State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (59)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1604
Act 943
· 6 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…AWS CONCERNING ACTIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN FOREIGN ENTITIES. HB1604 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED CONTRACTS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED CONTRACTS BY STATE AGENCIES; AND TO PROHIBIT THE USE … | McAlindon | Notification that HB1604 is now Act 943 |
|
HB1694
Act 996
· 6 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…STATE AGENCIES TO PURCHASE PROMOTIONAL ITEMS MADE IN CHINA. HB1694 Hawk TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES TO ELECTRONIC…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES TO ELECTRONIC FILING FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS. | Hawk | Notification that HB1694 is now Act 996 |
|
HB1797
Act 944
· 6 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “…in, Howard Beatty District 95. This is Senate bill, I mean, House Bill 1797, uh, and these were amendments that that were requested on…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | Beaty Jr. | Notification that HB1797 is now Act 944 |
|
HB1800
Act 998
· 6 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1800 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURE FOR CAMPAI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURE FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE; TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE BY A REPRESENTATIVE … | McAlindon | Notification that HB1800 is now Act 998 |
|
SB608
Act 991
· 5 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB608 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS FOR…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS FOR COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL OFFICERS. | M. Johnson | Notification that SB608 is now Act 991 |
|
SB486
Act 955
· 3 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “Thank you, committee. All right, next we have Senate Bill 486, Senator Johnson, concerning safety and privacy in certain…”
|
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 |
|
SB489
Act 950
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB489 G. Leding TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE PLACEMENT OF…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE PLACEMENT OF A MONUMENT ON THE STATE CAPITOL GROUNDS … | G. Leding | Notification that SB489 is now Act 950 |
|
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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MENT 51; AND TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE. 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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OT QUESTION COMMITTEES AND LEGISLATIVE QUESTION COMMITTEES. 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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IATED ACT 1 OF 1990. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1041 R. Scott TO PROHIBIT DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES IN…”
|
TO PROHIBIT DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES IN ELECTION COMMUNICATIONS. | R. Scott Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1042
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RNING PENALTIES FOR MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES RELATED TO VOTING. 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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENTS. 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. |
|
HB1243
Act 994
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RNATIVES TO ELECTRONIC FILING FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS. HB1243 Underwood TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTR…”
|
TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES; TO AMEND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTING AND PROTECT … | Underwood | Notification that HB1243 is now Act 994 |
|
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. |
|
HB1352
Act 937
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…aty, Jr. CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1352 Beaty Jr. TO AMEND VARIOUS LAWS CONCERNING ACTIONS RELATED…”
|
TO AMEND VARIOUS LAWS CONCERNING ACTIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN FOREIGN ENTITIES. | Beaty Jr. | Notification that HB1352 is now Act 937 |
|
HB1415
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E ARKANSAS CODE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996. 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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
HB1524
Act 939
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1524 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BIDDING PROCEDUR…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BIDDING PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES. | Wooldridge | Notification that HB1524 is now Act 939 |
|
HB1614
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NICIPAL OFFICIALS, Page 3 of 4 AND THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILY. 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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…DIANS TO BRING THEIR INFANTS SIX MONTHS OR YOUNGER TO WORK. 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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…END PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, § 5. 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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
HB1878
Act 978
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1878 McGruder TO ENSURE EARLY VOTING ACCESS FOR ARKANSANS RESIDI…”
|
TO ENSURE EARLY VOTING ACCESS FOR ARKANSANS RESIDING IN POPULATION CENTERS; AND TO REQUIRE A … | McGruder | Notification that HB1878 is now Act 978 |
|
HB1883
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ERS TO CONDUCT EARLY VOTING IN A CITY IN CERTAIN INSTANCES. 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: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. 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: “…E LAW CONCERNING THE MARKING AND COUNTING OF PAPER BALLOTS. 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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
SB491
Act 956
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE TITLE OF THE NONPARTISAN JUDICIAL OFFICE ON THE BALLOT. SB491 K. Hammer TO REQUIRE A VENDOR THAT CONTRACTS WITH THE OFFIC…”
|
TO REQUIRE A VENDOR THAT CONTRACTS WITH THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION TO SUBMIT DATA FOR … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB491 is now Act 956 |
|
SB536
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…F THE CHARLESTON AND FAYETTEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN 1954. 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. |
|
SB538
Act 782
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…BLIC MEETINGS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967. SB538 Gilmore TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PROCUREMENT LAW. SB608 M. Joh…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PROCUREMENT LAW. | Gilmore | Notification that SB538 is now Act 782 |
|
SB565
Act 936
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE. SB565 Flippo TO ALLOW PROCUREMENT CERTIFICATIONS TO BE COMBINED;…”
|
TO ALLOW PROCUREMENT CERTIFICATIONS TO BE COMBINED; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE REPRESENTATION IN … | Flippo | Notification that SB565 is now Act 936 |
|
SB570
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Y AND THE STATE LIBRARY BOARD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. 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. |
|
SB613
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB613 C. Penzo TO CREATE AN ELECTION PROCEDURE TO DETERMINE FLUOR…”
|
TO CREATE AN ELECTION PROCEDURE TO DETERMINE FLUORIDATION OF A PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM. | C. Penzo | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB614
Act 992
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB614 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967;…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | C. Tucker | Notification that SB614 is now Act 992 |
|
SB640
Act 903
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AMEND THE Page 2 of 4 LAW CONCERNING OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS. SB640 J. Dismang TO RECONSTITUTE THE STATE LIBRARY BOARD. DEFERRE…”
|
TO RECONSTITUTE THE STATE LIBRARY BOARD. | J. Dismang | Notification that SB640 is now Act 903 |
|
SJR11
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ROPOSING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Number Sponsor Subtitle SJR11 J. Payton A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONS…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 2, § 5, TO PROTECT THE RIGHT … | J. Payton | Approved by the Governor. |
|
HB12
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “present the concurrence on House Bill 12.”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB15
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…ncurring with some of the Senate amendments. So first up is HB 15, excuse me, 1352, Representative Batia, you ready?”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:34
The chair is a quorum. All right. So, um, what we're gonna do is we're gonna start just
doing some uh concurring with some of the uh Senate, uh, amendments. So first up is. Be 15, 3 excuse me, 1352, uh, Representative Bea, are you ready?
Represented, it's my understanding this one does not have an amendment, but maybe some of the other ones you have
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:15
does do. 1352 does have an amendment or had an it's just concurrence in the Senate amendment. I don't think there is an
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
2:22
amendment. Like, so, uh, please identify yourself for the committee and you're good
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:27
to go. Representative Howard Beatty District 95, uh, uh, members, this was the um anti-China legislation that we ran earlier in the session and basically there was an amendment that we
had agreed to, um, with all parties and it was basically substituting or deleting an end and substituting an ore on line 31 at page 6, with that I'm Any questions. Are there any questions
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
2:54
of the committee? Saying no, you're uh good to close for your Amendment, I'm
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:00
closed and offer a motion do pass motion do
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
3:03
pass, uh. Any discussion on the motion. Saying none, all those in favor,
say ah, and your post. Congratulations, Representative Maor concurrence has passed.
Were you going to go ahead and do the other ones? I, I can,
Speaker 27
3:21
chair, you're in, you're in, you're in control, 17, go ahead
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
3:24
and pass out the. OK, so you have a, you already have the amendments sitting on. I'll give you just a moment to take a look at those. It's gonna be 1797. We'll give them just a moment,
uh, and then if you'll identify yourself with the committee, you'll be good to go and on
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:49
1797. Representative Howard Beatty District 95 members. This was the um 1797, the ADFA bill, uh, and there were two amendments on the bill, Amendment 1, these were agreed upon language and and concurrence, um, the amendment from the Senate, um. And I'll entertain any questions on those, um. On the amendments.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
4:24
I'm sorry, my mistake. We're, we're gonna have to vote on the amendments individually and then the bill, so if you'll describe one of the amendments first and Uh, talk about it and we'll vote on that. All
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
4:38
right, uh, again, Howard Beatty District 95. This is Senate bill, I mean, House Bill 1797, uh, and these were amendments that that were requested on behalf of the Senate and the senator's addressed concerns on
1797, uh, with that all entertain any questions.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
5:00
Seeing no questions from the committee, uh. Was that
a question? Rector Mcroy. Saying no question from the committee. You're good to call on your concurrence. I'm, I'm close. I'm a concurrence
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
5:12
offer motion do pass. I appreciate a good vote. We have a motion to pass
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
5:18
this during any discussion on the motion. Saying
none once again, uh, all those in favor say aye and a pulse. All right Representative Howard Beatty
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
5:31
District 95, uh, House Bill 1797 Amendment number 2, basically, again, uh, language and and change on the bill that was negotiated and request on behalf of the Senate and uh with that, I'll entertain any questions. Excuse me. Representative Collins,
Speaker 40
5:46
uh parliamentary inquiry. What's your inquiry? So is
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
5:49
he running these amendments on 1797 in the House, and if so, where are they? Because I thought he was just running the bill. It's in there.
You know. It's concurrence. Well, the concurrence is different than running the amendment concurrence would just mean to pass the bill as amended by the Senate. Is that what we're doing? That's what I thought we were doing. Give me just a second. I tried to do at the beginning. And that what I tried to
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
6:25
do at the beginning. You are correct. We're just agreeing to the the amendments that the Senate put on the bill. And so since you
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
6:32
already called that on 1797 for the eyes and you actually introduced it that way. I think that one's passed out, right? That was concurred in now. Oh, I see, got it. Uh Right. So I got a little
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
6:50
bit out of order here, so we've got the 2nd Amendment and you've made a motion to pass. So now we're talking about the 2nd Amendment. All those in favor say aye. And pulse.
Uh, congratulations amendments have passed. Uh, that's my last, I think.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
7:10
Amendment. I do have a bill though. We're gonna, we're, we're gonna stay on
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
7:17
concurrences right now and we'll back to those.
Next we're going to hear 1524. This is to concur on Senate
amendments. Please identify yourself for the committee and you're good to go.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
7:50
Thank you, Mr. Chairman Jeremy Wooldridge State Representative District one. And this is
just the same as Representative Beatty concurring in Senate amendment. Happy to answer any questions.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
8:06
Are there any questions on the amendment saying 9 you're good
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
8:11
to call on your I've got a motion to
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
8:14
adopt the amendment. We were to adopt amendments or discussion on the amendment. On a concur on them concur in the amendment. Any discussion. Saying
none, all those in favor say aye. He oppose. I congratu you you passed your concurrence.
OK, next we're gonna move to uh House Bill 1604 uh for concurrence. Please identify yourself with the committee and
then you're good to present your concurrence with Representative Mindy McAlinden, House District
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
9:02
10. So this is on House Bill 1604, the uh no promotional items made in China, we add an amendment on the Senate side at the request of higher ed sports to make sure that we weren't interfering with
our sports contracts that they have currently, like they have a contract with Nike that they don't have to quit that contract, but when it comes back up, it'll be a concern, so with that, I asked for
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
9:32
a motion. Uh. Uh, Representative Meeks has a motion to concur on the amendment is during discussion. Saying none, all those in favor say aye, and you pose.
Congratulations, you concurred on the amendment. Thank you. Do you want me to do the other one as well? Yeah, why you're there, go ahead and present House
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
9:56
Bill 1800. Thank you, sir. Representative Mindy McAloon, House District 10. House Bill 1800 at the request of the chamber, we made a a pretty big amendment on the Senate side to reduce the bill. There's a lot of discussion. We've reduced it so that it just refers to hostile foreign entities, and with that I asked for a motion.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
10:16
I Mark Roy. Motion, so we have a motion. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Saying none. All those in favor say aye. And he pa. Congratulations, we
have concurred on uh house Bill Senate member House Bill 1800. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
I think next time we will have House Bill 1694. Representative Ho, please identify yourself
with the community and you're good to go. State
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
11:04
Representative RJ Hawk, this is House Bill 1694 concerning the filing of election reports via paper with the Secretary of State's office and transferring that to electronic filing. And so when we got to the gauntlet that the
state agencies in the Senate, we realized quickly that uh if there is an emergency that takes place, let's say the power's gone out or somebody had a family emergency, uh, we do want to still give them an option to be able to file their election reports with the Secretary of State. Paper, but after 10 days of them filing that they would have to update that to the to the portal. So that's all the amendment does, and I make a motion uh to concur the amendment. We have a motion to concur on the Senate amendment,
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
11:48
uh, any discussion on the motion. Saying none, all those in favor say ah ah in
a pulse. Congratulations, you have concurred on amendments 2. 1694. If you give me just a second, we'll look at the next item. All right, uh, Representative Underwood, are you prepared to
present the concurrence on House Bill 12.
43. All right, please identify yourself with the committee and you're good to go. Kenan Underwood State Representative District
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
12:35
16. This is the bill that I ran uh previously that related to uh finance reports for county and city officials, um, and if you recall when I was here before, uh, there was a couple of items
that I needed to amend in case other people's bills pass, and so those bills did pass. Collins' bill changing the last uh filing date and Representative Hawke's bill changing everything from the county to the Secretary of State. And so this all this amendment does is Makes those changes to my bill to make it consistent with other legislation. I make a At the right
time, I make a motion to concur in Senate amendment. All right,
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
13:15
um, is there any discussion? Do you want to make that motion
to concur. All right, is there any discussion on the concurrence? Seeing none,
all those in favor say aye. Any a pulse. Congratulations you incurred. On your amendments. Hold on for
just one second. OK, next we're gonna hear.
Senate bill, um, 489, uh, Senator Laing, please identify yourself with the committee and you're
good to go. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair Greg Letting Senate District 30 from Fayetteville. Uh, earlier in this session, we passed Act 251. That was
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
14:04
a bill to honor Hoxsey School District's contribution to reintegrating public schools in the state. They did so in 1955 and faced an ultimately unsuccessful legal challenge during discussion around that legislation, Fay Fayetville and Charleston both rightfully pointed out that they desegregated the year before in
1954. Fayetteville School District actually voted to do it first in May of that year, but because of the school calendar, Charleston was the first one to reintegrate, but the news of that did not reach other cities because there wasn't a lot of media, we don't have the social media, I didn't have the social media. that we do today. But so Fayetteville and Charleston sort of jointly shared the distinction of not being the first two school districts in Arkansas to desegregate, but the first two districts in the South to do so. um, and so there was conversations about having some sort of joint monument that is ultimately not what happened and so the Fay Fayetville School District and Charleston school
districts asked Senator Stubblefield and I to run legislation to place a monument on the Capitol grounds honoring their desegregation in 1954, um. The, this bill came out of Senate committee unanimously and off the Senate floor without any no votes. Happy to take questions. Website it makes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Uh, any
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
15:10
idea what the monument might look like at this point, or is that still kind of a point for discussion. I imagine that'd be
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
15:17
a point for discussion just with most of these, I don't believe it specifies in here at all, and I
should also point out that as with, I think most every monument on the grounds, all the funds will be privately collected.
Speaker 82
15:30
All right, thank you. to the right. They can make it look
Speaker 90
15:37
like me, I, you know, I don't care. You look
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
15:40
like Is there any other discussion? Yeah, I, no questions, brother, not discussion. Alright, uh, you're good to call for your bill and I'm closing and I'd ask for a good vote. All right, what's the will of the committee?
Uh, we have a motion to pass from Representative Meeks. Is there any discussion on the motion. Seeing none, all those in favor say ah. And he opposed. Congratulations, Senator. Thank you your pillows passed. Next, I'm gonna jump ahead to Senate Bill 608.
Uh, Senator Johnson. Yeah Mark Johnson, excuse me. I'm told this
will be a quick bill for us to get out
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
16:48
of here. Presidentify yourself with the committee and you're good to go. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Mark Johnson, Senate District 17. Uh, Bill 608 is pretty simple bill. Currently in our uh code
relating to municipal and county officials. The, uh, it's possible for someone to be elected to office with 40% plus 1 vote and I've always just felt strongly that our whole uh democracy is built on 50% plus 1 vote, a true majority. So what this bill does simply is it takes it back to 50% plus 1. vote to be elected without a runoff if someone gets 40
something%, then there must be a runoff 4 weeks later. I'll be glad to answer any questions. Senator Johnson has explained
the bill. Are there any questions by the committee? Representative makes Are there any questions about
the committee? Saying no questions by the committee. Give me just a moment here.
Seeing no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Senator Johnson, you recognize a close for your
bill. I'm closed, Mr. Chairman. Thank, appreciate a good vote. Senator Johnson's closed for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee, Representative Meeks makes a motion to pass Is there
any discussion on that motion, seeing no discussion on the motion, all those in favor say aye. All those
opposed. Yeah it's habit, congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. All right, next we have Senate
Bill 486. Senator Johnson. Concerning safety and privacy in certain entities and
concerning the designation of multi accuracy restrooms, changing rooms. And sleeping quarters in certain entities. Based on an individual's sex. Representative Bentley. Thank you,
Chairman. Thank you, Committee State Representative Mary Bentley, District
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
19:01
54, and it's OK with the chairman. I
will bring, uh, Stephanie Nichols here to help present this bill. Uh. Representative Bentley, did you have a question? Thank you. Uh, State Representative Mary Bentley District 54. I appreciate y'all being here this morning. If you, uh, remember. Congratulations. if you remember back, uh, last session colleague we passed a bill to uh keep the boys and
girls bathrooms separate in schools to make sure that our girls were safe and have private areas. This bill extends that to uh higher education, correctional institutions, and to make sure that our domestic violence shelters and our shelters across the state are protected. The women's privacy and safety are protected across our state. Thank you guys will understand that we have young women that uh have been suffering in domestic violence situations do not need to have a male present in domestic violence shelter. I want to make sure that these people are safe wherever they go, make sure their privacy is protected for young woman is going through a period or
whatever those kind of things. She needs to be safe and protected and I understand those privacy areas need to be protected for the women across our state. I'm not gonna belabor the issue on this bill. We, uh, basically with the correctional institutions. Senator Johnson has made amendments on the Senate end. There's no issue with them at the Correctional Institutes the shelters the same thing as well as higher education. We their concerns at this point. I have no, no opposition from an agency across the state, and I'll let Stephanie present real quick before we take any questions. You're recognized. Good morning. I'm Stephanie
Speaker 117
20:39
Nichols. I am an allied attorney with Alliance
Speaker 118
20:42
Defending Freedom, um, which is an organization that is a legal expert on privacy laws throughout the nation. 18 states have passed some version of privacy laws and they are currently being upheld in courts. There have been a couple of jurisdictions that have struck them down, but recently the Ninth Circuit and the 11th Circuit have up. Held these laws and I believe the 8th Circuit would as well.
Um, these are common sense laws. They recognized that when my 9th year old daughter, when my 9 year old daughter is in a changing area at a public pool. Um, we don't need to have any concerns that she is going to encounter a male in a state of undress. In other states have dealt with that issue in Oregon, um, there was a man who was in a locker room area with girls as young as 6 and the police were called. They were not able to.
arrest the man because he said, oh, I identify as transgender. And currently there is nothing in Arkansas law, um, that allows the ability to arrest a man in that same situation unless
Speaker 117
21:58
you can prove criminal intent. If you can prove intent to assault or something like that, then yeah, um, you can put the guy through the criminal
Speaker 118
22:08
justice system, but otherwise, we don't have what we need in Arkansas law to deal with that situation,
Um, many people say this law is unnecessary. I have 8 pages of headlines in my notebook right near now that proves that it has been an issue throughout the country and if one young girl is harmed by the failure to act and remedy this situation in Arkansas law that's one young girl, too many. Um, with privacy issues, exposure is too much and too late, and I want you to think about the legal issue of
consent. For decades now we have been teaching young women that they have a right to bodily privacy that no one has a right to see your body without your consent, but due to political agendas, we have turned that on its head and we have said, hey, um, you're feelings. Don't matter. As much as someone else's expectations. And I, I would appreciate. I would appreciate the consideration of this committee
for the needs and desires of um young women when they go off to college, will they be assigned a roommate in their dorm room that is actually a male, um, will, will I have to as a mother, um, be concerned about who might be in addressing area with my child in either athletics or situations like the public pool like I mentioned earlier. Um, so I would appreciate your consideration of this bill and I'm also available to answer any questions you might have.
Thank you, Ms. Nichols, Representative Bentley, did you have any
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
24:01
more remarks? I'm open to questions the committee
has at this point. Thank you. Are there any questions by the committee, Representative Clowney, you're
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
24:09
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your concern for women as one and as the mother of two young girls, um, I share your concern. also share your concern um about people being afraid and was a mother of young women, I will, I will tell you of, of
young girls, I will tell you that I have not heard of either anecdotally from them, from any constituent in the state of Arkansas, um, of the problem that again we claim we're trying to solve. We keep talking about this fear of going into a public restroom. My contention is that that fear now exists because of bills like this that keep being run to stoke the fear, not because of any actual danger present in our state. The fear among trans members of
this state, trans residents and citizens of the state, is because the harm that is being done to them is not just something we talk about. It's real. We're not bringing bills. All we are doing is defending against attack after attack after attack. My question has to do with um The presentation of trans people. Um, I am fortunate to know a lot of trans people to have to love a lot of trans
people, and I can tell you that despite bills like this that seem to um presume that what we are doing is stopping people who um who look a certain way from going into a restroom. I, I just want to talk about the reality of it with you. I wanna ask you if you are aware that if legislation like this passes, the result will be. Big burly bearded men walking into restrooms that are designated for women. That's because those beer big burly bearded men.
May have a girl or female on their
birth certificate. Is that the outcome that you want because that is the outcome that will result if
Speaker 117
26:15
this passes. Biological sex cannot be changed. There's a biological power differential and that needs to be recognized in our laws regardless of how we feel
Speaker 118
26:23
or how a person feels on any given day. There will be many people that the best solution would be to
use a single occupancy facility that would be maybe the best option for everyone. We cannot take Protection of our young women. And put that um under the umbrella of you can have this protection and privacy only if someone else does not, you know, feel like they are the opposite sex and want to intrude on your privacy. You know, we have read stories of athletics throughout the nation of women swimmers
being forced to, um, undress in front of nude men and, and that's not anything we need our women athletes to be forced to. There will be. Many situations where single occupancy facilities are the best option and this bill recognizes that. I just also like to say sexual assault is real, and
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
27:23
many women across the state have dealt with sexual assault to deny their feelings of fear and their feelings of stress because another man is in the bathroom or the fear of a man coming to the bathroom is surely I'm just, I'm really shocked that you
would not understand their true feelings and their results of having been sexually assaulted and not want to face that again. We don't need men changing a girls' bathrooms. This is all about defining men and defining women and making sure those women are protected in every area that we're asking for this. privacy. There's also reasonable accommodations made for those that do not want to go into those areas. So there are reasonable accommodations made in our schools K through 12, we're having the same reasonable accommodations made in every area they were asking for the safety and the protection to be put first in our state.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
28:08
Thank you. And and just to be clear, I, I
wasn't obviously, you know, Representative Bentley me better than to say that I was denying the existence of sexual assault or the fear that that causes, um, I was thinking very much about the fear that would be caused if um if a trans man, you know, um, were forced to enter um a women's bathroom, fear on all sides. So thank you. Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
28:34
want to ask about what costs are going to be incurred to comply
with this. I see a few areas where it seems like there would be some, some costs. First of all, uh, a multi-occupancy restaurant or I'm sorry, restroom would have to be designated for the exclusive use by one sex or the other, so if you know, a facility had a multi-occupancy restroom that served both, they would have to, you know, build out something different. Secondly, taking reasonable steps. to provide privacy in a designated restroom or changing room, uh, if, you know, it didn't meet muster according to
this bill would have to be reconstructed so that it did, and I think the broadest one is they're, they're opened up to liability if they prevent someone, if they don't prevent someone from encountering someone of the opposite sex in a restroom, so, uh, obviously that is a compulsion for them to take care of that potential of someone entering inadvertently into the restroom, so Uh, I guess, can you tell me about uh the costs as you've assessed them. I mean, what's,
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
29:40
what is the fiscal impact say on this bill? I think places across the state have already made reasonable accommodations. I don't see maybe changing a sign, very minimal cost incurred. Thank you. I would, I would say to you that there was some serious costs that they hired higher education institutes to be here to complain about those costs and there's absolutely no opposition from them on this bill, so I'm sure if there was some uh serious amount of money we'd be hearing opposition, which there is none here today. What does the fiscal impact say?
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
30:06
Did you get one on this bill? Uh, Senator Johnson's not here
Speaker 132
30:11
for me to answer that. I apologize. I'd like to
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
30:15
make a motion. If there's not one, could we please get a fiscal impact on this bill? All right, is that a request?
Yes. Representative Bentley, do you know if there's been a fiscal impact? Senator Johnson's
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
30:32
in session right now, so I'm not really can't answer with him on that, so we can uh hold it for now. I'd have no idea if there's been a fiscal impact on that require the expenditure of public funds.
No, sir. That seems to be the preliminary. question the threshold question is for fiscal impact if the bill would require the expenditure of any public funds. I don't know the answer to that, so I'll tell you what, why don't we have staff look into it? And uh Representative Collins has made a request. We're going to continue to hear the bill and We'll come back with a ruling
soon, so Representative Rose, you're recognized. Hold off for now,
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
31:21
Mr. Chair. Are there any other questions by the committee, Representative Anne, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, what does the What? Sorry, what does the, I see the word encounter in the bill a lot. Can you explain to me what what it encounter, what, what does that look like? That means that there is the presence of someone else in your
Speaker 118
31:46
private facility. Um, but what's important to realize is that there's, there's no liability. Unless the governmental entity failed to take reasonable steps. That can just be a sign on
Speaker 117
31:58
the door unless they actually, you know, are aware. Of an issue. Follow up. You're recognized. Which is, which,
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
32:11
sorry, which is a physical contact and what about just seeing someone who
looks like a man in the women's restroom or woman and a man's restroom. There will be no civil liability
Speaker 118
32:26
when there is just someone who appears as the opposite sex, but is not actually of the opposite sex. OK. I'm gonna have some more. I'm sorry. I'll get back in
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
32:39
the queue. Any other questions by the committee, Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
32:48
I know a number of people who are um You know, who were assigned male at birth, but now present completely as women. Are you concerned about violence to those people if they are now forced to use the men's restroom. No one's forcing
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
33:01
anybody to use a particular restroom. There's a reasonable accommodations made throughout this bill for every area that we're asking for this reasonable accommodation just like we made it in K through 12, exact same thing. There's reasonable accommodations, no one's forcing anyone to use a particular bathroom if they're not comfortable in that bathroom. Again, we're trying to prevent violence, that's why we
have reasonable accommodations in a separate bathroom for those. All right, we're, uh, we're
considering Representative Collins' requests and whether or not we can proceed at this time, Representative Bentley. So while I confer with staff and we look
at the rules, this committee is going to be in recess for 5 minutes.
This committee has called back to order. All right, after having conferred with staff. Last
I checked, we were trying to have a meeting here. All right, after having Checked with staff and the House parliamentarian. I'm just going to read the rule
when any house or Senate bill requiring an expenditure of public funds or otherwise imposing a new or increased cost obligation is pending before any committee of the House of Representatives. Any member of the committee may request that a fiscal impact statement for such bill be placed on the desk of each member of the committee before the bill is called up for final action in the committee. If such request is made, the chairperson of the committee shall refer the bill to the appropriate state agency or to the legislative staff for the
preparation of a fiscal impact statement to be returned to the committee in writing not later than 5 days from the date of the request. Now, To me There is a preliminary question. That that must be answered whether or not the House or Senate bill, this is a Senate bill. Requires an expenditure of public funds. Does this bill require the expenditure of public funds. I don't know the answer to that. I think there are likely arguments on both
sides or does it impose a new or increased cost obligation. If it does either of those things then a committee member can make a request for a fiscal impact. In fairness to those who've made a request for fiscal impact, I'm not sure how we can know with the exception of maybe a few bills. Changing an effective date, for example, um, Maybe a trigger bill, for instance, those would be the type of bills that under no circumstance could require the expenditure of public funds or impose a new or increased cost
obligation, um. But with this bill, I'm not so sure Representative Bentley, I'm happy to hear you make your argument. I know Representative Collins has made the motion I'd be glad to hear his argument or any other members of the committee about why this bill would require the expenditure of public funds or impose a new or increased cost obligation, Representative Bentley. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you committee again. This does not require anything the
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
51:12
bathrooms are already designated male and female. This simply gives a cause of action if someone
violates how they're already designated. There's really not an increased funds. Bathrooms are designated male and female. This to me, uh, just puts a civil cause of action there somebody violates things that are already designated male and female, that's, I don't see any increase in um in funds for anybody to spend a dime. But again, I'm not a lawyer, so I respect your opinion, but I don't see that it does. Representative Clowney, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll just
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
51:41
say that in 2021 we did hear that the where the fiscal impact came in was this reasonable accommodations piece, so if there was not a single occupancy
bathroom available in a government building that is required, um, if this bill passes, and so that was where retrofitting those buildings was where the the fiscal impact came in a few years ago just to offer
that. Representative Bentley, does this bill require reasonable accommodations? It only
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
52:11
requires what's required by the American Disability Association all it requires is already acquired by the ADA. Representative Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So it's
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
52:20
the three things I mentioned in sort of leading up to it, which are genuine questions about costs. One is that multi multi-occupancy restrooms shall be designated for exclusive use. So if they aren't currently, they would need to be taking reasonable steps to provide privacy that could require retrofitting or changing if it doesn't provide the privacy, it would need to provide the privacy, but I think most of all it's the liability that a state agency or municipal or private could incur if they failed to prevent someone from encountering someone of the opposite sex in a
restroom, so that's security, that's staff, that's time, that is uh an obligation that they're gonna have to fulfill, otherwise they're opening themselves up to liability for all those reasons retrofitting as well as staff time, cost, uh, I think it would, I would, I would assume it would be a significant cost. Thank you. Representative
Collins' arguments are. Persuasive, I think and have raised at least a question in my mind as to whether or not this bill would indeed it sounds like it may. Required the expenditure of
public funds or a new or increased cost obligation based on the the scenarios that he has mentioned and so because of that he's made a request for fiscal impact and as the chairman of the committee under the rule, I don't have any. Uh, discretion, I the rule says that the chairman shall refer it for fiscal impact statement, so staff has already done that. So we uh are in the process of getting a fiscal impact statement, but the rule also goes on to state
that no further action can be taken once a
fiscal impact request has been made. We've not suspended these rules, so we don't have any choice at this point but to honor that request under the rule. So Representative Bentley, we're gonna at this time have to cease any further action until we get the fiscal impact report back.
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
54:09
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you committee. I appreciate it. Thank you,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
54:14
Representative Bentley. Representative Rose, parliamentary inquiry. You're recognized. Uh, you referenced the fiscal impact statement, um. I think there was some, some
question as to whether that's a 24 hour period that it has to rest on our desks or if it simply has to be uh on the desks, the calendar day before it is heard. I don't know if staff could look into that so that we could report back for Representative Bentley or any other
members who have a uh fiscal impact statement request between now and the end of session. It's a great question.
I asked that of the parliamentarian. I didn't get clarification on that. The rule says one day. Does that mean a 24 hour period? I'm not entirely certain. I
asked the parliamentarian and I failed to get any clarification on that. That was probably my fault. So we'll find out, we'll let you know. Yes, sir, I believe there
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
55:01
was maybe a ruling of that nature last week, so he may be able to pull that up pretty good. Thank you, Representative Ray. Oh, OK. All right.
We will come back to that bill at the appropriate
time. At this point we're going to take up Senate Joint resolution 11, Senator Peyton.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
55:39
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee, Senator Peyton District 22. SJR 11 is the Senate's uh choice of constitutional amendments to be referred to the people. It would refer to Arkansas voters, the constitutional amendment. clarifying that the right to keep and bear arms recognized in the US Constitution is a natural fundamental and individual right. It also includes ammunition, accessories, and components. The title of the bill, the title of the amendment
that would appear on the ballot is the same as the title of the bill. The popular name on the ballot you'll find on page 3. It says the popular name shall be a constitutional amendment to amend Arkansas Constitution Article 2, paragraph 5, to protect the right to keep and bear arms. It's probably the shortest, easiest constitutional amendment that has appeared on Arkansas ballot for some time, and I believe that the voters will actually get to read it and know
what they're voting on and um I also think that they'd be great for, for turnout because I know in my district there's a lot of interest in, in that the Arkansas constitution currently. Mentions that the right to keep and bear arms is for the common defense, and this goes far enough to make sure that we also recognize that it's an individual right and uh. I'll appreciate. All the members of this committee, they have co-sponsored it, and I appreciate Representative Duffield that's carrying it, and
I'll defer to him for comments and I'll stand by for
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
57:18
questions. Representative Duffield. Yes, committee is uh Senator Peyton
said it's a fairly simple, uh, laid out draft before ESJR 11, and I appreciate your support. All right. Thank you, Representative Duffield.
Any questions by the committee, Representative Collins are recognized. Thank you, uh,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
57:38
Mr. Chair. So I am looking at the B section
here, um, where it says the right to keep and bear arms shall include without limitation, possession and use of ammunition, firearm accessories, and firearm components. So does this, um, I, I guess I just want to understand how this plays out and also how it interacts with in subsection A, any other lawful purpose. So basically any firearm accessory or any firearm component could be kept. Bad for any lawful purpose. Is that correct? So this was vetted by the
Senator John Payton
Unverified
58:15
attorney General and it would rise to the level of strict scrutiny. But, uh, a governmental interest in any regulation would have to
rise to the level of strict scrutiny. OK. So, um,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
58:28
we have some some current things in law that are uh restricted. I want to say silencers, um, maybe, uh, sawed off weapons. I can't remember exactly, but some other things that are currently in law with those,
I guess, would they be viewed differently if this were to pass, then under current law. Well, I'm not sure.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
58:54
I'm not an attorney, but I know that that argument or concern has not been raised to me from the Attorney general's office. I can. Uh, I think Representative Collins.
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
59:04
I had a few questions on that, especially in regards to suppressors and it's my understanding that federal law which, which uh makes
the pressures illegal would still be in effect. This would not
supersede the federal law. OK. Representative Bennet,
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
59:26
you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is this going to grant felons a right to keep arms, sorry, to keep and bear arms, arms sorry, I'm sorry. Absolutely not. OK, and I have another question. Also, if you're, if you've been convicted of domestic battery, uh, will you lose the right under this current law. Well,
Senator John Payton
Unverified
59:48
that would be contingent on other law. So I mean basically when somebody is adjudicated to have committed a crime. We restrict their rights. This is recognizing that you have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and that that right is individual, but we take people's rights when we find them guilty of crimes, we, we lock them up in jail. That's, that's taking their rights away at the supreme level, you know, so you know you can still be adjudicated guilty and, and lose
certain constitutional rights and so this would be no different. Representative Meeks you're
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:00:31
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate this. I. In a perfect world, this wouldn't be needed because I think the statement, uh, the citizens of the state shall have the right to keep and bear arms is pretty straightforward. So, uh, but my, my question and concern kind of
goes to a representative Collins is, uh,
what would this do to limit the General Assembly's ability to, uh, you know, restrict the misuse of firearms, suppressor, silencers, um, you know, criminals being able to carry weapons, uh, what would, would this have on, on what you're trying to do, and I fully support where you're going here. I'm just trying to think through any potential unintended consequences. Well, there's still a lot of discretion, I guess, left
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:01:16
up to the courts, even though we think the Second Amendment is very of
the US Constitution is very easy to read, obviously it has not prevented, uh, reasonable regulation, and I, I don't think this would either. The uh The crust of the matter is the bad guys are going to have guns and ammunition and accessories, are we going to, uh, suppress a law abiding citizens ability to also have it for their self-defense, self protection.
My argument is 98% of society are great people. And the bad ones are gonna have the armament anyway, so I feel much more comfortable when the good ones are also armed. I, I agree. Thank you,
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:02:07
sir. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, my question is just what, what feedback have you gotten from various uh Second Amendment advocacy groups. I assume that they've all reviewed this and everyone's happy with
it. Yeah, of course we've been in jail
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:02:24
down here for 3 months and so we're not out among the people like I like to be all of my Uh, friends and supporters are, are totally in support. I mean, I know gun owners of Arkansas is in support, uh, met with the NRA for a brief conversation in the hallway a few weeks ago and um they're they're satisfied with the language in it and didn't show any opposition. He said they could support it as is was his, his exact terminology so I think we're good. OK, thank you.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:02:56
Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my question is actually just kind of along the same lines as some of these others, um. If this amendment just protects any other lawful purpose. I guess my question is it doesn't, and I'm glad to see that it doesn't infringe on the legislature's right to to regulate how it feels reasonably, um, how it feels is reasonable, um, what. What does this do? How does this change the status of um of where
we are in this state from where we are today if it is kind of weirdly dependent on what the legislature does it, not weirdly, but um I'm just trying to wrap my, I only say weird because I'm trying to wrap my head around it, um, how this interacts with
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:03:42
what the legislature is doing and chooses to do. OK, so the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Deals with firearms, the right to keep and bear arms. I would argue that within the the terminology arms that includes ammunition components, and accessories, but it's not
specifically spelled out in the Arkansas Constitution, it mentions also that it's for their common defense and so what this does is it is very clear that it includes ammunition. Accessories and components, and it's very clear that it's recognized as an individual right. So it is, it is, in my opinion. Trying to clarify. Um The language to where people
can't take advantage of it being vague. What
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:04:33
kind of people would take advantage of it being vague as
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:04:37
it were. Well, just watching the evening news, I've seen reports over the last couple of years where uh some states had proposed and some people would propose, you know, restricting and regulating ammunition and and components and accessories, so but, but I guess my my
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:04:51
question is just under this bill, you just say any other lawful purpose and so when you say people have proposed, um, I assume you're talking about
state legislatures and so this bill doesn't change. what a state legislature can or can't do. I'm just trying to understand how this impacts things on the ground. I'll just ask one more time. OK, well, the right to
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:05:11
self-defense is a lawful purpose. And so the fact that our current Arkansas constitution says for their common defense, I just wanted to clarify that. Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I, I'm sorry if this seems repetitive.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:05:31
I'm gonna try to ask it in a different way because I think it's kind of the key issue here. I just want to make sure I understand your intent. Do you believe that this is the what what you've laid out here, is that a clarification that matches the current Supreme Court's interpretation of our current Second article or, you know, whatever this is that we're amending Article 2 of the Constitution, or is it, is it an expansion? Like is this, do you read what you put in here is just kind of saying what the court already
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:06:04
Say is the is what the courts
recognized historically for 200 years, yes, I, I think in recent years and in recent Districts There has been concern. I, I understand that and I,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:06:17
I, I guess I think of that like a defensive posture in case some future court decides it's only for some well regulated, you know, the militia's got to be a collective ride, etc. um. But your intent is really just
to kind of lock in what you believe is the current. state of things, not to
Speaker 187
1:06:40
expand I think that's a good way of putting it. Yes, sir. Thanks.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:06:51
Representative Long, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, It, it sounds like y'all are really trying to make it just perfectly clear for the judicial branch of exactly you know when they could get involved in, you know, might be challenging our current gun laws. Is that
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:07:04
correct? To kind of reference back to Representative Collins question, um. It might actually. Save A lot of time in litigation in the courts when they, where they could be dealing with something else. I, I think the actual decisions have been handed down in recent years are still pretty good, but I know there's been a lot of time and effort and money spent making the arguments, uh, at the, at all different levels
of the judicial system, so the, the more clear we can make it. The the
fewer arguments we have to have and the less time has to be spent debating it. I appreciate you bringing this, and
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:07:47
I only wish our federal Constitution was as clear as your, your amendment. Thank you. All right. Any other questions about
the committee? Seeing no other questions about the committee, we do have two
individuals, both signed up to speak against the bill. Anna Shetty.
You would state your name for the committee, any organization you're here representing, and you'll be recognized
Speaker 195
1:08:21
to present your remarks. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Anna Morchetti. Today I'm here representing myself. I'm here to speak in opposition to the proposed amendment to the Arkansas Constitution, expanding the right to keep and bear arms. I respect the right to own firearms, and this is not a debate about whether Arkansans should have the right to bear arms. That right, as we've discussed, is already protected, clearly and firmly under both
the US Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution. What concerns me and what I would like you to consider very carefully today is the extreme and absolute language of this amendment and the unintended consequences it could create. Declaring that the right to keep and bear arms includes quote without limitation, end quote to the possession of ammunition, accessories, and components could open the door to legal challenges that actually undermine responsible gun
ownership. By using absolute language, this amendment could make it harder to enforce existing common sense gun laws that protect law-abiding citizens from criminals and those who abuse their rights. Instead of strengthening the Second Amendment, it could cause confusion and conflict in our legal system. For example, it could be used to challenge laws prohibiting felons or domestic abusers from owning firearms, and it could block efforts by law enforcement to regulate dangerous
accessories like bump stocks or high capacity magazines. Our sheriff, police officers and first responders are already stretched very thin, and this amendment may make their jobs harder by undercutting the very laws they rely on to keep firearms out of the wrong hands. If we pass language that can be interpreted as eliminating even basic safeguards. We are not empowering law abiding gun owners. We are tying the hands of those working every day to
prevent violence. We know that Arkansas ranks among the highest in the nation for gun-related deaths, and we all have the, the responsibility to ensure public safety. I mentioned this the morning after there was a mass shooting in Conway that killed 2 and injured 9. Our current state constitution already protects the right to bear arms and adding another amendment with absolute language doesn't strengthen that right. It creates confusion, conflict conflict and potential
constitutional challenges by explicitly including ammunition components and accessories. This proposal extends constitutional protection to items like bump stocks, high capacity magazines, and potentially even conversion kits or ghost gun parts. When we remove the tools to regulate weapons of war and their components, we make it easier for the next mass shooter to do harm and harder for law enforcement to stop them. I urge you to consider a more measured approach, one that protects the rights of responsible gun owners without
undermining the tools we all rely on to keep our communities safe. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you, Miss
Morticchetti. Any questions before, before you go. No problem. Are there any questions by the committee? All right, 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. Are Whit Hall. Mr. Hall, if you'd state your
name, any organization you're here representing, you'll be recognized to make your remarks. Thank you very
Speaker 200
1:11:57
much and I appreciate the opportunity to
Whit Hall
Unverified
1:12:00
come before the committee and also to uh represent myself. Uh, my name is Whit Hall. I've been a hunter for 70 years. I'm an old fart. I have uh been a pediatrician for 50 years and as of July 1st, 2022. I'm a gun violence survivor. When my grandson Isaiah was shot and killed in the Walmart parking lot by 19 year old with a brand new handgun.
So that is why I think it is important that we understand that this amendment does not do anything to help protect the children. Gun violence is the number one killer of children surpassing automobile accidents as of 2017. And that is why I strongly oppose this amendment. The concerns that I have is that this amendment locks in extreme gun rights forever and it protects not just guns, but it also protects bumped cocks and high capacity magazines. As a
duck hunter from the age of 7. I had no exactly what it's like to shoot a sitting duck. as I've gotten a little bit older, I try not to do that. However, the children that Sandy Hook and possibly the children at in Conway and also the children in Jonesboro were sitting ducks, having a bump stock and being able to shoot many, many rounds, as many as 2 and 300 per minute. It's not something that ethical
and responsible. do, and I would strongly urge the committee not to pass this vote. I appreciate your time and happy to take any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hall, are there any questions by the
committee? Representative Hawk, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, thank you for
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:13:43
your testimony, and I, I just have a question. So what you mentioned bump stocks, and I heard
the lady before you say bump stocks, but if they're federally illegal, this bill wouldn't allow that to happen,
correct? Uh, I'm not, uh, I, I'm
Whit Hall
Unverified
1:13:59
going to quote what everybody else has been quoting today. I'm not an attorney, uh, so I'm not sure how that would work. Uh, maybe somebody who is an attorney could do that. It looks to me like this bill would create confusion about that and as I understand it, bump stocks cannot be outlawed, at least at this point in time. Thank you. Any other questions by the committee? Seeing no other questions by the
committee. Thank you, Mr. Hall, for being here and thank you for those remarks. We have no one else signed up to speak for or
against the bill or resolution, I should say, Senator Peyton, Representative Duffield, you're recognized to close for the resolution. Oh Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee for your
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
1:14:47
time today. I'd like to thank everyone that came to, to speak, uh, speak on behalf of
the bill for taking your time to express your opinions as taxpayers State
Arkansas. Ladies and gentlemen, all political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The Communist Party must command all the guns that way no guns can ever be used to command the party. The quote was from Mao, founder of Communist China. Mao's first act after gaining complete control of China in 1949 was to take away all guns from the population. It was a policy he began in 1935 as he took over each rural province. Anyone found with a gun post
confiscation was executed. An estimated 65 million Chinese died as a result of Mao's repeated merciless attempts to create a new socialist China. Anyone who got in his way was done away with by execution, imprisonment, or forced famine. Mao killed more people than either Stalin or Hitler during World War II. And it all began. After he took away the guns. Ladies and gentlemen, we're referring this to the people of
Arkansas and the Senate has referred it to the House, and I'd appreciate a good vote today. Representative
Duffield has closed for his resolution. What are the wishes of the committee, Representative Barry. Representative Berry has made a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Yeah I have it. Congratulations, you've passed your resolution. Thank you.
I saw him come into the room earlier. There he is. Representative Maddox, you have to remind me
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
1:16:49
which bill you're running today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senate
Bill 565. Senate Bill 565.
To allow procurement certifications to be combined to amend the law concerning the representation in state contracts regarding contingent fees and to amend the cooperative purchasing reporting deadline.
Representative Maddox, you're recognized. Thank you, sir. John,
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
1:17:10
John Maddox State Representative District 86. I would like to allow my guest to introduce himself and allow him to proceed with this testimony. I think that would be more efficient.
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:17:20
You're recognized, sir. Thank you very much and uh Merry Monday to everybody who celebrates. My name is Ed Armstrong.
I'm with the University of Arkansas system. This bill, uh, does 3 things. One of them is a cleanup to change the reporting deadline
when universities and state agencies report the amount of cooperative purchasing that they've done. This is going to change the reporting date to October because currently it's set at the end of the fiscal year, which doesn't allow enough time for us to aggregate the data and Compile an accurate report. The second thing that this does is actually, I think for me the heart of it, the most exciting, it introduces a huge efficiency gain, allowing contractors and agencies to realize the efficiency of using the
operation of law to incorporate all of the different certifying statement requirements that are scattered throughout the law into one simple statement that they will abide by all applicable Arkansas law, and then. instead of having to do 2 or 3 pages of certificates or to check off multiple boxes on a combined certificate. They'll be able to make that statement and by operation of law we will be able to hold them accountable to that obligation to comport with all of the applicable Arkansas law, uh, and then the third part
is just clarifying that there is a section currently of Arkansas law that requires a certification or a statement that nobody has accepted a basically they haven't paid a state. Employee, uh, a kickback or some brokerage fee or some third party a fee. It requires that. And it doesn't state a solicitation threshold at all. This would add a certifying threshold so that it kicks in at 75,000, which makes it uniform
with the other thresholds we have, for example, for RFPs, they kick in at 75,000 and IFBs that kick in at 75,000. So this helps kind of clean up to and create uniformity with regard to that. Representative Maddox, we would be
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
1:19:25
we would be glad to take any questions. All right. Representative makes you recognized. Thank you, uh,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:19:30
Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the bill. All
about government efficiencies. My only question and, and, and concern is, is, you know, whenever we download a
new app or anything and there's that term of service and it's this big long thing that we all scroll through, never, no one ever actually reads and we just click yes, um my concern is, are we doing something similar here where we've got all these requirements and instead of the contractor reading and understand all these requirements. We're just gonna have them check a box and say yes, and not, uh, you know, have them actually read what those requirements are
and not understand what those requirements are because we're basically just gonna say, uh, yep, I'm gonna do all that stuff and they might not know what all that stuff is, by, by trying to do that. Does that, does that kind of make sense what my concern is there. Justinterested in your response. Absolutely,
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:20:26
that's actually a very fit example and as you noted, many of us just go ahead and click yes, because if we want to rent the car, we're going to say yes. Uh my wife gets frustrated because I actually take the time to read those, which makes everything
take a lot longer, um. What this does is it puts that efficiency instead of at the service of the corporations and other institutions that do that into the hands of the state to use, and it does shift the risk to the contractor, those parties who want to do business with the state. Now currently the state is already making all of those requirements available in the law, but whenever there's a legislative session and a new certifying statement is added, state agencies, if they're not
careful, they might fail. to add a new requirement and update their contracts and they're using an old outdated form contract, um, also a, a contractor might have signed a contract, a new requirement comes into the law and then at renewal we have to stop and let them know, hey, wait a second, there's a new requirement that came into the law, and it is this, well, if they're already willing And they state, and they have attorneys they're sophisticated parties if they're willing to
say we're willing to comply with all Arkansas law, then, uh, that basically has them assume that risk and the duty to inform themselves as to what the applicable Arkansas law is. They can always stop and say, wait, that's really broad. What am I agreeing to? And then, you know, we can go ahead and say, well, here's the code, here are the different certifying requirements, but if they're prepared to certify. Yeah, I, I'll agree to whatever,
Speaker 217
1:22:06
then why don't we allow them to do that.
Any follow up? All right. Representative Ray, you're
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:22:22
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I'm just following up our piggybacking a
little bit on representative Meek's question. I wasn't, um. Sure I understood your response on that, you know, there's 7 things here that they're. Required to certify, are these, are these, are these specific requirements, are they going to
be spelled out that they can see them or is it just a blanket statement, they're going to
agree to follow Arkansas law, and they're not gonna know, yeah,
and the duty, I guess is gonna be on the contractor to go and research what all those
Speaker 220
1:22:57
requirements are. Right, if an agency elects to use this law and to use this privilege they
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:23:03
can just put the contractor will have to agree to follow all applicable Arkansas law. The contractor, if they want, they can always ask what does this mean? And of course there
is the entirety of Arkansas law that I can tell you if you ask anybody at one of the agencies, what all the applicable Arkansas law is. They also probably don't know, but what we tried to do here was identify the currently applicable law that we are aware of that are all these different certifying requirements and they are scattered across the law. This would at least allow us to by referring to this statute, They can see all of these itemized different laws and if they want to read them more extensively with their legal
team. They can, uh, and so, uh, there's certainly no, and I know the General Assembly is very good about being transparent and making the Arkansas code annotated, available to the public. Anybody who has access to the internet and state agencies currently also, I think are interested in not necessarily hiding the ball, but when we deal with deal with People like Amazon or Walmart or a lot of the big corporations that sell us software, they customarily in almost every instance when I've had to review
one of these contracts, they will say, this is subject to our terms and conditions, and then they have a link and then one of us will have to go in and click that link and go through it and satisfy ourselves that the terms and conditions don't violate our law, and when they do, and invariably they do, then we have to go back in and we argue with them and we negotiate with them, though there are some times. Well I'm pretty sure that a state agency just clicks on the link or they don't bother to look at it and then what's
happened is the risk of noncompliance has shifted the state agency is now on the hook for having agreed to terms and conditions of some entity that has kind of made them out there on the internet. What this does, it's different in that it just takes the law which they already have to follow. And it says that we can incorporate that into our contracting process by operation of law, so instead of having to
state and restate the code and rather than restating each element of law in the code that might apply. We're giving them the opportunity to just say, yes, I'm willing to. You know, to follow all Arkansas law, of course, if they want to, uh, they can always say no, I do not want to agree to that. And or I want a statement of what the applicable law is, and we'll be able to start off by pointing them to this statute and say, well, here's what it means when you're agreeing by
operation of law, here you go. Yeah,
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:25:55
I guess that just that that does give me some concern because all of these, all these specific requirements were put in statute for You know, for reasons that the General Assembly deemed important, you
know, that, that, um, That they that they they do not and shall not employ an illegal immigrant, for example, or that they, they do not, um. Um, engage in a boycott of Israel or a boycott of energy, fossil fuel, firearms and ammunition industries, all these sorts of things were put in
there specifically so that they could attest that they're not doing those things, um, so that does give me some concern. So can my, my follow up question is, can you explain how, what does the process? Well, what, what does it look like now? Is there like an individual form on each one of these things that they Um Check a box or click a box or something like that is it and that's, and that's the efficiency is that we're going to do away with those forms. Is that right?
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:26:57
Well, you don't have to do away the forms. Let me answer your first question. I think it's a good question. What does it look like now? I say it will depend on the agency who you are asking about and how current their forms are because the reality that I've seen is that many times some agencies you might have a board that is using a form from 10 years ago, and it doesn't have the required certification that the contractor shall not boycott Israel or you might have an agency that has that one.
They don't have the new uh newer one that says you shall not boycott certain industries that, you know, boycott ammunition, uh, or they don't have the one that says we're not going to work with a suspect company, which is a company that's owned by the communist Party and if they have failed to update their form, then we do not have, although it's in the law, because the law requires that they get a certifying statement from the contractor before we can enforce.
That obligation on them, then whoopsy, uh, the risk is on the state. The state has messed up and they have failed to put themselves in a position where they can show that that's a breach of contract. What this does is it allows us to flip it and put the risk on the contractor. So that if some agency has failed to get a particular certifying statement because these are, again, different places in the code you see where we took pains to identify the different places where they're at, and we agree these are all important things. We want to
make sure that the right to go against any one of these doesn't depend on somebody having the most updated form, uh, the, the current form I put together right before I left the state procurement office that combines all of the ones that I was aware of. one certifying statement, um, but it kicks in at different threshold values and that's one thing too is that in some instances the statement kicks in at $1000 for example, that we won't contract
with anybody if they're boycotting Israel and then we have other certifying statements that kick in at different amounts and so this would allow us to instead of saying, oh well, is this a $10,000 contract at $10,000. Executive order 9804 kicks in, um, at $1000 this certificate kicks in at this other dollar amount, $75,000. This other certificate kicks in and so that kind of makes us have to shuffle paper to make sure that the dollar threshold, we have the correct
number of certificates that would apply and whether it's a services contract, for example, that prohibition against using illegal immigrant labor. That applies to services contracts, but not commodities. Contract, so we have to know is this a commodity transaction, a service transaction. This would allow us to eliminate all of that administrative burden, and again it's at the option of the contractor if they don't want to agree to something that broad. They do not have to, and believe me, they are sophisticated. They have attorneys. Many times when the state does business with a large
company, they have a team of attorneys in the state
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:30:08
does not. Yeah, I see what you're saying and. A lot of it makes sense, I guess. The remaining concerns that I would have are, you know, if It seems odd that an agency would not have all of these requirements already because what I mean, ostensibly wouldn't we have isn't that what we have an office of procurement for, isn't that what we have shared services for. Why, why they, why
are they not making the agencies aware that these requirements exist. And, and I guess my second point would be I agree with, I agree with what your point. I agree with your point about flipping the liability of complying with the law, right? Um, that's a good point, and I, I think it's I agree with it, um, I just don't understand. Why we couldn't list those requirements. So that, so that they would know
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:31:05
because I do think they're important. Well, I think that the Office of State Procurement is trying to educate people and uh thanks to some of the senators and representatives who sponsored legislation to require procurement training back in 2019. There has been an effort and it's still a growing effort to start making agencies and institutions, boards aware of all these different requirements, and they do make resources available on their web page and I think to address your concern that there be a place um
so that people could conveniently read. I can't speak for what the Office of State Procurement will do, but I imagine that if this bill were to be enacted into law, they would provide information that any member of the public or an agency could click on and And read more about it. And then another thing that they could do is when they prepare a form and if they prepare for them and they promulgate a rule in connection with it, it'll come before the appropriate committee of this body. And uh JBC when you're in session or um you know,
typically then ALC review and then full ALC. And it could reference this statute specifically and if it references this statute specifically then it provides the list, and that's what we were thinking when we provided this detailed list is that any vendor who wanted to could quickly reference this statute itself and see the list of all of the other statutes that are kind of pulled up and bundled into it. Follow up, quick follow up. So
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:32:38
are you saying that's what's what. Your agency intends to do. I make it crystal clear to contractors what those things are, so I can no longer speak for the
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:32:50
Office of State procurement, and that's just a surmise of what they would likely do, uh, because I think that they really are committed to transparency and creating awareness. Certainly I can say that on behalf of the University of Arkansas Systems, we would want to make sure that we do reference this statute, we
would probably say pursuant to cite this statute, the vendor agrees, and that way by the statute, we will let it be really easy for them to find what it is that they're agreeing to. I got you.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:33:21
My apologies. I, I, I've missed out where you said you were with UFA now, sorry. All right, uh, so I
have a question. Does this change or eliminate any of the existing requirements that Representative Ray referenced.
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:33:41
It does at the request of the Office of State procurement because we did this in consultation with the ASU system and with the Office of State procurement, the state procurement director had a concern. That one of these uh Statutes that's referenced in Section 3. Says that uh this statement has to be made conspicuously, and her concern was that, well, if it stays conspicuously, would
this be a conspicuous statement. I think that's a valid concern and so they proposed change would be to go ahead and take out that reference to conspicuously. And then also the other thing that it does that's a change is that currently that requirement under the law. Applies at the solicitation and has to be repeated in the contract, and there is no dollar amount. The problem with that is, as a practical matter, When we purchase, let's say a
sitting lawnmower or a vehicle or something at an amount that is not at the RFP or the IFB amount. There isn't really an opportunity for us to issue a formal solicitation because, for example, the quote bid law allows us to just pick up the phone and make a call. And so what this does is the change it does introduces it identifies the threshold at which it begins to kick in, and that's the one where we're making formal solicitations at 75,000.
So below that, all of those points that below 75,000. All of those points that Representative Ray made about Uh You know, not being in connection with the communist country or on the international terror watch list or whatever it may be that we currently have in statute employees uh illegal immigrants. Are you saying those won't apply for contracts under 75,000? No, they will.
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:35:41
It's just that one that one certificate
for that particular certifying statement that statute requires them to say that they are not paying anybody a brokerage fee except for their bona fide. employees or somebody who's essentially a broker. Um, that one doesn't have a dollar amount. None of the dollar amounts that are currently provided in law for those other sections would be changed. This doesn't change any except for that one which it gives it a dollar amount that it currently doesn't state a dollar amount. It just states that it
applies its solicitations, and this would clarify that it's those solicitations that $75,000 or more because that's where they start actually writing contracts and by creating that. uniformity when they create an RFP, they know that this, you know, requirement kicks in. It doesn't make sense and currently as a practical matter, my experience is that when you're doing a quote bid where you're calling somebody and asking for their price. There isn't any written. contract that would come into play that, you know, has this
language and this just kind of shores it up with the reality of that fact that when we're making smaller purchases, I think sometimes that gets overlooked. As it reads, if it were strictly applied, it would be every solicitation. Without any dollar amount provided, so this just kind of makes it match the other ones that do have dollar amounts, even though a lot of them kick in at different I hope that answered your question. So we're, that's the only one that's getting affected and being given a dollar amount.
Everything else remains unchanged. OK, all right. Any other questions by the committee,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:37:30
Representative Rose? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, you, you dove in, thank you, uh, Representative Gazaway Doman and some of the questions I had on Section 3, but it also, uh, kind of your dialogue there led me to some others, um. This is ignorant speaking here. Where do these fees go, the fees that are being referenced. So These aren't fees that are collected by the state.
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:37:53
What the statute provides is that whenever the state engages in a solicitation, it has to get the contractor to say that the contractor has not paid anybody a fee in order to get awarded the contract. And so it's an ethics statute, and I think the aim of it is to make sure that the contractor is on alert that they shouldn't be paying a state employee or a state. Official, although it doesn't state it as clearly as it
should. It just says that they have to say this, but then it creates an exception and it allows them to pay a fee to their bona fide employees or somebody who's, let's say a broker. So if you have a company and you incentivize your employees by paying them a fee, like a bonus if you land this contract, you're gonna get. This fee, that's up to them, um, and this permits them to do that, but otherwise they have to state that they're not paying a fee as long as the payment is
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:38:55
expected to be over 75,000 at or above,
right. So if it's Below 75,000, that requirement's not there for what we just discussed,
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:39:05
right? There's not a requirement to
state it in the solicitation because the reality is that at 75,000 is when we start printing out solicitations beneath that. We typically don't because the IFB requirement or RFP requirement kicks in at 75. So other purchases that don't rise that same level of formality,
you know, when we're soliciting, we're just asking, and if we're saying, hey, we need somebody to mow the front lawn. What are you charging? It's gonna be under 75,000. Uh, this wouldn't come into it. We wouldn't have to get the lawnmower to sign a certificate saying, hey, by the way, I haven't paid anybody a brokerage fee. If this were to be
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:39:47
implemented, Is there anything that's going to stop that
has been happening? Is there any kind of requirement that's been in place or
provision or protection of any kind that's going to cease. I
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:40:03
don't anticipate there's not gonna be other than that one that we've discussed, not a change in
the substantive law. What changes is our ability to shift the risk and to increase enforcement and we'll be able to say, hey, you've agreed to follow all Arkansas law, and so what might happen is that our contracts might get shorter. And we have to spend less time arguing about each little provision that's currently
required under Arkansas law, so it could help us streamline the contracting process, but there's no other than the one we've discussed, there is no
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:40:39
change in practice. If I wanted to skirt this hypothetically though. Concerning the prohibition against contingent fees with respect to state contracts, I
could simply Make my
contracts for 74,999. Is that correct?
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:41:00
Um, if you were to So you're saying you want to be able to offer
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:41:06
the state employee. So if, if this were to be
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:41:11
implemented. I don't think so because I tell you why there's
a er currently a body of ethics statutes and what this does is it kind of comes in as a cumbersome add-on. there's an already a body of law. It's the 1,911,700, and it details what types of transactions, state employees
can and can't engage in with respect to contracts and it already prevents state employees from receiving a kickback at any dollar amount. So that ethical requirement would still be there, but the, the requirement on the state to include it in the paperwork, wouldn't exist below 75,000, and the reason being Not because we want to create an opportunity to skirt it because the obligation is still there under the 1911700s, but it allows us to to avoid the impossible situation of when we're doing a small transaction
and there isn't paperwork of the kind that we do when we do an RFP or an IFB. It allows us to not have a legal obligation that's likely going to get broken just because of the awkwardness of bringing a certificate with you when you go shopping at Walmart. And I
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:42:19
don't wanna belabor the point, and if there's nobody else in the queue, I can, I can be done here.
I think just. It gives me a little pause at the tail end of this that we removed the word. That this section shall be conspicuously conspicuously set
forth and then there's this kind of clause that That we set the $75,000 amount and I guess that just gives me pause and I don't know, Representative Maddox, I, I have a lot of trust in, um, in your word on these issues and so if you have anything that would just kind of put me
at ease, I'd be, I'd be grateful to hear that. Well, I'm glad to
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
1:42:57
hear that you trust me, um, certainly, um. To be completely frank,
um, I, I would just defer to his
testimony. I would give some my understanding though is both the systems were good with this. The agencies, TSS I think it got one no vote in the Senate. There's been no known opposition, you know, before today, um, so I, I would just defer to their um to their testimony. There are other people who can come and testify if there are specific questions though, so thank you. Like you represent Max. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Saying no other questions from
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:43:37
the committee. There's no one signed up to speak for or against this. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak either for or against the bell. See none. You're good to
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
1:43:50
clause for your bill. Yes, sir. um, thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I'll close now, that was all I was gonna say my closing is that Again, I, I think almost everyone is for um TSS everyone is, is for this. There's been no questions raised prior to, so, um, just an efficiency piece of
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:44:08
legislation. I'd appreciate a good vote. OK, what's the will of the committee? We have a motion
to pass from Alco personal Representative Hawk. All right, we have a motion due passes or any discussion on the motion. Representative Hobb colleagues, I, I
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:44:27
would just reiterate that this is an efficiency thing. I think that they said it in a lot of words, but
I, I think that it just goes back on the contractors at the end of the day, and, and it allows for our state agencies
to, to, to be more, be as efficient as possible when they're, they're dealing with these types of contracts, um, I know there was a lot of words right there, but I think at the end of the day, uh, the big thing about this
Speaker 234
1:44:51
is just trying to make our state agencies a little bit more efficient. I think that does this with
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:45:00
this bill. And I'm gonna vote yes. Was there any other discussion on the motion? Singing none. All
those in favor say aye and he. Congratulations, your bill's passed.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. Uh So next up, we're going to hear a Senate Bill 640, uh, representative Beatty.
Richard did introduce yourself for the committee and you're good
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:45:58
to go. Representative Howard Beatty District 95 here to present Senate Bill 640, Senate Bill 640, uh, is to reconstitute the state library board. Um, basically, this bill would uh reconstitute the board and allow for the governor to appoint 7 new members to the state library board, uh, with that, I'll entertain any questions. Representative Collins, you're recognized.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:46:24
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, it seems like the state library board is carrying on. They have people filling the positions doing their job. What's the need to reconstitute the state library
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:46:36
board. The state to the need is stated in previous meeting where we sat here and see the dysfunction of the board and the fact that there are concerns by by Arkansans that aren't being addressed and, and raised and just complete dysfunction. They were legitimate concerns that were raised, and those haven't been addressed, uh, the
infighting, um, uh, the, the, the lack of consideration of, of what we need in this state and what, what our constituents are telling us, so. This board is not functioning in
a manner that we find acceptable. Well, uh, I guess, you know, it's, I, I
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:47:12
understand that is that is some people's perspective and, and your perspective, I guess it's not my perspective if they are continuing to have meetings, they are continuing to make decisions even if they're not the decisions that some people
would like. It's a functional board, it's just a board that some people disagree with. So, um, I, does it concern you that if there's ever a situation like this where people disagree with what a board says it will just dissolve them, and that undermines The function of the board itself. I'm, I'm not
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:47:45
concerned with that at all. This board's appointed by the governor, uh, they serve in, in, in my opinion, I've always looked at things that you serve at the will of the governor at any point, uh, that, that. Your service is not wanted or
desired, then it's, it's time for you to step off the, the board, so I, I don't see a problem with this. I think this is addresses many of the concerns that we set through hours of testimony, uh, listening to. Well, we did sit
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:48:12
through hours of testimony listening to it, but I think I've heard from a lot of people who have concerns about this as well, and you know, and to be clear, people do serve at the pleasure of a governor. They're appointed by a governor, but they're appointed for a term, uh, and I don't believe there's a recall
procedure and so the idea is that once that appointment is vested in them, they have a period of time to carry out their duties, uh, they've been invested in the, you know, the trust of. Whoever appointed them, we don't do these kind of wholesale replacements ever as far as I'm aware, I mean, unless you can tell me about a time we've done this, I just, I'm concerned that we're not only undermining the independence of this particular board, but we're sending a signal to all boards in the
state that if you act in a way that a member or two or several don't like we're just gonna terminate you and start over with. New appointments made by one governor, um, are you concerned at all about the precedent we're setting here?
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:49:17
Not concerned in the slightest. I respect your opinion and, and your position but completely disagree with you, and I'm not concerned about setting a precedent.
Any other questions by the committee? Seeing no other questions by the committee, we do have someone signed up to speak against the bill. Crystal Gates,
maybe I didn't pronounce that correctly. What's your name? OK, I show you on Senate Bill 591.
All right. Uh, I showed, so I show you having signed up on Senate Bill 591 to speak against.
Is that Dan Sullivan's, um, the other one says Senate Bill 536.
OK, so we're on Senate Bill 640, but without objection, I'm gonna allow you to speak, if you would just state your name and any organization you're here representing, and then
Kristen Stewart
Unverified
1:50:55
you'll be recognized to make your remarks. Hello, um, my name is Kristen Stewart. I'm just here, um, representing myself. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Um, I'm here to voice my strong opposition to Senate Bill 640, um, which proposes to reconstitute the state library board, and I just like to call it what it really is a backdoor
attempt to dismantle the board after outright abolition failed. Earlier efforts to eliminate the state library board did not pass, so now we're asking to quietly accept its reconstitution. But make no mistake, this bill is no simple restructuring. It's a power grab, it's an attempt to politicize a body that has operated independently for decades, serving the informational and educational needs of Arkansans without
partisan interference. So what's at stake? Um, the state library board exists to protect and promote access to information, support local libraries and ensure that all Arkansans, rural and urban, Rich and poor can connect to lifelong learning by reconstituting this board that would disrupt its mission, opening the door for political appointees who may not have the experience, objectivity, or commitment to intellectual freedom that the board requires. This bill has moved quickly and
quietly with very little explanation to the public. Um, it was introduced or it was filed last Thursday at 9 p.m. and then The next morning at 10 p.m. or 10 a.m. when I was in the Senate state agencies um committee meeting, I didn't realize that it was on the agenda and I was not allowed to speak. Um, I just don't know where is the data showing that Arkansans are being underserved by the libraries. There isn't any. I believe that this isn't about
improving service, it's about control. Um, my mother was an English teacher for 38 years, and she and my father both instilled in me a deep loving, a deep love of reading and libraries as a kid I lived for the summer reading challenges at our local library in Fort Smith, tearing through books to earn that magical prize, probably a personal pan pizza from Pizza Hut or sometimes a burger from Burger
King. Um, it was fun, yes, um, but it. also taught me that reading was powerful, rewarding, and essential, that love of libraries has been passed down to my two sons who are both avid readers and frequent and frequent visitors to our local libraries across the city. My now 11 year old, um, we've even gone on a tour of all the different Central Arkansas library systems, um. Libraries have shaped 3 generations of my family, and I
want that same opportunity preserved for every Arkansas family, no matter what their zip code is. Arkansas has a real problems. Libraries aren't one of them. Um, I urge you not to vote for this bill, um, and keep our state library board intact and away from political interference. Thank you. All right, thank you, Ms. Stewart. Are there any questions by the committee? Saying no questions by the committee. Thank
you for being here. Thank you for those
remarks. It appears that we have no one else signed up to
speak for or against the bill with that Representative Beatty, you recognized a close for your bill. Thank
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:54:31
you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee,
you know, last week we sat here and and we didn't discuss just reconstituting the board, uh, we sat here and, and talked about completely eliminating the board and and moving them under the Department of Education, um, which You know, did cause, cause me some concerns to, to do that. What this bill is going to do is
allow the board to continue to function and operate just with new people on that board. Um, so with, with that I'd appreciate, uh, I'm gonna offer a motion to pass and I'd appreciate a good vote from this committee. All right, Representative Beatty has made a
motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion, Representative Meeks, you're recognized. And sure, representative, I, I appreciate you uh bringing this board
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:55:17
because ultimately the General Assembly is to provide oversight for these boards and commissions, and if they're not doing the job they're supposed
to, then it's our duty to make sure that they're doing that to Representative Collins' concerns about setting a precedent. Of course you all know I'm the senior member. We've done this several times during my time here, not to the library board, but we've actually done this several times on the boards and commissions that have uh been problematic like this, so this is nothing. new, nothing unprecedented that we're we're doing here. uh, and so again, I appreciate it. Look forward to uh to voting for this board so we can get uh new people in there who are actually
going to listen to the concerns of Arkansans. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized.
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
1:56:04
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I cannot support this. I personally know one of those board members. She was a principal
at my daughter's school. And when I tell you that she greeted every single person who walked in that door. And the most loving, joyous way. I mean, at times she was almost
too joyous to every single person who came in. I know her work and her dedication to students, to families across the state is exemplary. There's no reason to eliminate every single position on this board. She was appointed in a proper way, and here in the fall, I To my understanding, there's a position that will be open. And if votes have not been going
a certain way, the governor gets to choose someone to be on that board. In the fall. And I stand here today to support my friend. And I'm a no. Thank you. Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:57:17
This is a power grab, and it's completely unnecessary to fire the members of this board who have just been doing their jobs, uh, frankly,
when someone comes to them and asks them to perform their job in a way they don't think is right, uh, they should resist that. They should do their job in the way they think is best. That is service to the state. I applaud them for it. I think it's a shame that we have let this go as far as it's gone, um, when people are appointed to boards, it's their obligation to serve the state in the way they think is best. They did that and uh their reward is to be dismissed,
um, so I'm a no on this. Thanks. Any
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:58:08
other discussion on the motion Representative Rose. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I, I think this is a, a beneficial alternative to what
we heard last week. I was supportive of that, um, that bill and that measure, but this committee did not see fit, and I think this is a uh an amicable compromise to reestablish. Uh, our library board in a way that supports Arkansans, and I
believe this committee will support it, and the House will support it, and I will be voting yes. Thank you.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:58:38
Representative Ray, you, yeah, I guess I would just echo some of those comments from Representative Rose, you know,
most of the emails against the other bill that I received said, you know, leave the board, you know, don't move the board or sorry, don't move the the library out of the purview of the board, let the board continue to operate. They didn't want it to go to the Department
of Education, so this bill does what those folks are asking for and to Representative Mayberry's point, About any particular individual on the board, I'm not aware of anything in the legislation that would prevent the governor from reappointing a member uh to the board that's already on there, so, um, I just, I just don't agree with that concern, and I'll be voting yes on the bill. Any
other discussion on the motion. Seeing no other discussion on the
motion. We do have a motion to pass all those in favor say aye aye.
All those opposed. The eyes have it. Congratulations, you've passed your bill. Thank you,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:59:53
Mr. Chair. Thank you. have one more if you want to clean it, clear it. It's a Senate Bill 570 for Senator Dodson and Johnson. The
Alright. Go ahead. State Representative Howard Beatty District 95 members I'm presenting Senate Bill 570, uh, basically is to amend the law concerning the membership of the Joint Budget Committee, uh, this bill would add the president pro tem of the Senate and and past president pro tem of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, uh, in the immediate past Speaker of the House as positions on uh joint budget. Um
And I think that's primarily what the bill would do. So I'll entertain any questions. All right, any questions about
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:00:45
the committee? Representative Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So it seems like what this is going to do is kind of tilt things toward leadership at the expense of members overall. Is that fair to say? I wouldn't
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:00:56
say that that would be fair to say. I would think what it's going to do is add the the president of the Senate and the immediate past president, the Speaker and immediate past speaker.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:01:08
Uh, but, but at the same time, I mean that adds people in leadership, and there are, you know, that waters down the vote of
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:01:18
everybody else. Fair to say. Again, I would say that's those positions to the committee, uh, and you know could be former leadership, um, but it adds those positions. Representative Rose, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:01:34
Representative Beatty, are these full members they ex officio? These would be full members.
And then I don't know if it's like this with joint audit or ALC or or some of our other committees in the absence of the past speaker, past pro tem because they either didn't win reelection or they opted not to run for re-election. The appointment of a member by the pro current pro tem or the current speaker, is this
similar to some other rules we have on some other committees. I, I, I'm not certain exactly on the appointments of other committees at ALC. I felt like I have read
this language on rules of some of our other committees. I thought this might have just simply mirrored that. Thank you. Representative Underwood. Representative Betty, you may have mentioned it,
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:02:20
maybe I just missed it. Did you give an explanation for why we're adding this. I think it was a request of, of
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:02:26
the members of both chambers that that they wanted to add this on the joint budget committee.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:02:40
Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, I was, um, I was. Trying
to communicate with the bill sponsor, um, earlier, and I, the information I got from them was that um the pro tem, the, the, the Senate pro tem and the Speaker are on ALC and audit automatically. And so this is just mirroring that on budget.
What I didn't get clarity on is about the, the immediate past pro tem and the immediate past speaker. Do we have that for those two other committees, or would this be a new thing? I'm not
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:03:23
certain on those other two committees, but I, I know that that's kind of the way the, the executive committee and, and ALC operates is the current and the and the previous um uh leader that's on those committees so just offhand I would say that that this is mirroring language, but I'm, I'm not 100% on that. OK, if there's
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:03:43
anybody else on the committee that knows the answer to that question, I would love for
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:03:49
them to chime in. Representative Meeks, you're recognized. I'm just the man for you, yes, that, that is, that, that's how it is currently
done on those other committees and and and my question's actually gonna be, would you, would you agree? So when I spoke to the bill's sponsors about this, um, as I think most everybody knows as negotiations take place for finalizing the budget every year. Those negotiations generally take place between the governor's office, the head of
the, uh, uh budget committee and the speaker in the pro tem. So generally the 5 people. That are in the room that are trying to finalize the budget with the governor's office are going to include the speaker and the pro tem. And so by uh that's part of the reason for adding them to the budget committee is because they're the ones that are actually in the room negotiating with the governor to get the budget finalized. Would you agree? I would agree. Any other questions by the
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:04:44
committee, Representative Collins, you're Any other questions by the committee, Representative Collins, you, is there a concern that they won't get on budget if they're automatically on audit and ALC, they can just get on budget. That's how our process works. You get to pick being on one of the three, it's pretty easy to get on budget if you're already on ALC and a. So is there any concern that they wouldn't actually be on budget? I,
I, I don't think there's any concern there. I don't, I don't. I don't have a concern. OK.
Any other questions by the committee, Representative Hawk? Does budget have an ex officio spot,
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:05:20
do you know of? The reason I ask is because um the the past speaker could be made an ex officio. Am I correct? Maybe I, maybe I need to ask Representative Meek. I, I don't, I don't know. I, I'm not on budget, so I'm just asking that question. I was gonna say I've got my rule book
Speaker 32
2:05:36
down there, but I, I don't know. OK, thank you. Any other questions by
Speaker 160
2:05:42
the committee? Representative Rose Thank you. Yes, I was just
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:05:47
curious if this adds to the number of
Speaker 269
2:05:52
members that are on the committee or these filling current positions. This would add to the committee. All right, thank you. Any other
questions? Seeing no other questions by the committee. We have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill, Representative Beatty, you're recognized to close for your
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:06:09
bill, Mr. Chair, members, uh, basically I'm presenting this bill because I saw uh
the Senate sponsor standing in our committee room and he needed to
get back to the Senate, uh, and said he was looking for someone to run this bill here, and I agreed so that he could go back down and run the bill. I, I appreciate the question of the committee. I, I think this is something that's good for um our body and with that offer a motion do pass and appreciate a good vote.
Representative Beatty's made a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Seeing no discussion on the motion, all those in paper say aye, aye. All those opposed.
The eyes have it. See
Speaker 271
2:07:04
two hands call the roll. Representative Meeks. Representative Meeks, yes. Representative Wardlaw. Representative Wardlaw. Representative Barry. Representative Barry, yes. Representative Mayberry. Representative Mayberry, yes.
Representative Crawford Representative Crawford, yes. Representative Clowney. Representative Clowney, no. Representative Collins, Representative Collins, no. Representative Evans, Representative Evans. Representative in it. Representative in it? No. Representative McElroy Representative McElroy, yes. Representative Ray. Represent Representative Ray, yes.
Representative Beatty Representative Beatty, yes. Representative Carr Representative Carr, yes. Representative Underwood. Representative Underwood Representative Underwood, no. Representative Long, Representative Long, no. Representative Hawk. Representative Hawk, no. Representative Rose. Representative Rose. Representative Rose, no.
Representative Wooldridge. Representative Wooldridge. Representative Beck No. Representative Beck, no. Sorry, Representative Beatty, the bill's failed. All right. We'll
need a minute on that. Next
we have I believe I saw Representative Aker here.
See Representative McGruder, we're gonna get to him in just a second. Representative Aker. You have to remind me which bill you have today. Senate Bill 491. I believe it has an amendment as well.
All right, Staff will pass out that amendment to require a vendor that contracts with the Office of State procurement for Services. For the employee benefits division to submit data for verification by an independent auditor. To declare an emergency. True.
All right, everyone should have a copy of the
Speaker 284
2:10:13
amendment. All right, Representative Baker, you're recognized to explain the amendment. Thank
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
2:10:16
you, Mr. Chair. Uh, committee, the amendment is a technical correction to just bring some guidance that this is to apply for vendors that contract directly with EBD, not the Office of Procurement. some cleanup language to hone in. Representative Akers explained the
amendment, or is there any, are there any
questions on the amendment? Representative Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh no
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:10:34
concern necessarily about the amendment itself, but just questioning that the timing here because we apply this amendment, by the time it gets through here to the house floor, trying to get it back. Is this going to effectively kill the bill because of the timing or do you still think you got enough time to squeeze this in under the deadline if we do this. Uh, I have full faith in
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
2:10:54
the capacity of the Senate. They're well educated and smart people. OK.
I'll just leave that there then. got a lot of faith down there, Representative Rose, you're
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:11:17
recognized. I guess I'm still going to go ahead and make a motion to adopt the amendment, but that almost swayed me not Representative Rose has made a
motion to adopt the amendment and discussion on the motion, seeing none all those oh representative Cloudy, you're recognized. Sorry, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make sure. That If, if this passes out of here
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
2:11:33
today with an amendment, it won't be on the House floor until Wednesday, right? I don't see any way that the Senate hears it, if that's the
case. I just wanted to say that out loud, um, before we vote to adopt this amendment. I give my
blessing. This is interesting. All right. All right, we have a motion to adopt the amendment. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Yeah, I have it.
Congratulations. The amendment's been adopted. Representative Aker, you're recognized to explain the bill as amended. Thank you Mr. Chairman, committee, this bill, uh,
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
2:12:15
is pretty simple, essentially what we've run into and I'm sure I don't mean to speak for anyone else, but I think there has been some um I guess disappointment and a lot of the fiscal impacts that we receive and then uh the numbers um that we have to legislate off of, and I also have grave concerns for our department
heads and agencies who have to um Basically operate under those as well. And so what this does is it states that if a vendor for EBD is going to be supplying data that's going to be used for fiscal impact. They shall, um, I guess. agree to have those that data um interpreted and reviewed by an actuary third party, um, so, um, in the case again when I speak with uh DBD director Grant Wallace, um. There's kind of some, there's only so many tools in the tool
chests that they have as far as getting this data around quickly and I think if we're going to legislate off of this, not only should that be audited, but also there should be some consequences if those vendors are supplying um incorrect, in factual fraudulent data on a regular basis and what this would do is it would kind of have a 3 strike policy that the 3rd strike if a vendor cannot seem to supply accurate data and can't pass an audit, uh, to supply data that we need to legislate off of, and they will not be allowed to contract with the. Representative Acres explained
the bill. Are there any questions by the committee, Representative Mayberry, you're recognized. Thank
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
2:13:44
you, Mr. Chair. I'm just curious, uh, is there anything in here that would make sure that they get the audit back
quickly, for example, I filed a bill in November. Um, and did not get the bill back and with the fiscal impact until about 3 weeks till the end of session,
which meant that last week I was able to present
it to the insurance or, well, I guess I got my weeks off, but anyway, here towards the end, is there anything in here that makes them Uh, come back with the fiscal impact statement quicker. I I don't
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:14:21
believe that there's a way to have them generate that more quickly. What this does have
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
2:14:26
is that those numbers will not be honored unless they've been actuarially audited on the front end, so rather than having seagull simply summarize the data they've received. This will be another layer for EBD to have to hold their vendors accountable.
OK. That it won't help us in the
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
2:14:41
future because that, I, I, I mean, I'm just saying to all committee members, if you have something next year or next term
that requires this. I'm just telling
you, you're not gonna get your bill back until the very end, just warning you echo those sympathies. It is extremely
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:14:57
frustrating. I don't know if that is as much an issue with EBD as
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
2:15:02
much as it is with um the vendor we've hired to summarize
and produce that. I again, I, we pass a lot of bills and then it's up to. those agencies to implement them, and I do believe that EBD is operating as efficiently as they can be, but again, when they pass that data on, it goes on to another third party, Segel, that then produces a summary on the front and back of one page, and that's what we have to sit there and legislate on when it comes to EBD, which has its own more strict filing requirements already, uh, as far as when fiscal impacts are produced, I would expect. I would hope that this body
would welcome a auditing requirement on that data before we see it on a green sheet. Any other
questions by the committee? Seeing no other questions by the committee, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Aker, you recognized a close for
the bill. I'm closed for a bill, and I appreciate a good vote. Thank you, Representative Baker is closed for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee?
Representative Rose do pass as amended. Representative Rose made a motion to pass as amended. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the
motion, all those in favor say
aye. All those opposed Yeah, I have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill, Representative McGruder. You are recognized. presents House Bill 1878. Representative
Clowney. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, before I
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
2:16:31
representative MacGruder begins, I'd like to make a motion to expunge the vote by which his amendment passed or was adopted previously
that's a proper motion. Representative Clowney has moved to expunge the
vote by which his amendment, which was adopted on April 7th of this year passed. Is there any discussion on that motion? Representative Rose, I'd just like to hear the reason thank you,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:16:55
Rose, just a timing issue, so that amendment just added more sponsors, but at this
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
2:17:00
point, as we just spoke about with Representative
Aker, I want to make sure it has enough time to get through. All right. And um by the way, just in case
anybody's curious, I've spoken about this
with Representative McGruder, and he's good
with the expo. All right, we have a motion to expunge the vote by which the amendment. To house Bill. 18 78 passed all those in favor say aye. All those opposed, the eyes have it. Congratulations. The motion has passed, I guess. I don't even know what to say these days. um. The vote by which your previous
amendment passed has been expunged. Representative McGruder, you're recognized to present the bill. As
fundamented, I guess. Good afternoon committee. Thank you, chair. Uh, thank you all for the time of Representative
Representative Jessie McGruder
Unverified
2:17:52
Jesse McGruder out of Crian County District 35. Uh, I'm here to present a bill 1878. I have someone here also to speak on the bill. I'm gonna invite her up to the podium if that's OK with the committee. If you would Uh, whoever your guest is, if you could.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:18:14
Representative Bailey, do we ever get a fiscal impact on this bill? Yes we did. Yes, everyone
should have a copy of the fiscal impact on your desk. Thank you. All right. If you would
say your name for the committee, any organization you're here representing, and you'll be recognized. And I'm Jen Standefer. I'm here
Speaker 308
2:18:35
on behalf of Arkansas Appleseed as well as on my own behalf. I'm an attorney with Waymex Standard for Law. Representative McGruder, you're recognized. Alright, I'm presenting bill
Representative Jessie McGruder
Unverified
2:18:45
1878, which is a uh a bill that uh offers early voting to uh every county in the state of Arkansas. Currently we have 75 counties, uh, 74 counties already have this in place where each city with a population of more than 15,000 has an early voting location, uh, this bill will ensure that Critan County, which is the only county that had an issue with it last election cycle will have an early voting location in uh in that city, uh, West Memphis and uh and Marion and any city that has population of 15,000 it doesn't
affect anybody else the physical impact shows that uh won't be any financial cost in regards to this bill. This just make sure that we have more access to early voting in the state of Arkansas, which is important that we have places
where people can vote. All right. Ma'am, do you have
Speaker 308
2:19:35
any remarks? You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so in addition to
Speaker 312
2:19:38
helping Arkansas apple seed uh at the moment. I'm also the attorney who was hired by Mrs. Shirley Brown and Mrs. Lavonda Taylor to um file suit
in order to ensure early voting in West Memphis this last round, um, I, I would know they're, they're just voters. They were not acting on behalf of any organization. They wanted an early voting location to open in their city that both of them have lived in practically their whole lives, um. When we started that litigation, it was not um anything uh I we had no problem with with how they do this, how we conduct elections, whether the county boards do it or the county
clerks do it. My instructions were just find a way to, to have an early voting location open, um, in this particular instance, there was one county board member who put a wrench in the process, and he used every bit of his discretion to prevent early voting from starting. Or from from being conducted in West Memphis, um, I will not speculate as to why that was not a matter of record, and I don't think it's appropriate to go into that. What I can tell you
is that at the moment, the county clerk is required to host early voting in the county seat and that is the city within which the county courthouse exists in Crittenden County, it's interesting because the county seat actually has less people in it than West Memphis does. Um, more of their population center is focused in West Memphis, um, the county board, however, is not required to hold early voting ever. It is purely discretional. The chair of the
county board, uh, is not required to call a meeting to discuss early voting. The only meeting that they're obligated to call is the organizational meeting in February of the year. They're not required to agenda items, they're not required to discuss items at the request of other members. Also, in order to establish an early voting location, you have to have a unanimous vote, and this is an extraordinary amount of discretion placed on the individual members of the county board. One county board of election commission member
can stop early voting from opening anywhere in the state except the locations that the county clerks designate. Um, and, and I know that you guys see this all the time. It is common for our agencies and our boards to love maze and hate shells, but what we have found is that sometimes you get a bad apple, you know, 9, well more than 9 times out of 10, our county boards do an exceptional job of conducting these elections, but when you have a bad apple who
chooses to use their discretion to prevent access to vote to voters, there should be something in the law that stops them from abusing that. discretion. There should be a requirement there, um, this bill takes the best practices that have been adopted by almost everyone in the state. So currently, every city with a population of over 10,000 people has an early voting location in it. I think this one takes that up and applies it to over 15,000
this only adopts what they're already doing and requires that they use that discretion appropriately and just mandates. bare minimum, um, and at this point, you know, I would, I would note that early voting is, is sort of a standard throughout the state. We do, we do have early voting in most locations. People have come to accept that and Crinon County about 11,000 people early voted and more than half of them cast their ballot for for President Trump and so it is, it is not a partisan issue, um, this is a very
limited bill. It only applies to March and May primaries to the November general election as well. It does not apply to special elections, um, it does not require the county board to open a location if the county clerk is already holding one, so it's not going to require two in one city. It just adopts the best practices that the county boards have set for us already and ask them that ask that we mandate that. And as I stated
Representative Jessie McGruder
Unverified
2:23:46
before, 74 counties already do this. We only had one and it was very embarrassing uh to go before the
Supreme Court about a a voting rights issue. So I, I truly appreciate uh the committee and all the work you've done, I've observed for a couple of days, you all are steadfast at your duties and, and always working for a better Arkansas and that's what this bill does. It works towards a better Arkansas and we will entertain any questions if there are any. All right, any
questions by the committee, Representative Beatty? But just
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:24:17
raised kind of the same concerns that I had before, uh, about, I think it's 282 that
we passed that kind of addressed some of these issues. My question is the, the, the problem on that election commissioner board in, in Crittenden County, uh, which member of the board was the um The one that was kind of throwing a wrench in, in the process. He should have two Republican members and a Democrat member. Which one was the problem? I'll let
Representative Jessie McGruder
Unverified
2:24:48
her respond because that's one of my voters. So, uh,
Speaker 313
2:24:54
I'll, I'll just tell you what was, what was in
Speaker 312
2:24:58
the record and you can make a decision as to who you believe was at fault and who was not. I don't have um an opinion as to who was
Speaker 56
2:25:05
at fault. I just, I, I'm not blaming anyone. I'm just asking who was the problem member? There were 2
Speaker 312
2:25:10
problem members. So originally what had happened is, you gotta remember that their meetings are subject to the FOIA, to the public meeting requirement and so they cannot meet and talk about all of this unless they are in the public meeting, um, and I again will not.
speculate as to why, because I think the roots run deep and get tangled in counties like, uh, like Crittenden. But the, the Republican member, the chair, Mr. Frank Barton, had a location that he preferred. He put that up for discussion in the meeting, and this was all on video and presented in evidence. Uh, he, he put that up for discussion in the meeting. The Democratic member voted no to that location, um, it was later explained um in discussions as
well as in testimony in our trial that that he was hoping to discuss the. 2nd location but they hadn't had that discussion, right? There's been no communication about that prior to and there was no communication about that at that time, so, so the Democrat voted no on that location and at that point the chair cut off all communication about it and said we won't discuss this anymore, um. After the meeting,
He was caught the testimony was that the chair Mr. Barton was contacted uh by a couple of different people to say, look, he didn't realize that you guys weren't gonna allow early voting at all, um, and in fact in the end of that meeting on video, Mr. Barton says no, there will be no early voting in West Memphis. That was the position he took then he was contacted by other individuals, um, associated with the Democratic Party who said, look, James is gonna change his vote. This member is gonna, you will have a unanimous vote.
You will just call a meeting and do this again. He will give you your location, 100%. And Mr. Barton told him no, um, and Mr. Barton did not abuse his discretion in that, uh, as a matter of law. He is given the discretion to do that. He was, uh, not sanctioned by the county board of Election commissioners, I'm sorry, by the state Board of Election commissioners because he does have the authority to say no, we will not call a meeting, but the problem is from Miss Miss uh Brown's position and Ms. Taylor's position is. They're the ones who are at the
loss there. The people who are at the loss are the voters, and we should never be in a situation where the voters suffer because Democrats and Republicans can't get along. Representative Beatty. I agree with that
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:27:46
comment. But, but my concern is the system works in 74 of the 75 counties, and it works well in those counties and, and to
tailor a a rule based on one event and, and, and a disagreement among individuals that are appointed. By the political parties of the county. By the Democratic Party and by the Republican Party to be placed in those positions, um, That goes back to self-governance and, and those folks, um, there's opportunity to replace those individuals and get folks in there that take care of the electorate. So I, I have concerns about this for one
county to mandate this for all the counties and all the county board of election commissioners that are taking care of business. So those are my concerns and it guts, uh, it basically guts Act 282 that that we, we ran and passed earlier in the session. So those are my concerns. All right. Any other questions by the committee?
Representative Meeks So, uh, my, my question is just on the logistics. I
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:28:56
know, I think that we got rid of the
amendment because of that concern, um, we pass this today, it won't be on the house floor until tomorrow and then that gives you, I mean, is that, do you have a Senate sponsor who's lined up, who's going to take this and try to get this through the Senate in one day, and is that even possible? Uh, yes sir,
I've been told that it is possible and I do have a Senate sponsor lined up
Representative Jessie McGruder
Unverified
2:29:19
for that. OK. Representative Hawk, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, uh, I
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:29:30
just saw um Mr. Madison come into the room. Can we get him to the table for a minute, please? Mr. Madison's not
signed up to speak for or against the bill, but without objection, Mr. Madison, you're recognized. My name is Chris Madison. I'm
Chris Madison
Unverified
2:29:51
the director of the state Board of Election commissioners and on this particular bill, the state board has not voted or taken a position on it, um, but I was asked questions by a couple of
representatives about some of the practicalities of the bill that I think may be important for the committee to understand, um, first off, the policy decision of whether to require early voting in populations of greater than 15,000, that is a policy decision for you as legislators to decide. The issue that I see as an election administrator is twofold with the bill as I have seen it. First is that it requires that the commission conduct early voting in population centers
greater than 15,000. It does not, however, address what happens when the commission can't decide on the location because current law requires a unanimous vote and actually this is the issue that occurred in uh West Memphis was they could not agree on the location and so they did not have a unanimous vote on the location. This bill doesn't address that. The other law, Act 282, I believe it is, um, requires unanimous vote, and that's the way the law has been applied, so that's one issue. The second issue that was raised in some
questions were when it says um conduct early voting well is that one day or the whole 2 weeks of early voting. It's not clear in here what the parameters of that are and from an administration standpoint, those are parameters that would be useful in conducting to that we comply with this portion of the law. Thank you. Represent, do you
have anything else? No, I'm good. OK, Ms. Dannifer, I'd like to
hear your response to that because it sounds like the concern that Has been raised that Representative McGruder wants to fix occurred because they
couldn't get a unanimous vote, and Mr. Madison says this bill is not going to fix that, so how do you respond
Speaker 308
2:31:41
to that? So that's part of it um it is in part because they couldn't get a unanimous vote and that is an issue with existing law,
Speaker 312
2:31:50
not an issue that was created by Act 282. Um, and it is compounded so in this particular case, when it comes to early voting because early voting is largely almost limitlessly discretional to the county boards of election commissioners. It prevents any
oversight from coming in in other areas. So in this instance, my clients asked me first to appeal directly. to the state Board of Election commissioners. They don't have jurisdiction over this under current law. So they were not able to to step in. So will this bill give them jurisdiction? No, this bill will not. And, and in fact what this bill will do though is give a mandate such that if the county board of election commissioners does not comply. They will have oversight on the back end through the
complaint process. So my clients also instructed me to file a complaint in. this particular instance to be investigated. That was also denied, um, the complaint was filed against Mr. Barton. It was not filed. Uh, I believe it was the whole county Board of Election commissioners, so I don't know that we specifically named the Democratic member in that but um but at that time that we were following that based on the information we had, it was pre-trial, um. That was denied. In my understanding, correct me
if I'm wrong, Mr. Madison, because there is no legal obligation to perform the duties that he failed to perform. If there is a legal mandate that the county board of election commissioners. put one of these in one of these locations, then they can do something on the back end with regard to sanctions and those members and their failure to act, but right now there's nothing, I think I see. So basically there is no guarantee
unless we pass this bill that in a city of over 15,000 people that there's going to be an early voting location. Is that correct? That's correct, Mr. Madison, is that true? That is correct. So hang on because it seems obscene to me the idea that we would have a city in the state of Arkansas for 15,000 people that because there are people on the local election commission that can't agree, you're not going to have early voting in that city. I mean, that, that's, that is ridiculous, utterly. So what do you have to say to that? Which. Either one of you, both of you.
Speaker 221
2:34:10
OK, thank you. So the law has been. For
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:34:14
it and I've been doing this for 6 years, but the law has been. That early voting is required in the county seat. And that's because that's conducted historically by the county clerk, let me stop you for a second. So in the case of
Crittenan County, for example, the county seat is Marion, but the biggest city is West Memphis, and so the city of West Memphis in that election didn't have early voting.
So can I explain the circumstances of that? I suppose, OK, but uh if this bill, if it's not required under current law and this bill will require it. Then I don't know that the circumstances are that important, you know, you guys are lawyers and, and we're legislators trying to solve problems and sometimes I see lawyers that want to really dwell on the details and we're just trying to fix an issue, so, but go ahead.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:35:04
So two things. First off, as I said, the. Early voting is required in the county clerk's office. It's not always required in population
Chris Madison
Unverified
2:35:13
centers, whether it's 50 people or 50,000 people. Crittenden County, what happened was, was there was a dispute over the location to conduct early voting in West Memphis. There there wasn't that they didn't want to do early voting in West Memphis. There was a dispute between 7th Strength Baptist Church and the public library and the democratic representative didn't want to do the public library, the majority members didn't want to do the 7th Street because of concern. about harassing voters going in there and so they couldn't come to an agreement. Law requires,
as we had applied it in in our training, a unanimous vote of the commission to conduct early voting. Thus, if they cannot reach a unanimous decision, then you're not going to conduct early voting and that actually serves the political purposes if you think about it, because the commission represents both of the parties and if the two parties can't agree on where we're going to conduct our additional early voting, then it's only going to be done in the county seat. This does not fix that and I understand the circumstances that Ms. Sanford's talking about, but if I got a complaint that they were supposed to
conduct early voting, but I also have a law that requires a unanimous vote and they're unable to reach a unanimous vote. I can't have a fighting against them because I've got two laws in
opposition. Well, and I understand that. No, it doesn't fix the problem of unanimous vote, but it does fix the problem of saying that if you're in a city over 15,000, you shall have an early voting location and for those people who wouldn't be inclined to agree. They know that they're to be violating state law by not having an early voting location in a city of over 15,000 people which might cause them to say, you know what? Well, I don't
really like it at the library. There's a state law that says that city city over 15,000 has to have early voting here, so I think we're just gonna have to figure it out. I mean, is that not a fair assessment? Potentially, I, I
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:37:02
mean, I, I just, when I go to a, well the, when I go and the board goes to apply sanction authority. I need to have clear law that says you should do X, you did not do
Chris Madison
Unverified
2:37:12
X. This would say that, but I have another law that requires a
unanimous vote and so if for example, it went down and they did not get a unanimous vote. Well, on the one hand, it requires unanimity, but on the other hand, it requires them to do it. How do I hold them accountable for that? That would be the position
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:37:34
we'd be in. I understand. Representative Hawk, he recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So in that scenario, let me
just break it down. So, OK, they can't agree on the library or they can agree on the courthouse or they can so wouldn't this bill if we said,
OK, you gotta have early voting, right? You guys got to sit up here and figure it out and find a place until you all can agree on something. Wouldn't that be what this bill would essentially do is say, OK, you guys figured it out and and we're gonna stay here all night until we all come to an agreement on this is going to be the spot. Because we know that we have to have early voting. That would be one of the potential outcomes.
Chris Madison
Unverified
2:38:07
Yes, sir. OK, thank you. All right. Any other questions by the committee? Representative Rose, your,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:38:19
uh, Mr. Madison, can you, and uh the bill sponsor and witness can also answer, but I'm interested in your
opinion at the moment. Why is it that this works everywhere else without this currently. So as I was explaining
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:38:34
a moment ago, the commissions have the discretion to add additional early voting locations. If you're outside of the
Chris Madison
Unverified
2:38:39
county seat, you're in the CBC authority to do additional early voting locations and all of our other counties where you have population centers like this, they come to an agreement on
picking a location and conduct early voting. What happened in this particular circumstance was there was a disagreement as to the location and they were on their deadline to give all their notices and they were unable to reach a conclusion on it thus the position based on the training that we had at the time. Now the Supreme Court took a different position than we had and that's why. adopted the law to clarify, uh, the unanimity unanimity of additional early voting locations. So that we could provide clarity to our commissioners on what they're
required to do. I don't necessarily disagree with the policy function of this. I'm just
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:39:25
concerned about the practicality of it. That would be my decision. Is there in
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:39:29
uh is there an agreed upon understanding what
this will do to act, I think it's 282 that Representative Beatty referenced, like if this were to pass, do you guys have an agreement? Is it going to nullify that or amplify that. I'm I'm trying to figure out if we do this, if this
gives a mess up something that we've already done. I,
Speaker 308
2:39:51
I actually did not come and speak either for or against 282, as a matter of policy, I'm neutral as to who
Speaker 312
2:39:58
performs the functions, right? As long as the job gets done and it gets done professionally in the way that benefits the voters, it doesn't matter to me whether it's the county clerk or the county or the county board of Election commissioners. What I will say is in this particular instance when it reared its head, the only mechanism by which the voters could step in have their will considered and
is by mandating that the law be followed, and we used laws that the Supreme Court held were, were required, right? Um, now granted again the state board disagreed with that interpretation. The the Supreme Court clarified for that, that for us, but at 282 repeals those and I think that's fine because Act 282 just tells them how they need to work through this, but what do we. do when they don't do their job. I mean that problem is what remains. It exists now, it
remains 282 did not resolve the problem of what do we do when a county county board of election commissioners or a single member of one refuses to do what they're supposed to do under the law, and this is a very narrow bill that adopts a policy that the whole state has already done, um, and, and I would also note, um, I know Mr. Madison was not a party to the litigation, so I think we have a different perspective on sort of the communication that was going on, but I can say that as a
matter of law in the trial court that we presented the videos of the meetings we presented testimony from the witnesses, both the Democrat and the Republican who had had disagreements testified and in that there was never any evidence that they were arguing about which location to put it at because Mr. Barton never allowed them to formally entertain the other. location in the meeting. He used his discretion to say no. I will not call another meeting and we
will not discuss another location and he cut the meeting off and refused to call another one. That is the abuse of discretion that prevented this from from getting resolved because after he cut off that meeting, the other members representatives reached out and said he'll give it to you. He'll give you the vote. You get it, you get your location, you get everything you've asked for. You've got 2 days left to meet your deadline, please just an emergency meeting. We'll do anything we can to help you. And Mr. Barton said no. And that is the abuse of
Speaker 313
2:42:27
discretion that that we need to be able to come back and do something about Representative
Representative Jessie McGruder
Unverified
2:42:32
to answer your question, I believe in amplifies it because uh 282 said if you can't come to a concession decision that will return to the general, uh, the, the previous years, uh, location. So I think it amplifies uh 282 in my opinion. All right. It just brief follow up, Mr. Madison, as you disagree with that assessment? Yeah,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:42:51
I don't believe that 282 says it goes to where you were before.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:43:00
It's that it requires that they have their meeting and they reach a unanimous decision on their locations and if they don't, then they don't. That's my understanding of
All right, well, let me give you another example. Let's say that uh this time, this past
cycle, the dysfunction was in Crittenan County. But let's say next election cycle the dysfunctions in Benton County and Bentonville is the
county seat and Rogers is also located in Benton County and you've got some people on the election commission who for whatever reason just can't agree where the early voting locations are gonna be. There would be no state law. Let's say you had the same situation happened on the Benton County Election Commission. There would be no guarantee that you would have early voting in Rogers. Is that right? That's correct. This bill would would prohibit that by law and say if it's a city over 15,000, you've got to have an early
voting location. I understand the requirement of unanimity, not arguing that, but this bill would say Bentonville Election Commission, you can't. Cut out Rogers and not have early voting there. So
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:44:15
to the and I, I agree that this bill would require it and potentially force the unanimity,
Chris Madison
Unverified
2:44:20
the secondary issue is again a practical one to consider is whether or not I do one hour of early voting or I do the two weeks of it. That's not necessarily defined
and there's no requirement in the law that they do any number of early voting just they have the additional early voting. Sounds like we need
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:44:39
another bill, but it's a little late for that. And so actually, you know. From my perspective, like I said, the policy of this is a decision for the legislature. I don't think it's a bad policy, but I am concerned about the practical applications of of this and the effects it would have on my
Speaker 284
2:44:53
commissioners. Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you, sure.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:44:56
And, and I guess that's kind of ultimately my, my question here is just the practical application. So let's say we
pass this, the board, whatever county decides we're not going to do it. Uh, somebody sues the Supreme Court says you shall go back and do it. They still decide their not gonna do it. Does someone else then take over and get the authority to make it happen or are we talking so tell me how this forces this to happen if a local board just digs their heels in and says we're not going to do it. Who, who's gonna make that final decision if the local board doesn't? If anybody, Representative Meeks, that's a great question.
Chris Madison
Unverified
2:45:35
And as she pointed out earlier, the current law, there is an appeal process by which if you reduce the number of polling sites which are election day polling sites. You can appeal that to the state board. However, that does not apply to early voting, and I think from a policy standpoint that applies because you sometimes need to move early voting locations. One of the reasons that we were sponsored Act 282 was that if I'm gonna offer my fellowship hall in my church, and it can never be changed because the
commissioners can't come to an agreement in another location. I'm not gonna offer that space to you. So you're gonna reduce the opportunities potentially for those locations. One of the things to maybe consider is to include if. A city population something thinks that they're being disenfranchised by this uh through the reduction of early voting sites that it could be appealed also, but that would require significant more bill writing to do so, um, but currently there is not a process. Now if the court came back and said you shall do X, the commissioners are gonna do whatever the Supreme Court says
Speaker 337
2:46:38
is my experience with them. May I respond to
Speaker 308
2:46:41
that as well? I, I would also note in this particular instance, my impression from Mr. Barton's testimony is that he was not going to do anything illegal that as long as that he intended to
Speaker 312
2:46:51
follow the law and he intended to have his way as long as it was within the constraints of the law. And so first of all, I believe that just by mandating it, it would avoid this problem because there are a lot of people who will use their discretion right up until the point that they have none, um,
Speaker 308
2:47:09
so we're moving that's important. The second thing is I do the situation that you just raised that we could bring an action for mandamus, um, I believe as
Speaker 312
2:47:17
long as it's mandated, if we had to, we could go to a court and the court could order them to establish a location or establish one in the alternative and practically speaking, there's always a location they're talking about. Practically speaking, there's gonna be some evidence before the court and the court's gonna push them and encourage them to come to an agreement before they do that. So, um, I agree we, we
could come up with a 30-page bill that has a whole new process and adds bureaucracy and red tape to how we go through these, the simpler thing is just to say in our population centers, you have to hold early voting. Representative Collins are recognized. Just
a real quick point on that concerned about a 1 hour early voting being open, you
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:48:01
know, we do have a law saying that if you're opening an early voting site, it does have to be at the hours of the Maine county seat
voting, so I realized there's some possibility for deviation if they absolutely can't do it, but you still have to get as near as possible, so I don't think they could just do one hour. They could do
limited days, but one hour will be a stretch. Thank you, Representative. I was just using that as an illustrative purposes. All right, any other questions
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:48:24
by the committee? Seeing no other questions by the committee, we have no one
signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative McGruder, you're recognized to close for your bill. Again, thank you all for your time. Uh, I'm I really
Representative Jessie McGruder
Unverified
2:48:40
appreciate all the insight that was given in the questions that were asked, and I would appreciate a good vote. Representative McGruder is
closed for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee? See a
motion to pass Representative McIlroy. Is there any discussion on the motion? Representative Beatty, you're recognized.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:48:57
I just remembers, I, I want to just express I. I understand the concern and I told Representative McGruder, I'm sympathetic to that concern. I don't think that passage of this bill will solve the problem. I think the same problem would, would, would come
up again and, and maybe we need additional legislation that provides clear guidance for what to, you know, procedures to happen when the board doesn't agree, uh, that would take care of these concerns. I think it's absurd as all of you do, that a city of that size. Uh, doesn't have a polling site, but I don't think that this bill solves that problem for that reason, I'll be voting no. Representative Hawke, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I,
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:49:40
I, I, I agree with Representative Betty on on
almost everything except for this one. I, I do think that this will
solve that problem. The prac practicality that uh the commission talked about it, it is a bit of a concern, but I think this also, as I asked the question, it makes them stay in the room and figure out a loading voting location to allow people in that one county, mind you, there's 74 counties that do it right, and there's one that's not doing it correctly right now and. I think that this bill allows for that to happen, and I'll be voting yes.
Any other discussion on the motion, seeing no other discussion on the motion, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed the ayes have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Representative Pilkington, thank you,
Speaker 284
2:50:27
chair. Thank you committee. Uh, I'm not gonna
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
2:50:40
run the amendment for this bill due to time issues. Which bill do you have
Representative Pilkington is the Penzoffield, Senate Bill 613. I was asked to run it. I'm a man of my word, so I sat in this meeting to run it. Well, you were doing
pretty good until you said Penzo Duffield, no, no. All right, you're recognized. OK, um, I'll be
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
2:51:01
quick because I know times are the essence, uh, essentially this is a local option bill for floridization of water and water systems. They took the language from the local option for dry, wet ballot measures basically applied to Floridization, so there's enough
38%. Of registered voters decide that they want to get fluoride out of the water. They can do a petition. They can search, you know, get signatures, get it verified just like on a local option, and they can have a vote whether or not they want fluoride in their water or not, so it puts local control back there, um, and that's essentially the bill appreciate good vote. Alright, before we go to questions, I want to
make clear that I was just joking when I said that you were doing well until you said Penzo and Duffield out they're both friends of mine. I think, I think highly of both.
and I did not mean anything negative or to imply anything negative about them or this bill with that comment they are both friends of mine
and it was simply a joke and I should not have made it. I apologize for that joke about Penzo all
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
2:51:59
the time. It's OK. And he's the godfather of my second son, alright. Are there any questions by
the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee. We have no one signed up to speak for or against
the bill. Representative Pilkington, you're recognized to close for the bill. I'm closed for my bill. Representative Pilin has closed
the bill. What are the wishes of the committee? Representative Rose Rose hasn't made a motion do pass is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
2:52:28
motion, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. The eyes have it.
Congratulations you pastor, but alright, I have a bill I need to present. This is Senate Bill 614.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
2:52:52
Alright, next up. Citadel 6:14. Representative Gazaway, uh, please
identify yourself for the committee and you're good to go. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Jimmy Gazaway,
House District 31. Members today, the bill that I have before you, Senate Bill 614. Some of you, I'm sure remember the bill that we heard in here related to the Freedom of Information Act carried by Senator Clark Tucker. That was such a good bill that
even Jimmy Cabin, uh, Joey McCutchen, the municipal League and the Association of Counties came together in agreement. And so this bill is also sponsored by Senator Tucker and is a portion that I think was meant to have been included in that bill, but, uh, was not, as you can see, Jimmy Cavin is not here and Joey McCutchen is not here and if they had a problem with it, as many of you know, they would be here. Um Ready to testify, but basically what this bill does is it relates to the. issuance of bonds.
And when those matters come before a council at the time period within which you can challenge the issuance of bonds by city council, uh. Following their issuance. this bill would say that if you're going to invalidate the actions of a governing body authorizing the issuance of bonds, you have to do so within 30 days of the date that action occurred, so if you believe that they committed a public meeting or uh FOIA violation and open public meeting violation. You have to bring that action within
30 days, and the point is if you talk with those who issue the bonds on behalf of municipalities, they are very careful in everything that they do it with. part of that process and once they issued the bonds and people start buying those bonds. If that could be invalidated. Way down the road that causes a big problem and so when you're talking about cities, uh, counties or others being able to finance their projects. There needs to be certainty. There
needs to be clarity, and there needs to be finality within a. so that those who finance these projects through the issuance of bonds will be comfortable to do that. And so this says that if you're going to bring an action to invalidate the actions of the governing body related to the authorizing of the issuance of bonds again, that has to be done within 30 days of the date that the action occurred. If it's more than 30 days, the court still has some authority
to sanction the governing body for their violations. So to be clear. They can uh authorize the civil penalty of $1000 for each member of the governing body. They can make the governing body go back and fix what they did. Um, in the course of that, uh, meeting. And Can't be paid out of public funds and then um that is that remedy is supplemental to all other remedies available to the court, so we're not just. Um
Not taking it lightly, there would be penalties that could be imposed for those violations and so that's what the bill does. It is important for our municipalities so that they can finance projects and it's important for those who issue the bonds and I'm specifically thinking about groups like Stevens and then the attorneys that uh kind of help. Uh, certify that process like the Friday firm that are typically involved in these issuances again, having clarity and finality is very important in this process and so that's
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
2:56:29
what the bill does, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions? Seeing none, we do have one individual to speak for the
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
2:56:56
bill, uh Lindsey French. Lindsay French Association of Arkansas Counties and I have every confidence in the chair's
ability to, to pass this bill without my help, certainly, but there were several questions asked and this bill was thoroughly vetted in the Senate committee, um. If a Governing body messes up within 30 days. It can be recalled the Bond community is comfortable with that 30 days, they already wait for that. If it's over 30 days, the first option a governing body has is to call a meeting and to remedy it, to say, hey, we messed up, um, we're gonna
fix it right here in front of you all. In order for this personal $1000 fine to be um Actually in place, they would have to refuse to go that method, and this would kind of be the default. So, um, it wouldn't be taxpayers having to pay the $1000 fee. It would be a person on the governing body individually, but they would first have to refuse to fix their mistake and so us, uh, the AAC, the municipal League, the bond lawyers are all good with this. There's no opposition from
the FOIA community that anyone has heard. Are there any questions? Sing
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
2:58:12
Nan, thank you for your testimony. Of no seeing no others speak for or against the bill, you recognize the clause for your bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee, and I will just add that this bill was taken before the FOIA task force and it was approved unanimously. So again, as Miss French stated, there's no known opposition. This is important to our municipalities being able to do
business and uh it also comports with what we all know is the importance of our open meetings law and again if it were I think an issue obviously there would be opposition here, so with that, um, closed for the bill and would make a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
2:58:55
motion? Saying none. All those in favor say aye. Congratulations, you've passed
Is everybody here that needs to run a bell right now. Singan, we're in recess until 15 minutes upon adjournment of the house.
Agenda
CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1352 Beaty Jr. TO AMEND VARIOUS LAWS CONCERNING ACTIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN FOREIGN ENTITIES.
HB1604 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED CONTRACTS BY STATE AGENCIES; AND TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS BY STATE AGENCIES TO PURCHASE PROMOTIONAL ITEMS MADE IN CHINA.
HB1694 Hawk TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES TO ELECTRONIC FILING FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS.
HB1243 Underwood TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES; TO AMEND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTING AND PROTECT ELECTION INTEGRITY; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996.
HB1797 Beaty Jr. TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1524 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BIDDING PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES.
HB1800 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURE FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE; TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF A HOSTILE FOREIGN PRINCIPAL; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1990.
Return from Recess
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1041 R. Scott Richardson TO PROHIBIT DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES IN ELECTION COMMUNICATIONS.
HB1878 McGruder TO ENSURE EARLY VOTING ACCESS FOR ARKANSANS RESIDING IN POPULATION CENTERS; AND TO REQUIRE A COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS TO CONDUCT EARLY VOTING IN A CITY IN CERTAIN INSTANCES.
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.
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.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTIONS PROPOSING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Number Sponsor Subtitle
SJR11 J. Payton A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 2, § 5, TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
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.
SB491 K. Hammer TO REQUIRE A VENDOR THAT CONTRACTS WITH THE OFFICE OF STATE PROCUREMENT FOR SERVICES FOR THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION TO SUBMIT DATA FOR VERIFICATION BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR; TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
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.
SB489 G. Leding TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE PLACEMENT OF A MONUMENT ON THE STATE CAPITOL GROUNDS IN RECOGNITION OF THE DESEGREGATION OF THE CHARLESTON AND FAYETTEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN 1954.
SB536 D. Sullivan TO ABOLISH AND TRANSFER THE ARKANSAS STATE LIBRARY AND THE STATE LIBRARY BOARD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB570 J. Dotson TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE.
SB565 Flippo TO ALLOW PROCUREMENT CERTIFICATIONS TO BE COMBINED; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE REPRESENTATION IN STATE CONTRACTS REGARDING CONTINGENT FEES; AND TO AMEND THE COOPERATIVE PURCHASING REPORTING DEADLINE.
SB613 C. Penzo TO CREATE AN ELECTION PROCEDURE TO DETERMINE FLUORIDATION OF A PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM.
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.
SB538 Gilmore TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PROCUREMENT LAW.
SB608 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS FOR COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL OFFICERS.
SB614 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THELAW CONCERNING OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS
Recess until 15 mins upon adjournment of the House
SB640 J. Dismang TO RECONSTITUTE THE STATE LIBRARY BOARD.
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.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS- HOUSE, Apr 14, 2025 | Agenda | 4 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Speaker 27
Speaker 40
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 82
Speaker 90
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Chair
Unverified
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
Speaker 117
Speaker 118
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Speaker 132
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
Senator John Payton
Unverified
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
Representative David Ray
Unverified
Speaker 187
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
Speaker 195
Speaker 200
Whit Hall
Unverified
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
Speaker 217
Speaker 220
Speaker 234
Kristen Stewart
Unverified
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
Speaker 32
Speaker 160
Speaker 269
Speaker 271
Speaker 284
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
Representative Jessie McGruder
Unverified
Speaker 308
Speaker 312
Speaker 313
Speaker 56
Chris Madison
Unverified
Speaker 221
Speaker 336
Speaker 337
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified