you, Ms. Frierson. Were there
any questions by the committee? Seeing none, thank you for being here, and thank you for those remarks. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill. Tiena Stel. Tiena Stel.
If you would identify yourself for the record and state the name of any organization you
Speaker 27
8:58
may be here representing, you'll be recognized to present your remarks. Thank you. Hi,
Tian Estelle
Unverified
9:03
my name is Tian Estelle, and I am the policy coordinator for Intransitive. And I'm here today because I strongly oppose SB 486, the anti-trans bill that encourages civil litigation against the state. This bill is dangerous, discriminatory, and an unnecessary financial burden on our state.
So I spent some time since we were last in this room together looking for the reasonable accommodations in this state building we're all in right now. I have yet to find a single stall restroom in this entire building. So I just wanted to point that out that in the people's house, I couldn't find any reasonable accommodations like the ones that were mentioned earlier. I didn't find any. And people frequently make assumptions about gender, and this bill allows assumptions to become lawsuits. For me and many other trans people, simply entering a public restroom can lead to unwanted and discriminatory reactions.
I've been harassed in multi-stalled bathrooms, even while using ones that align with my gender assigned at birth. I've been yelled at, rudely questioned, visually inspected, and again, while in bathrooms I'm supposed to be using. And as someone with frequent kidney stones and other renal issues, I often need a bathroom. I cannot go in public unless I know that I have bathroom access.
If this bill passes, experiences like these could trigger unfounded lawsuits, even when the harm caused is to the trans person just trying to urinate. And I'm also wondering, if someone sues the state and happens to win, where do the funds come to pay off this civil litigation? And also, people who aren't trans are also often met with assumptions and harassment while in public bathrooms and shelter spaces.
Some people are really obsessed with gender and what other folks are doing in bathrooms. This bill encourages suspicion, harassment, and fear. Frivolous lawsuits will waste taxpayer time and money. And other states, as we have heard, other states who pass similar laws have faced business boycotts, canceled events, and negative national attention. If someone sues the state and wins, where does the financial burden fall? If suing the state, wouldn't the state have to pay out?
Please vote no on SB 486. It subjects every state agency to needless litigation and creates further barriers to housing and safety. Thank you. Thank you for your time and consideration today. Thank
you. I appreciate you being here. Any questions about the committee? Seeing none, thank you very
much. Next we have, speaking against the bill, Ms. Major Griffin Gracie.
If you would state your name for the record, any organization you're here representing and you'll be recognized to present your remarks.
Speaker 37
12:45
Oh, thank you. Yes, my name is Ms. Major. I
Speaker 38
12:50
am speaking for behalf of myself. I am a transgender woman, and I would like to say that this bill is definitely a front to who I am and what I stand for. I did not understand the belief that someone was there to use this bill to do something
of choices like the ladies mentioned earlier. I find it an insult to myself and others like me because we don't intend any harm to anyone. I've spoken of this for three times already and twice before. And it doesn't seem fair to us as a people.
It's dominion and ugly, and the fact that it makes it seem like all of us are out to create mass harm, and we're not. People who want life and liberty, who have dreams and hopes, we have hopes and wishes for ourselves, we want to have the life that other people have, we're not any different
the state bill are, you know, we're just like you, you know, we're not out to cause any harm or danger to anyone other than ourselves. So when you think about this bill and the harm it causes and the detriment it causes. You know, you're using it to exercise
this fright that you feel you have over us and no one at all is over us. You know, you get in that, besides transgender women, you're completely ignoring transgender men. you know, what do you expect them to be like? You know, it's just our choices and wrong.
And I wish to thank you for hearing me out and realizing that this bill is really detrimental to our safety. And I believe in ourselves and others. Thank you. Thank you for those remarks. It does appear we have a question by the
committee. Representative Innett, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hi, Ms. Majors, how are you doing?
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
16:05
Fine, thank you. Since 1969, when you fought back against state-sponsored persecution at Stonewall, how many times have you had
Speaker 38
16:23
the bathroom? Oh, God. both 669, 10, I mean it's unbelievable that they keep bringing it up.
And I don't see anywhere in Britain that it's that bad. No, it's not so. Thank you. You're welcome. All right, any other questions by the committee? Seeing no other questions
by the committee, thank you for being here. Thank you for
those remarks. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill, Marcella Garcia.
If you would identify yourself for the record, the name of any organization you're here representing, and
Marisa Garcia
Unverified
17:28
then you'll be recognized to present your remarks. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I
Maricela Garcia
Unverified
17:34
appreciate the opportunity to appear here before you today. My name is Maricela Garcia. I'm a lawyer, and I work for Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. For more than 47 years, Arkansas Advocates has supported policies that are based on research-driven, proven actions and that are meant to improve the lives of all Arkansas children and families and ensure that they have the resources and opportunities they need to be successful and thrive in Arkansas.
I'm here today to ask you to vote no on SB 486. This bill is unnecessarily broad, and it will lead to increased danger for our trans community members, no matter the bathroom that they choose. Further, it will lead to additional harassment, bullying, and violence, not only against trans members, but also against any person that a state staffer feels is trans because the individuals at the state agencies have to protect themselves against lawsuits.
And they can only do that by identifying those people that they feel should be excluded from the bathroom. It will also lead to widespread lawsuits against the state, as we've already heard. The terminology here is overly broad. It allows someone to sue the state if they encounter a trans person in the bathroom. It does not require that the encounter is bad, harmful, the person is harmed. So just by walking into the bathroom, the trans person has allowed that person to sue the state
because they are using the bathroom that they physically identify with. In addition, this is not just bathrooms. This is also shelters and state prisons, and the implication here is that a trans person must use the restroom that identifies, that matches their birth certificate, no matter how they appear now. That is dangerous, and it will lead to female-presenting trans people having to use male restrooms and male-presenting trans people having to use female restrooms.
It will have the opposite effect of what the bill purports to do. this is certain to cause not only more confusion and danger for our trans community members, but also cause violence against anyone seen as different. The intention here is to make it so that trans people cannot exist in public. If you cannot use the restroom, you cannot go out in public because you cannot be out for any long period of time in public without having access
to a restroom. This type of isolation of some of the most vulnerable of our community members by enshrining it in the law, the discrimination against these individuals is dangerous, unnecessary, and cruel. Again, this bill increases the danger, especially for trans women who are some of our most marginalized populations in the United States and in Arkansas. Trans women seeking shelter would be forced to reside with men and sleep in rooms assigned to
men at shelters. This is how the danger of rape will increase. This bill allows people to sue the state if they're housed with a trans person in a shelter, which encourages, again, state-sponsored shelters to either discriminate and refuse services to trans individuals or force them into dangerous housing situations. There have been no cases presented today about trans individuals using restrooms or dorms to attack people because this is not
an actual issue overall. And this bill doesn't actually address issues of rape or gender-based violence as it has been suggested earlier that it does. This bill is not about safety and it is actually likely to increase violence of all kinds for women. Excuse me.
Marisa Garcia
Unverified
21:49
And furthermore, it's likely to lead to more frivolous litigation. Encounter is a very
Maricela Garcia
Unverified
21:56
low barrier. When you think about what that means for a lawsuit, it only has to be that you're in the room with the individual. This bill will further marginalize trans community to the extent that it will be nearly impossible for them to just live their lives in public. But it's not just trans people who will be affected. It will be anyone who does not appear stereotypically female or stereotypically male. If that agency wants to truly try to prevent lawsuits, they have to control
who is using their restrooms. Trans people have the same rights in public as anyone else. And most importantly, they should especially feel safe and have the opportunity to feel secure when they are out in public. But this bill would take that away because it intentionally targets trans individuals and will result in serious harm. I would ask you to vote no on this bill. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Garcia. Are
there any questions by the committee?
Seeing no questions by the committee, thank you for being here. Thank you
for those remarks. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill, James O'Connell, James O'Connell, James. Sorry. - No longer present. - Okay, the audience said he's no longer present. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill, Julia Taylor,
Julia Taylor, Julia Taylor, all right. She is here.
Ms. Taylor, if you would state your name for the committee and any organization you're here
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
23:41
representing, and you'll be recognized to present your remarks. Julia Taylor, I'm here for myself. I will keep it very brief. I ask you to vote no on this bill.
Besides the very many moral and ethical reasons for voting no, So I think this is, frankly, a waste of the state's time and taxpayer money if this were to be enacted.
So I ask you to vote no. All right. Any questions by the committee before you go? Seeing no questions by the committee, thank
you for being here. Thank you for those remarks. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill. Marie O'Connell. If you would state your name and any organization you're here representing, you'll be recognized
Marie Maynard
Unverified
24:39
to present your remarks. Thank you, Chairman. My name is Marie Maynard O'Connell. The person previously who wasn't available is my spouse. And I'm here speaking on behalf of myself. I am a Presbyterian minister here in the Presbytery of Arkansas. And I am the organizer for a community that serves primarily LGBTQ families, of which my own is there. My husband was going to be with me here today to speak on his experience parenting our eldest child.
I wanted to lift up my concerns, both about the fact that among LGBTQ people, they are more affected by homelessness than other aspects of the population. And because this bill also affects shelters as well as jails, the statement that it is primarily to protect women and children in bathrooms seems somewhat untrue. But my concern is also that at those shelters, that being unable to reasonably accommodate persons that are neither male nor
female, they will not be able to serve those people. And those people will then not find themselves being housed at all. Is this working correctly? Should I try the other one? No, we can hear you. Okay, it sounds like it's cutting in and out, and I can tell some people are having trouble hearing me. My other concern has to do with myself as a parent and a pastor. Some of you actually got to meet my oldest child last week, Camo, who was up here to speak about their experience, and during that time when we were waiting for the house, we were here for a long time,
and camo needed to use the restroom and so camo looks like a boy has an adorable little mustache and has worked really hard on their biceps and walks very hard on the floor and asked me where they should go to the bathroom and we looked for the single stall restroom and couldn't find it and i said well i think under current state law you'd be safest to go to the restroom with me and so camo took off and i was kind of left behind and they went into the women's restroom
right across the hall about 10 steps ahead of me and so they went in went around the corner entered a stall typical bathroom behavior but i got to watch how the restroom reacted to a young man barging into the room and there were women and there was a legislator or two who gave each
Speaker 69
27:10
other the look and women know the look which is should I be afraid and they they looked around
Marie Maynard
Unverified
27:17
and they looked at each other and some of them were just like
I'm gonna let it pass and others just left no words were exchanged but the tension in the room ratcheted up and then when camo came out of the bathroom they were visibly embarrassed red in the face and walking fast and looking down and there was another woman who looked at them looked them up and down, and I could see her think about speaking and then choose better, which was good for her because I was also there. But I can't be in every bathroom that my kid needs to go into.
And so speaking before you today, I wanted to note that I think every member of this committee is a Christian, and all of you are going to vote in the way that you think is going to most align with your values and most aligned with that of your constituents. But I also want you to remember that more is happening here than just your beliefs or
Speaker 69
28:25
just your constituents. Earlier, I think it was Senator or
Marie Maynard
Unverified
28:29
Representative Crawford asked why we are working on protecting a minority
when we so desperately also need to protect children. And I notice that this is also Holy week. It's one of the reasons why we're all exhausted. On Sunday, those of us who are Christians celebrated Jesus coming into Jerusalem with palms. And then on Monday, Jesus went to the halls of power and overturned the tables of the people who were harming and oppressing his people. But on Tuesday, he spoke in parables. And the parable that affects us today is the one shepherd
who went after the one sheep. The 99 were left behind because one needed to be found. And when we think about what makes us Christian and how we are trying to make the world a better place, I ask you to please remember that there are children who are not like other children. And it is my job as a pastor to those people to make sure that they grow up to be adults. I do live in fear of the first time I have to perform a service, a funeral service, for one of them that has taken their life or experienced the violence that is so much higher for trans women, particularly women of color.
And I have to tell you that if I have to perform that service, you're getting an invitation. Please vote no on this. It's not good legislation. It's not good for our community. And it's not good Christian values. Thank you. All right. Are there any questions by the
committee? Seeing no questions by the committee, thank you, Ms. O'Connell, for those remarks and being here. Next we have Brittany Stockton.
Speaker 82
30:21
Brittany is not here, but she is on her way. She had to
go pick up her children from school. All right. We'll pass
over her for the moment. next we have anna claire graves speak against the bill anna claire graves anna claire graves she's unavailable okay next we have dolores wilk
if you would state your name for the record any organization you're here representing and then you'll be recognized
Speaker 85
31:00
to present your remarks. Thank you so much for hearing my comments today on this issue.
Dolores Welk
Unverified
31:05
I do appreciate it. I am here. My name is Dolores Welk and I am a volunteer with an LGBTQ group. I'm an advocate for the community and a proud Orkansan. I oppose SB 486. This bill is discriminatory toward a community that is being targeted due to ignorance. Earlier today when the bill was presented there
was stated there was only male and female sexes. That is incorrect. Intersex people are part of 1.7 percent. They were born with both of those characteristics. Trans people are less than 1% of the community but yet we're being targeted. There are more than two sexes. We are all created differently. We don't fit into boxes. Yeah, we're laughing. Yeah, we don't fit into boxes. I don't fit into a box. I'll be the first one to be very proud about that. The LGBTQIA community is family-oriented.
The Democrats I serve varies greatly. There's over 50 different flags of different representation in this group. Most of them that I serve are women between 25 and 45 concerned with protecting our children and giving them a better future. I myself as a parent want my child to be safe. Today one in ten are part of the community with generation Z as many as 22 to 26 percent of
the community. One in four is part of the LGBT community and when you go after a trans person you're affecting all of that community. My questions is what is it going to be the cost of to watch over the restrooms? I myself get called out for going to the women's restroom as I present a little different to my gender ID. Do you know the chaos it causes? I was at the airport in Dallas Saturday night, and I was being called out, sir, sir, and I just needed to go to
the restroom, and I was going into the women's restroom, which is on my birth certificate. I've never had that done until recent years. Recent years, because of these bad bills demonizing the trans and LGBT community, just because we are a little different from the mass masses but we are still valuable now going to the restroom is a basic human right
I believe before attacking community let's have dialogue with them see and learn about what our needs are what our goals are to truly serve all the community I personally invite you all to an educational roundtable with the LGBT community to sit and have conversations with us versus these bad bills that are being presented against us. I want to thank you for your time, and I urge you to vote no to this bill because we're all a little different. Thank you.
Thank you for being here, and thank you
for those remarks. Are there any questions by the committee? Seeing no
questions about the committee, thank you so much. And I do want to just clarify that there was some laughing in the committee and me, and that was Representative Berry was back behind the partition here talking really loudly to someone saying, I'm
in state agencies committee, so no one was laughing at your remarks or any testimony like that, just to be clear.
Dolores Welk
Unverified
34:46
Well, thank you for that. It ain't the first time and it won't be the last time. I'm here to work with you and to get these bad bills off the slate.
Well, we thank you for being here and appreciate that so much. So thank you very much. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill. Keyon
Anderson. All right. If you would state your name and any organization you're representing and you're recognized to make your remarks.
Speaker 100
35:29
Hello, everybody. My name is Keyon Anderson. I am representing myself and my organization. It's okay to be you. What I want to speak on is, like, period, I am a transmasculine individual. Most of the things that y'all have been talking about have been facing my transgender women in my community. If I walk into a women's bathroom, what would a woman say to me when all y'all look at me? Do they want to see what's in my pants?
Do they want to police me in my pants? Because they're not going to even know. They're just going to say, that's a man in the women's restroom. If I go to the women's restroom, I'm going to get put out. I got put out before I even started hormonally, transitionally. And I'm 46 years old right now. That's only nine years. I started at the age of 38. And even before then, when I was presenting myself as a dominant stud female, what I was presenting as on my birth certificate, I got put out of the restroom every day.
So this bill that y'all are pulling across, because I just walked to the man's bathroom with no problem. No man looked at me any type of way, anything. So if y'all put this bill on up, it's going to put me in danger because I'm at risk for being raped because I'm being put out because I'm unclockable. I could walk past you any day. And if you don't know what unclockable means, it means that you don't know I was born a female.
How many of you know I was born a female if I didn't come up here and say I was transmasculine? And this is what I want to just put to the board. Don't go off what you see, and I don't want to be policed at the bathroom, neither do my transfeminine counterparts in the community. Are you going to ID us and fill me up as the airplane, when I go through airplane docks, they fill me up just because I have my STP on and I don't have bottom surgery? All of us do not live the same life. We are just human, just as the same as you are.
I want to use the bathroom. And if a person is looking the way my feet are sitting in a stall, you're gay too. You're looking at what I have, and you want to know what's going on between my pants. Because I'm going to use a stall. And that's all I have to say, is that y'all are focusing on one dimension. Think about intersex people and trash masculine people. Thank you for your time. All right. Any questions by the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee, thank you for being here.
you for being here. Thank you for those remarks. Thank you. Next we have signed up to speak against the
Speaker 106
38:17
bill Evelyn Stafford. If you would identify yourself
for the record, state the name of any organization you're here representing and you'll be recognized to present your remarks.
Evelyn Rio
Unverified
38:41
Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Evelyn Rio Stafford. I'm a Justice of the Peace in Washington County, although I'm here just representing my own opinions and not the body as a whole. And I, you'll have to excuse me, I just spent the last three hours driving down here from Fayetteville so that I could come speak on this bill. I am not only an elected official, but I am a transgender woman, the only one I believe
in the state right now. I spend a lot of time in government buildings. My husband is also a Fayetteville City Council member. So this bill would affect me directly and affect a lot of my constituents. I want to be clear. The transgender people in our state mostly live in three counties: Washington County, Benton County, and Pulaski County. I can probably guarantee you
that in my JP district, there's probably more transgender people than in all of Perry County. So, you know, what the issues, you know, and the concerns in the community that we serve are different in our counties than in other parts of the state. And I represent them, and I want to protect them. I want to protect, you know, we talked about protecting children. I want to make sure that all the children in my district, in my county, in the state are safe.
And that also goes for young people in our community who identify as transgender. I have a friend who is a transgender woman, and when she was a teenager, she was sexually assaulted in a bathroom, in a men's room, by a man. Because she was in there because she had M on her birth certificate.
I hate to talk about personal stuff, but I feel like I need to. I've been the victim of sexual assault myself, and it was not in a bathroom. And I understand what that is. And if this bill were to pass, there are a lot of places, government buildings and facilities, where there is no third option.
There is no single stall. There is no single stall, gender neutral restroom. The choice that I would have would be to either break the law or go into the men's room. And I do not
Speaker 111
41:37
want to put myself in that situation again. Excuse me, I'm sorry. We have a lot
Evelyn Rio
Unverified
41:52
of people in our community who come to our courthouse for joyous occasions.
As a justice of the peace, I do a lot of weddings. Because people know that I'm a transgender elected official. They come to me sometimes for that reason. Trans people who want to get married come to me. And I don't want them on the happiest day of their life to have to be worried about being, violating the law or worried about where they're going to use the restroom in our courthouse, in our historic courthouse that was built in the 1800s. People come to our courthouse to serve jury duty.
They're there all day. Some of those courtrooms are in old buildings. This bill, although it does not mandate building those single-sex, single-stall restrooms, it does not mandate that, but any county, any city that wants to do the right thing by their citizens is gonna have to spend money, and is gonna have to spend a lot of money, and we know how much retrofitting a building costs,
especially if it's an older building that was grandfathered in before the Americans with Disabilities Act. I don't understand why this bill is being brought forward in the first place. Two years ago, we had a bathroom bill that came forward. And we had a compromise that worked for everybody. Everybody was satisfied with it. Our folks, the folks from the family council, everybody walked away feeling that that was a bill that everybody could live with.
And now I feel that that compromise and that promise is being broken by bringing this forward now, turning around and coming forward two years later. This bill was not written, obviously, with the input of our community, with the input of the trans community. And so my ask is, pull this bill down, work with us on something else that's going to keep people, all the people in our community safe.
and let's move forward and do something positive and good for this state. Thank you. Thank
you. It does appear we have a question by the committee before you go. Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you,
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
44:16
Mr. Chair, and thank you very much for your testimony today and for driving all this way. My question is quick because I know that you were there last session. I referenced the compromise earlier today at this meeting, but I just wanted to clarify with you to make sure that I am remembering this correctly.
When we reached a compromise on the previous bathroom bill, that compromise was agreed upon by a lot of folks who are now saying that there is a loophole in Arkansas law. Is that loophole that they referenced this morning, the compromise that they created themselves in the
Evelyn Rio
Unverified
44:54
passage of the bill two years ago? My belief is yes. Yes, thank you. that compromise was about intent. It was that if someone enters a restroom with the sexual intent
of doing something sexual, which was already illegal before that under Arkansas law, but with doing the intent, that that was an actionable, you know, cause under the law. and that you know that protected everyone it protected it protected me it protected everyone else uh you know from someone who who's there with bad intent and it allows someone who's there with bad intent to be removed from the restroom um you know and now just two years later we're
turning around and and saying that oh the you know that's somehow not good enough um thank you I'm open for any other questions. Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I was in
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
45:53
that committee as well, and I remember it exactly that way, except the
one thing I might clarify if you would agree is I didn't even know that it was a compromise so much as it was a clarification of the intent of the sponsors to limit it to having an intent because what they were trying to get at was, you know, potential crimes.
And so you need to have intent to commit a crime. And that is why, I mean, to me, it wasn't
even so much like we'll give on this, but this is actually what we want to accomplish to have that
Evelyn Rio
Unverified
46:26
intent in there. Do you recall it that way? I do, and I remember that at the time some of the county prosecutors who were there in that room basically said that the way that the bill was originally written was easy to strike down because you can't just prosecute someone by their mere presence or because of their mere identity.
you had to have some kind of actionable cause, some sort of intent. And so, yes, it was a clarification. Maybe they, you know, I think everybody felt like it was a compromise, but yes, it was a clarification that somebody had to be actively doing something harmful in
order to have that be a cause of action. All right. Any other questions by the
committee? Seeing no other questions by the committee, thank you for being here. Thank you for those remarks. Thank you. That appears
to be all of the individuals we have signed up to speak for. Okay. For and against the bill. Who are you referring to?
Brittany Stockton, who I told you, she came
up earlier, but she's picking up children. Okay, Ms. Stockton. If you would state your name
Brittany Stockton
Unverified
47:50
and any organization you're here representing, and you'll be recognized to present your remarks. My name is Brittany Stockton. I'm here representing myself. Normally, I would not come back after picking up my kids, but there were some offensive statements made by members on this committee, I felt compelled to share my story. My name is Brittany Stockton. I'm here today not just as a
citizen but as a survivor of sexual assault. That experience has changed my life. It reshaped how I move through the world, how I trust, and how I define safety. And that's why I'm speaking out against SB 486. This bill, under the guise of safety and privacy, claims to protect people like me. But I'm here to tell you it doesn't. It exploits my trauma to push a political agenda that's rooted not in facts but in fear specifically fear of trans people let's be clear there's no evidence none that allowing transgender people to use bathrooms that align with their gender
identity leads to an increase in assault what is well documented however is that trans people particularly trans women of color face extremely high rates of violence and harassment especially in restrooms. If this bill passes, it will not only, it will not prevent assaults, it will enable them. It will endanger trans people while doing nothing to protect survivors like me. The idea that predators are pretending to be trans to attack people in bathrooms is a harmful myth.
It's not backed by data, it's backed by stigma, and it makes it harder to focus on real issues around consent, sexual violence, and prevention. Let me tell you what makes me feel unsafe. It's not trans people in the bathroom. It's lawmakers who use people like me, our stories, our pain as justification to strip others of their rights. It's a culture that doesn't take sexual assault seriously unless it's politically convenient. It's a legislature that refuses to pass legislation allowing for rape exceptions when needing
access to basic health care. I've had to fight for healing, I've had to rebuild trust in my own body and my surroundings, but the solution to my trauma was never to punish another vulnerable group. True safety means educating our communities, supporting survivors, and stopping actual predators, not policing gender. SB 486 doesn't make us safer, it fuels division, it creates more targets, and it tells every trans kid in the state that they are dangerous just for existing.
as a survivor i reject this bill as a human as a human being i reject this bill and i ask you please look beyond the fear and choose compassion choose facts choose justice thank you thank you are there any questions by the committee seeing no
questions by the committee thank you for being here and thank you for those remarks we also had an individual that was not here earlier Abigail Thompson.
If you would state your name, for the record, any organization you're here representing,
Abigail Thompson
Unverified
51:12
and they'll be recognized to present your remarks. I'm sorry. My name is Abigail Thompson, and I'm here representing myself. I find that often when discussing these things, especially laws concerning transgender women,
voices from my community are often left out of the conversation, and we are talked about rather than to. I am a transgender woman, and I'm here to speak today because I've been a long-term Arkansas resident. I have moved here in 2017, and I've been living and working here since then. And this bill would directly affect me as a government employee. I have heard it often stated
that my presence in restrooms, shelters, changing rooms is a threat to cisgender women um, or non-transgender women. And, um, I believe that this is, uh, wrong to say. Um, I am not a threat. Um, I am also a victim of sexual assault. I was assaulted by a cisgender man. Um, and that occurred in a women's restroom here in this state. Um, no, the law that is currently being proposed
to the committee does not address the assault that occurred, nor would it have prevented it. Instead, it would treat me just as much of a danger to the community for my presence being in the restroom I was assaulted in as the cisgender man that assaulted me. I find it very silly that the, I'm sorry, I don't have prepared remarks. So I find it very silly that such a law
would be even proposed. And I find it saddening that it has passed the Senate and it has now come to hear. This is the first time I've ever participated in the state legislature. And that is because specifically when this committee is talking about transgender women in women's restrooms, specifically in public facilities, they are talking about me. I would like to repeat, I am not a danger. I'm not a threat. My presence and my ability to use the restroom
and to use changing rooms and public does not impact the safety of other women. And I would like to ask the committee to vote no on this bill. Thank you for those remarks.
Are there any questions by the committee?
Seeing none, thank you for being here. Thank you for those remarks. And then we had one witness that we passed over, Anna Claire Graves. Is she here? Anna Claire Graves? No? Okay. All right. That appears to be all the individuals
we have signed up to speak for and against the bill. Representative Bentley, you're recognized a close for your bill. Thank you, Chairman, for
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
54:36
your time. Thank you, committee, as well. This bill is based on an executive order that was released by President Trump in January, as he has made all the official buildings of federal buildings in Washington, D.C.
follow the exact same statute as we have here, using the bathrooms there as well. We have 18 other states that have passed this bill without any issues there in the 18 other states. This really mirrors what I did for the K-12 kids. So what we did really was provide a safe place for the kids in our schools that are transgender, a safe place. We made sure they had reasonable accommodations for them to have bathrooms and locker rooms. I've heard very good things from my superintendents that were very fearful of the transgender students in their school being hurt or harmed. They were glad that we had a way to provide for
them. So we, anyway, as I said earlier, it's been very helpful for our K-12 schools, and they've not expended a bunch of money to make it happen. I want you to ask you, do we need to wait until a woman has been raped in one of our domestic violence shelters for us to pass this bill? Or do we need to wait for women to be raped in the prison, like in California? In California, they allow transgender men to go into the prisons, and after multiple rapes, they finally resented and changed that policy to back to where it was before. Women that are in domestic violence shelter do not have to be fearful of being raped there as well.
And that's why we need to pass this bill. I don't want young girls in public swimming areas be exposed to. Exposure is not a crime in our state at this point. It is not a crime. I want to protect the young girls in our state and I want to protect the privacy of women in violence shelters and in prisons. And again, this is exactly what President Trump did on the national level. It's what we did for the K-12 two years ago. It's worked very well in our schools. I don't think it worked very well as here. We do have, for those that are here on the fourth floor, there are four bathrooms
up there of single-style bathrooms that you can use. So if you're here in the future, be sure to go to the fourth floor and go on the opposite side of the elevators in the single-use bathrooms up there on the fourth floor. So I just want to make sure the people that are here, that those are available for them to
use when they're here in the future. With that, I would appreciate a good vote. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Committee, for your time.
Representative Bentley has closed for her bill. What are the wishes of the Committee? Representative Crawford? I make a motion. Do
pass. Representative Crawford has made a motion. Do pass. Is there
any discussion on the motion? Representative Clowney, you're
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
56:59
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, first of all, I just want to give a very genuine thank you for sitting through all of the testimony and for giving people the opportunity to be heard. I know we are all so tired, but I cannot tell you how much that means. So thank you. I also want to say that this is an issue that matters deeply to me. And so often I can get a little bit too vocal
about certain things, but I want to say loudly that Representative Bentley, I believe wholeheartedly that you are working to help children here. I also am asking you committee members to believe me when I share the following story with you. My concerns about this bill are that although it is truly, I believe, genuinely designed to protect children, to protect people. It will create the risk of violence. It will create
actual violence and harm. We have heard, again, from zero Arkansans who have encountered an issue in the bathroom that this bill is purporting to fix. We haven't even heard, we haven't heard from anybody directly. We haven't even heard claims, but I'll tell you a personal story that is true that happened. And that is my friend when I was a teenager.
And some of you have heard it before. I'm going to tell it again, and I'm going to have a hard time getting through it again, but it's worth it to me. We didn't even have words yet. We knew that he, as we called him, felt more comfortable when he dressed like a woman. And so he did. And we went to the mall one day, as kids do. Sorry, I'm really trying to hurry. And it wasn't in a bathroom, but it became clear to a man that my friend
was not born a girl. And my friend was very severely beaten. when that revelation came about. What laws like this do is they force people who look different than what one would assume they would look like if they were walking into a bathroom. People who are like my friend, who were born men, will be forced to walk into women's restrooms.
sorry, will be forced to walk into men's restrooms presenting as women. It's not abstract. It's not a hypothetical that those people will be in danger when they do so because when they do so, they will be revealing themselves as transgender. That is inherently dangerous. I wish it weren't so, but it is. I also want to give a counter example. What do you do as a parent when you see a big, burly, bearded person walk into a bathroom right after your daughter has?
If that person was born a woman, this law would require that if there were not a single stalled bathroom in the facility they were in. It's not hypothetical, it's not abstract to believe that that person would be in danger. They would be. We know that trans people are four times more likely to be victims of violent crime, to be victims of sexual assault, than non-trans people. This bill, we have heard not one actual instance of harm that this bill would solve.
I have given you one. We heard others. Instances of harm this bill would create. That is what a yes vote will do. I do not think it's a sponsor's intention. I never would. But just please believe me that that is the truth. I would really appreciate a no vote. You may not like or understand that trans people exist, but they do and they will continue to. This bill will cause violence against them. Thank you. Any other discussion on the motion?
Seeing no other discussion on the motion, we have a—Prepresentative Crawford, did you
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:01:41
have discussion on the motion? I do. Okay, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And it's not my intention to hurt anyone or for
anyone to get hurt. But I have here not gone to the bathroom because a man with a dress walked into the women's bathroom.
I have turned around and left. So we're
looking, I don't think we can weigh this to where we're going to get equal. I don't think we are. Once again, I don't want anyone hurt. But at the same time, I don't want to go to the bathroom with a man in a dress. If there was another way to fix it, that would be great.
But for that reason and for the reason of little girls being able to go to the bathroom and being protected, then I will be a yes. Any other discussion on the motion? Representative
Annette, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
1:02:56
just simply want to go on record and say I'm going to no vote. Thank you. Any other discussion on the motion? Representative Rose, you're recognized.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:03:10
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just briefly, Representative Clowney, thank you for sharing
your story. Nicole, I don't think anybody on this committee or in this room thinks it's the right thing for anybody to be beaten for anything like what you guys experienced. So I just want to say I think we all disagree with the choices that were made by the people who caused your friend harm that day. Separately, as a father of daughters, I echo the same sentiments that Representative Crawford made. My little girls going to the bathroom, I want to feel like that is a safe place for them.
And currently, the way our law sits, a man can go in a women's bathroom and expose themselves, and it doesn't sound like there's anything that can be done. So, for those reasons, I'll be voting yes. Any other discussion on the motion?
Seeing no other discussion on the motion, we do have a motion due pass. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. The ayes have it. Roll call. There's a motion for a roll call. I see two hands. Call the roll.
Speaker 147
1:04:19
Representative Meeks. Yes. Present. Representative Meeks? Present. Representative Wardlaw? Representative Wardlaw? Representative Berry? Yes. Representative Berry? Yes. Representative Mayberry? No. Representative Mayberry? No. Representative Crawford? Yes. Representative Crawford? Yes. Representative Clowney? No. Representative Clowney? No. Representative Collins? No. Representative Collins? No. Representative Evans?
Representative Evans? Representative Innit? No. Representative Innit? No. Representative McElroy? Representative McElroy? Representative Ray? Yes. Representative Ray? Yes. Representative Beatty? Yes. Representative Beatty? Yes. Representative Carr? Yes. Representative Carr? Yes. Representative Underwood? Yes. Representative Underwood? Yes. Representative Long? Yes. Yes.
Representative Long. Yes. Representative Hark. Representative Hark. Yes. Representative Hark. Yes. Representative Hark. Yes. Representative Rose. Yes. Representative Rose. Yes. Representative Waldridge. Representative Waldridge. Representative Beck. Yes. Representative Beck. Yes. Representative Beck. Yes. Congratulations, the bill is passed.
All right, next we have,
I talked with Senator Clark, but I don't see him here. I think he may be
on his way. Looks like he's got two bills. Senator Dismang also has a constitutional amendment
to present, but it's my understanding he'll be here soon to do that. Senator Dotson, I saw him earlier. Representative Ray, were you going to present that bill for Senator Dotson?
I tried. And then we also had Senator Mark Johnson. Was that also you, Representative Ray? Senate Bill 569. Are we doing those
works now or do we have to wait until after we do that? I'm going
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:06:52
to ask for Senator Johnson to have to come back. Put that on the record. Sorry about that. Mr. Chairman, I was just asking what order we were going to hear these because I think
Senator Johnson is going to try and make it back to the committee at some point to help
me present his bill. Okay. So it doesn't look like, of all the bills that we have, that there's any of the sponsors here other than the two that Representative Ray is house sponsor on, but he's waiting on his Senate sponsors, is that right? Senator Dismay has texted me and said that he's across the street and will be here as quickly as he can be. So with that, this committee is going to stand in recess for 10 minutes, and we'll be back
Unknown speaker
1:07:34
once the sponsors show up. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right, members, if you would take your seats, it looks like it's been about 10 minutes. All five of you in the room.
Unknown speaker
1:18:21
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right, members, if you'd take your seats.
The committee's called back to order. The first item of business is going to be SJR 15. I see Senator Dismang in the room. I believe Representative Beatty is the House sponsor. Whichever one of you would
like to present, one or both of you, you're certainly welcome to do that. So, Senator Dismang, you're recognized. All
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:21:51
right, Senator Jonathan, Dismang, District 18.
SJR 15 is really the result of about a year's worth of work by the Attorney General's office and others that were engaged in looking to what we needed to do for economic development in the state. One of the things that we identified is that we're an outlier. We were one of the only states in the country that does not have a viable TIF district program, and at its basic core, that's what this amendment is looking to do, is reestablish what has already been passed by the voters, which are TIF districts, and expand those out to what would be called economic development districts. I think you guys have probably heard most of the discussion about what's happening with surrounding states.
For instance, Texas, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky. They all have something very similar to what's being considered in front of you today. One thing I'd like you to keep in mind is that this is not the end of the discussion. This is allowing the people to have a vote on the creation of these economic development districts. And beyond that, it allows the legislative body to put together the enabling legislation and the parameters for those economic development districts. When interest rates went to 9%, it became difficult on anyone that was looking to place an investment.
And so what do investors do when things get tight? because the old 3%, 4% interest no longer existed in things, they became not viable when they previously were. And so, as investors look around, they're looking for these types of incentives. And again, so that's what you're seeing in front of you. Again, we've had a lot of discussions about it. I think most of you all have had quite a few conversations, and I'd be happy to take questions after I turn it over to my co-sponsor.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:23:37
I just want to echo what the senator said, what Senator Dismayne has said today. We've talked
about this several times, and I'll tell you, this is transformative legislation. It's enabling legislation with the Constitution. All our neighboring states have these provisions. They're taking advantage of this. You can see the economic development in those states. You see the investment and the money going into communities. And again, this is all going to be based on the local communities and the choices that they make for their communities.
So it all goes back to your communities, communities in your district. And I think if you speak with those folks in small towns in Arkansas, sometimes this may be the only economic development, the only way they're going to get economic development money and investment
in their communities. So on that, we'll take questions. All right, Representative Meeks,
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, gentlemen, for bringing the bill.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:24:40
I have two questions. First one is just functionally how this will work. Setting up the Economic Development District, do you foresee this as the General Assembly we would set up guidelines and anybody who met those guidelines would get a district? Or do you see them, say a county or city in this circumstance, say we want to put one here in west central Faulkner County, and they would bring that specific one to the General Assembly?
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:25:11
You see kind of the difference? Yeah, these would not come to the General Assembly. Now, we will
set up the enabling legislation that will set the parameters for what these are, how they can borrow, if they can borrow, that they can abate taxes, collect additional taxes. only in that district, and that sort of thing. But it will be up to the taxing authority. So if it's a property tax that's looking to be abated, for instance, and the county would be engaged. And so the quorum court would help establish the bylaws for that specific economic development district.
If it was related to sales tax, and both the county and the city wanted to engage, they would actually have to both, the quorum court and that city, with the jurisdiction and taxing authority, would have to establish and vote and set up the bylaws the economic development district and so essentially what we're trying to do is take the cuffs off our cities right now the only thing that if a city or county wants to do to try to attract someone is to tax more they tax more to build community centers and all these other things but they really have no other path and in fact in the state of arkansas unlike all of the surrounding states that we just
talked about there is no incentive for quality of life changes so that may be housing or retail and those sorts of items. What we have on a statewide level is incentives for manufacturing and industry. And we do this every day. We've done it throughout this session. We're trying to recruit and make sure that we have competitive products for people to take a look at when they're looking to invest in manufacturing. But outside of that, the state of Arkansas does not have the ability. And I would argue that it's not our job on a state level to incentivize
retail or housing. It is on the state level to incentivize new industry and manufacturing and that sort of thing. And then
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:26:54
my follow-up question, this is really my only concern on this, having been on the audit committee, city, county, local for many, many, many years, there are communities that have gotten themselves into trouble and they're paying off loans that, you know, it'll take them 100 years to get it paid off, right? So will the General Assembly have the ability to make sure that a city is not going to get
themselves into financial trouble, or are they just going to be able to go dig themselves into debt, and that'll be somebody else's problem, or worse yet, they're going to come to the state and ask us to bail them out. So
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:27:33
that's my only other concern. The debt that would be created would be specific to the Economic Development District.
So, for instance, if an entity wanted to come in, there was going to have to be a significant amount of infrastructure improvement for them to be able to be vital. essentially you could the tax the tax collected in that particular economic development district
above the amount that was being collected in the current day could be utilized to help offset bond payments in the future for that district so the debt's going to be very specific to
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:28:12
the economic development district itself representative ray you're recognized thank you mr chairman um so
i've got a few questions um i guess i'll start on page three which is where we define the economic development districts so as i understand it an economic
development district is going to be a geographical area that's determined by whatever local community chooses to adopt these. And I think the way you all have described it, to me anyway, is that there's going to be a board that's over these districts. Who makes up the board? How are they chosen? Are these elected positions or are they appointed? And of course, we would establish what that
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:28:54
should look like in the enabling legislation, but the draft that's there now, and if we're
successful in presenting this resolution and you know it's something that we put before the people before we conclude the session I'll file the draft that we have right now for interim study but the way it's contemplated right now that that's going the bylaws are going to be created so the economic development district district and all of its parameters will be created by the taxing authority they'll be the ones to determine what that membership makeup should look like though in the enabling legislation we have there would be a requirement that someone from the district be a part of the board, but
essentially again it would be up to the taxing authority to set those
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:29:37
parameters. Okay, so that does give me some concern that if these people, if these folks
that make up the board that are making all these decisions are going to be appointed, because that to me that means they're not accountable to the voters, at least not directly. They might be indirectly if an elected officials appointing them but that's that's a big
degree of separation well I also want
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:29:59
to just in answering your question to to address that that you know in a lot of
communities it would be the city council or the quorum court that could be and and and could be the governing body over these economic development districts with the additional member that's operating and and conducting business in the district so I mean it's kind of an open-ended deal on on those boards and they
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:30:25
would be established. Okay well that would be preferable if it were if they were made up of elected folks. So going over
to page five there's language here about how the property within the
economic development district is exempt from taxation and then that's followed by the on this is on line 10 through 12. It's followed by the phrase except for taxes assessments or other charges levied by the economic development district? So I guess I'm asking if you can expound on what that means. Does this mean that the economic development district is going
to be able to levy taxes? Based on
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:31:06
the bylaws, as passed by the quorum court or the
municipal entity, depending on who the taxing authority is, yes. But they're the ones that are going to set the parameters. And the reason that you would do that is, again, I'll go back the infrastructure uh you know decision so if there's an infrastructure need that's that's for that district for a specific entity to come in they would be allowed to collect the taxes above the taxes that are being collected today and have those dollars bonded so they could get the infrastructure improvements needed for that specific district and and that taxing authority
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:31:40
would just be within that specified boundary of that economic development district for the for for
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:31:46
the folks that are operating in that district. - Okay, but if a district, let's
say the district encompassed the whole town or half of the town or something, they could levy a tax on all of the businesses and/or individuals living inside that district? - I mean, I think you're going to, I
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:32:09
mean, that would not be a prudent thing to do, right?
I don't see any scenario in which the citizens of a town or the citizens of a county say, make us all an economic development district because every one of those folks that establish the economic development district are subject to the vote of the people. And so all the public input and all those other things that would be required to be able to pass this through a normal legislative process are going to exist. And so I just don't see that being a plausible scenario. I mean, I agree with the senator.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:32:43
The whole point of this is to seek investment and to stir community development and economic development and to go in and then levy a tax on the entire town to raise taxes on everyone in the town would be counterproductive to the actual intent of the legislation. So I don't think you would see that. I mean, everyone in the town would revolt and vote against and vote everyone out of office that
did that. so I would think that that would be absurd.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:33:13
- Okay, so you're saying it's possible but unlikely. - I don't think there'll be every scenario that that
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:33:22
plays out, no. - Okay. - And I echo that, I
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:33:26
think that's reaching far out. - Okay, are the districts, the boards of the districts, are they gonna be subject
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:33:32
to Freedom of Information Act? - Yes, they're gonna be a governing body, qualified governmental, so they would be. Okay. I'll hop out if
Speaker 187
1:33:43
there's other people that have questions.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:33:46
Representative Hawke, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple questions, and these are things that I've been asked, and so I'm going to pass it on to you. You know, data centers have been a thing this session, right, that everybody's talked about. This bill is not
in line to help prop up data centers, is it, or isn't it? we just recently amended so we were
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:34:09
the first state in the country to create incentives for data centers and since we were the first every other state mimicked what we did and improved
upon it and so very recently both chambers passed a bill for data centers this has nothing to do with data centers i mean that that is not the intent this has to do with empowering local communities to recruit and
Speaker 190
1:34:32
attract the businesses that will improve the quality of
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:34:36
life for those citizens. Yeah, absolutely nothing to do with data centers. This is, again, is about economic development and these small towns, you know, number of calls that come in, as in my role in
CrossFit on the Economic Development Foundation. The folks that come to town, we're dealing with folks right now that have moved in to open an equipment dealership there, actually getting paperwork filed for them today at the capitol uh and and the first thing they ask are what incentives do you have what what can what what are the incentives that you can offer and you know what that answer is that answer is nothing we have nothing that we can offer as far as an incentive now the economic development foundation that i'm a member of we have some resources that we can
contribute to that but as far as the city or the community there's nothing that we can do on this So this is to address that need, because in addition to the equipment dealership, they're also going to open a retail shop there, an automotive parts store there, too. So, I mean, there's nothing we can have. This is going to allow us to incentivize those folks, help them turn a profit sooner, and maybe attract more businesses that hear about what we're able to do. I guess that leads me to my next question, because, I mean, I'm
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:35:52
much like you, I've always been, economic development's been one of my things, and like in Bryant, what we've been able to do is we would say, if somebody wanted to come to us, Buc-ee's, for example, is coming to Benton, the grand opening's tomorrow, if anybody wants to come.
So it's, you know, we were able to say we're going to be able to put your water, wastewater lines in and things like that. And that was an incentive. And granted, taxpayers are paying for that, but that was an incentive that we were able to give. When we're talking about taxes that would be incentivized, are we
just talking about like sales tax? Are we talking property tax? What are we talking, or does that commission make, kind of dictate what
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:36:31
that would look like? No, it's sales
tax, property tax. And I mean, to your Bucky's example, the entire city paid for that development's infrastructure.
This bill, the way that it's written, that development would pay for its own infrastructure through the increased taxation, bonding, whatever it may take to develop
that infrastructure. To me, that's a fair way to have a development. Thank you. Representative
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:37:00
Woodridge, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Representative, for bringing this bill. So the way I look at this and I read this, this doesn't function much different than AEDC currently functions, correct, at the state level?
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:37:14
It would allow cities to make the same type of decisions that we make, and we
have an authority, a board that's appointed, that makes those decisions through the executive branch, but on a county or city level. Absolutely.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:37:25
So to all the concerns that have been posed by members of this committee, I mean, this is happening at a state level. We're just now saying that we're going to give a local community the authority to partner with the people we've already given the authority with at the state level to say maybe there's a combination
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:37:42
here that makes us more attractive. Is that fair? Well, I think that's fair, but the other key part of
this is right now at the state level, at AEDC, if it's not creating a manufacturing job, there's zero.
There's nothing going into these projects. This will allow the communities in Arkansas, the small towns, and it will put everyone on an equal playing field for economic development and investment in their community and job creation. This is a job creation bill. You're making my point, Representative, with a
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:38:09
little bit of latitude, Mr. Chair. That's the point I'm trying to make. You know, I represent many parts of
the state that are rural. As you both know, I know you're both from rural Arkansas. I love rural Arkansas. So I choose to live there, but we've got to have every opportunity that we can create not only as a state,
but for ourselves to have some skin in the game and try to get manufacturing, but not only manufacturing, which is done through the tax back incentives and the sales tax returns and all those kind of things. But we've got to have the ability to create opportunities for ourselves. I know quorum courts can do that somewhat now through payment in lieu of taxes programs and all of those different incentives. So this is not a foreign or new concept. You're just trying to level the playing field as I read it and understand it to say that every community that wants to participate in this district can be as active as they want to be in creating opportunity.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:39:00
Is that correct? I think you're 100% correct. That's the intent of this bill. And I
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:39:08
use the example, you know, Corning, Arkansas. Love Corning. We've got a manufacturer that has moved to Corning in the last few months. We've got a duck decoy manufacturer now. They moved from up north into Arkansas. They're creating jobs. AEDC and the Intermodal Authority in Northeast Arkansas played a vital role in getting those folks to relocate. I was speaking with the owner of that facility last week.
Had it not been for the economic development incentives that the state of Arkansas offered, they couldn't have afforded to come here. But we've got opportunities now to grow and expand on that industry that has moved into our community, but there's no means by which we can expand on that. this would create that opportunity as I read it, correct? That's correct.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:39:50
I mean, manufacturing is important because it creates jobs, but quality of life to be able to hold the jobs there is equally as important. You see that in northeast Arkansas right now. That's right. We've got a lot of job creation in northeast Arkansas
with people that aren't living in the state of Arkansas. And those communities need to be able to develop and have the economic incentives to attract those folks, to call that northeast Arkansas home, not Memphis, or wherever they may be traveling from. Absolutely.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:40:18
Thank you, gentlemen. Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So you said a minute ago, I think, Senator Dismang, that this applied really to property and sales taxes. So I want to ask, because the way it's written, it says that the property shall be exempt from taxation,
except for taxes, assessments, or other charges that are levied. And I guess, to me, it seems like it could go potentially broader than just those two categories, and I want to see if that is your intent. I don't know, you know, if there's capital gains tax on property
within there or inventory tax, and if not, why would those
Speaker 203
1:40:58
not be? Inventory tax could be because that's subject to property
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:41:02
tax. Capital gain tax is GR, cities can't levy a capital gains tax, for instance.
That's not anything that's authorized by our state laws. It's not possible or plausible that they could do that. Essentially, I mean, the framework would be one that we followed with the other states. So essentially, if you've got a piece of property, whatever the taxation is on that property would be frozen. And that's the reason you're creating this new taxation or unit. So it's frozen at that. And whoever is receiving those tax dollars at that frozen level would continue to receive those tax dollars. So they're not losing out on something that they would have otherwise earned or achieved or received.
The amount above that, which would be subject to either abatement or collection for bonding or for infrastructure improvement and that sort
of thing, and that's why it's worded that way and that we fleshed out
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:41:52
in the enabling legislation. Well, and I understand the enabling legislation may do something different, but I mean,
I guess it's not just the county taxation or the local taxation here. it says exempt from taxation. Does that mean
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:42:04
state taxes? No. There is no GR or state taxes in no way at all.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:42:11
Well, help me understand then, because it says that the property shall be exempt from taxation. So why does that mean just local taxation? Because
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:42:21
that's all those taxing authorities would be able to do. I mean, they don't have the authority to collect income taxes
or capital gain taxes or anything else. The taxing authority is limited to its
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:42:36
own taxation. But the property located within the district shall be exempt from taxation. It just doesn't limit it to local taxation.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:42:44
What other entity would place a tax on that property outside of the voters of that county or that city? Well, there are state
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:42:55
taxes that could apply to property within that district, right? I mean, so
income tax, for example. Well, but property is a thing. It is. I'm
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:43:04
just trying to understand the scope. If the property is exempt from taxation, that's having to do with property taxes.
Yeah. A property doesn't bear income taxes. The entity bears income taxes. Well, sales taxes,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:43:19
I mean. Sales tax is not on property either. Your sales tax is on sales in a transaction. Right, but you're saying that this
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:43:28
would apply to sales taxes? The other provisions would allow them to collect the sales tax from the remitting authority, yes. But as far as what you're reading here, the property exempt from taxation, that deals specifically with property.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:43:39
Okay, so it's not a zone within which all taxes are. Right, that's correct. Okay, got it. Thanks.
All right, I have a couple of questions. So I'm familiar with, for example, in Greene County we have the Economic Development Corporation. That's a private nonprofit corporation that works for economic development in Greene County. Other communities have these types of organization. I think about the city of Truman, northeast Arkansas, for example, has the Truman Industrial Development Commission. It has its own set of bylaws. I think it was given some money by the state many years ago. They still have some of that money which had to be used for certain purposes. And then there's already, as I recall, incentives that exist that allow cities and counties to
offer incentives for economic development projects. But one of the things that they have to do is a cost-benefit analysis. And so similar to Representative Meeks' concern, we already have entities, number one, I think, that are doing this. And so I guess my first question would be, how do you distinguish what you're trying to do here from the entities that already exist that are working in this space locally? That'd be question one.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:44:50
Go ahead. Answering question one, you know, one of the primary differences is that those entities
are partnering with AEDC and the state, and that cost-benefit analysis you're talking about is more or less something that AEDC calculates to make certain that it's prudent for state investment in those properties. The other thing that would be a big difference here is all of those decisions that AEDC makes are around manufacturing jobs and investments. The number of jobs that folks are going to actually manage and produce goods is not related to services. It's not related to retail or retail jobs, you know, a dollar general housing or anything else.
It has to be a manufacturing job. So that's the huge
difference. Okay, so, you know,
in response to that, I think the concern remains, so if someone creates an economic development district, I say someone, governmental entities come together, they create an economic development district to bring in an industry of some type, whatever that may be. they approve a tax to help fund that, sales or property tax, and the industry goes bust.
And all the jobs that they thought they were gonna create don't materialize. That's why we have that cost-benefit analysis at the state level, as I recall, is to make sure that communities don't essentially overextend themselves and impose taxes or give away incentives for a project that's not gonna be ultimately bare out. The costs are gonna outweigh the benefits. So I guess what I would ask is,
how can we ensure with these economic development districts that those concerns don't materialize? - Well, it's only specific to
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:46:47
the economic development district. So there's not gonna be some increased taxation over an entire locality. it's for the district and for the benefit of the district. So if something happens in that district, it's localized to the district itself. So if there's an abatement of taxes, for instance, that would exist that cannot be done right now to attract someone in, that abatement only impacts that specific district
and that industry that was looking to locate there or that entity. I mean, industry is really not the right word. I mean, what we're talking about, again, is housing, retail, those sorts of
things, but it would only be specific to that district.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:47:24
- And a follow-up, kind of going back into this, the entire purpose of this is to attract business. So to come out and levy a tax, create an economic development district, and then slap an additional tax
out there on that district is, again, gonna be counterproductive. Folks aren't gonna move into a district
that's gonna have an additional higher tax than what they could have in another part of town. This is to incentivize the investment in these districts. So as
opposed to tax, you see incentives as being how these economic development districts will work to recruit business. Is that right? Much similar to what
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:48:00
we have in place, which is abatement. We do a lot of abatement in the state of Arkansas because we cannot compete with our surrounding states that have zero income tax or a lower sales tax or manufacturing rebates that we don't have or you name it.
And so we do a lot of abatement. So it's not just the collection of new taxes. It's also about abatement,
and I'll elaborate on that if you want to, because it's an example that every one of us sees. If you have driven to Dallas, and you look and see what's happening in Texarkana, Arkansas, and you cross that line, and you see what's happening in Texarkana, Texas, who I think we would have both agreed were fairly conservative states, right? Which one is growing? Which one has all of the retail? Which one has all of the restaurants?
Which one has all of the housing? Texas. Why? Because they have this program and we do not. And so they're able to create incentives to lure people, even though we don't have income tax in Texarkana, Texas, I mean, Arkansas. We can compete there, but we cannot compete because of the programs that they have. Okay. And
then I have, I guess, one final question. So I know the term TIF has been thrown around a little bit. And my understanding is that we already have TIFs in Arkansas. In fact,
Paragould, I think, was one of the first cities in the state that actually utilized a TIF to help bring in a multi-screen movie theater. And this was many years ago. If TIFs already exist and communities are already able to use a tax increment financing, you know, to help bring in these types of projects, why do
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:49:42
we need this? There was a court ruling that undid
TIF. And so if you had an existing project, it stands today, it was allowed to continue. If you have an incredibly high property taxing area, for instance, Pulaski County, occasionally a TIF district can be viable.
But outside of that, TIF districts are not a viable option in the
state because of court ruling. Gotcha. Thank you
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:50:06
very much. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple quick follow-ups. So you
said the districts are going to be subject to Freedom of Information Act. the boards, are they going to be subject to audit like we do school districts and towns and
Speaker 184
1:50:22
all of that? I don't believe we'd sign up
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:50:26
legislative audit for that, but if I'm the legislative authority, we're a legislative authority, right?
And we deem that things should be audited, that a municipality or that county could have the same requirement for their economic development district. I mean, I think you'd want there to be activity in one before you'd require an audit, but that is part of the bylaws and, in fact, something if we wanted
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:50:49
to, we could make part of the enabling legislation. Okay, so that would be dependent on what the body passes out as enabling legislation. Okay. So, you know, I guess this is just a general observation from the last several sessions.
It seems like if you're a business or an industry in Arkansas and you're savvy enough to hire a capable lobbyist, you can get the legislature to pass a tax credit or an incentive to benefit your industry. If we extend all of this down to the local level, it just seems like we're going to proliferate all of this sort of rent-seeking activity. Do you share that concern at all?
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:51:30
Representative Ray, you know I have high praise and high respect for you,
And I don't share that concern at all. I think a lot of the incentives that we see for large industry coming to the state, such as some that we voted on this session, are huge investments in the state. Billion dollar investments plus, 3
billion, 400 jobs that are going to employ people in South Arkansas, primarily the one that I'm speaking of now. And
that's going to be transformative for those communities. Those folks are going to come in, they're going to get above average pay. and they're going to need to live somewhere.
They're going to stimulate economic development, housing, and when you bring those folks in, something that, again, going back and harping on South Arkansas and rural counties, when you have that investment, goods and services follow. So community development based on that, and just the turnover of the investment in the improvements in plant and property, And those 400 jobs coming to town, it's gonna transform that community.
So that money's not for waste. It is a good usage of that money, especially considering the company's gonna invest $3 billion. So I don't have that concern that this is gonna trickle down and impede or cause problems or harm there. - Okay, thank you. - And if you don't mind, I'd respond because you
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:52:56
and I have had these conversations. If we were in a perfect world, All 50 states would sign a compact, and we'd do away with all of the incentives, and we'd all complete straight up on our taxation.
But we don't live in that perfect world, and so we have to compete. And investors move their money where it makes the most sense. Again, Texarkana is this most blatant example of what you see if you live on a border city. I think you see it elsewhere, too. And if we're not competing, we're losing. Again, I wish it wasn't the way that it is, but it is for now. And I don't see that changing any time in the near future, especially when every one of our surrounding states have these programs in place.
Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I just want to, again,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:53:51
two more questions. First one, a follow-up on something you said. As Representative Beatty knows, I had one of my constitutional amendments that tried to phase out personal property tax, at least give the General Assembly the authority to do that over time. The big lift there is a lot of that goes to schools. And based upon a question I think Representative Ray asked, I just want to make sure that we establish these districts, the personal property tax and the regular property tax
that the school district was receiving, they will still receive that, correct? So we won't be touching that. That's correct. And again, so
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:54:28
those will be frozen. They'll continue to receive what they receive. And again, this all has to be in our enabling legislation, but this is the way that it's drawn up right now. Anything above that, for instance, that economic development district could determine through the quorum court who sets up the bylaws. I mean, is it an abatement for five years? Is it an abatement for ten years? It is what makes sense based on what the return needs to be to lure that investment.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:54:53
Okay. And then my follow-up, we've been talking about the jobs issue, and I've been through Texarkana many times, and you're right, it's obvious. So we've kind of talked about these, whether they're data centers or if we have a widget factory come in, right now the way technology is going in the next 10 years, robots are going to be running all those, and you will have very few people actually working there. Is there any requirements, and I guess it would be in the enabling legislation, on the
jobs aspect of this, or what benefit would be needed to come to the community in order for this to be viable? Is it, hey, we've got to have so many jobs for this to happen, we've got to have so much economic development, we've got to, what's kind of the criteria you're thinking of that in order for one of these to become viable this benefit has to come back to the community be
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:55:52
specific to the district right i mean it's whatever i mean if it's tried to alleviate
blight in a you know a city block that could be what it's used for is i mean that may be the sole purpose is let's get rid of the blight in that area you have structures there that are full of asbestos or whatever it may be and they are never going to be viable because it does not make financial sense for someone with our current tax structure in the state of Arkansas to come in and redo those. I mean, I used to represent Stuttgart, Arkansas. There is a beautiful hotel in downtown Stuttgart, Arkansas. I think it sold for a few hundred dollars. And people still to this day,
and I've been there in a little while, hopefully it's changed, can't figure out how to turn that into something that's going to be profitable. But the city of Stuttgart can't lose that building. It's part of its heritage. And what they would hope to do is be able to create the incentives to bring someone in to say, we want to turn that around and we're going to make that work. And again, it may be, but what would be hampering a project like that is, let's see someone seize that hotel, they've got a hundred bucks in it, and they dump a million, two million dollars worth of reinvestment and redo. And it goes up in property tax and it's reassessed for that one to two million dollars.
This would allow that city or that county taxing authority to say, hey, we want to prioritize this, we're going to evade the taxes,
and we're going to help create an incentive to rebuild this hotel. Thank you. Representative
Hawk, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Dismayne, did I hear you say just a
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:57:25
minute ago that this would also include housing? Absolutely. We
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:57:30
have a housing crisis up in northwest Arkansas probably more so than anywhere else.
And when you have a 9% construction loan or 8% construction loan or whatever it may be, it is almost impossible to make it work with what people have to spend on housing. So again, I'll go back to the example. Let's say Northwest Arkansas somewhere wants to create a housing development, trying to hold costs as low as they can because they have to have it because they need the employees in that part of the world, right? Essentially, they could abate property taxes on a housing development for five years, and maybe that's what attracts someone to come in and be able to hold rent rates to a level
that's affordable for the workers in that area. Just as an example, there may be other ways to make that
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:58:12
work. I guess my question, though, is that we're really talking more about for, like,
landlords and renters. We're not talking about housing to where they could go build a neighborhood and sell houses and tell somebody, hey, you're
Speaker 243
1:58:23
not going to have property taxes on this house for five years if you buy this house. Well, you
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:58:31
could see that. Let's take the steel industry up in northeast Arkansas. They need housing. Go through Blytheville. Look and see what's there.
If that area could exempt their property taxes for a set number of years to lure people to come in to be able to build housing, develop neighborhoods, they should have the ability to do that.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:58:51
I mean, I would agree with you to an extent, but I mean, you know, I mean, a lot of the property tax, when we're talking about, and you and I are both in the housing realm, But a lot of times, one of the biggest things that we hear from people in our towns is the property taxes go to pay our schools.
You know, the biggest thing since we've passed LEARNS, which, once again, I was four, but you hear people say, well, people are coming to our schools, but those folks aren't paying property taxes to use our facilities and do everything like that. But then we have a bill like this to where we're going to exempt property taxes for our
housing. And then those folks are now going to live there. They're still going to be going to our schools, and they're not going to be providing for our schools. Would you agree that that's a fair statement?
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:59:39
A vacant lot's value to that school is minimal.
A exempted property for five years, and again, these are all just made up. It's what the development district would enable through their charter of the district. in five years is much better than the 10-year or forever vacant lot value, right? So if there's a structure on that, maybe it's exempt for taxation for three years or whatever, again, they would decide in their bylaws, that long-term outcome for that school district is much better than it would otherwise be.
And again, we're kind of just making up examples at this point, and we keep kind of harping on property taxes, but it's sales taxes and other issues
like that too, or other possibilities. Yeah, I just look at, I mean, there's not sales
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:00:25
tax on houses, right? I mean, you're strictly paying the property taxes. And so I'm just trying
to run this through my head that if we're going to go, most of the time, I wouldn't imagine that one of these groups goes and says, okay, lot 22 is going to be exempt, lot 13 is going to, it's going to be a big, it's going to be a neighborhood
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:00:44
essentially that they're going to block off exactly and so it you know it can be as small as one building it could be you know 200 300 acres i mean
it is what the district wants and what the enabling body decides that they want i think the key is though that the property tax that they're receiving right now for the school that that's protected they're going to continue to receive that so it's it's not going to be a decrease in funding for those entities and you don't mind
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:01:15
your need in benton bryant is incredibly different than need in pocahontas arkansas oh and allowing these taxing areas i mean so a county city whoever it is to do what
they specifically need to do for their area is what's key and so what you're hearing i don't
think there's any shortage of housing construction in benton bryant right we've got our fair share but I mean,
Speaker 250
2:01:38
I would agree with you. Yes, right. Well, or demand. Maybe that's what I should
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:01:43
say. You're not trying to create demand in Benton Bryant area from everything that I
know. Anyway, that is not the case in other parts of this state. And again, allowing each jurisdiction to have their authority to create an economic development district with the needs identified that, you know, for their specific area, I think is what we have to again, what none of this has to happen. A city or county could say we don't want to a part of any of this and that is perfectly fine no one is mandating economic development districts we're just creating opportunity and to
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:02:16
be clear you know this is just a resolution to send to
to the people thousand percent to to then ultimately say whether they want this or not absolutely this is not going to be something if this passes that we say you know this
Speaker 254
2:02:36
is going to be law i mean there's layers to this correct lots of layers okay thank
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
2:02:41
you representative long you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a couple of questions for you. The first one, if you establish a district and there's already businesses in that newly established district, would all the tax advantages flow to
the existing businesses or would it only be for
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:02:59
new businesses that move in? That would be up to the economic development district, but Politics would
say that everyone that's encompassed in that district is going to share in the same benefits of the district, right? I mean, I think it wouldn't be viable for, you know, someone to take something to the city council to punish one set of businesses in a district to advantage the other. I just don't think that would be a viable way to do it. I mean, you can think of it because I think you're familiar with opportunity zones are all across the state. And if you look at where investment is incurring in the state of Arkansas today, there are only two places that are thriving outside of, I'm sorry for the folks, northwest Arkansas.
North Little Rock, everything that's happening in North Little Rock, why do you think that's happening there? It's in an opportunity zone. Out here, what do they call it, East End?
I may be wrong on the name. Why is all that happening out there? Why is all that development happening out there? All those retail spots and everything that's going out there, why is that going there? It's in an opportunity zone. That's because when investors park their dollars and make investments, they're looking for the highest
return possible. And the second one that I didn't mention is historic districts. And being able to utilize both the federal and state incentives on historic districts. Boca Hunters is a great example.
They started utilizing the historic district around the downtown area. And the next thing you know, buildings that had not been open since I was a kid have businesses in them. Why is that happening? High interest rates demand that people park the dollars where it creates the most opportunity for return. Those are the only two
opportunities we have right now as a state to incentivize retail or sales, that sort of
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
2:04:35
housing, all those sorts of things. Okay. So that leads to my second question. If the existing business is now exempted from property tax because that's what they decided to do,
if you could explain to me how that money is made up for the public schools, Because you mentioned it earlier, but I didn't quite follow. It's like, you know, I guess I just don't understand how you explained it. If you could try one more time.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:05:00
The amount collected in the current day. So today is frozen, right? So
if property tax is $10, that school district is going to continue to receive its $10 or its portion of the $10. And who
Speaker 225
2:05:13
gives that $10? The, yeah, right, just like we would. The owner of the property.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
2:05:18
Okay, I'm sorry. I thought they were exempted from all property tax. No,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:05:21
that's what the Senator was trying to say, is that property tax, what they're collecting now is frozen. They'll continue to pay that. The owner will continue to pay that tax in so no one's taking a loss on what they're receiving as of that date. Okay, thank you. Representative Woldridge,
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator, you made the point that I was
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
2:05:42
trying to make a while ago when you talked about Mississippi County and the steel mill. So the way I see it, we have programs in place that have led to one of the greatest economic investments in the state of Arkansas, and that's the steel mill.
But it seems to me, and again, I've got a short-term knowledge of this and how this works at the state level, but it seems to me that there is a piece of that puzzle that's missing because the last I checked when I was over there at a committee meeting, the problem that they still have is, yes, there's all kinds of economic incentives that got the steel mill located in Mississippi County, but they can't get anyone that's able to live there because there's not a mechanism in place currently that allows that economic development in the local community. This would allow that, right?
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:06:28
Yet quality of life is huge for what people want to call home at the end of the day. And so
you can't manufacture that overnight, but we need
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
2:06:38
to have incentives that would help create it. So this, in essence, would allow communities to ultimately become competitive, right? So they get to decide how aggressive they want to be in attracting people
Speaker 261
2:06:49
to move into their communities, correct? That's
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
2:06:51
absolutely correct. So that would follow suit then to, I guess in my opinion, the way this body has operated historically,
or at least in three years that I've been here, and how we've been aggressive as a state. We've created business-friendly laws. We've created economic incentives. And we've decided that we want to make tourism a focus. We want to make inbound migration a focus. We want people to come to Arkansas to live here and call home because that eases the tax burden for all Arkansans because the pie doesn't change, just the number of people helping contribute and pay the bills, right? That's absolutely right.
So ultimately, we would be replicating what we've done as a state at
the local level if a community chooses. Yes,
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:07:35
and if you don't mind, I'll elaborate on that because I think it
speaks to some of the conversation. Because, again, I'll go back to Representative Long because I know he's familiar with opportunity zones based on a bill he filed. So what is an opportunity zone? How did it get established? It was set by the federal government. The governor at that time essentially drew circles around an area based on a demographic of that area. I mean, they're different. So Searcy has an opportunity zone that encompasses Harding University and some of the most valuable property in the city, right?
This allows cities to create their own opportunity zones or counties. And who knows better where the need is than those cities or counties? Like, we don't think of opportunity zones as being a bad thing. I don't think that they are. They create investment in places that need investment that wouldn't otherwise exist generally. This allows cities and counties who knew better than probably the governor at the time that was drawing circles around a demographic area to say what they need and where they need it.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
2:08:37
Absolutely. And that's the way I read this bill. That's the way I see this bill. Again, I know this is just a resolution to send out for a vote of the people, but to me this creates an opportunity to fill a void that doesn't exist. And I
appreciate you bringing the bill forward. All right, just a couple more questions. So, you know, certainly I see the potential for transformative potential that this legislation has. You know, so many deals, as Senator Dismay mentioned, are so close.
If you could just give them a little bit more incentive, they would actually work. There are so many things, like the hotel you mentioned, that it's real close to working, but when you run the numbers on it, it just doesn't quite work. And if you could give them an incentive, there's a lot of things that you can do. And I certainly understand that, appreciate that, and there's a lot of potential there. But when you bring these projects local, one of the concerns I have, we've talked about to the real estate standpoint and subdivisions or lots and housing and on and on, the more local you get, you have the potential for cronyism.
People set up an economic development district to benefit their friends. So what type of
safeguards are we going to have in place to make sure that that doesn't happen? First and
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:09:54
foremost, you have a vote of the people, right? I mean, all these elected
officials are as accountable as we are for the decisions that we make and what we incentivize and what we don't incentivize as a state, except it's on a local level for them. I mean, so I would say the same thing is true for us. I mean, what keeps us in line, right, really it's the people back home.
And if we get out of line and the incentives we create or how specific they are, whatever
it may be, we're probably not going to come back. Okay, and so then that kind of brings me to the other point that I talked about earlier. We've talked about enabling legislation, so I'm guessing for some of the concerns that have been mentioned, take the cronyism for instance, that can be dealt with in enabling legislation. Is that fair? That's fair, absolutely. And then, you know, we talked about the cost-benefit analysis. Those types of concerns could be dealt with in enabling legislation?
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:10:49
Absolutely. Some of it will be written, some of it will be unspoken. And if you're going to bond a project, I can guarantee you those
people that are going to underwrite those bonds are going to
ensure that you've got a viable project. Okay. And then I guess one of my last points is, you know, when we talk about the economic development space and you referenced this kind of on the state level, you know, the fact is other states are doing, they're offering certain incentives. Mississippi has incentives. Tennessee has incentives. What are we doing in Arkansas? So at some point when you get into the incentives game and you referenced just eliminating it all and, you know, standing on your own merit, if you will, that's not realistic.
But the point is, is that you kind of create this race to the bottom where who can offer the most today? And so, you know, what do you say to that concern or criticism with regard to, you know, this type of legislation?
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:11:41
It's almost a repeat, I think, of what maybe I've already said.
We're not operating in a perfect world. We're operating in a world that is full of incentives, and every one of our surrounding states have a similar program in place. Now, this is a little bit different because it would allow smaller communities to participate,
whereas some of these others in other states don't allow smaller communities to participate at all. But again, I don't really see it as a race to the bottom. I mean, if we're creating incentives, creating jobs, creating opportunity, improving quality of life, That's not a race to the bottom to me. We're just operating in an imperfect world. It is, I mean, I would like capitalism and free markets to be with rules. Unfortunately, unless we get every one of our surrounding states
to sign that compact, which they're not going to do, then we have to compete.
I want to be clear. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I understand. I'm just raising these points for the sake of discussion in some part. So, anyway, Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you. just
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:12:44
wanted to bring it back real quickly to something that you said earlier about how in North Little Rock there were, you know, there was a growing area and it was partly because of the Opportunity Zone there. I also want to mention it's because of a TIF that's there. And so I just wanted to bring that home and that also ties back with what Representative Gassaway said
regarding a race at the bottom. I don't think Argena North Little Rock would say it's been a race at the bottom in
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:13:14
their experience. Thanks. Representative Underwood, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, thank you for taking all the time to answer all our questions. There's been some good questions asked, and I just want to—one of the criteria that I have when we ranked the constitutional amendments that we heard was the likelihood that voters would approve it on the ballot. I think Representative Ray, that was one of the reasons why I put his up near the top, was I felt strongly that they would support it.
He also brought some polling with him and indicated that this would be supported. Also, other states had supported it. I do think, based off some of the questions that's been asked, it's somewhat complicated. And so my question is, or what I'd like you to respond to is, I do not want to refer something out to the people that they're not going to approve. And so I would like you to respond on the likelihood that they would vote for this.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:14:02
The people have already approved it. The court struck down the significant portions of the TIF that we had in place, which was approved by the people.
So I think it's something that's already happened once. I think it would happen again. And
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:14:18
that's my opinion. And I would share that and echo those same comments. I think in the end, you know, dealing in this fear in a small town, I get the comments all the time. What about, what about, you know, retail? What about a restaurant? What about, you know, why don't we have another clothing store or a Marshalls or something like that or a TJ Maxx?
I mean, those are the things the folks in CrossFit, Arkansas are talking about, are retail investments. And we have nothing to attract those. And this is going to enable us to pursue those investments in rural South Arkansas. and i think once people understand that they'll be supportive of this of this um this measure it's about what the people want and what the community wants and it's going to enable enable
economic and community development this is overall community development representative beck you're
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
2:15:21
recognized thank you mr chair so this is going to be almost one of those Wouldn't you agree or maybe not agree, Adam? But I think, don't you think that this puts the power more local into the community? And it just seems like the community would be more trusting of their local mayor than they would like someone down here at the state level.
So I think it would be, I think it would give them more latitude. I think they'd better understand what that individual economic district would be and therefore maybe a little bit more accepted
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:15:56
to this. So those communities and those elected officials in those communities know
what the needs are, right? The needs in Northwest Arkansas are vastly different than the needs in Central Arkansas, which are vastly different than the needs in South Arkansas. And allowing each one of these communities, if they choose, and if this passes with a vote of the people and we
pass the enabling legislation, to tailor a solution I think is critical.
Okay, to follow up on that, so there's not a limitation on the type of projects. So, for example, one of the things that I've seen across communities across Arkansas, literally bar none, is there are dilapidated houses and buildings that cities just don't have the ability to get rid of. They don't have the money to take them down. They're blighted. The citizens complain about them all the time, and the cities just don't have the means with which to deal with them. If they could offer incentives to developers to come in and take those eyesores down, clean up their community,
is that something that would be a potential under this legislation? 100%. Okay, in addition to retail projects and a lot of other things that we've talked about, is that
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:17:04
right? That's absolutely right. A community is going to know what's possible and then also what is needed. All right, thank you. Any
other questions about the committee? Seeing no other questions by the
committee, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Senator Disman, you recognize a close for your bill.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:17:25
It's an incredible conversation. I appreciate you all having it. I appreciate the
questions. I think they're important. I mean, these are the same type of questions we'll have if you all approve this to be referred to the people. There was a question about will this pass? It will pass if those that are engaged choose to be engaged, whether it be cities and counties, to our economic developers across the state that are begging for help to be able to attract and compete with our surrounding states. Again, I appreciate
the time, and I think this is a worthy item
for us to refer out
to the people of Arkansas. - Senator
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:18:01
Dismak, Representative Bate, do you have comments? - I just echo what Senator, again, what the
Senator said, and would say that this is, again, transformative legislation that's gonna enable communities to be involved engaged on what they want in their communities and entice and get investment there to improve the quality of life and the quality of their communities. But to also restate what the center has said, the only way this
passes is with the buy-in of small town mayors, county judges, and the communities. They have to see the merit in in this legislation and engage and lean in. And if not, then it won't be successful at the polls. But it's very important and it's transformative. It's going to empower and it's going to change the face of many of our communities. All right, Senator Dismang and
Representative Beatty have closed for the bill. What are the
wishes of the committee? Representative Beatty has made
a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on that motion? Representative Woodridge,
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
2:19:10
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And again, thank you for bringing this. I think I fail to see or have the concerns that some have mentioned with this legislation. I think it's a great opportunity. I live in rural Arkansas. I choose to live in rural Arkansas, creating a mechanism by which local communities can invest in themselves to create opportunity. That seems like common sense legislation to me. You know, I ran so my
boys could live in rural Arkansas if they choose to. If they choose to move off, that's up to them. But if living at home is not an option, I can't live with that. That's why I'm away from them tonight and sitting in this committee with you and trying to make decisions that are going to impact and create opportunities for this state as we move forward. Every one of us are going to make decisions that are going to impact this state far past our ability to serve in the legislature. Kind of that old saying, a wise man plants a tree under which the shade he'll never enjoy.
That's what we're doing with this legislation. And again, it's not like we're gonna enact this and there'll be able to be a burden on the people. We're gonna send this out to the people of Arkansas and we're gonna trust them to make the best decision for themselves. So for that, I'm voting yes and I'm anxious to vote for
this bill. - Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing no other discussion on the motion, we do have a motion due
pass. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, the ayes have it.
Congratulations, you've passed your bill or resolution. Thank
Speaker 187
2:20:39
you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you committee.
Thank you very much. All right, next
we have Senate bill 569. Senator Johnson?
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:21:25
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mark Johnson, Senate District 17. First of all, I
want to thank the committee for being here this late and
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:21:37
working this hard. Representative Ray, you want to?
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:21:42
David Ray, State Representative, District 69. But we do what we have to do, don't we? And tomorrow will be a different day. Senate Bill 569, there's two parts to discuss on this. The first is that it is, it amends the Arkansas Constitution using the language in Article 5, Section 1, which is Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution, which states that any measure voted on by the people, which includes both initiated acts and constitutional amendments, may be amended by a two-thirds vote of both hands.
houses, so that is the mechanism that this is using. Those of us that have spent a lot of time on it, I understand those of you that haven't spent much time looking at this. This was affected by a decision made in about 1951 by the Supreme Court where they ruled that that didn't apply to constitutional amendments, although the language is very clear. Last year, several of us were working on this.
Mr. Chairman, I remember you and I and the Speaker now going to visit with the Attorney General about this issue, and the result is Senator Dotson had requested an opinion, and we got it on November 15th, and basically Attorney General Griffin said that in his opinion, the decision in 1951 employed an erroneous form of reasoning and was wrongly decided. If the issue was raised today, I believe the Supreme Court would
overturn that case and hold that the plain language controls the plain language of the Constitution. So, so what are we amending with the bill? We're amending the area in section, in Amendment 7, which is Article 5, Section And this bill, the guts of it, if you want to say, because the first section is basically a legislative history and a legal history. And you get to Section 2, and we're adding this language about the ballot title, not the full amendment, just the ballot title.
That the title shall be readable, clear, and concise, and shall not exceed 500 words. The General Assembly may enact laws establishing a standard for the readability of the title. And I was happy to co-sponsor Representative Rose's bill, House Bill 1713, which is now Act, I've got the number here somewhere, it is Act 602. And so we kind of did put the cart before the horse.
We enacted the readability language, and now we're going to put it in the Constitution that sets that ballot title at 500 words or less. Now, for a point of reference, the entire Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution, the first 10 amendments, consists of 463 words. So we can make things be concise.
We can ask anyone that would like to amend our Constitution to do it in a concise, readable manner so the people who are going to be asked to vote on these things can understand what it's about. So Act 602 set a readability standard using the objective Flesch-Kincaid formula, which was developed by the Department of Defense. It's a totally objective measure. It's even incorporated into things like Microsoft Word that set that standard at the 8th grade level.
And again, this bill and the amendment would allow the General Assembly to change that if they needed to. They could tweak it. So that's what the bill does. And I hope I've properly explained the mechanism we're using with this where it would take two-thirds of both houses. The Senate has passed it with 24 votes. The House would, of course, have to pass it with 67. But at that point, I will yield to my colleague, Representative Ray, and appreciate his help on this if he wants to add anything, and we'll be glad to take questions.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:26:08
Now, I think Senator Johnson explained it very well. I mean, look,
a big part of this is you've got this Supreme Court precedent
that has been in effect for how many years now, how many decades? About 76. And you've got an attorney general opinion that is diametrically opposed to the
precedent. And so you've got an open legal question here. And I think the only way to really settle it is to send up some sort of test case to the court.
And so that's a big part of the purpose of the bill.
And Senator Johnson has picked, I think, as good of an issue as any to send that test case up with. Mr. Chairman,
we'd be happy to answer any questions. All right. Thank you very much. Are there any questions about the committee? Representative
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:27:05
Collins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So that's kind of interesting. I mean, I guess you do call it a test case, and that's fair.
But really what it is is this is, I mean, based on the precedent, the binding precedent that we've had, the Supreme Court is, you know, that case has been long-settled law. I mean, this is blatantly unconstitutional to amend the Constitution according to that precedent, right? So you're just saying that you believe that the court would now interpret things differently because of some of the things that you lay out here in this preamble. But I mean, to be clear, we can't amend constitutional amendments by a two-thirds vote of the House,
both houses unless it says so right now under that precedent from that old case that
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:27:55
you referenced. Is that right? Well let
me answer it this way Representative Collins. The plain language of the Constitution says, it clearly says, we can do so and that's why Attorney General Griffin in a four page opinion made that point perfectly clear that he thinks it was erroneous And he went into great detail of why it was erroneous.
I actually had a discussion with a former attorney general, a member of your party, who said that he felt that the Edgemont decision, that was the name of the decision in 1951 or 2, was judicial activism. And it used the term that, if I can quote the opinion from General Griffin, it says, but then it refused to read it literally. The Edgman Court believed that the plain meaning of Amendment 7 was, quote, inconceivable, unquote.
Thus it held without reference to the text what it believed was extra textual and intent and purpose. And he just has said that the court has redetermined this. And some of y'all recently, in a more recent decision, some of y'all remember the one I think is more instructive. There was the Andrews decision, which had to do with something related to the University of Arkansas. But more importantly, there was the case on the 30 crossing, the half cent sales tax, the temporary one, not the one we've made permanent now.
But the half-cent sales tax was to be used for four-lane highways. And someone sued and said that that's a six-lane highway, so those funds can't be used for that. They basically said words mean things, and four lanes means four lanes, and six lanes means six lanes. And while I'm sure that everybody in the General Assembly that voted for that would have said we really meant freeways, we meant multi-lane highways, but words do mean things. And the court came back and said, no, you can't use that money for that because it's a six-lane highway.
Now, we can talk about that being silly, but those judges raised their right hand just like we did and swore an oath to the Constitution, and the Constitution said four-lane highway. So that's an example of why we fix things, why we come back and we amend things that we've learned through whatever information or law of unintended consequence we need to address. So, no, I don't think we do that. If you use your logic, you would say that Plessy v. Ferguson was constitutional, and it was until 1954.
But we overturned that with the Brown decision, thank God. And that's an example of how we continue to strive for
a more perfect union, not a perfect union, a more perfect
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:30:52
union. Well, I appreciate your answer, and I do understand what you're saying. I mean, I get that you think that the court would overrule a 75-year precedent based on your reading and apparently the Attorney General's reading and some other Attorney General's reading, but it is still a 75-year precedent.
And so I think for people on the committee who may be confused by the presentation of all this here, which was me for a little while until I wrapped my head around this, what we are doing is trying to amend a part of the Constitution that does not have the authority to be amended by us because we think that the court will overrule 75
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:31:34
years of precedent. Right? No, sir. I think your logic
is inverted. I think what we're looking at here is someone, in my opinion, and I'll use the term arbitrarily and capriciously, said those words really, they didn't mean that.
That wasn't what they meant. And they did not, very clearly didn't cite in their opinion in 1951 anything to back that up. They just said that it was inconceivable that we would do that. But they didn't back that up. So, important to note that Amendment 7 was not a preferred amendment. It was an initiated amendment. So, the people themselves put into Amendment 7 that the General Assembly, by two-thirds vote of both bodies, could amend any measure passed by the voters.
It's important to note, things that were passed by the voters. This is not about anything in the corpus of the Constitution. We can't touch that. For example, we couldn't, by two-thirds, create a unicameral legislature. Not that we want to, but the fact is this is only about things that have been voted on by the people. And it's a high bar, folks. Two-thirds is a high bar. People have to stop and think about something to get two-thirds of both houses. And this is something that it's an important tool to fix things that may need fixing.
Let me cite one more example, if I could. I think many of y'all were around. You remember we had something last session about crypto mining? And 132 members of the General Assembly voted for that bill. Guilty as charged. I'm one of them. But we learned, oops, there's a problem here. And we actually had to come in special session and fix it. So from time to time, things need to be amended.
And I guess that's job security for legislators. But certainly, it just goes to show that we need to deal with situations as they are. And this gives us an opportunity to do so. I'm sorry to
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:33:46
be persistent on this, but I really need to get it clear. So would you agree that a Supreme Court holding, interpreting, you know, an element of the Constitution like this is part of the law?
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:34:00
It is current precedent, and as soon as we put this before them again, we'll have an answer.
Speaker 289
2:34:07
Yes or no? I mean, you don't have the answer. Yes or no, but I'm looking for
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:34:14
a yes or no. Yes. This is case law. Okay. So case law, part of the law. So what
we would be doing here is against the law. And you're hoping and thinking that it will result, this test case will result in the overturning of 75 years of case law because of various factors that you
Speaker 217
2:34:32
believe to be true. I guess one thing
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:34:37
I would say in response to your question, Representative Collins, is the law is not always clear.
And, you know, the court proffered an opinion on this in the Edgemont decision, and there's a bunch of other folks that have proffered a different opinion, and that's why we have courts to settle differences of opinion about the law. All right. Thank you. Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
2:35:04
you, Mr. Chair. And I may be missing something. I'm sorry I missed the beginning of your presentation, but I just want to back up a little bit. Regardless of the constitutionality of this, what are we trying to do from a policy perspective and why?
In other words, what we're fighting for here is for the courts to tell us, hey, it's okay for the legislature to overturn the will of the people. Can you just explain to me why we're fighting for that as a good policy outcome? I can't imagine one constituent of mine saying, please, please dilute my right to vote by taking it upon yourself to have the ability to undo it. I appreciated your crypto mining example, but that was us changing our own votes. That wasn't us changing the will of the people, as clearly stated by our constituents.
So can you just explain to me why we want all of this in
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:35:59
the first place? Yes, ma'am. On page one of the bill, if you
look on lines 30 through 34, it says, Arkansas Constitution, Article 5, Section 1, provides that no measure approved by a vote of the people shall be amended or repealed by the General Assembly except upon a yea and nay vote on roll call of two-thirds of all members elected to each house of the General Assembly.
Now, that was written by the people. Amendment 7 was an initiated constitutional amendment. So the people did speak. It was their speech. And they were more or less saying, we want this initiative and referendum authority for ourselves. But we also recognize that there may be a provision, and I use the term safety valve. There may be something that needs to be fixed or to make a correction.
And they didn't want it to be willy-nilly, so they set the bar high enough, two-thirds of both houses, which for serious matters is quite a high bar. So the direct answer to your question is the people told us this. They said that's what they want. And so we're just getting ourselves, we're using it to set a readability standard and a limit on the length of some of the lengthy ballot titles that we've seen presented.
But we want to do that in order to, as I said, there's two parts. There's the question of overturning the existing case law, and the second part is the 500-word limit, which is to make measures more readable to the people. But to emphasize once again, to answer your question, the people put this in the Constitution, in Amendment 7.
It was an initiated constitutional amendment. Representative Meeks, you're
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:38:08
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Senator, I really appreciate you bringing this, Because in my whole time down here, I've known this mechanism has been in here, and there's many times I thought, boy, wouldn't it be nice if we could fix that problem or fix this problem? But there's been this concern out there, which is why you're bringing the bill.
You know, for a perfect example, there's slavery in the Constitution. I'd love to get rid of that. There's dog racing in the state's Constitution. We don't do dog racing anymore. And we could go on example, example, example of things that I think the majority of Arkansans would love for us to be able to amend and get out of our Constitution just because things change over time. So my first question, and these are probably going to be softball questions that I'm going to throw out down here to you, do courts make laws?
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:39:07
Unfortunately, sometimes they do. And as I mentioned, a previous attorney general said to me that the Edgemont decision was judicial activism. So, yes, sir, sometimes they do. Right.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:39:18
And I guess I was trying to get to Representative Collins' concerns that this is breaking the law. Courts don't make laws. They're not supposed to make laws. They're supposed to give opinions on their laws and adjudicate the law but not make the law. That's our job, right?
Yes, sir. So my second question that I would ask, kind of along that same vein, is the General Assembly subject to the courts of the state? So in other words, do we have to, are we bound by, so if they make a decision, are we required to follow that decision? So in other words, can they boss us around? I'm putting it in plain language. Well, as we
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:40:02
know, there's different cases of checks and balances. We have checks on the judicial branch.
they have checks on us. I don't know if you'd call that bossing us around or us bossing them around, but
we do interact, and this is one of those interactions, I believe. Right, and I guess
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:40:19
that's kind of the maybe the do you agree point I'm getting to is this is part of the process of us interacting between us and the courts, and just because the court says, hey, you've got to do something, they can give us their opinion. We're going to highly respect that opinion, but we don't necessarily always have to go along with that opinion.
And in this case, we're saying that the court back then issued an opinion, and by passing this, we're saying we as a General Assembly don't agree with that opinion, because we can read the Constitution for ourselves as well, and in our opinion, the General Assembly has the
right and the authority to do this. Wouldn't you agree? Yes, sir, I would agree. Thank you. Okay, just a couple of questions here. So Article 5, Section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution, when was that established?
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:41:16
Now that could take a little while, Mr. Chairman, but the initiative and referendum process was added to our Constitution in the early part of the 20th century. I think the first one was in around 1903 or so. I mean, it's rather convoluted. The final one, there was actually a court challenge to it, but it went from about 1903 to about 1920-21. But the amendment we now call Amendment 7, which makes up Article 5, Section 1, was originally enacted in the late teens, I think around 1917, 1916.
And it was known for some reason as Amendment 10, but it became what we now think is we call Amendment 7. Again, it's not as straightforward as some of them, but once again, when you've got 104 amendments or whatever, it's hard to keep it all straight. Okay. And so
I wanted to make that clear because I wanted to make sure this was correct. Article 5, Section 1 was not part
of the, I think you described it, the corpus of the Constitution. 1874 Constitution, it was not.
That's correct, Mr. Chairman. Okay, and it was, how was Article 5, Section 1 added? It was added by amendment. Yes, sir. Well, the
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:42:40
first time, it was a referred constitutional amendment. During that period of time, a lot of states wanted to create more direct democracy. The General Assembly referred one, and people didn't like some of the provisions, And the people used that ability to initiate amendments, to initiate a constitutional amendment that became the language we now have in NOAA's Amendment 7.
That's Article 5, Section 1. Okay, so that was
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:43:10
passed by a vote of the people is what you're saying? Yes, sir. Well, all of them were passed by a vote of the people, but it was
an initiated one that came from the people, not the General Assembly. Okay. And so to be clear, that provides no measure approved by a vote of the people shall be amended or repealed by the General Assembly. And then it leaves out a portion of text, I'm not sure what it says, except upon a yea or
nay vote on roll call of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house of the General Assembly.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:43:37
Yes, sir. They said it kind of backwards. I say that the General Assembly may, and it said it can't accept with a
two-thirds vote. Right. And the issue in Edgemont was the term measure. Yes, sir.
And so I do recall looking at this and looking at this with you in the Attorney General's office. But why did the Edgemont court hold that measure did not apply?
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:44:07
Mr. Chairman, I've never been able to understand that. And I've had some brilliant lawyers that have talked to about it that, and I appreciate the one that said that, I won't call him by name. Y'all might figure out who it is, a fairly recent attorney general. He said it was judicial activism. And they
used that term that it was inconceivable. You know, well. Because measure is defined in Article 5, Section 1. To include constitutional amendments.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:44:39
And if you look on page 2, line 6 through 12, it says, Despite observing that the definition of, quote, measure, unquote, in the Constitution includes constitutional amendments or legislative proposals of any character, the Supreme Court declined to construe the language literally in hell that the General Assembly lacked the power to amend or repeal amendments. And that word measure was not externally defined.
It was defined in Amendment 7. So, and I guess this would be
my next question. Did they make a distinction when they referred a constitutional amendment between those that are constitutional amendments by initiated act and those that are referred by the General Assembly? No, sir. Okay, so they didn't say that the General Assembly cannot amend initiated acts, but they can amend—when they say constitutional amendment, what they were really referring to were those referred by the General Assembly, not initiated acts. That's not—that was not the holding in the Edgemont decision?
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:45:43
The Edgemont decision, in effect, said you can't—without citing how they reached that conclusion, They cited that they upheld, or by inaction upheld, they did not overturn the General Assembly being able to amend an initiated act. And we've done this today, and we did it in the Senate. I could probably have in the House, too, today. It takes a two-thirds vote of the House or Senate to amend an initiated act.
That's clear, they didn't challenge that. They only challenged the part on constitutional amendments. but the exact same section of the Constitution defines measure as
either of those. Okay, all right. Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Representative Collins, you're recognized. -
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:46:35
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And regarding that Edgemont case and the rationale, they say in the holding that it's the clear intent was to give the people enlarged legislative
and constitutional powers of that amendment. And if the purpose, and this is the court talking, if the purpose had been to take away fundamental security that enjoyed or to be acquired under the amendment, then it would have been expressed in more emphatic terms. So essentially what they did was recognize that there already was an initiative, initiated constitutional amendment process. And this was to enlarge that. That was the goal of this amendment seven. and so basically for the for it to be interpreted that you could then uh that the legislature could
then um amend one of the constitutional amendments would go the other way it would be an absurd result and i think that's why it's held up for 75 years because that that jives with you know the the clear overall intent of what was being put forward in that in that amendment seven so that's my sort of response
to where the where the court was going with their their rationale. Representative Bennett you're
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
2:47:57
recognized. Thank you Mr. Chair. Is it
your is it your belief that under article 5 the legislature could appeal amendment 102
voted by 55% of all Arkansans in which established term limits
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:48:16
on this body? I think, I believe Senator Clark was amendment 102 sponsor in the Senate. I know that that was a referred amendment. So this is referring to the initiated amendments. But we can certainly send another
amendment to the people. You folks just voted to send a constitutional amendment to the people, SJR 15. And yes, ma'am, the General Assembly could buy but that would be a referred amendment and not using this mechanism because this would be to amend and initiate a constitutional amendment. Now, again, those questions would be answered if you pass this bill, and the governor signs it, and it goes, and someone files appeal to the court, then
we will get that real answer, Representative, in it. And I personally look forward to that, because I think whatever we're dealing with as precedent, we need to get it cleared up. All right, Representative Clowney.
All right. Any other questions by the committee? Seeing no other questions by the committee, we do have several individuals signed up to speak. Mostly against the bill, I believe. Kristen Stewart.
Stewart, if you would state your name and any organization you're here representing, you're recognized to
Kristen Stewart
Unverified
2:49:53
speak against the bill. Thank you. My name is Kristen Stewart, and I'm here to speak against the bill, just here as a citizen like I have been so many times before you this session. I appreciate you letting us speak. I'm here to express my strong opposition to this bill. I believe it is yet another attempt to chip away at Arkansas's, Arkansans' constitutional right to participate directly in our democracy.
It's one of many bills in this session aimed at silencing everyday people while politicians consolidate power. I've heard the claim that voters were confused by ballot initiatives and the titles as one of the many reasons that we needed these changes. I collected thousands of signatures. Voters asked thoughtful questions, read the language, and engaged in real debate. They were not confused. They were informed. And I've said it before, anyone who signed the Arkansas
Abortion Amendment knew exactly what they were signing. If they didn't, that's on them. It was in big, bold letters. SB 569 would allow legislators to toss out the will of the people simply because they don't like the outcome. That's not democracy. This bill gives you all the power to override what citizens brings to the ballot. It discourages civic engagement by making people wonder why even bother if lawmakers can simply cancel out all their
efforts. The ballot initiative process is supposed to be the people's check on power. This bill says that you all know better than any of us. I've spoken in this room about how hard it is to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Volunteers like me spent months talking with voters across the state about issues we care deeply about. Those conversations were some of the most rewarding parts of the process, especially because many Arkansans are disconnected with what
is happening in our state government. This process brings them back in, and this bill would push them right back out. Amendment 7 of the Arkansas Constitution gives us the right to propose and enact laws. Getting rid of this would, it's just a betrayal of the amendment's intent and shows a clear distress of the very people lawmakers are supposed to represent. Another really big issue
I have with this bill is the proposed 500-word limit for ballot titles. While this may seem like a move toward clarity, until you realize that this body isn't holding itself to the same standard, The title of SB 569 itself would fail its own test. It's overly complex and vague. If lawmakers truly cared about clarity, they'd start with their own language. But that isn't always the case
Speaker 312
2:52:56
and what is required for legal laws.
Kristen Stewart
Unverified
2:53:05
And this is about creating obstacles for citizens, making it even harder for grassroots measures to reach the ballot. We can just look at this last election cycle when the medical marijuana and abortion amendments both received enough signatures, although they were rejected or disqualified. The recent constitutional amendment proposed and passed out of this committee just right before this bill didn't meet any of the standards outlined in SB 569 either.
There were questions, confusions, and you guys had a robust debate. I appreciate the committee's engagement, but it's hypocritical to hold citizen-led efforts to stricter standards than those coming from this body. This bill is an attempt to rewrite the Arkansas Constitution without voter input, something that no Arkansas lawmaker has done without a proper joint resolution filed by the deadline. For over 70 years, our courts have made it clear you don't amend the Constitution behind closed doors and without the people.
It's an insult to every Arkansan who believes their voices matter. This bill does not protect democracy. It suffocates it. I've said it many times in this room. This body is working hard to strip away rights guaranteed by our state constitution. if you guys want to change the rules you guys should also have to follow them we have the right to propose laws we have the right to amend our constitution i urge you to vote no on this bill
for the people who are still left in this room
listening any thank you miss stewart any questions by the committee seeing seeing no questions
by the committee thank you for being here and thank Thank you for those remarks. Next, we have signed up to
speak against the bill, J.P. Tribble. Mr. Tribble, you've been here before. You know the routine. State your name.
Jp Tribble
Unverified
2:55:06
Any organization you're representing, you're recognized. J.P. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is J.P. Tribble. I'm here testifying in my own personal capacity, however, I'm an attorney licensed by the state
of Arkansas. Before I delve into my more detailed comments, I would also like to offer to the committee that I have personal experience with the ballot initiative process, having been on the drafting committee of one of the ballot initiative amendments of last year, and having collected signatures on many different ones. I would like to offer that I've never encountered any confusion
from voters about what a petition means about any language. There have never been any sorts of questions referring to confusion. Next, there's been a lot of talk about constitutional amendments and so on, and about the fact that Article 5, Section 1, which was passed under Amendment 7 of November 5, 1920, is an initiated act, or pardon me, an initiated amendment rather than
a legislatively referred amendment. But I would like to read the opening paragraph of that because I find it's very important. It says the legislative power of the people of this state shall be vested in a General Assembly, which shall consist of the Senate and the House of Representatives, but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose legislative measures, laws, and amendments to the Constitution and to enact or reject the same at the polls independent of the General Assembly,
and also reserve the power at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any entire act or item of an appropriation bill. So with that opening paragraph, I would like to state that the power that exists in this room is also resting on Article 5, Section 1. It is the portion of the constitution that gives this legislator its authority to act with that the people have
reserved power to themselves to propose their own as stated legislative measures laws and amendments to the constitution given that legal language usually means something very specific i would suggests that the distinction here between legislative measures, laws, and amendments is quite distinct. Here you have a distinction between amendments and measures. I am aware of
the definition later on in the article of that. Having said that, I would also like to point out there was a comment about the United States Bill of Rights being 400-something words. That's the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The purpose of the U.S. Constitution is very, very different than the purpose of the state constitution. It is a constitution of a limited federal government, and the state government is not a limited government. It is a positive
government that essentially has quite broad authority as compared to the federal government, so I don't think it's a fair statement to compare the number of words in an amendment versus what's happening in the federal constitution. The proposed bill here is split into two sections. I'm going to address section two first and then section one. Section 2, which actually limits any ballot title to 500 words, shows clear animus against ballot questions.
It creates a double standard by applying a word limit to the ballot questions, but not to legislatively referred questions. This in and of itself leaves the assumption that Arkansans are smart enough to understand the ballot title of one of the legislatively referred questions. meaning something you refer to the people, yet you're saying that the voters are not smart enough to understand the ballot title of their own initiated question.
That demonstrates a very clear animus against initiated acts or constitutional amendments. So regarding Section 1, if the ruling of Arkansas Game and Fish versus Edgeman is ignored. The series of case law that is set forth in Section 1 would permit the General Assembly to undo anything the people pass. That defeats the whole purpose of reserving the rights
that I read to you a few moments ago to amend the Constitution or pass or reject laws. If the people, when they brought forth that amendment, were so intentional, why would they reserve the right to themselves, and then wholesale give that right to the legislature to negate. For example, though this bill concerns a constitutional amendment, I'd like to look at the referendum
process from last year and plug in the formula that you're proposing here, that by a two-thirds vote, the legislature can overturn any initiated act. So last year, the legislature, or in the last session two years ago, the legislature passed the Learns Act. A year ago, there was a group called CAPES that was formed who petitioned to, or was gathering signatures to submit a referendum
petition on the ballot last year. We all know that they did not succeed, but had they succeeded and that referendum had gone on the ballot in November of 2024, based on your logic, all the legislature would have to do is vote with a two-thirds vote to overturn the referendum voted upon by the people. When the people reserved the right to submit initiated acts, amendments, or referenda, I don't think that's what the people were
contemplating. This, in my view, is what the Edgman case means by being inconceivable that the initiative and referendum amendment could have intended such a result. Senator Johnson's reading of the case law makes legislative questions totally futile if we look at that. If the legislature, by a two-thirds vote, can change the Constitution, why are you wasting your time considering which amendments to refer to the people?
Because all you have to do is a two-thirds vote, and you've overturned whatever the people vote on. it, it becomes senseless to even refer any question to the people. So can the people of the state of Arkansas really have gotten it wrong for more than a hundred years? And can the Supreme Court have gotten it wrong for more than 75 years? And can the legislature continue to be getting it wrong even today by debating questions, by debating which questions
to refer to the people, all the while you're arguing that you have the authority to overturn the people's voice. That sounds like talking out of both sides of one's mouth, and I dare say that would not go over well with the people of Arkansas. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. - All right, are there any questions by the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee, thank you, Mr.
Tribble. - Thank you, Mr. Chair. - Thank you for being here, and thank you for those remarks. Next, we have Josh Silverstein.
Josh Silverstein
Unverified
3:03:57
- Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Josh Silverstein. I'm a law professor, and I live
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:04:02
and work here in Little Rock. However, I'm speaking today in my individual capacity, not on behalf of the university where I teach. I want to thank the committee for providing this opportunity to testify. While I oppose SB 569 on the merits, I'm here to testify against the idea that the legislature can amend the Constitution with a two-thirds vote of both houses. It cannot. The text of the Constitution is clear that it cannot. The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled unanimously that it cannot.
And while I have great respect for the Attorney General's office, their recent opinion to the contrary is wrong. And I want to specifically endorse the testimony of my former student, J.P. Tribble, who just testified before me. There are two reasons Article 5, Section 1 does not permit the legislature to amend the Constitution by a two-thirds vote. First, when Article 5, Section 1 is read in the context of the entire Constitution, it does not grant any authority to amend the Constitution. Second, even when the clauses are read largely or entirely in isolation, Section 1 of Article 5 does not
provide amending authority. Let me start with the first argument about contextual reading. And I want to begin with a basic legal axiom. Under all legal interpretive approaches, language must be read in the context of the whole document. That is true under positions you may have heard with labels like textualism, contextualism, originalism, and living constitutionalism. And that principle applies to every type of legal document, constitution, statutes, administrative regulations, contracts, and wills. Reading a clause of a legal document in isolation is not textualism, it's literalism.
and literalism is rejected by all courts and legal scholars that I'm aware of. When the two-thirds rule in Article 5, Section 1 is read in context, it only applies to statutes. The alternative is that the legislature is authorized to substantially nullify the power of the people to amend the Constitution. That makes no sense, as Edgeman ruled. A classic legal principle that follows from the axiom of read legal documents as a whole is the rule that one legal provision should not undermine another legal provision in the same document unless absolutely necessary. But there's no need to read Article 5, Section 1 as undermining
the amendment power of the people. The two-thirds rule still applies in numerous circumstances, including with respect to initiated acts and initiated ordinances. The same analysis explains why the sovereign immunity provision does not apply to injunctive relief. The recitals in the bill used sovereign immunity as another example where the Supreme Court arguably got things wrong. It did not. A literal reading of Article 5, Section 20, under which the state can never be made a defendant, would substantially nullify the entire Arkansas Bill of Rights.
The statute, the state could limit any fundamental right and not be subject to suit for that violation. Allowing injunctive relief, however, against state officials gets the balance correctly. The Bill of Rights retains its force because ongoing rights violations can be enjoined, and the sovereign immunity provision retains its force because it blocks suits for damages. In sum, textualist readings of Article 5, Sections 1 and 20 preserve the full legal effect of the initiative process and the Bill of Rights while also giving effect to the two-thirds rule and
sovereign immunity. Broad literalist readings of Article 5, Sections 1 and 20 would largely nullify the initiative process in the Bill of Rights. Now let me turn to the second argument. reading Article 5, Section 1 literally. Even read literally, it does not authorize the legislature to amend the Constitution by a two-thirds vote. The precise language says no measure can be approved by a vote of the people, no measure approved by a vote of the people shall be amended or repealed by the General Assembly, and I'm skipping over the local government language,
except upon a yea and nay vote on roll call of two-thirds of all members elected to each House of the General Assembly. This language does not grant any authority at all. Instead, it provides that to the extent the legislature has authority to make law elsewhere in the Constitution, it may only override citizen measures by a two-thirds vote. The Constitution authorizes the legislature to adopt and amend statutes, so this body can amend an initiated
Speaker 326
3:08:14
act by a two-thirds vote. But the legislature has no general authority to amend the Constitution,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:08:19
So this body cannot amend, initiate an amendment at all by a two-thirds vote or otherwise. If the Constitution did authorize the legislature to change a constitutional amendment, it would say something like the following. The General Assembly may alter measures adopted by the people upon a yay and nay vote on roll call of two-thirds of all members of each House of the General Assembly. Affirmative grants of authority read like affirmative grants of authority. The point Senator Johnson made is exactly right. the language reads backwards, but that's intentional. The meaning is it's not a grant
of authority. It's a limitation on the legislature's authority. Here's an example of an affirmative grant of authority elsewhere in Article 5, Section 1. The legislative power of the people of this state shall be vested in a general assembly. Again, Article 5, Section 1 instead provides that to the extent the legislature has authority elsewhere in the Constitution, When such authority is used to amend a measure adopted by the people, such as with a bill, a statute, a two-thirds vote is required. And since the legislature does not have general authority to amend the Constitution, the two-thirds rule in the Amendment and Repeal section of Article 5, Section 1, cannot apply to constitutional amendments, as the Supreme Court ruled unanimously 75 years ago.
Thank you, and I'm happy to take any questions. All right. Any questions by the committee? Representative
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:09:46
Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you. Thank you for being here. I'm finding your argument somewhat persuasive, but I do have some questions based upon some of the things you've said. So the two-thirds limitation, according to what you're saying, only applies to statutes. So help me understand that, because we pass laws around here all the time with just simple majorities.
Now, whenever it's an initiated act, it's the two-thirds. You've got
it exactly right. And that's actually the purpose. You can pass most laws by a majority, uh, revenue laws by 75%. If you ever want to override the people, the standard is up from 50% or 50.1 to the two thirds. It provides a little additional protection when a statute
Josh Silverstein
Unverified
3:10:31
is adopted by the people. You've
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:10:34
got the line exactly right. Okay. So my question is, is when they put the definition into measure, one of the definitions is constitutional amendment.
So if I plug that in, no constitutional amendment approved by the vote of the people shall be amended without the two-thirds. So, I mean, the language specifically says constitutional amendment. So why would that be in there? You know, what's the purpose of putting constitutional amendment in there if we can't amend the Constitution? So two things. One, the word measure is used in
multiple places, so they picked out a broad standard. But again, remember, the clause we're talking about is not a grant of authority.
It's a limit on authority. So they're using the word measure in case, for example, there were someplace else in the Constitution that granted the legislature authority to amend the Constitution, but there isn't. So that's why they use that broad word. But once you understand that provision's a limit on authority, then it doesn't grant anything new powers to the body. Since this body can't amend constitutional amendments, the use of measure there can't grant any
Speaker 327
3:11:41
new authority. Thank you, Representative, for the question.
Any other questions by the committee? Seeing no other questions by the committee, thank you so much for being here. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Appreciate those remarks. Representative Underwood, you're recognized. I have a motion. Let's hear your motion. Motion to limit public comment to three minutes per person.
All right, that's a proper motion, it's not debatable. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the ayes have it.
So for the remaining speakers, you'll be limited
to three minutes. Next we have to speak
Gail Choate
Unverified
3:12:33
against the bill, Dr. Gail Choate. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members
of the committee. My name is Dr. Gail Choate. I'm a civic educator and researcher who moved to Arkansas because of what this state represented.
In my research on state-level democracy, Arkansas stood out and stood proud as a place where ordinary people still had extraordinary power. The power to propose laws and constitutional amendments when institutions failed them. That was a beacon of hope. That's why I chose to move here and live here. And now I'm watching that legacy be dismantled, not in one sweeping blow, but in slow, calculated steps.
Senate Bill 569 is one of those steps. It is not a referral to the people. It is not being debated as part of some open public process. It is a constitutional amendment passed by this legislature without a vote of the people to limit the rights of the people. And that is a line we should be very careful about crossing. This bill does two things, both of them troubling and even more dangerous when combined.
First, it limits ballot titles to 500 words. You've already passed a law requiring them to be written at an 8th grade reading level. So let's be honest. This isn't about clarity. It's about control. Complex policy cannot always be explained in 500 words, and forcing that cap means leaving out vital context. When voters don't get the full story, they're not making an informed choice, they're voting in the dark. And who benefits from that
darkness? Not everyday Arkansans, not grassroots organizers working without legal teams or big donors, not the people. Second and far worse, this bill says the legislature should have the power to amend or repeal constitutional amendments that the people themselves have put forward, past. That means that no matter how many doors citizens knock on, no matter how
many signatures they collect, no matter how overwhelmingly the people vote, you could still override them. You're not just writing over words, you're writing over their voices. Right now I actually wish that the cameras were reversed and that the people in addition to hearing our testimony could see what's happening in this room. While I respect and am grateful for the opportunity to use my voice here today, the fact that people don't pay attention anymore, that you're tired, that we're tired,
that these arguments are being made in an echo chamber is alarming and something I wish they could see. But to make matters even worse, these two very different proposals are bundled into one bill, designed to confuse, designed to pass something dangerous under the cover of something technical. That's not transparency. That's strategy. And the people see it. I hate to interrupt
you, but three minutes is up.
Gail Choate
Unverified
3:16:04
May I just say one more thing, sir, because it's very
important. I'm going to let you finish your thought, and then if there are questions by the
Gail Choate
Unverified
3:16:12
committee, they're free to ask those. Thank you. The only other thing I wanted to add to it is I just wanted to point out again my gratitude for being able to speak here today. Because when this bill was presented in the Senate Committee on State Agencies, we were shut out. The people were not allowed to give their opinion, to voice their concerns, or to bring it to the attention of the committee. So I just wanted to say that I was grateful that we had the chance to at least do that here.
All right. Thank you very much. Are there any questions by the committee? Seeing no questions about the committee, I do want to say, I understand that there are some committee members that have drinks and some things to eat. In fairness to the committee, Dr. Chilton, I appreciate your remarks, but members here have not, in my case, haven't had lunch or dinner. I know many other members are in that same situation. It's almost 8.30. I'm not griping about it. This is what we signed up for. But just understand that, you know, when you see members, you know, taking a drink of a Coke or eating some kind of candy, it's because we've not had anything to eat all day.
Gail Choate
Unverified
3:17:15
So, just wanted to point that out. And, Mr. Chair, neither have we. We've been here trying to speak on this bill for the last two
and a half weeks. Yeah, not disputing that. Not disputing that. Just making an observation for you. Thank you. All right. Seeing
no questions by the committee, thank you for being here and thank you for those remarks. Next, we
have signed up to speak against the bill, Kristen Foster.
Kristen Foster
Unverified
3:17:46
Hello, I'm Kristen Foster. I'm here representing myself. I'll be very quick about this. When I've heard debate about the use of the unanimous Supreme Court decision, and when we talked about an activist judge, it was a unanimous decision. by the courts. But I went back to read the information about how they reached this determination that it was inconceivable that the legislature could overturn or could change these measures. Well, if you go back a couple of paragraphs before they say that it's inconceivable,
there was a really interesting piece of language that stood out to me in the opinion. And it says that it will be observed that the definition of measure is that it shall include constitutional amendments or in quotes legislative proposals of any character if the language should be literally construed then a constitutional amendment applicable to little rock alone or to any other city could be repealed by a vote of two-thirds of the members elected to the city council as someone who lives in the russellville area and has seen our casino issue go back and
forth, back and forth over constitutional amendments that are specific to our community. This could be really exciting. Maybe our quorum court can come in and overturn now the will of the state of Arkansas, of the voters of Arkansas, or overturn, you know, what y'all think down here, because it applies directly to our community. So it could be very exciting for us to be able to just take that control. So maybe this is
Speaker 336
3:19:17
a good thing. We'll see, I guess. Right? That's all.
All right. Thank you, Ms. Foster. Any questions by
the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee, thank you for being here and thank you for those remarks. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill T.N. Estelle. All All right, Julia Taylor.
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
3:19:55
Hi, I'm Julia Taylor, and I am here to speak against this bill.
I feel incredibly dumb at the moment compared to everyone else who's just spoken. I'm not dumb, but I feel that way at
the moment. I ask you to vote no on this bill. Since 2019, I think it's time
to just call it like it is with these. Since 2019, the legislature has been trying to remove the ballot initiative process or restrict the ballot initiative process, possibly before that.
but the first time I was aware of it was 2019. They did a ballot initiative to restrict the ballot initiative, and that was voted down by the people of Arkansas. And the people of Arkansas have repeatedly said that this is not what they want. The ballot initiative is there for times when legislators are not representing the people of Arkansas.
They are representing their party, perhaps, or themselves. Is that three minutes? Or is that something else? sorry sorry um yeah um
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
3:21:32
want to say this is a power grab i mean
i've been coming up here and testifying against many of these bills and i try to be respectful I do appreciate the opportunity to speak, but let's be honest, that's what it is saying, and then asking the Supreme Court to say, yes, you as the legislators have the power to do this. That's basically what this is to me. Thank you.
All right. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you for those remarks. Were
there any questions by the committee? - All right, seeing no questions about the committee. Thank you very much for those remarks. Next, we have signed up to speak against the
bill. Brittany Stockton. All right. Brody Shires. I'm sure I said that incorrectly. - He's also left. - Okay. Keon Anderson. Keon Anderson.
Okay. Jimmy Cabin. Mr. Cabin, if you'd state your name, any organization you're here representing, think you know how
Speaker 343
3:22:56
this works, but you're recognized. You bet. Jimmy Cabin, Arkansas First News, but I'm here representing myself as a citizen. I'm just going to talk about a little reality and not getting into a lot of legalese or anything. I'm a conservative, okay? I'm a strong conservative.
And conservatives believe the people rule. And that seems to be a motto that's not a reality in our state. And basically what we've got here is you've got case law here, you've got a constitution here, and then you've got an opinion. Okay? And so what's going to take place there, and I appreciate the honesty behind it, is saying what we're doing is we're creating a lawsuit that's looking for a courtroom.
And that's where it's going. But as a conservative, I think about taxpayer funding, right? And so what's going to happen is a citizen, a group of citizens are going to file a lawsuit against this. And then the people of Arkansas are going to pay to defend the position of this if this body votes to do that. And so your attorney fees are going to be paid by me.
And the citizen that's going to bring this lawsuit are going to have to fund their defense. All to take power from the people. All to run a bulldozer over our motto, the people rule. The citizens amendment process and initiated act have just been targeted this legislative session. That's just a fact. that's just reality it was announced several months before the session that it was going to
be targeted and it was and it's been hit hard and the people the people are losing on this the people didn't ask for this okay and so i would also say at least have the courage to apply this to yourselves apply this to yourselves if you're going to make these uh these mandates on citizens, right, on any citizen-initiated amendment or act, that it be 500 words, the
title will be 500 words or less, and it's going to have to be in the 8th grade reading level, then apply that to yourselves. Have the courage to apply it to yourselves. When you guys do an amendment, when you guys propose an amendment that's going to go in the ballot, is it going to be limited to, ballot title limited to 500 words? No. Is it going to be limited to an 8th grade reading level? Okay, so I'm a conservative. I need somebody to explain to me how this is a conservative.
What conservative would support this? Because this is not a conservative bill at all. And I imagine I hit my three minutes, Mr. Chairman, so.
Speaker 344
3:26:03
Well, that was good timing. All right,
any questions by the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee. Thank you, Mr. Cabin. Appreciate you being here. Thank you for
those remarks. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill, Reverend Marie O'Connell.
Speaker 79
3:26:32
Hi, I'm Reverend Marie Maynard O'Connell, and I'm not actually speaking as a pastor or a parent right
Marie Maynard
Unverified
3:26:38
now. I'm just speaking as a citizen and representing myself. because when I was preparing to be here today and kind of going through the list of what was going to be happening in this session, I saw this bill and it actually piqued my concern. I found myself thinking that I must not understand what it was doing, but I did understand what it was doing. And I'm mentioning that because I'm very grateful to live in Little Rock and to be able to address
this body semi-regularly. And I think most of your constituents are smart enough to read this bill and recognize that they too will have a problem with it. This bill bundles two ideas together that I would rather see separated. The fact that on one side it limits the ballot title to 500 words seems like it would be a good thing, but it also gives the legislative power to change the constitutional amendments passed by voters. And I've been waiting to hear which constitutional
amendments have recently been passed that you would want to change. And now I'm thinking that it's the constitutional amendments that will probably come in the future. And that concerns me because it is the will of the people. And I love about Arkansas that we are able to pass our own ballot initiatives. The other issue is about clarity, because it's been really clear. You've stated that this is to regain a power you are currently denied. But it's been denied for 75 years and seems to be working just fine. It's not broken, don't fix it kind of thing. But when
you combine these two, the 500 word limit and the ability of the body to then overrule the will of the people, you're intentionally making it more likely with only 500 words that you'll need to do that. With that 500 word limit, the drafters, the folks who are trying to put together something are going to have to leave out facts and financial implications, safeguards. 500 words might not be enough, even at an eighth grade reading level, to explain what
you want to do, and that forced brevity will necessitate the likelihood that the legislature will have to be involved. The cap on the word limit restricts detail, and that restricted detail not only invites confusion, but also legislative meddling. Ultimately, my actual concern is this. I think your constituents, like me, are going to realize this has happened in the past, and it's going to erode further public trust of our government. And this is happening at a time when we need to be working on building trust with one another.
I've seen several legislators, and I've spoken to you all in the halls. We're not bad people. We have different opinions and different views about how this body and our government could work. But my concern about this bill is that it's going to undo some of the trust building. we are attempting to do together. I would like to ask you to go ahead and vote this down. It's not the right time for
this measure. Thank you. - Once again, impeccable timing. Before you leave,
are there any questions by the committee?
Seeing no questions by the committee, thank you for being here and thank you for those
remarks. Next, we have Bill Kopsky signed up to speak against the bill. Mr. Kopsky, you've been here before. If you'd just state your name, any organization you're here
Speaker 346
3:30:04
representing and you'll be recognized to make your remarks. - I brought my bodyguard, my son, Izzy Kopski as well. So my
Speaker 348
3:30:10
name is Bill Kopski. I work for the Arkansas Public Policy Panel and the Citizens First Congress and thanks for hearing the testimony.
The vote is one of our most sacred rights as citizens. We all get to have our say and all of our votes count the same, no matter who we are. wore my vote t-shirt today for y'all. Yet this legislative session has seen a crush of over 22 proposals to restrict citizens' rights to the ballot measure process. Too many politicians do not respect the will of Arkansas voters, and too many think that they know better. I have detailed testimony, but I have to start. I don't want to sanitize the bill. The bill's
outrageous. It's a complete power grab on the will of the citizens. SB 569 sets a dangerous precedent and gives this body unchecked power. There could be a legitimate policy debate perhaps on the 500-word limit, but I point out to you that if voters are confused by a measure or find it too long or too complex, they already have the ultimate power. They can vote against it, And they often do on measures that are too complex.
Justice Smith, in the Supreme Court case that we've all been discussing, saw the power for potential abuse in saying, if the language should be literally construed, then a constitutional amendment applicable to Little Rock alone or to any other city could be repealed by a vote of two-thirds of the members elected to the city council. There have been over 100 amendments to our Constitution, And if the Edgman decision is overturned as a result of this bill, the legislature will have the ability to amend or repeal any of those 102 amendments.
This includes restrictions that the people have voted to put in place on this very body, such as term limits, campaign finance laws, ethics laws, and so on. You could do away with them all. I wonder how many of you who are on the right side of our political spectrum today would have felt comfortable if Democrats had the power to amend our Constitution back when they had supermajorities in both houses. I suggest that you think about this through that lens to decide whether you're making a truly nonpartisan decision or whether this is just simply more partisan politics.
Passage of 569 could lead us down a very dangerous path where the legislature could have supreme control over government, amending the Constitution to lessen or even strengthen the power of the executive or judicial or legislative branches. There would be no checks or balances. 569 is an extreme power grab by politicians taking it away from the public. Just because politicians disagree with the voters' decisions does not mean that you know better. The minimum wage increase passed with a 68% majority.
The issue two that you referred to limit access to the ballot was defeated with 60% of the vote, including every single county in Arkansas rejected it. There is simply no cause for this legislation. I ask you to vote against it. I understand. Reverend Gadsway, let me say this will be my last time I hope to appear before your committee. i appreciate how you have run i don't want to do you any political harm by complimenting you but i appreciate that you've run a really fair committee all session it's been noted by folks
across the political spectrum i appreciate that i also brought a bat a box of sun chips and popcorn i'm willing to share with any member
Speaker 344
3:33:44
of the committee or member of the audience that's here so well that's very kind thank you very much without prejudice you don't have to vote my way Well,
thank you very much. Sincerely appreciate that. And any questions by the committee? All right. Seeing no questions by the committee. Thank you, Mr. Kopsky. Thank you for being here. Thank you for those remarks. All right. That appears to conclude.
All the individuals signed up to speak for or against the bill. Senator Johnson, Representative Ray, you're recognized to close
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
3:34:26
for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think in full disclosure, I'd like to clarify something. I appreciate what Ms. Stewart said and some people have echoed that we should apply this to ourselves.
Original drafts of the bill, it did apply to us. I was going to apply it to everyone. And BLR staff attorney who I totally trust said that because the process of referred amendments from the General Assembly is in the original corpus of the Constitution, the original 1874 Constitution, then we could not use this procedure to add it. However, I agree that we should strive for readability. We should limit our ballot titles.
And we, I think, could possibly do that by the House or Senate rule or possibly by joint rule. And I'm going to look into that. I think we should discipline ourselves individually in crafting legislation in that. So I appreciate what you said, and I hoped we could do it. The lawyers at BLR said, no, you can't do that one with this, Senator. So, in closing, let me just say that the first point I want to emphasize is Amendment 7, the initiative referendum, was initiated by the people and voted on by the people.
And it clearly, clearly says that a measure, it defines it clearly, includes a constitutional amendment. And it set that bar high on purpose. It didn't want the General Assembly to willy-nilly be able to change, tweak, or do anything to something that had been passed by the voters. But it did see where a situation could arise where there would be some need to do so. The 500 words came about simply because when I was campaigning in 2024 election, I just could not believe how the people that I knocked on their door said, I don't understand these things.
They're too long. They're too complicated. This is an attempt to make it not just less complicated, but in conjunction with Representative Rose and my act, they can understand it. So I'd ask if Representative Ray wants to add anything. I don't have anything else to add. We're closed for the bill, and my
Representative David Ray
Unverified
3:36:55
move do pass. Representative Ray and Senator Johnson have closed for the
bill. Representative Ray has made a motion do pass. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Seeing no discussion on the motion. All those in favor say
aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. The ayes have it. Thank you,
Speaker 147
3:37:28
Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. See two hands. Call the roll. Representative Meeks. Aye. Representative Meeks, yes. Yes. Representative Wardlaw, Representative Wardlaw, Representative Barry, Yes. Representative Barry, Yes.
Representative Mayberry, Representative Mayberry, Representative Crawford, Yes. Representative Crawford, Yes. Representative Clowney, No. Representative Clowney, No. Representative Collins, No. Representative Collins, No. - Representative Evans? Representative Evans? Representative Ennett? Representative Ennett? Representative McElroy? Representative McElroy, yes. Representative Ray?
Representative Ray, yes. Representative Beatty? Representative Beatty, yes. Representative Carr? Representative Carr, yes. Representative Underwood? Representative Underwood, yes. - Representative Long? - Yes. - Representative Long, yes. Representative Hawk? - No. - Representative Hawk, no. Representative Rose? - Yes. - Representative Rose, yes. Representative Woodridge? Representative Woodridge?
Representative Beck? Representative Beck?
- Sorry, the bill has failed. hang
Speaker 187
3:38:59
on oh I'm sorry the bill is passed congratulations
Thank You committee just making sure everybody's still awake
all right we have we have a few other bills
Senator Clark is here on a
bill that heretofore has not had a hearing, Senate Bill 471. Senator Clark, you're recognized.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
3:39:53
Alan Clark, State Senate District 7. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I very much appreciate you being here at this hour of the night. We've been doing this for some time now. I appreciate the work that you did to get out and meet the people and get elected. I appreciate the work that you do and staying in contact with your constituents and answering
their phone calls and finding out where they stand on things. 471 is a normal bill for me.
It's almost into one page. If you take the title out, it's definitely one page. And it simply says that if you've served as a judge in Arkansas for one year or more ever, that you can use the title that you had as judge if you run in a nonpartisan judiciary election. I'll be happy to take any questions. Representative Hawke, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Clark, so let me ask you a question.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:40:59
Let's hypothetically say that I become a judge in Saline County and I move to Fayetteville, right? And I decide to run for a judge up there. Do I get to use my title? Even though I was a judge in Saline County, would I get to use the judge title in Fayetteville? Yes. Okay. So, and hear me out. I'm working my way through this. So most of the time, as we've talked about in this committee before, most people don't know anything about the judges and things of that nature, right?
And so a lot of times it's about the judge because people know what they do in their community, right? So, like, for example, I know Judge Farmer in Saline County. He's very active in civic groups and things like that. But if he were to go
to Fayetteville, nobody really knows him other than the fact that he was a judge. Wouldn't this bill, like, aren't we, being that we can't figure out what's going on with this, I just don't know if, would you agree that just having the title
on there, we're just saying, okay, you've been a judge before, so you're good to go.
Is that a good thing? I mean, I don't know. I'm just
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
3:42:12
trying to work my way through
this. Appreciate the question. Let me tell you what's a bad thing. Once you run for judge in Arkansas, the chances of ever having anyone run against you are below 10%. The chances of them beating you are
considerably lower than that. So if we want lifetime judges, then so be it. This is a small measure. And let me also say that we run bills all the time.
When I say all the time, over the years we run them many times. For one particular person, that this judge, we don't put their name in the bill. We've done it this session. We don't put their name in the bill, but if you're in this position, and you're in this position, you can run for this and
use your title. And this is just an equal opportunity. Everybody's equal. Everybody's the same. If you've ever been a judge, then you can use the title when you run for judge.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:43:11
so this also would account for if you were appointed to a judge correct yes so okay so if if you were let's say appointed to be a judge for let's just say a month and then you you know your term's out you filled a term so you've been a judge for a month and then you decide to run you could still say you're a judge then right because i mean even though you didn't really do
Speaker 372
3:43:34
a whole lot no no you have to have served at least 12 months 12 months okay thank you
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
3:43:41
Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Clark, can you help me understand how what you just said is true? Because the way that I read this bill, it says has been serving in that position for at least 12 months or the candidate has previously served in a nonpartisan judicial office. So I see that as an or, meaning that you don't necessarily have to have served for 12 months if you have previously served in a nonpartisan judicial office. Is that an incorrect reading? Let me read it.
Okay, so just to clarify then to Representative Hawke's question, I guess if this passes, somebody who was appointed and served for a month would be
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
3:44:37
able to use the title? If they
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:44:41
had served previously, yes. Thank you. Representative Meeks you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm good with this. The only question that I have is if someone served as a judge and at some point there was a Judicial Review Board and they got removed from the bench for discipline issues, could they then still use that title, you know, say they got that title stripped from them for whatever reason and 10 years from now,
they decide to run for judge again could they still use that judge title under this I understand what you're trying to do and I support it wholeheartedly I just want to thinking through any
potential unintended consequence under this bill they
could all right senator Clark you know there's a few people
that have more respect for the new for the work that you've done in Senate judiciary. I certainly appreciate all that you've done over the years, but you and I have discussed
this bill and I think maybe have a difference of opinion, so I just want to bring out a couple of points. To Representative Hawke's point, there is no time limit the way this bill reads because it's an
or, as Representative Clowney pointed out. All that a person has to do in order as a candidate to claim the title of judge is to have previously served in the non-partisan judicial office for one month, for one year, one month, or one day, there is no time limitation.
They can claim the title of judge. That, to be clear, that's what this bill would allow. Yes. Okay. And, you know, as you and I have discussed, the current law is that you have to have served in the position for one year, more than one year, and you have to be currently serving in the position in order to claim the title of judge on the ballot. And the point there is, I think it's twofold. One, if you've served in the position for more than one year, what's that?
If you've served in the position for more than one year, you didn't just do it for a day, you just didn't do it for a month, you didn't do it for some short period of time, but you've done it for a substantial enough time that you have experience enough to call yourself a judge, unlike someone who served for a one-day appointment on the Supreme Court, for instance, or who served for one month, filling in temporarily until an election took place and the new candidate could take office. So there's substantial experience requirement.
The second part of it is that you're presently serving in the position, and the point there is we don't want to mislead the voters that this person who's on the ballot claiming the title of judge is a judge. Whereas under the current law, you have to be presently serving. It's not misleading at all to the voters for that person to claim the title of judge because they're presently serving as a judge and they've done so more than one year. Why do you think, because of the way your bill is written, that if you've ever served for any period of time as a
judge, you ought to be able to claim that title? Because to me, it's a bit misleading for someone who only served for a very brief period of time and it may not presently be serving in the position to be able to hold themselves out to the voters as
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
3:48:11
a judge. So if you've got a difference of opinion of that, I'd like to hear it. Those occasions are rare, extremely rare
that anybody serves for that short of time. But having said that, in the discussions that we've had,
I would, what we intended to do, what the language was supposed to say was and or that you had
to serve for a year period. That was the, what was supposed to have been in the bill. Okay.
Well, I don't think it reads that way. and that's why, among other reasons,
I find it to be problematic. Are there any other questions by the committee? Representative Underwood? No. Any other questions by the committee? All right, seeing no other questions by the committee, we do have one person signed up to speak on the bill, not for or against, no against the bill, and that is Judge Karen Watley. Judge Watley good to
see you as always you are recognized good evening thank you so much Mr.
Speaker 379
3:49:40
Chairman I am Karen Watley I'm a state circuit court judge for the sixth judicial circuit 16th division and I am here speaking against the bill this is this bill is opposed by judicial counsel As has been stated by numerous members, this bill would allow for anyone who has ever served as a judge, even for a very limited appointment, even a limited appointment that occurred 20-plus years ago, to be able to run on the ballot as judge.
And, you know, I think in the last, probably last year alone, we have at least 40 special associate justices that sat for just one day. I was one of those people in the past couple of years that did that. Based on how this bill is written, I would be able to run as a special associate justice, which I'm obviously a setting judge. I can use the word judge, but I should not be able to run as a special associate justice. I would also say that this would allow someone who was a judge in another state to come in. Even years ago, retired,
whatever, to come in and run as a judge in this state. So someone from California who was a judge at one point in time could come in. As Representative Clowney pointed out, this is not limited to a year. It could be for the one day, as the chairman did state. At one point in time, You did not have to be a retired judge to be a special judge to sit in a circuit court. And so someone who was appointed as judge 30 years ago would be able to run with judge in the title.
And so for, oh, and also would be able to run as a prosecutor because this says in serving a nonpartisan judicial office, which prosecutor does cover within that as well. And so for those reasons and other reasons that have been voiced by members of the committee, judicial counsel is opposed, and I am here on their behalf speaking against the bill. All right. Thank
you, Judge Watley. Are there any questions by the committee? Representative Ray?
Representative David Ray
Unverified
3:51:53
Did you say your interpretation is that if someone held a judicial office in a different state that they could use that here? Yes. Okay. Are there other states that you're aware of that do this? No, I'm
Speaker 379
3:52:04
not aware of any. I haven't done any research on it. But the way this bill is written, if you have ever served as a judge anywhere, it does not limit it to the state of Arkansas. The candidate has previously served in a nonpartisan judicial office. So if they have a nonpartisan judicial office in another state, they could come in and run as judge.
Okay. Thank you. Any other questions by the committee? Seeing no other questions about the committee. Thank you
judge widely for being here. Thank you. Thank you for those remarks We have no one else signed up to speak for or against
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
3:52:45
the bill Senator Clark, you are recognized to close for your bill Thank you. Mr. Chair. Thank you members of committee the appreciate the fair questions and criticisms
of the bill Wish I'd brought it here first
And it's also good to find out that your
judicial council is against it tonight It's always good to get more education in the legislature. So I will pull the bill down, and I will be bringing it back, but with a lot of the things that you have pointed out that need to be fixed, but I very much appreciate you hearing it. All right. Thank you, Senator
Clark. Without objection, the bill is pulled down.
- Senator Clark, you also have another bill on our agenda, Senate
Bill 376. This is a bill that my understanding has already been ran once and failed. Are you wanting another hearing on that
bill? - I would if the committee will allow it. - All right, well, if we're gonna hear that bill, it is nine o'clock. I would ask you to just keep
it as brief as you can. We've already heard it once, so. I will
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
3:53:55
be as brief as I can be, Mr. Chair, again, sit where you sit, so I very much appreciate your patience.
And I'm speaking of the committee, not just the chair. Senator Clark, one moment here. Real quick, since we have
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:54:11
heard the bill, are we going to go through, I mean, I'm assuming we're going to do public comment and all that good jazz. Can we go ahead and make, can I make the motion to limit debate to three minutes since we've already heard this once? And I want the public comment, but I just, we've
already heard it once. Your motion is to limit public comment to three minutes? Just because we've heard the thing one time already.
All right, that's a proper motion. It's non-debatable. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion passes. Public comment will be limited
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
3:54:48
to three minutes. Senator Clark, you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you. sb 376 is very simple uh it says that uh page one line 26 public meetings means the meetings of more than two members of any bureau commission or agency of the state or any political subdivision state including municipalities counties boards of education and all other boards etc
And the more than two members was the only change there on line 36. We'll start with line 35, but except as otherwise specifically provided by law, all meetings formal or informal, special or regular of, and the change, more than two members of the governing bodies of all municipality counties, et cetera. Page two, line five, if any two members of any governing body discuss a matter upon which action may be taken by the governing body outside of a public meeting of the governing body, the two members of the governing body are prohibited from disclosing
the opinion or position of another member on the matter with other members of the governing body. That is an amendment from the Arkansas Association of Counties. The people, Americans are Kansans, don't like kings. And we very much from the Senate, from the U.S. Senate and House down to counties and towns, we have everywhere we have a people's body. And when
I say we don't like kings, that's our executive branches come from that lineage. Most of the Most of the time when people have problems, it's with the executive branch. And who do they call on to get those problems fixed? It's the people's body, the legislative branch. As the law is set up now and has been for some time, and I've known this since I was a
quorum court member in the 90s, it's just wrong. The executive branch has all the power.
A quorum court member can't speak to another quorum court member, except under certain
circumstances, but the county judge can talk to everybody. School board members, I don't know how anybody does that job. The superintendent can talk to everybody. School board members can't talk to each other. City councils, the mayor, except in a couple of special forms, the mayor can talk to everybody.
The city council members cannot. But it's no way to run a business, it's no way to run government. This is under FOIA law and has been since 1967, but it's not FOIA. We're the only state that does this. You can't be expected to make huge decisions, important decisions, and not have ever discussed it with anybody. The public can discuss it with every member of the board, quorum court, city council,
but members can't talk to each other. Now some say that 227 allows that, but I had a conversation with Senator Tucker in the quiet room. And we were talking about 227 and we were talking about 376. And during that conversation I said, the conversation we're having right now, two quorum court members couldn't have. And he said, no, you're wrong. They could. I said, okay. Thirty minutes later, he came back to me and said, no, you were right. We could not have that conversation. Now, keep in mind that Senator Turker is an attorney, and the author of that bill,
if you think that the rest of the populace that are serving in these positions can carry around in their head and try to figure out what they can say and what they can't say, it's impossible. And for that reason, there will be no discussion. We have more like what we have going on in Jefferson County, because you know the correct way to be the people's body. You know that there have to be relationships, that you have to work with each other.
And if you're not having conversations, you're certainly not going to do that. I'll be happy to take
any questions. Senator Clarks, explain the bill. Are there any questions by
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:59:16
the committee? Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. So I wasn't here when this was originally heard, so I just want to make sure I'm understanding what this would do. So this would, just like the two members of the quorum court can't discuss matters, so if the county judge were to discuss it with a matter, with a member of the quorum court,
then that would also prohibit then the county judge from discussing it with other members or would prohibit that member that the county judge talked to from talking to other members on the court? The judge is not considered a member of that body
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
3:59:51
and he would not be affected at all by this law. Okay, so if the county, so
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:59:57
if I'm in the quorum court, the county judge talks to me about a certain issue, this would then prohibit
me from saying the county judge thinks this or that.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
4:00:07
Is that kind of what we're doing here? No, it keeps you from saying what another quorum court member said. The county judge is in
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
4:00:17
no way affected. Okay, so county judge is completely out of this. This would just say if me and Representative Berry were talking, then I couldn't go to Representative Crawford and said, Representative Berry thinks this.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
4:00:27
You can't tell him how he's going to vote.
Okay. All right, any other questions by the committee? Representative Hawke, thank you. Senator Clark, you and I talked in
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
4:00:38
the hallway briefly about the conversation with you and Senator Tucker.
My question, though, would be, so if you guys didn't talk about, like, how you would vote, you were just talking about the merits of the two bills, why wouldn't two quorum court members be able to do that? Because it's my understanding, like, 227 that just got passed, two quorum court members could talk about the merits of the bill or the action. They just couldn't say, how are you going to vote? Like, what are you going to do on this when this comes up?
So tell me, like, that conversation you and Senator Tucker had, how would that not be able to be had
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
4:01:20
currently? There is the polling part of the bill where no one who's part of government can poll and find out where
members of the body stand. And then there's the conversations, and the idea is that you can have conversations, but no, you definitely cannot talk about the merits of the bill, the merits of the ordinance.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
4:01:42
So 227 wouldn't allow for the merits to be talked about at all?
No. Okay, I guess I took a different interpretation of that, because I was under the impression from reading that
bill, Because I have spoken with multiple people as a former council member, and I said this to this committee last time, that was always my biggest frustration was whenever we would have an issue with our city that, you know, especially when I was new, I couldn't go and get insight, right? And so I was told by the attorney general's office, I was told by just different members that worked on that bill that in a situation under 227 that I would then be able to go and say, okay, we got a water infrastructure.
You know, the plan's been laid out. This is the plan. Give me the details on the plan. But I could never say, well, what's your opinion on the plan and how are you going to vote on it? I could just talk about, like, why the infrastructure was needed, you know, where, you know, things are going to, where it's going to happen in our city, things like that. That was my understanding. And so, what you're saying is that was just a misconception on my part. You should ask
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
4:02:53
that question of those that are going to testify against the
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
4:02:56
bill. Well, I mean, the Attorney General's not here, and that's one person I asked.
And so, that's why I'm asking you, because that's what was told to me from the Attorney General's
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
4:03:05
office. The people who are going to testify against the bill very much believe that you cannot have those discussions and do not want you to have those discussions. Okay, thank you. Any
other questions by the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee, we do have individuals signed up
to speak. Against the bill, I'll remind you, we've limited public debate to three minutes. We have three speakers.
So with that, I add Bullington. Ed Bullington. Mr. Bullington, if you would state your name,
any organization you're representing and you'll be recognized to
Speaker 393
4:03:48
present your remarks. Ed Bullington, just representing myself and my neighbors. I'm opposed to this bill because I'm strong supporter of Senate Bill 227, which I think establishes that business is done in public, not in many meetings.
And this bill allows a series of many meetings to gather intelligence about how people feel on a bill. So I don't think that's the way you do business in a public accountability and transparent manner. You have voted for 227, it's now Act 505. This bill, in my view, completely undermines Act 505 and it allows meetings to occur, to to gather information, to find out how people feel, and do it secretly.
All right, thank you, Mr. Bullington. Representative Beck has a question, if we can stop the
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
4:04:50
time. All right, Representative Beck, you're recognized. Just quickly, you were saying the serial meetings. Now, the last part says, and I'm going to just kind of see if I'm interpreting getting this right. The last part of the bill says that, you know, they could go to the other one, but they couldn't share the information that the previous member they had talked to had shared with them. Now, are you saying it's a serial meeting because they could maybe ask,
the first person asks the second person something, second member, excuse me, and then they could ask the third person the same question, but they couldn't share what the second person told them, the second member told them, correct? I believe that's true, but my deal is... So why is that a serial meeting? Is that what you mean, it's a serial meeting, just because I could ask all the members the same question? The way I read this
Speaker 393
4:05:42
is that member A and B could talk, member C and D could talk, and member E and F could talk.
and I'll gather information about how those six members feel when you get to the public meeting, then you know where the sentiment is. And that, to me, is contrary to the public accountability and transparency that we want in our governing bodies. I just want an
Speaker 396
4:06:06
explanation on that. Any other questions by
the committee? Seeing no other questions by the committee, thank you,
Mr. Bullington, for those remarks. Next, we have time to speak against the bill, Andrew Bagley.
I want to point out that there's two minutes and ten seconds remaining. Mr. Bagley, if you'd state your name, any organization you're here representing, and you'll be recognized to
Andrew Bagley
Unverified
4:06:32
present your remarks. My name is Andrew Bagley, I'm the president of the Arkansas Press Association. And our executive director, Ashley Wimberly, called me at noon today. She's in Kansas City at a conference, and I believe 376 is such a bad bill. I dropped everything in Helena and came straight down here. It does allow discussion of background to answer Representative Hawke's question.
Two members can discuss background, that's in 227, it's clear. And 227 came out, that language began in the AG's working group and has support of all the stakeholders, including the Association of Arkansas Counties. It is balanced between the need for transparency and having guardrails of the serial meeting portion that we're concerned about. while giving the elected officials flexibility that they needed. And it is a compromise that we're all signed on as well.
As it relates to the serial meetings, A talks to B, A talks to C, A talks to D, A talks to E. While he can't reveal to the members of the governing body how they voted, he can tell the presiding officer, county judge, or whatever, and you still have managed to get the debate done outside. So that's what 227 prevents. that's what this bill will allow and representative hawk did an excellent job in the last committee meeting of pointing out we need to let 227 have a chance to work before we have a bill that comes
in to get it the committee was right last week when it voted against this bill this bill has not changed with by one word it's still a bad bill and i would ask you to vote against it again tonight here at 9:15 p.m. And I'm here for any questions if you have any. All right. There's 32 seconds
remaining. Representative Beck, you're recognized for a question. That pauses the time. All right. In your example, you
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
4:08:22
said A talked to B, and then they talked to C, then they talked to D, and then A could talk to the judge.
Right. But the judge could talk
to all those people independently as it is. He doesn't need someone. I mean,
Andrew Bagley
Unverified
4:08:40
so I don't see how that sets up to me. Under current law, and in 227, you cannot use a surrogate to poll, whether it be the county judge or county judge's employee. That's specifically prohibited in 227, which 376 would then open that back up. So 227 provided the guardrail for that as well.
But if 376 were to pass, it would just rip 227 to shreds. So would it be
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
4:09:08
more correct than to say that it doesn't really change the serial meeting thing. It just makes
the judge go and ask the people independently and not get it
Andrew Bagley
Unverified
4:09:19
from someone in a third party. No, he can't do that independently either under 227. But this bill would allow that. And that's what I'm saying. 227 has the guardrails. 376 takes the guardrails off.
All right. Thank you. All right. next we have signed up to speak against
Speaker 343
4:09:48
the bill jimmy cavin mr cavin you know the drill you've got 32 seconds oh boy i'm glad i waited this all this time for this all right you're ready all right hopefully people are going to ask me questions because i can explain a whole lot of this uh basically since i don't have any time i'll just say the the Arkansas Attorney General,
the Arkansas Free Information Task Force, the Arkansas Association of Counties, the Municipal League, the Arkansas School Board Association, Arkansas Press Association, and more importantly, the People's Support 227. None of those endorse 376. You haven't seen anybody through this process sign up to speak for 376, okay? You've only seen people sign up to speak against 376. You only saw people sign up to speak for 227. You didn't see anybody speak against 227, so I will happily entertain any questions,
and I can clarify a lot
of those stuff that people have been asking. All right, Mr. Kevin, would you like to concisely set forth your objections to
this bill? I'm asking you. That's a question? Yes, I would love to do that.
Speaker 343
4:10:56
Please do concisely being the key word. Yes, sir. It does. 227 allows the entire body to meet and discuss background information and information that would be on agenda items.
What it doesn't allow them to do is to poll and deliberate and make a decision, whereas 376 does allow that. in the language in 376, I'll be glad to read it to you if you like, allows for those serial meetings to poll and to decide. And yes, if member A and B talk, they're not supposed to tell the member A is not supposed to tell member C that B is going to vote, but that doesn't prevent member A from asking C how they're going to vote. And it doesn't prevent
d from then going you get my point by that so i'm trying to be real concise but to representative hawk's uh deal yes you had it right in that first committee meeting and that's exactly it does allow the entire body this would limit to two people whereas 227 allows the entire body to get together and discuss that background information it just does not allow you to decide in poll. All right, Mr. Kevin,
Speaker 254
4:12:12
does that conclude your remarks? Yes, sir. All right, thank you very
much. Thank you for that extra time, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. All right,
that concludes all the individuals signed up to speak for or against the bill. Senator Clark, you're
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
4:12:28
recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is just a good
government bill. I don't have anything to gain by running it. You know, some people think that all elected officials are crooked, dishonest, you know, and we have a law that's designed to cover the 1%, not the 99% and produce good decisions. Senator Tucker was obviously confused
when we visited, I'm being sarcastic. We didn't talk about how we were going to vote. We didn't talk about polling in any way. We talked about the issues and he came back and said no, we could not have the discussion that we had. So I would ask you that you recognize that two people are not a meeting and two people talking generally are not up to no good. They're actually
trying to do their job the correct way and would you want to be under those rules is that the way to run the legislature because contrary to what some say there's no difference it's a county legislature it's a city it's a school board it's the state legislature and if that's the correct way to run it then we can live by that but it's not I'd
appreciate a good vote senator Clark has closed for his bill what are the wishes of the committee Representative Meeks makes a motion. Do pass.
Is there any discussion on the motion? Representative Hawk, you're recognized. Colleagues, I
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
4:14:01
mean, we've done this before. And look, I like what Senator Clark is doing here, but at the same time, we've already passed this, right? And look, I know that we've got folks in the room that testified against this. Look, if 227 doesn't work, I'll be the first person, Jimmy can put it on his blog, that I will go in with Alan Clark and do this, Bill. But I think 227 is going to work. And we've got too many people that have gotten involved on the first bill that said that is a good bill.
It is going to work. It's going to allow everybody to talk, just not poll. At the end of the day, that's what we've always wanted, was that to allow people not to be polled, but they can conduct business and talk—conduct business, bad word—but to be able to talk about issues. And we've handled that. We've heard it. And so with that, I'm going to vote no on this bill for those
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
4:14:57
reasons. Representative Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm ready to go.
I can't believe bills just keep popping up. We vote them down, and they come back, and they come back, and they come back. It's time to put this one to bed. 227, the stakeholders have worked for nearly two years to finalize language, that has the support of the Arkansas Press, Arkansas Attorney General, Association of Counties, the FOIA Task Force, and the Municipal League, and Arkansas School Boards Association.
As Representative Hawks said, let's watch it. Let's let it work, and let's kill this bill again. And for that reason, I'm voting no. Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing no other discussion on the motion,
we do have a motion due. Pass. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed. No.
The no's have it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. Thank you, Senator Clark. Last bill.
Senator Dotson. Three minutes, Senator Dodson has three minutes to present this bill. We've heard this bill just a meeting or two ago. - Thank you, Mr. Chairman. - We know what it
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
4:16:31
does, you're recognized. - Members, I will be as brief as possible. This bill simply, Senate Bill 570, Senator Jim Dodson, District 34 for the record. This bill adds the speaker, the immediate past speaker,
the president, the Senate President Pro Tem, and the immediate past Senate President Pro Tem as ex-officio members of the Joint Budget Committee. Currently, the only automatic seats on JBC are the co-chairs of ALC and Audit and their immediate predecessors. The Speaker and the Senate President Pro Tem currently have automatic seats on ALC and Audit, but have to pick JBC. This bill would allow a lower seniority member the opportunity to select JBC as their committee. Extra membership on JBC represents a bigger segment
of the state when it comes to making decisions on the budget that affect the whole state. While this bill maintains parity between House and Senate membership, the increase in the number of members on the committee makes it where it will take more consensus when considering legislation, which clearly benefits the House members who are more accustomed to showing up and staying through an entire committee meeting. And with that, I'll take questions.
Senator Dotson's been around a while. Any questions by the committee? Representative Collins. So, you know, I don't
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
4:17:54
want to belabor it, but Senator Dotson, I understand what you're saying that it'll allow less senior members to get on budget. I suppose that's true, but why is that really a good thing? You know, budget is the first thing a new member would do. They could be on audit and do something in the interim after they've been through a session. Why not see how the process works before we try to make it easier for them
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
4:18:18
to get on budget? Well, to be clear, this would increase the number of members from 24 House members to 26.
So probably more than likely, and you know, having gone through sessions like I have, that the process, you pick joint budget, ALC, or audit all at the same time. Some of the most senior members typically pick ALC or joint budget. So you're probably not going to get on joint budget in your first term in the House, regardless of whether this bill passes or not. maybe not in your second or third term. And so I think you'll still have plenty of opportunity, but it would allow a little bit lower seniority member
to have an opportunity at it where the speaker has to pick it. They already have an automatic seat on ALC and on audit. This would just open up an extra slot for somebody that's kind of next up
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
4:19:09
in line. Okay, and the other thing we talked about last time is that it will dilute
the votes basically of everyone on budget because there will be more people on budget. And so it'll favor leadership and dilute everyone
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
4:19:22
else's vote. What do you say to that? I don't think diluting, spreading out the membership, having to increase consensus on something benefits leadership.
Leadership typically is benefited by having a smaller group of people that they can get consensus with rather than a larger group that they have to try to get a larger amount of consensus on. So I think the exact opposite is true, that by increasing the membership of the committee, it actually makes it probably a little bit more difficult for leadership to have that buy-in and increases the amount of say that regular members of the committee might have
Speaker 413
4:19:58
on legislation. But diluting the vote is what I was talking about.
I mean, it does dilute the vote, right? Well, you would have more, you'd have to
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
4:20:08
have more consensus. So, yes, you'd have to have more votes in order to pass something. Okay. Any
Speaker 254
4:20:21
other questions by the committee? Representative Long. I'll make
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
4:20:24
it quick. I would have supported it if you just added two more spots, but adding them strictly for people that has high seniority leadership people,
it's like, you know, they already run things. So it's like, why add more
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
4:20:36
of them on there? Well, I would say that they will be on there regardless of whether this bill passes or not What it does is it allows spots for someone who may not be have the opportunity to get on the committee The opportunity to get up on to the committee leadership is going to be on the committee Any other questions by
the committee Seeing no other questions by the committee. We have no one signed up to speak for
against the bills Senator Dotson you're recognized to close for your bill. I'm closed. I appreciate a good vote. Senator Dotson is closed for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee? Representative Meeks. Makes a motion. Makes a motion. Do pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed. No. I
Speaker 265
4:21:21
think the no's have it. I thank you for
your time. Thank you Senator Dotson. With that committee thank you so much.
Incredible work, five terms in the legislature, best committee I've ever served on. Thank you all so much. This meeting is adjourned.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1041 R. Scott Richardson TO PROHIBIT DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES IN ELECTION COMMUNICATIONS.
HB1883 Long TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF ELECTRONIC DATA AND METADATA.
HB1884 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MARKING AND COUNTING OF PAPER BALLOTS.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTIONS PROPOSING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Number Sponsor Subtitle
SJR15 J. Dismang A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SENATE BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
SB471 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CANDIDATES FOR NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS; AND TO ALLOW CERTAIN CANDIDATES FOR NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS TO USE THE TITLE OF THE NONPARTISAN JUDICIAL OFFICE ON THE BALLOT.
SB536 D. Sullivan TO ABOLISH AND TRANSFER THE ARKANSAS STATE LIBRARY AND THE STATE LIBRARY BOARD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB12 B. King TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING REDISTRICTING BY THE BOARD OF APPORTIONMENT.
SB376 A. Clark TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC MEETINGS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967.
SB570 J. Dotson TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE.
SB486 B. Johnson CONCERNING SAFETY AND PRIVACY IN CERTAIN ENTITIES; AND CONCERNING THE DESIGNATION OF MULTI-OCCUPANCY RESTROOMS, CHANGING ROOMS, AND SLEEPING QUARTERS IN CERTAIN ENTITIES BASED ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S SEX.
SB569 M. Johnson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING BALLOT TITLES OF PROPOSED MEASURES; AND AMENDING THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 5, SECTION 1.
DEFERRED BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1024 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; AND TO REPEAL THE LAW PROHIBITING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
HB1028 A. Collins TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE LAW CONCERNING OBSCENITY AND THE PROCESS FOR CHALLENGING MATERIALS INCLUDED IN A LIBRARY; AND TO REQUIRE A LIBRARY TO HAVE A POLICY PROHIBITING BOOK BANNING IN ORDER TO RECEIVE STATE FUNDING.
HB1043 A. Collins TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING OF NONCANDIDATE EXPENDITURES PERTAINING TO APPELLATE JUDICIAL ELECTIONS; AND TO ADOPT NEW LAWS CONCERNING APPELLATE JUDICIAL CAMPAIGNS.
HB1162 Duffield TO ESTABLISH GOOD FRIDAY AS AN OFFICIAL STATE HOLIDAY.
HB1058 Unger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FOR PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; AND TO PROHIBIT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FROM GIVING ADVANCE NOTICE TO ENTITIES OF REQUIRED INSPECTIONS.
HB1059 Unger TO PROVIDE THE OPTION FOR A FREE LIFETIME HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSE TO A COMMERCIAL TRUCK DRIVER WHO IS A RESIDENT AND PROVIDES CERTAIN INFORMATION RELATED TO HUMAN TRAFFICKING.
HB1078 Long TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR A RUNOFF ELECTION FOR CANDIDATES FOR THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
HB1281 McAlindon TO AMEND REPORTING FOR A CANDIDATE FOR CERTAIN MUNICIPAL OFFICES AND FOR COUNTY OFFICE; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996.
HB1415 L. Johnson TO REQUIRE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO RESPOND TO A REQUEST FOR A FIRE INQUIRY.
HB1494 Hawk TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS GUIDANCE OUT OF THE DARKNESS ACT; AND TO REQUIRE STATE AGENCIES TO PUBLISH FEDERAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS ONLINE.
HB1459 L. Johnson CONCERNING RECURRING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
HB1461 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE EVALUATION OF NECESSITY OF VARIOUS COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS.
SB184 D. Sullivan TO TRANSFER THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ARKANSAS EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION COMMISSION AND THE STATE LIBRARY BOARD TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.
HB1667 Bentley TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC MEETINGS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967.
HB1769 Barnett CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER STANDARDS; AND TO REQUIRE A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION OR ASSESSMENT TO BECOME OR BE EMPLOYED AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
HB1621 Wardlaw TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO EXEMPT PERSONAL INFORMATION OF ELECTED CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS, JUDICIAL OFFICIALS, ELECTED COUNTY OFFICIALS, ELECTED MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS, AND THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILY.
HB1631 Wardlaw TO ADDRESS THE ISSUANCE OF HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENTS.
HB1069 S. Meeks TO OBSERVE STANDARD TIME YEAR ROUND IN ARKANSAS; AND TO ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME IN ARKANSAS.
HB1720 Vaught TO CREATE THE BABIES AT WORK ACT; TO ALLOW STATE AGENCIES TO PERMIT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO ARE PARENTS OR LEGAL GUARDIANS TO BRING THEIR INFANTS SIX MONTHS OR YOUNGER TO WORK.
HB1753 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO OPT-OUT OF THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 1993; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, § 5.
HB1773 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR BALLOT QUESTION COMMITTEES AND LEGISLATIVE QUESTION COMMITTEES.
HB1037 A. Collins AN ACT TO CREATE THE PREREGISTRATION TO VOTE ACT; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, § 19.
HB1035 A. Collins TO CREATE THE ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 2025; TO ALLOW ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION; TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51; AND TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
HB1036 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO ALLOW VOTER REGISTRATION DURING EARLY VOTING AND ON ELECTION DAY; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51.
HB1038 A. Collins TO CREATE THE NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING ACT OF 2025; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE VOTING; AND TO REPEAL VOTER QUALIFICATIONS FOR ABSENTEE VOTING.
HB1039 A. Collins TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOTS; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS.
HB1040 A. Collins TO CREATE THE WATER IN LINE ACT OF 2025; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PENALTIES FOR MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES RELATED TO VOTING.
HB1042 A. Collins TO CREATE THE DIRECT DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2025; TO REPEAL THE ENSURING ACCESS FOR ALL ARKANSANS AND VOTER PROTECTION ACT OF 2023; AND TO AMEND THE PROCEDURE FOR THE FILING OF A BALLOT INITIATIVE PETITION AND REFERENDUM PETITION.
HB1849 Gramlich TO ALLOW FOR THE CROSS DEPUTIZATION OF MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, STATE, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ON FEDERALLY-RECOGNIZED TRIBAL LAND WITHIN THE STATE.
HB1614 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRANT PROGRAMS.
HB1973 B. McKenzie TO PROVIDE THAT A GOVERNMENTAL BODY SHALL NOT USE STATE OR LOCAL FUNDS TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH A LOBBYIST FOR THE PURPOSE OF LOBBYING ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS- HOUSE, Apr 15, 2025 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Chair
Unverified
Gail Choate
Unverified
Kristen Foster
Unverified
Courtney Frierson
Unverified
Speaker 27
Tian Estelle
Unverified
Speaker 37
Speaker 38
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
Marisa Garcia
Unverified
Maricela Garcia
Unverified
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
Marie Maynard
Unverified
Speaker 69
Speaker 82
Speaker 85
Dolores Welk
Unverified
Speaker 100
Speaker 106
Evelyn Rio
Unverified
Speaker 111
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Brittany Stockton
Unverified
Abigail Thompson
Unverified
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
Speaker 147
Representative David Ray
Unverified
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 187
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Speaker 190
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
Speaker 203
Speaker 184
Speaker 243
Speaker 250
Speaker 254
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
Speaker 225
Speaker 261
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 289
Speaker 217
Kristen Stewart
Unverified
Speaker 312
Jp Tribble
Unverified
Josh Silverstein
Unverified
Speaker 326
Speaker 327
Speaker 336
Speaker 338
Speaker 343
Speaker 344
Speaker 79
Speaker 346
Speaker 348
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Speaker 372
Speaker 379
Speaker 393
Speaker 396
Andrew Bagley
Unverified
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
Speaker 413
Speaker 265