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
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:30
All right, so what we're going to do is we're going to start
just doing some concurring with some of the Senate amendments. So first up is HB 15, excuse me, 1352, Representative Batia, you ready?
Representative Batia, it's my understanding this one does not have an amendment, but maybe some of the other
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:10
ones you have does, do. Chair, 1352 does have an amendment, or had an, it's just concurrence in the Senate amendment,
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
2:17
I don't think there is an amendment. Okay. Thank you, so please
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:22
identify yourself for the committee and you're good to go. Representative Howard Beatty, District 95. Members, this was the anti-China legislation that we ran earlier in the session and basically
there was an amendment that we had agreed to with all parties and it was basically substituting or deleting an and and substituting an or on line 31 of page six. With that, any questions? Are there any
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
2:49
questions of the committee? Seeing none, you're good to close for your amendment. I'm
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:55
closed and offer a motion, do pass. Okay,
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
2:58
we have a motion, do pass. Any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No.
Congratulations, Representative Baker, your concurrence has passed. Were you going to go ahead and
Speaker 27
3:16
do the other ones? I can, Mr. Chair, you're in
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
3:19
control. All right, 17, go ahead and pass out the, okay. So you already have the amendments sitting on, I'll give you just a moment to take a look at those. It's going to be 1797.
We'll give them just a moment, and then if you'll identify yourself for the committee,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:44
you'll be good to go on 1797. Representative Howard Beatty, District 95, members, this was the 1797, the ADFA bill, and there were two amendments on the bill. Amendment 1, these were agreed upon language and concurrence, the amendment from the Senate. I'll entertain any questions on those, on the amendments.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
4:14
I'm sorry, my mistake, we're gonna have to vote on the amendments individually and then the bill. So if you'll just grab one of the amendments first and talk about it, and
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
4:33
we'll vote on that. All right. Again, Howard Beatty, District 95. This is Senate bill, I mean House bill 1797, and these were amendments that were requested on behalf of the
Senate, and the Senators addressed concerns on 1797.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
4:49
With that, I'll entertain any questions. Seeing no questions
from the committee, was that a question, Rep. McElroy? No. Seeing no questions from the committee, you're going to close on your concurrence. I'm
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
5:07
close. I'm a concurrence. for motion do pass appreciate a good vote all right we
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
5:13
have a motion do pass is there any discussion
on the motion seeing none once again uh all those in favor say aye any opposed all right
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
5:24
representative howard baity district 95 uh house bill 1797 amendment number two uh basically again language and change on the bill that was negotiated and request on behalf of the senate and with that i'll entertain any questions
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
5:44
parliamentary inquiry what's your inquiry so is 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 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. That's what I tried to do
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
6:20
at the beginning. Isn't that what I tried to do at the beginning? You are correct. We're just agreeing to the amendments that the Senate put on the bill.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
6:26
And so since you already called that
on 1797 for the ayes and you actually introduced it that way, I think that one's passed out, right? That's concurred in now. Oh, I see, got it. So
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
6:45
I got a little out of order here. So we've got the second amendment and you've made a motion to pass. So now we're talking
about the second amendment. All those
in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?
Congratulations, your amendments have passed. That's my last,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
7:05
I think, amendment. I do have a bill though. We're going to stay on
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
7:12
concurrences right now and we'll be back to those. Next we're going to hear 1524.
This is to concur on Senate amendments. Please identify yourself for the committee
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
7:45
and you're good to go. - Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jeremy Wooldridge, State Representative, District 1.
And this is just the same as Representative Beatty concurring in Senate amendment. Happy to answer any questions. - Are there any questions on the amendment?
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
8:03
Seeing none, you're good to close on your
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
8:06
amendment. I'm closed. I've got a motion to adopt
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
8:09
the amendment. We have a motion to adopt the amendment. Is there any discussion on the amendment? I want to concur on the amendment. To
concur on the amendment. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any
opposed? I congratulate you, you passed your concurrence.
Okay, next we're going to move to House Bill 1604, for concurrence. Please identify yourself with the
committee and then you're good to present your concurrence. Thank
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
8:57
you. Representative Mindy McElindon, House District 10. So this is on House Bill 1604, the no promotional items made in China.
We added an amendment on the Senate side at the request of higher ed sports to make sure that we weren't interfering with their 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
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
9:27
a concern. So with that, I ask for a motion. Representative Meeks has a motion to concur on the amendment. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.
Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations. You concurred on the amendment. Thank you. Do you want me to do the other one as well? Yeah, while you're there, go ahead and present
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
9:51
House Bill 1800. Thank you, sir. Representative Mindy McClendon, House District 10, House Bill 1800. At the request of the Chamber, we made 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 ask for a motion.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
10:11
McElroy, all right, motion, so we have a motion, is there any discussion on the
motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No.
Congratulations, we have concurred on House Bill, Senate Amendment, House Bill 1800. Thank you, committee. Thank you, chairman. I think next up we will have House Bill 1694, Representative Hawke, please identify yourself
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
10:49
with the committee and you are good to go. State Representative RJ Hawke, 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 of the state agencies in the Senate, we realized quickly that if there is an emergency that takes place, let's say the power's gone out or somebody
had a family emergency, we do want to still give them an option to be able to file their election reports with the Secretary of State via paper. But after 10 days of them filing that, they would have to update that to the portal. So that's all the amendment does, and I make a motion
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
11:41
to concur the amendment. We have a motion to concur on the Senate amendment, any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye.
Any opposed? Congratulations, you have concurred on amendments to 1694. If you give me just a second, we'll look at the next item. All right, Representative
Underwood, are you prepared to present the concurrence on House Bill
1243? Yes, sir. All right, please identify yourself with the committee and you're good to go.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
12:23
Kendon Underwood State Representative District 16. This is the bill that I ran previously that were related to finance reports for county and city officials. If you recall, when I was here before, there was a couple of items that I needed to amend in case other people's bills passed. And so those bills did pass, Collins' bill, changing the last filing date, and Representative Hawke's bill, changing everything from the county to the Secretary of State.
And so all this amendment does is makes those changes to my bill to make it consistent with other legislation. And
I make a, at the right time, I make a motion
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
13:10
to concurrence in an amendment. All right. Is there any discussion? Do you want to make that motion? Yes. To concur? All right. Is there any discussion
on the concurrence? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations, you've concurred on your amendments.
Hold on just one second. Okay, next we're gonna hear Senate Bill 489. Senator Letting,
please identify yourself for the committee and you're good to go. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Greg Letting, Senate District 30 from Fayetteville.
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
14:00
Earlier this session, we passed Act 251. That was 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, Fayetteville 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, or didn't have the social media then that we do today.
But so Fayetteville and Charleston sort of jointly share 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. And so there was conversations about having some sort of joint monument. That is ultimately not what happened. And so, the Fayetteville School District and Charleston School Districts asked Senators Stubblefield and I to run legislation to place a monument on the Capitol grounds, honoring their desegregation in 1954. This bill came out of Senate Committee unanimously and off the Senate floor without any no votes. Happy to take questions.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
15:04
Representative Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Any idea what the monument might look like at this point, or is that
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
15:12
still kind of a point for discussion? I imagine that would be 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
Speaker 82
15:25
monument on the grounds, all the funds will be privately collected. All
Speaker 90
15:32
right. Thank you. Representative Ray. They can make it look
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
15:35
like me. Okay. Is there any other discussion?
Yeah. I'd vote. All right. No questions, rather. Not discussion. You're good to close for your bill? I'm closed and I'd ask for a good vote. All right, what's the will of the committee? We have a motion to pass from Representative Meeks. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Congratulations, Senator. Thank you, committee. Your bill is passed.
Next I'm going to jump ahead to Senate Bill 608. Senator Johnson, yep, Mark Johnson, excuse me. I'm told this will be a quick bill for us to get out of
here. Please identify yourself with the committee and you're good to go.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
16:44
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mark Johnson, Senate District 17. Senate Bill 608 is a pretty simple bill. Currently in our code relating to municipal and county officials, it's possible for someone to be elected to office with 40% plus one vote. And I've always just felt strongly that our whole democracy is built on 50% plus one vote, a true majority. So what this bill does simply is it takes it back to 50% plus one vote to be elected
without a runoff. If someone gets 40-something percent, then there must be a runoff four weeks later. I'll be glad to answer any questions. Senator Johnson has explained the bill.
are there any questions by the committee? Representative Meeks. Are there any questions by the committee? Seeing
no questions by the committee. If you'll give me just a moment here. Seeing no
one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Senator Johnson, your
recognized to close for your bill. I'm closed, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate a good vote. Senator Johnson's closed for his bill. What are the wishes
of the committee? Representative Meeks makes a motion. Do pass. Is there any discussion
on that motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the ayes have it. Congratulations. You passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, committee. All right, next we have Senate Bill 486, Senator 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.
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
18:50
Representative Bentley. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Committee. State Representative Mary Bentley, District 54, and if it's okay with the chairman, I will bring Stephanie Nichols here to help present
this bill. Representative Bentley, did you have a question? Thank you. State Representative Mary Bentley, District 54, I appreciate y'all being here this morning.
If you remember back last session, colleagues, we passed a bill to 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 higher education, correctional institutions, and to make sure that our domestic violence shelters and our shelters across the state are protected, that women's privacy and safety are protected across our state. I think you guys will understand that we have young women that have been suffering in domestic violence situations, do not need to have a male president in domestic violence shelter.
We want to make sure that these people are safe wherever they go, make sure their privacy is protected. If a 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 going to belabor the issue on this bill. We've been with the correctional institutions. Senator Johnson hasn't made amendments on the Senate end. There's no issue with them. The correctional institutes, the shelters, the same thing, as well as higher education. We address their concerns at this point. I have no opposition from any agency across the state. And I'll let Stephanie present real quick before we take any questions.
Speaker 117
20:31
You're recognized. Good morning. I'm Stephanie Nichols. I am an allied attorney
Speaker 118
20:37
with Alliance Defending Freedom, which is an organization that is a legal expert on privacy laws throughout the nation. Eighteen 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 Eleventh Circuit have upheld these laws, and I believe the Eighth Circuit would as well.
These are common sense laws. They recognize that when my 9-year-old daughter is in a changing area at a public pool, we don't need to have any concerns that she is going to encounter a male in a state of undress. And other states have dealt with that issue. In Oregon, there was a man who was in a locker room area with girls as young as six, 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 that allows the ability to arrest a man in that same
Speaker 117
21:53
situation unless you can prove criminal intent. If you can prove intent to assault or something like that, then yeah, you can put the guy through
Speaker 118
22:03
the criminal justice system. But otherwise, we don't have what we need in Arkansas law to deal with that situation.
Many people say this law is unnecessary. I have eight pages of headlines in my notebook right 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. 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, your feelings don't matter as much as someone else's expectations. And I would appreciate the consideration of this committee for the needs and desires of young women.
When they go off to college, will they be assigned a roommate in their dorm room that is actually a male? will I have to, as a mother, be concerned about who might be in a dressing area with my child in either athletics or situations like the public pool, like I mentioned earlier? 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 more remarks?
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
23:56
No, I'm open to questions. The committee has
any at this point. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions by the
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
24:04
committee? Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your concern for women as one and as the mother of two young girls. I share your concern. I also share your concern about people being afraid. And as a mother of young women,
I will tell you 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, 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 this state
is real 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 the presentation of trans people. I am fortunate to know a lot of trans people, to love a lot of trans people. And I can tell you that despite bills like this that seem to presume that what we are
doing is stopping people who look a certain way from going into a restroom, I just want to talk about the reality of it with you. I want to 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 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
Speaker 117
26:10
will result if this passes. biological sex cannot be changed. There's a biological power differential, and that needs to be
Speaker 118
26:18
recognized in our laws regardless of how we feel 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 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 undress in front of nude men. 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'd just also like to say sexual
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
27:18
assault is real, and many women across the state have dealt with sexual assault. Do you 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 truly... I'm really shocked that you would not understand their true feelings and their results of having been sexually assaulted and not wanting to face that again. We don't need men changing in 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-12, we're having the same reasonable accommodations made in every area that we're asking for the safety and the protection to be put first in our state.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
28:04
Thank you, and just to be clear, I wasn't—obviously,
you know Representative Buntley me better than to say that I was denying the existence of sexual assault or the fear that that causes.
I was thinking very much about the fear that would be caused if a trans man, you know, were forced to enter a women's bathroom, fear on all sides, so thank you. Representative Collins,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
28:29
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I 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 costs. First of all, a multi-occupancy restaurant, I'm sorry, a restroom would have to be designated
for the exclusive use by one section or the other. So if a facility had a multi-occupancy restroom that served both, they would have to build out something different. Secondly, taking reasonable steps to provide privacy in a designated restroom or changing room if it didn't meet and muster according to this bill, it would have to be reconstructed so that it did. And I think the broadest one is they're opened up to liability if they don't prevent someone
from encountering someone of the opposite sex in a restroom. So obviously, that is a compulsion for them to take care of that potential of someone entering inadvertently into the restroom. So, I guess, can you tell me about the costs as you've assessed them? I mean, what does the fiscal impact say on this bill? I think places across the state have
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
29:39
already made reasonable accommodations. I don't see maybe changing a sign of very minimal cost incurred. Thank you. Well. And I would say to you that if there was some serious costs,
that the higher education institutes would be here to complain about those costs, then there's absolutely no opposition from them on this bill. So I'm sure if there was some 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
30:01
Did you get one on this bill? Senator Johnson's not here
Speaker 132
30:07
for me to answer that. I apologize. I'd like
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
30:10
to 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
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
30:27
know if there's been a fiscal impact? Senator Johnson's in session right now, so I really can't answer with him on that. So we can hold it for now.
I'd have no idea if there's been a fiscal impact on that. Does this bill 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 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. I'll hold
off for now, Mr. Chair. Are there any other
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
31:16
questions by the committee? Representative Inet, you're recognized.
Thank you Mr. Chair. 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 an encounter, what, what does
Speaker 118
31:37
that look like? That means that there is the presence of someone else in your private facility. But what's important to realize is that there's no liability unless the governmental entity fail to take reasonable steps.
Speaker 117
31:52
That can just be a sign on the door unless they actually, you know, are aware of an issue.
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
32:06
Follow-up. You're recognized. Which is, which, sorry, which is a physical contact and what about just seeing someone who looks like a man in the women's restroom or a woman in a man's restroom?
Speaker 118
32:21
There will be no civil liability when there is just someone who appears as the opposite sex but is not actually of the opposite sex.
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
32:34
I'm going to have some more. I'm sorry. I'll get back in the queue. All right. Any other questions by the committee?
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
32:44
Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know a number of people who are 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
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
32:56
the men's restroom? No one's forcing anybody to use a particular restroom. There's reasonable accommodations made throughout this bill. every area that we're asking for, there's reasonable accommodations, 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, and that's why we have reasonable accommodations in a
separate bathroom for those. All right, we're considering Representative Collins' request 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 five minutes. Thank you.
Unknown speaker
34:29
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
- This committee has been 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 five days from the date of the request. Now to me, there is a preliminary question that must be answered whether or not the House 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. And 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, 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. 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.
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
51:05
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, committee. Again, this does not require anything. The bathrooms are already designated male and female. This simply gives a cause of action if someone violates how they're already designated. This is really not an increased funds. Bathrooms are already designated male and female. This, to me, just puts a civil cause of action there. Somebody violates things that are already designated male and female. I don't see an increase 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 say that in 2021,
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
51:38
we did hear that 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 fiscal impact came in a few years ago just to
offer that representative bentley does this bill require reasonable accommodations it
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
52:06
only requires it's already required by the american disability
association only requires it's already required by the ada all right representative collins Thank you,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
52:14
Mr. Chair. So it's the three things I mentioned and sort of leading up to it, which are genuine questions about cost. One is that multi-occupancy restrooms shall be designated for exclusive use. So if they aren't currently, they would need to be. Two, 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 fail 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 an obligation that they're going to have to fulfill. Otherwise, they're opening themselves up to liability for all those reasons, retrofitting as well as staff time, cost, I think it would, I would assume it would be a significant cost. Thank you.
All right. Representative Collins' arguments are persuasive, I think, and have raised at least a question my mind as to whether or not this bill would indeed, and sounds like it may, require the
expenditure of public funds or a new or increased cost obligation based on the scenarios that he has mentioned. And so because of that, he's made a request for fiscal impact and is the Chairman of the Committee under the rule. I don't have any discretion. The rule says that the Chairman shall refer it for fiscal impact statement, so staff has already done that. So we 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 going to at this time have to cease any further action until we
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
54:04
get the fiscal impact report back. Thank you, Chairman.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
54:09
Thank you, Committee. I appreciate it. Representative Rose, Parliamentary Inquiry. You're recognized. You referenced the fiscal impact statement. I think there was 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 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 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.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
54:56
Yes sir, thank you. I believe there was maybe a ruling of that nature last week, so he may be able to pull that up. All
right, very good. Thank you. Oh, okay. 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 Payton.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
55:34
Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee, Senator Payton, District 22. SJR 11 is the Senate's choice of constitutional amendments to be referred to the people. It would refer to Arkansas voters a constitutional amendment clarifying that the right to keep and bear arms recognized in the U.S. 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 three, it says the popular name shall be a constitutional amendment to amend Arkansas Constitution, Article two, paragraph five, 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 I also think that it would be great for turnout, because I know in my district there's
a lot of interest 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 I appreciate all the members of this committee that 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 questions. Representative Duffield.
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
57:13
Yes, committee. As Senator Payton said, it's a
fairly simple, laid-out draft before USJR 11, and I appreciate your support. All right. Thank you, Representative Duffield.
Any questions by the committee? Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
57:33
Mr. Chair. So I am looking at the B section here 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, 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 and bared for any lawful purpose.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
58:08
Is that correct? So this was vetted by the Attorney General, and it would rise to the level of strict scrutiny. but a governmental interest in any regulation
would have to rise to the level of strict
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
58:23
scrutiny. - Okay, so we have some current things in law that are restricted, I wanna say silencers, maybe sawed off weapons, I can't remember exactly, but some other things that are currently in law, would those, I guess, would they be viewed differently if this were to pass then under current law?
Senator John Payton
Unverified
58:49
- Well, I'm not sure. 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. -
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
58:59
Representative Duffield. - Representative Collins, I had a few questions on that, especially in regards to suppressors. And it's my understanding that federal
law, which makes suppressors illegal, would still be in effect. This would not supersede the federal law. Okay. Representative Bennett, you're recognized.
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
59:20
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is this going to grant felons a right to keep arms, sorry, to keep and bear arms, sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Absolutely not. Okay. And I have another question. So if you've been convicted of domestic battery, will you lose the right under this current
Senator John Payton
Unverified
59:43
law? Well, that would be contingent on other law. So 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 lock them up in jail. That's taking the rights away at the Supreme level, you know. So you can still be adjudicated guilty and lose certain constitutional rights. And so this would be no different. Representative Meeks, you're recognized.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:00:27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate this. In a perfect world, this wouldn't be needed because I think the statement, the citizens of this state shall have the right to
keep and bear arms is pretty straightforward. But my question and concern kind of goes to Representative Collins is what would this do to limit the General Assembly's ability to, you know, restrict the misuse of firearms, suppressors, silencers, you know, criminals being able to carry weapons?
What impact would this have on what you're trying to do? And I fully support where you're going here. I'm just trying to think through
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:01:11
any potential unintended consequences. Well, there's still a lot of discretion, I guess, left up to the courts, even though We think the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is very easy to read. Obviously, it has not prevented reasonable regulation, and I don't think this would either. The crust of the matter is the bad guys are going to have guns and ammunition and accessories.
Are we going to suppress a law-abiding citizen's 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 going to have the armament anyway. So I feel much more comfortable when the good ones are also armed. I agree. Thank you, sir. Representative Raig,
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:02:02
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My question is just, what feedback have you gotten from various Second Amendment advocacy groups? I assume that they've all reviewed this and everyone's
happy with it. Yeah, of course, we've been
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:02:17
in jail down here for three months, and so we're not out among the people like I like to be. All of my friends and supporters are totally in support. I mean, I know Gun Owners of Arkansas is in support. I met with the NRA for a brief conversation in the hallway a few weeks ago, and they're
satisfied with the language in it and didn't show any opposition. He said they could support it as is, was his exact terminology. So I think
Speaker 175
1:02:49
we're good. Okay. Thank you. Representative Clowney,
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:02:54
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And my question is actually just kind of along the same lines as some of these others. 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 regulate how it feels is reasonable.
What does this do? How does this change the status of where we are in this state from where we are today if it is kind of weirdly dependent on what the legislature does? not weirdly, but I'm just trying to wrap my, I only say weird because I'm trying to wrap my head around it, how this interacts with what the
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:03:37
legislature is doing and chooses to do. Okay. So the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution deals with firearms, the right to keep and bear arms. I would argue that within 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, in my opinion, trying to clarify the language to where people can't take advantage of it being vague.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:04:28
What kind of people would take advantage of it being
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:04:31
vague, as it were? Well, just watching the evening news, I've seen reports over the last couple of years where some states had proposed and some people had proposed restricting and regulating ammunition and components and accessories. But I guess my question
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:04:46
is just under this bill, you just say any other lawful purpose. And so when you say people have proposed, 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. Okay.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:05:06
Well, the right to personal 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'm
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:05:24
sorry if this seems repetitive. I'm going to 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, what you've laid out here, is that a clarification that matches the current Supreme Court's interpretation of our current second article, or whatever this is that we're amending, Article II of the Constitution, or is it an expansion? Do you read what you put in here as just kind of saying what
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:05:56
the court already says is the Constitution? What I would say is what
the courts recognized historically for 200 years, yes.
I think in recent years and in recent districts, there has been concern. I understand
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:06:12
that, and 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 right, etc. But your intent is really just to kind of lock in what you believe is the current state of things, not to expand.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:06:46
of putting it. Yes, sir. Thanks. Representative Long, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it sounds like y'all are really trying to make it just perfectly clear for the judicial branch of exactly when they could get involved in maybe challenging our current
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:07:01
gun laws. Is that correct? Yeah. And to kind of reference back to Representative Collins' question,
it might actually save a lot of time in litigation in the courts where they could be dealing with something else. I think the actual decisions that 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 at all different levels of the judicial system. So the more clear we can make it, the
fewer arguments we have to have and the less time
has to be spent debating it. I appreciate
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:07:42
you bringing this and I only wish our federal constitution was as clear as your amendment. Thank you. 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. Ana Morshetti, if you would state
your name for the committee, any organization you're
here representing, and you'll be recognized to present
Speaker 195
1:08:16
your remarks. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Ana Morshetti. 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 U.S. 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 responsibility to ensure public safety. I mentioned this the morning after there was a mass shooting in Conway that killed two and injured nine. 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, 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, Ms. Mortaschetti. Any questions? 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, R. Whitt Hall. Mr. Hall, if you'd state your name, any organization you're here representing, you'll be recognized to
Whit Hall
Unverified
1:11:55
much, and I appreciate the opportunity to come before the committee and also to represent myself. My name is Whit Hall. I've been a hunter for 70 years. I'm an old fart. I have been a pediatrician for 50 years, and as of July 1, 2022, I'm a gun violence survivor when my grandson, Isaiah, was shot and killed in the Walmart parking lot by a 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 It protects not just guns, but it also protects bumped cocks and high-capacity magazines.
As a duck hunter from the age of seven, I know 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 at Sandy Hook and possibly the children 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 200 and 300 per minute is not something that ethical and responsible hunters 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
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:13:38
Hawk, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your testimony and I just have a
question. So 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
Whit Hall
Unverified
1:13:54
happen, correct? I'm going to quote what everybody else has been quoting today.
I'm not an attorney, so I'm not sure how that would work. 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 Payton, Representative Duffield, you're recognized to close for the resolution. Thank you Mr. Chair, thank you
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
1:14:42
committee for your time today. I'd like to thank everyone that came to speak on behalf
of the bill for taking your time to express your opinions as taxpayers of the state of 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.
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 are 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 Dutfield has closed for his resolution. - What are the wishes of the committee?
Representative Berry? - Motion, do pass. - Representative Berry has made a motion, do pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, all those in favor say aye. - Aye. - All
Speaker 206
1:16:17
those opposed? - No. - The ayes have it. Congratulations, you've passed your resolution. -
Thank you, committee. I saw him come into the room earlier. There he is.
Representative Maddox, you have to remind me which bill
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
1:16:44
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.
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
1:17:05
- Thank you, sir. John Maddox, State Representative of District 86. I would like to allow my guest to introduce himself and allow him to proceed with his testimony. I
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:17:15
think that would be more efficient. - You're recognized, sir. - Thank you very much and Merry Monday to
everybody who celebrates. My name is Ed Armstrong. I'm with the University of Arkansas System. This bill does three 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 two or three 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 applicable Arkansas law. 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, basically they haven't
paid a state employee 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 John Maddox
Unverified
1:19:17
Representative Maddox, we would be glad to take any questions. All right. Representative Meeks, you're
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:19:25
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for the bill all about government efficiencies. My only question and concern is whenever we download a new app or anything and there's that terms of service and it's this big long thing that we all scroll through, no one ever actually reads and we just click yes, 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 going to have them check a box and say yes, and not have them actually read what those requirements are and not understand what those requirements are because we're basically just going to say, yep, I'm going to do all that stuff. And they might not know what all that stuff is by trying to do that. Does that kind of make sense what my concern is there?
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:20:19
Just interested in your response. Absolutely. 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. My wife gets frustrated because I actually take the time to read those, which makes everything take a lot longer. However, 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. Also, 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 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
Speaker 217
1:22:01
if they're prepared to certify, yeah, I'll agree to whatever, then why don't we allow them
to do that? Any follow-up? All right. Representative
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:22:17
Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I'm just following up or piggybacking
a little bit on Representative Meek's question. I wasn't sure I understood your response on that.
You know, there's seven things here that they're required to certify. Are these specific requirements, are they gonna be spelled out that
they can see them, or is it just a blanket statement, they're gonna agree to follow Arkansas law, and they're not gonna know, and the duty, I guess,
is gonna be on the contractor to go and research what all those requirements are? Right. If an
Speaker 220
1:22:52
agency elects to use this law and to use this privilege, they can just put
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:22:59
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, there 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. And so there is 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 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 where 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, 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 follow all Arkansas law. Of course, if they want to, 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 the statute and say, well, here's what
it means when you're agreeing by operation of law. Here you
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:25:50
go. Yeah, I guess that just 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 they do not and shall not employ an illegal immigrant, for example, or that they do not 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. So that does give me some concern. So my follow-up question is, can you explain how, what does the process, what does it look like now? Is there like an individual form on each one of these things that they check a box or click a box or something like that? And that's the efficiency is that we're going to do away with those forms?
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:26:52
Is that right? Well, you don't have to do away with the forms. Let me answer your first question. I think it's a good question. 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, but they don't have the newer one that says you shall not boycott certain industries that boycott ammunition, 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 whoopsie, 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, at 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.
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 into one certifying statement. But it kicks in at different threshold values, and that's one thing, too, is that in some instances, the statement kicks in at $1,000, 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. $1,000, 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 commodity contracts. So we have to know, is this a commodity transaction,
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
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:30:03
attorneys and the state 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 wouldn't, 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 are they not making the agencies aware that these requirements exist? And I guess my second point would be, I agree with your point about flipping the liability of complying with the law, right?
That's a good point, and I think I agree with it. I just don't understand why we couldn't list those requirements so that they would know, because I do think they're important. Well, I
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:31:02
think that the Office of State Procurement is trying to educate people, and 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 the resources available on their webpage. And I think to address your concern that there be a place 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 read more about it. And then another thing that they could do is when they prepare a form, and if they prepare
a form and they promulgate a rule in connection with it, it'll come before the appropriate committee of this body, and JBC when you're in session, or 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
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:32:32
into it. A quick follow-up. So are you saying that's what your agency intends to do is make it crystal clear to contractors what those things are? So I can
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:32:45
no longer speak for the Office of State Procurement, and that's just a surmise of what they would likely do, 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 citing the statute, we will let it be really easy for them to find what it is that they're agreeing to.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:33:16
I got you. My apologies. Because I missed out where you said you were with U of A now, sorry. All
right, so I have a question.
Does this change or eliminate any of
the existing requirements that Representative Ray referenced? It does at the request
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:33:37
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 statutes that's referenced in Section 3 says that this statement has to be made conspicuously.
And her concern was that, well, if it states conspicuously, would this be a conspicuous statement? I think that's a valid concern. And so the 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 introduce is it identifies a 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, you know, not being in connection with a communist country or on the international terror watch list or whatever it may be that we currently have in statute, employs illegal immigrants. Are you saying those won't apply for contracts under $75,000?
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:35:36
No, they will. It's just 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. 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 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 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 that's the only one that's getting affected and being given a dollar amount. Everything else remains unchanged. Okay.
All right. Any other questions by the committee? Representative Rose?
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:37:25
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, you dove in, thank you, Representative Gassaway, dove into some of the questions I had on Section 3, but it also, kind of your dialogue there led me to some others. This is Ignorant speaking here. Where do these fees go, the fees that are being referenced?
Speaker 223
1:37:42
So these aren't fees that are collected by the state.
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:37:47
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 going to get this fee. That's up to them and this permits them to do that. But otherwise, they have to state that they're not paying
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:38:45
a fee. As long as the payment is 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
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:39:00
discussed? 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 $75,000. So other purchases that
don't rise to 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 going to be under $75,000, 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
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:39:42
brokerage fee. If this were to be 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
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:39:55
kind that's going to cease? I don't anticipate, there's not going to be, other than that one
that we've discussed, not a change in the substance of 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
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:40:34
no 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? that correct? If you were to,
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:40:56
so you're saying you want to be able to offer a state employee?
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:41:02
I don't, hypothetically. If this were to be
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
1:41:06
implemented. I don't think so, because I tell you why.
There's currently a body of ethics statutes, and what this does is it kind of comes in as a cumbersome add-on. There's already a body of law. It's the 1911-700, 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 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 1911 700s, But it allows us 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
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:42:14
shopping at Walmart. And I don't want to belabor the point, and if there's nobody else in the
queue, I can be done here. I think just it gives me a little pause at the tail end of this that we remove the word that this section shall be conspicuously set forth. And then there's this kind of clause that we set the $75,000 amount. And I guess that just gives me pause. And I don't know, Representative Maddox, I have a lot of trust in your word on these issues.
And so if you've had anything
that would just kind of put me at ease, I'd be
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
1:42:52
grateful to hear that. Well, I'm glad to hear that
you trust me, certainly. To be completely frank, I would just defer to his testimony, I would give some, my understanding though is both the systems are 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.
So I would just defer to their testimony. There are other people who can come and testify if there are other specific questions, though. So thank you. Thank you, Representative Max. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Seeing no other questions
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:43:31
from 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 bill? Seeing none, you're good to close for your bill.
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
1:43:45
Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll close. Now, that was all I was going to say in my closing is that, again, I think almost everyone is for it, TSS, everyone is for this. There's been no questions raised prior to, so just an efficiency piece of legislation. I'd appreciate a good vote. Okay, what's the
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:44:06
will of the committee? We have a motion due passed from-- I'll
just go first on Representative Hawke. All right.
We have a motion to do passes. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:44:22
Representative Hopk? Representative Hopk: Colleagues, I would just reiterate that this is an efficiency thing. I think that they said
it in a lot of words, but I think that it just goes back on the contractors at the end of the day, and it allows for our state agencies to be as efficient as possible when they're dealing with these types of contracts. I know there was a lot of words right there, but I think at the end of the day, the big thing about this is just trying to make our state agencies a little bit more efficient,
Speaker 234
1:44:48
and I think that does this with this
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:44:55
bill. And I'm going to vote yes. Is there any other discussion on
the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Congratulations. Your bill is
passed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. So next up, we're going to
hear Senate Bill 640, Representative Beatty.
Please identify yourself with the committee and you're good to go. Representative Beatty, introduce yourself to the committee and you're good to go.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:45:53
Representative Howard Beatty, District 95, here to present Senate Bill 640. Senate Bill 640 is to reconstitute the State Library Board. Basically, this bill would reconstitute the board and allow for the governor to appoint seven new members to the State Library Board. that I'll entertain any questions. Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:46:20
Well, it seems like the State Library Board is carrying on. They have people filling
the positions, doing their job. What's the need
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:46:31
to reconstitute the State Library Board? The need is stated in previous meeting where we sat here and seen the dysfunction of the board and the fact that there are concerns by Arkansans that aren't being addressed and raised and just complete dysfunction. There were legitimate concerns that were raised and those haven't been addressed. The infighting, the lack of consideration of what we need in this state and
what our constituents are telling us. So this board
is not functioning in a manner that we find acceptable well i guess you know
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:47:07
it's i understand that is that is some people's perspective and in 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
does it concern you that if there's ever a situation like this where people disagree with what a board says that we'll just dissolve them and that undermines the function
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:47:40
of the board itself? I'm not concerned with that at all. This board's appointed by the governor. They serve, in my opinion, I've always looked at things that you serve at the will of the governor. At any point that your service is not wanted or desired, then it's time for you to step off the board. So I don't see a problem with this. I think this addresses many of the concerns
that we sit through hours of testimony listening to? Well, we did sit
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:48:07
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. 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.
They've been invested in 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'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 going
to terminate you and start over with new appointments made by one governor? Are you concerned at all about the precedent we're setting
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:49:12
here? Not concerned in the slightest. I respect your opinion and your position, but completely disagree with you and I'm not concerned about setting a precedent. Okay. 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? Okay, I show you on Senate
Bill 591. All right, so I show you having signed up on Senate Bill 591 to speak against.
that Dan Sullivan's and the other one
says Senate bill 536 okay so we're on Senate
bill 640 but without objection I'm going to allow you to speak if you would just state your name and any organization you're here representing and then you'll be
Kristen Stewart
Unverified
1:50:47
recognized to make your remarks. Hello, my name is Kristen Stewart. I'm just here representing myself. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm here to voice my strong opposition to Senate Bill 640, which proposes to reconstitute the State Library Board. And I'd 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? 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. It was introduced, or it was filed last Thursday at 9 p.m. and then the next morning at 10 a.m. when I was in the Senate State Agency's committee meeting,
I didn't realize that it was on the agenda. and I was not allowed to speak. 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. My mother was an English teacher for 38 years, and she and my father both instilled in me 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. It was fun, yes, 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 visitors to our local libraries across the city. My now 11-year-old, we've even gone on a tour of all the different Central Arkansas library systems.
Libraries have shaped three generations of my family, and I want that same opportunity preserved for every Arkansas family, no matter what their zip code is. Arkansas has real problems. libraries aren't one of them. I urge you not to vote for this bill 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? Seeing no questions
by the committee. Thank you for being
here. Thank you for those remarks. Thank you. It appears that
we have no one else signed up to speak for or against the bill. With that, Representative
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:54:26
Beatty, you're recognized to close for
your bill. - Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. You know, last week we sat here and we didn't discuss just reconstituting the board. We sat here and talked about completely eliminating the board and moving them under the Department of Education, which, you know, did cause me some concerns to do that.
What this bill is going to do is allow the board continue to function and operate just with new people on that board. So with that, I'd appreciate, I'm going to offer a motion due pass, and I'd appreciate a good vote from this committee. All right, Representative
Beatty has made a motion due pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Representative,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:55:12
I appreciate you bringing this board 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 other boards and commissions that have been problematic like this. So this is nothing new, nothing unprecedented that we're doing here. And so, again, I appreciate it, looking forward to voting for this board so we can get new
people in there who are actually going to listen to the concerns of
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
1:55:59
Arkansans. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized. 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 in 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 this 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, 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,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:57:12
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a power grab, and it's completely unnecessary to fire the members of this board who have just been doing their jobs. Frankly, when someone comes to them and asks them to perform their job in a way they don't
think is right, 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. 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 their reward is to be
dismissed, so I'm a no on this. Thanks. Any other discussion on the motion, Representative Rose?
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:58:03
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this is a beneficial alternative to what we heard last week. I was supportive
of that bill and that measure, but this committee did not see fit. And I think this is an amicable compromise to reestablish our library board in a way that supports Arkansans. And I believe this committee will support it. the House will support it and I will be voting yes. Thank you. Representative Ray, you're recognized.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:58:34
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 to the board that's already on there. So 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 no the ayes have it congratulations you
passed your bill thank you mr chair thank you committee
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:59:48
I have one more if you want to clear it. It's Senate Bill 570 for Senator Dotson and Johnson. Lee. All
right, go ahead. State Representative Howard Beatty, District 95. Members, I'm presenting Senate Bill 570. Basically, it's to amend the law concerning the membership of the Joint Budget Committee. this bill would add the president pro tem of the senate and past president pro tem of the senate
the speaker of the house and the immediate past speaker of the house as positions on joint budget and i think that's primarily what the bill would do so i'll entertain any questions all right any questions by the committee representative collins thank you
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:00:40
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
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:00:51
i wouldn't 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 and the speaker and immediate
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:01:04
past speaker uh but but at the same time i mean that adds people in leadership and there are you know that waters
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:01:13
down the vote of everybody else fair to say again i would say it adds those positions to the committee and you know it could be former leadership but it adds those positions
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:01:26
representative rose you're recognized thank you mr chair representative baity are these full members the ex officio these would be full members and then i don't know if it's like like this with joint audit or ALC or some of our other committees, in the absence of the past speaker, past pro tem, because they either didn't win re-election or they opted not to run for re-election, the appointment of a member by the current pro tem or
the current speaker, is this similar to some other rules we have on some other committees?
I'm not certain exactly on the appointments of other committees at ALC. Okay. I felt like I
have read this language on rules of some of our other committees. so I thought this might have just simply mirrored that. All right, thank you. Representative Underwood. Representative Beatty,
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:02:15
you may have mentioned it, maybe I just missed it. Did you give an explanation for why we're adding this?
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:02:21
I think it was a request of the members of both chambers that they wanted to add this on the Joint Budget Committee.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:02:34
Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. So, I was trying to communicate with the
bill sponsor earlier, and the information I got from them was that the pro tem, the Senate pro tem, and the speaker are on ALC and audit automatically. Correct. And so this is just mirroring that on budget.
What I didn't get clarity on is about the immediate past pro tem and the immediate past speaker. Do we have that for those two other committees or would this be a
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:03:18
new thing? I'm not certain on those other two committees, but I know that that's kind of the way the executive committee and ALC operates is the current and the previous leader that's on those committees. Just offhand, I would say that this is mirroring language, but I'm not 100% on that.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:03:38
Okay. If there's anybody else on the committee that knows the answer to that question,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:03:44
I would love for them to chime in. Representative Meeks, you're recognized. I'm just the man for you. Yes, that is.
That's how it is currently done on those other committees. And my question is actually going to be, would you agree? So when I spoke to the bill sponsors about this, 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 budget committee, and the speaker and
the pro tem. So generally the five 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 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
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:04:41
questions by the Committee? Representative Collins, you're recognized.
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. get to pick being on one of the three, it's pretty easy to get on budget if you're already on ALC and audit. So is there any concern that they wouldn't actually be
on budget? I don't think there's any concern there. I don't have a concern. Okay.
Any other questions by the committee? Representative Hawke.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:05:14
Does budget have an ex officio spot? The reason I ask is because the past speaker could be made an ex officio, am I correct? Maybe I need to ask Representative Meeks, I don't know, I'm not on budget, so I'm just asking that question. I was going to say I've got my rulebook down
Speaker 32
2:05:31
there, but I don't know. Okay, thank you. Any other questions by
Speaker 160
2:05:37
the committee? Representative Rose. Thank you, yes, I was just curious if this adds to the number of members that are
Speaker 269
2:05:46
on the committee, or are these filling current positions? This would add to the committee. Okay. 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
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:06:04
for your bill. Mr. Chair, members, basically I'm presenting this bill because I
saw the Senate sponsor standing in our committee room, and he needed to get back to the Senate, and said he was looking for someone to run this bill here and I agreed so that he could go
back down and and run the bill. I appreciate the question the committee I think this is something that's good for our body and with that I'd offer a
motion do pass and appreciate a good vote. Representative Beatty's
made a motion do pass. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Seeing no discussion on the motion all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed. No. The
ayes have it. I see two hands, call the roll.
Speaker 271
2:06:57
Representative Meeks? Yes. Representative Meeks? Yes. Representative Wardlaw? Representative Wardlaw? Representative Berry? Yes. Representative Berry? Yes. Representative Mayberry? Yes. Representative Mayberry? Yes. Representative Crawford? Yes. Representative Crawford? Yes. Representative Clowney? No. Representative Clowney? No. Representative Collins? No. Representative Collins? No. Representative Evans? Representative Evans? Representative
Innit? No. Representative Innit? No. Representative McElroy? Yes. Representative Representative McElroy, yes. Representative Ray, yes. Representative Ray, yes. Representative Beatty, yes. Representative Beattie, yes. Representative Carr, yes. Representative Underwood, no. Representative Underwood, no.
Representative Long, no. Representative Hawk, no. Representative Hawke, no. Representative Rose? Representative Rose? No. Representative Rose, no. Representative Woldridge? Representative Woldridge? Representative Beck? No. Representative Beck? No. I'm sorry, Representative Beatty, the bill's failed.
All right, I'll need a minute on that. Next we have, I believe I saw
Representative Acre here. See Representative Magruder, we're gonna get to him in just a second. Representative Acre, you have to remind me which bill you have today. Senate Bill 491. 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 Senate bill 491
All right, everyone should have a copy of the
Speaker 284
2:10:08
amendment. All right, Representative Aker, you're recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you,
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
2:10:11
Mr. Chair. 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.
So there's some clean up language to hone that in.
Representative Akers, explain the amendment, are there any questions on the amendment? Representative Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. No
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:10:29
concern necessarily about the amendment itself, I'm just questioning the timing here because if 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've got enough time to squeeze this in under the deadline if we do this?
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
2:10:50
I have full faith in the capacity of the Senate. They're well-educated and smart people. I'll just leave that there then. Got
a lot of faith down there. Representative Rose, you're recognized. I guess
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:11:12
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 in a discussion on the motion,
seeing none. All those, oh, Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Sorry, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
2:11:26
want to make sure that if this passes out of here 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 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. Aye. All those opposed. The ayes have it. Congratulations. The amendment's been adopted. Representative Baker, you're recognized to explain the bill as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee. This bill
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
2:12:10
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, I guess, disappointment in a lot of the fiscal impacts that we receive and the numbers that we have to legislate off of.
And I also have grave concerns for our department heads and agencies who have to 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, I guess, agree to have that data interpreted and reviewed by an actuary third party. And in the case, again, when I speak with EBD Director Grant Wallace, there's only so many tools in the tool chest 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 incorrect, infactual, fraudulent data on a regular basis. And what this would do is it would kind of have a three-strike policy that if the third strike of a vendor cannot seem to supply accurate data and can't pass an audit to supply data that we need to legislate off of, they will not be allowed to contract with the EBD. Representative
Akers, explain the bill. Are there any questions by the committee?
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
2:13:35
Representative Mayberry, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just curious, is there anything in here that would make sure that they get the
audit back quickly? For example, I filed a bill in November and did not get the bill back with the fiscal impact until about, oh, three weeks until 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 come back with the fiscal impact statement quicker? I don't believe that
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:14:16
there's a way to have them generate that more quickly. What this does
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
2:14:21
have is that those numbers will not be honored unless they've been actuarially audited on the front end. So rather than having Siegel simply summarize the data they've received, this will be another layer for EBD to hold their vendors accountable. Okay.
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
2:14:36
Sad it won't help us in the future because that, 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 going to get your bill back until the very end. Just warning you. And
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:14:52
I echo those sympathies. It is extremely frustrating. I don't know if that is as
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
2:14:57
much an issue with EBD as much as it is with the vendor we've hired to summarize and produce that. But again, 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, Siegel, 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, as far as when fiscal impacts are produced, I would expect, I would hope that this body would welcome an 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're recognized
to close for the bill. I'm closed from a bill, and I appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Representative Aker is closed for his bill. What are the
wishes of the committee? see representative rose do pass as amended yes sir all right representative rose made a motion do pass as amended is there any discussion on the motion seeing no discussion on
the motion all those in favor say aye aye all those opposed the ayes have it congratulations you've passed
your bill representative magruder you are recognized to present
house bill 1878 representative clowney Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
2:16:26
Before Representative Magruder begins, I'd like to make a motion to expunge the vote by which his amendment passed or was
adopted previously. All right. Well, that's a proper motion.
Representative Clowney has moved to expunge the vote by which his amendment, which was adopted on April the 7th of this year, passed.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:16:49
Is there any discussion on that motion? Representative Rose? I'd just like to hear the reason. Sure.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
2:16:55
Thank you, Representative Rose. Just a timing issue.
So that amendment just added more sponsors, but at this point, as we just spoke about, Representative Acre, I want to make sure it has enough time to get through. All right. And
by the way, just in case anybody's curious,
I've spoken about this with Representative Magruder, and he's good with the expungement. All right. We have a motion to expunge the vote by which the amendment to House Bill 1878 passed. All those in favor say aye.
Aye. All those opposed, the ayes have it, congratulations. The motion has passed, I guess. I don't even know what to say these days. The vote by which your previous amendment passed has been expunged. Representative Magruder, you're recognized to present
the bill as unamended, I guess. - Good afternoon, committee. Thank you, Chair. Thank
Representative Jessie McGruder
Unverified
2:17:47
you all for the time. Representative Jesse Magruder out of Crittenden County, District 35. I'm here to present Bill 1878. I have someone here also to speak on the bill.
I'm going to invite her up to the podium if that's
okay with the committee. If you would, whoever your guest is, if you would. Yes. Representative Beatty. Did we
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:18:10
ever get a fiscal impact on this bill? Yes, we did. All right. Yes, everyone should
have a copy of the fiscal impact on your desk. Thank you. All right. If
you would, state your name for the committee, any organization you're here representing, and you'll be recognized.
Speaker 308
2:18:29
I'm Jen Standifer. I'm here on behalf of Arkansas Appleseed, as well as on my own behalf. I'm an attorney
Representative Jessie McGruder
Unverified
2:18:39
with Waymech Standifer Law. All right. Representative McGruder, you're recognized. All right. I'm presenting Bill 1878, which is a bill that offers early voting to every county in the state of Arkansas. Currently we have 75 counties, 74 counties already have this in place where each city with a population of more than 15,000 has an early voting location. This bill will ensure that Crittenden County, which is the only county that had an issue
with it last election cycle, will have an early voting location in that city, West Memphis and Marion, and any city that has a population of 15,000. It doesn't affect anybody else. The fiscal impact shows that there won't be any financial cost in regards to this bill. this just makes 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 any remarks? You're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 308
2:19:30
Chair. So in addition to helping Arkansas apple seed at the moment,
Speaker 312
2:19:35
I am also the attorney who was hired by Mrs. Shirley Brown and Mrs. Lavonda Taylor to file lawsuit in order to ensure early voting in West Memphis this last round. I would note, 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. When we started that litigation, it was not anything—we had no problem 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 have an early voting location open. 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 being conducted in West Memphis. 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. More of their population center is focused in West Memphis. The county board, however, is not required to hold early voting ever. It is purely discretional.
The chair of the county board 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.
And I know that you guys see this all the time. It is common for our agencies and our boards to love maize and hate shells. But what we have found is that sometimes you get a bad apple. You know, well more than nine times out of ten, 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. 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 are already doing and requires that they use that discretion appropriately and just mandates the 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 in Crittenden 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.
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 asks that we mandate
Representative Jessie McGruder
Unverified
2:23:41
that. And as I stated before, 74 counties already do this. We only had one, and it was very embarrassing to go before the Supreme Court about a voting rights issue. So I truly appreciate 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 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
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:24:12
questions by the committee? Representative Beatty. I just raised kind of the same concerns that I had before about Act, I think it's 282 that we passed that kind of addressed some of these issues. My question is the problem on that election commissioner board in Crittenden County,
which member of the board was the one that was kind of throwing a wrench in the process? You should have two Republican members and a Democrat member. Which one was the problem? I'll let her respond
Representative Jessie McGruder
Unverified
2:24:43
since that's one of my voters. So I'll just tell you what was in
Speaker 313
2:24:50
the record, and you can make a decision
Speaker 312
2:24:53
as to who you believe was at fault and who was not. I don't have an opinion as to who was at fault.
Speaker 56
2:25:00
I'm not blaming anyone. I'm just asking who was the problem member. There were two
Speaker 312
2:25:05
problem members. So originally what had happened is you've got to 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. And I, again, will not speculate as to why, because I think the roots run deep and get tangled in counties like Crittenden. But 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. He put that up for discussion in the meeting. The Democratic member voted no to that location. It was later explained in discussions as well as in testimony in our trial that he was hoping to discuss a second location, but they hadn't had that discussion, right? There'd been no communication about that prior to, and there was no communication about that at that time. 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.
After the meeting, the testimony was that the chair, Mr. Barton, was contacted by a couple of different people to say, look, he didn't realize that you guys weren't going to allow early voting at all. 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 associated with the Democratic Party who said, look, James is going to change his vote.
This member is going to you will have a unanimous vote. If you will just call a meeting and do this again, he will give you your location 100 percent. And Mr. Barton told him no. And Mr. Barton did not abuse his discretion in that as a matter of law. He is given the discretion to do that. He was not sanctioned 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 Ms. 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
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:27:41
and Republicans can't get along. Representative Beatty. I agree with that comment. But my concern is the system works in 74 of the 75 counties. And it works well in those counties. and to tailor a rule based on one event 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, that goes back to self-governance. And those folks, there's opportunity to replace those individuals and get folks in there that take care of the the electorate so 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 it basically guts
act 282 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 my question
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:28:51
is just on the logistics. I know I think that we got rid of the amendment because of that concern. If 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 yes sir i've been
Representative Jessie McGruder
Unverified
2:29:14
told that it is possible and i do have a senate sponsor lined up
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:29:21
for that okay representative hawk you're recognized thank you mr chair i uh i just saw 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 against the bill but without objection mr madison You're recognized.
Chris Madison
Unverified
2:29:47
My name is Chris Madison. I'm 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. 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. 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. current law requires a unanimous vote, and actually this is the issue that occurred in 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, requires unanimous vote, and that's the way the law
has been applied. So that's one issue. The second issue that was raised and some questions were when it says conduct early voting, well, that one day or the whole two 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 ensure that we comply with this portion of the law. Thank you.
Representative Hawke, do you have anything else? No, I'm good.
Okay. Ms. Danifer, I'd like to hear your response to that because it sounds like the concern that has been raised that Representative
Magruder wants to fix occurred because they couldn't get a unanimous vote, and Mr. Madison says this bill is not going to fix that.
Speaker 308
2:31:36
So how do you respond to that? So that's part of it. It is in part because they couldn't get a unanimous vote, and that is
Speaker 312
2:31:45
an issue with existing law, not an issue that was created by Act 282. 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 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 step in. So will this bill give them jurisdiction? No, this bill will not. 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. The complaint was filed against Mr. Barton. It was not filed. 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 at that time that we were filing that based on the information we had. It was pre-trial. 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. Okay. 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 over 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 is ridiculous, utterly. So what do you
Speaker 221
2:34:03
have to say to that? Either one of you, both of you. Okay, thank you.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:34:09
So the law has been for, and I've been doing this for six 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. So let me stop you for a second. So in
the case of Crittenden County, for example, the county seat is Marion. Correct. But the biggest city is West Memphis. Correct. And so the city of West Memphis in that election didn't have early voting. Is that right? Can I explain the circumstances of that? I suppose. Okay. But 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 we're legislators trying to solve problems. And sometimes I see lawyers that want to really dwell on the details and we're just
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:34:59
trying to fix an issue. So, but go ahead. So two things. First off, as I said, the early voting
Chris Madison
Unverified
2:35:05
is required in the county clerk's office. It's not always required in population 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.
It wasn't that they didn't want to do early voting in West Memphis. There was a dispute between Seventh Street 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 Seventh Street because of concerns about harassing voters going in there. And so they couldn't come to an agreement. Law requires, as we had applied it 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 law does not fix that. And I understand the circumstances that Ms. Sanford is 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 finding 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 going 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, while I don't really like it at the library, there's a state law that says that a city over 15,000 has to have early voting here, so I think we're just going to have to figure it out.
I mean, is that not a fair assessment?
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:36:57
Potentially. I mean, I just, when I go to apply— Potentially, Seth. Well, when I go and the board goes to apply sanction authority, I need to have clear law that says you should do X, you
Chris Madison
Unverified
2:37:07
did not do 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
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:37:29
position we'd be in. I understand. Representative Hawke, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So in that scenario, let me
just break it down. So, okay, they can't agree on the library or they can't agree on the courthouse or they can't agree. So wouldn't this bill, if we said, okay, you got to 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, okay, you guys figure it out and we're going to 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.
Chris Madison
Unverified
2:38:02
- That would be one of the potential outcomes. - Yes, sir. -
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:38:12
Okay. - Thank you. - All right, any other questions by the committee? Representative Rose, you're right here. - Thank you. Mr. Madison, can you, and 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?
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:38:29
So, as I was explaining a moment ago, the commissions have the discretion to add additional
Chris Madison
Unverified
2:38:33
early voting locations. If you're outside of the county seat, you're in the CBC authority to do additional early voting locations. In 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 or 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 we adopted the law to clarify
the 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
2:39:20
concerned about the practicality of it. That would be my decision. Is
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:39:24
there an agreed-upon understanding of 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?
Will it amplify that? I'm trying to figure
out if we do this, if this is going to mess
Speaker 308
2:39:47
up something that we've already done. I actually did not come and speak either for or against 282. As a matter of policy,
Speaker 312
2:39:53
I'm neutral as to who 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 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 and have their will considered is by mandating that the law be followed. And we used laws that the Supreme Court held were required, right? Now, granted, again, the state board disagreed with that interpretation. The Supreme Court clarified that for us. But Act 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 board of election commissioners or a single member of one refuses to do what they're supposed to do under the law. This is a very narrow bill that adopts a policy that the whole state has already done. And I would also note, 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, 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 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 two days left to meet your deadline. Please just call an emergency meeting. we'll do anything we can to help you. And Mr. Barton said
Speaker 313
2:42:21
no. And that is the abuse of discretion
that we need to be able to come back and
Representative Jessie McGruder
Unverified
2:42:27
do something about. Representative Rose, to answer your question, I believe it amplifies it because 282 says if you can't come to a concession decision, then it'll return to the previous year's location. So I think it amplifies 282, in my opinion. All right. Just a brief
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:42:46
follow-up, Mr. Madison, did you disagree with that assessment? Yeah,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:42:51
I don't believe that 282 says it goes to where you were before.
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
was the intent of it. All right. Well, let me give you another example. Let's say
that this time, this past cycle, the dysfunction was in Crittenden County. But let's say next election cycle, the dysfunction is 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 going to be. There would be no state law, let's say you had the same situation happen 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 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.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:44:10
So, and I agree that this bill would require it and potentially force the unanimity. The secondary issue
Chris Madison
Unverified
2:44:15
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 another bill, but
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:44:34
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 this and the effects it
Speaker 284
2:44:48
would have on my commissioners. Representative
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:44:51
Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I guess that's kind of ultimately 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. Somebody sues, the Supreme Court says you shall go back and do it. They still decide they're not going to 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's going to make that final decision if the local board doesn't? If anybody.
Representative Meeks, that's a great question. And
Chris Madison
Unverified
2:45:30
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 going to 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 going to offer that space to you. So you're going to 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 through the reduction of early voting sites, that it could be appealed also.
But that would require significant more bill writing to do so. But currently, there is not a process. Now, if the court came back and said, you shall do X, the commissioners are going to
Speaker 337
2:46:31
do whatever the Supreme Court says, is my experience with them. May
Speaker 308
2:46:36
I respond to that as well? 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
Speaker 312
2:46:46
he intended to 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
Speaker 308
2:47:05
they have none. So removing that's important. The second thing is I do believe in the situation that you just raised that we could bring an action for
Speaker 312
2:47:12
mandamus. I believe as 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 going to be some evidence before the court, and the court's going to push them and encourage them to come to an agreement before they do that. So I agree 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, you're
recognized. Just a real quick point on that. Concerned about a one-hour early voting being opened,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:47:57
You 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 main county seat voting site. I realize 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 would be a stretch. Thank you, Representative. I was just using that as illustrative
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:48:19
purposes. All right. 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 Magruder, you're recognized. A close for
Representative Jessie McGruder
Unverified
2:48:33
your bill. Again, thank you all for your time. I really appreciate all the insight that was given and the questions that were asked, and I would appreciate
a good vote. All right. Representative Magruder is closed for his bill. What
are the wishes of the committee? See a motion do pass. Representative McElroy, is there
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:48:52
any discussion on the motion? Representative Beatty, you're recognized. members i i want to just express i i understand the concern and i told representative magruder 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 come up again and and maybe we need additional legislation that provides clear guidance for what to have you know procedures to happen when the board doesn't agree that would take care of these concerns i think it's absurd as all of you do that a city of that size doesn't have a polling site but i don't think that this bill solves that problem and for that reason i'll be voting no representative hawk you're recognized thank you mr chairman i i
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:49:37
i agree with representative betty on almost everything except for this one i do think that this will solve
that problem the 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 a 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 no the eyes have it congratulations you passed your bill
Speaker 284
2:50:22
representative pilkington thank you chair thank you
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
2:50:35
committee i'm not going to run the amendment for this bill due to time issues all right which bill do you have representing pilkington it is the penzo duffield bill senate bill 613 i was asked
to run it i'm a man my word so i sat in
this meeting to run it well you were doing pretty good until you said penzo duffield yeah i
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
2:50:56
know all right you're recognized okay um i'll be quick because i know times of the essence uh essentially this is a local option bill for fluoridization of water and water systems they took the language from the local option for dry wet ballot measures basically applied to fluoridization so there's enough 38 percent of registered voters decide that they want to get fluoride out of the water they can do a petition they can cert 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 all right 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 They are both friends of mine, I think highly of both of them, 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, and I apologize
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
2:51:54
for that. I make jokes about Penzo all the time, Chairman, and it's okay, and he's the godfather of
my second son. Oh, all right. 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 close for my bill Representative Pilking has closed the bill. What are the wishes the committee representative Rose? Representative Rose has it made a motion do pass is there any discussion on the motion?
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
2:52:22
Seeing no discussion on the motion all those in favor say aye all
those opposed The ayes have it Congratulations, you passed your bill All right. I have a bill I need to present. This is Senate
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
2:52:48
Bill 614. All right. Next up, Senate Bill 614.
Representative Gasway, please identify yourself for the committee and you're good to
go. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jimmy Gassaway, House District 31. Members today, the bill that I have before you is Senate Bill 614. Some of you, I'm sure, remember the bill that we heard and hear related to the Freedom Information Act carried by Senator Clark Tucker. That was such a good bill that even Jimmy Cavan, Joey McCutcheon, 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 was not. As you can see, Jimmy Cavan is not here and Joey McCutcheon is not here. And if they had a problem with it, as many of you know, they would be here 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, the time period within which you can challenge the issuance of bonds
by City Council 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 FOIA violation, an 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 with regard to that process.
And once they issue 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, 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 pretty quick period of time 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 authorize a civil penalty of $1,000 for each member of the governing body. They can make the governing body go back and fix what they did.
in the course of that meeting and can't be paid out of public funds. And then that remedy is supplemental to all other remedies available to the court. So we're not just not taking it lightly. There would be penalties that can 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 kind of help 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 what the bill does, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions?
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
2:56:29
Seeing none, we do have one individual to speak for the bill, Lindsay French.
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
2:56:51
Lindsay French, Association of Arkansas Counties, and I have every confidence in the chair's ability to pass this bill without my help, certainly. But there were several questions asked, and this bill was thoroughly vetted in the Senate committee. 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. We're going to fix it right here in front of you all. in order for this personal $1,000 fine to be actually in place, they would have to refuse to go that method. And this would kind of be the default. So it wouldn't be taxpayers having to pay the $1,000 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, 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?
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
2:58:07
Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Seeing no others speak for or against the bill, you're recognized and closed 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 Ms. French stated, There's no known opposition.
This is important to our municipalities being able to do business. And 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, I'm closed for the bill and would make a motion do pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
2:58:50
none, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed?
Congratulations, you've passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. Is there anybody here that needs to run the bell right now?
Seeing none, we are in recess until 15 minutes upon adjournment of the house. Thank you.
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
Speaker 1
Speaker 4
Speaker 8
Speaker 6
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 175
Speaker 187
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
Speaker 195
Speaker 200
Whit Hall
Unverified
Speaker 206
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
Speaker 217
Speaker 220
Speaker 223
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