Judiciary Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (38)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1832
Act 975
· 7 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “Hester House Bill 1832. Yes. House”
|
TO AMEND THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE … | M. Shepherd | Notification that HB1832 is now Act 975 |
|
HB1178
Act 993
· 4 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…HERIFF TO ELECT TO HOUSE WORK-RELEASE PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS. HB1178 R. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONTRACTING OF A M…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONTRACTING OF A MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY; TO AMEND THE LAW … | R. Scott Richardson | Notification that HB1178 is now Act 993 |
|
HB1204
Act 28
· 3 mentions in transcript
Matched: “the act number is, but take for example, House Bill 1204.”
|
TO ESTABLISH RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FOR NECESSARY MEDICAL CARE, TREATMENT, OR SERVICES RENDERED. | Eubanks | Notification that HB1204 is now Act 28 |
|
HB1117
Act 229
· 2 mentions in transcript
Matched: “house. House Bill 1117. I'm sorry,”
|
CONCERNING THE ADMINISTRATION OF INSTRUCTION ON FIREARM SAFETY IN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND OPEN-ENROLLMENT PUBLIC … | R. Scott Richardson | Notification that HB1117 is now Act 229 |
|
HB1611
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1611”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ANIMAL … | Gonzales | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1726
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1726 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT.”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT. | Gramlich | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1848
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1848”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN AWARD OF JOINT CUSTODY BETWEEN PARENTS … | Hudson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1916
Act 979
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…S UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION. HB1916 Bentley TO AMEND THE PROTECTING MINORS FROM MEDICAL MALPRAC…”
|
TO AMEND THE PROTECTING MINORS FROM MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACT OF 2023; AND TO INCLUDE GENDER-AFFIRMING … | Bentley | Notification that HB1916 is now Act 979 |
|
HB1926
Act 980
· 2 mentions in chapter
Matched: “HB1926”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENSION, REVOCATION, OR NONRENEWAL OF A PERSON'S DRIVER'S LICENSE … | Unger | Notification that HB1926 is now Act 980 |
|
HB1967
Act 981
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO BE CHARGED BY CLERKS OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS. Page 2 of 3 HB1967 K. Brown TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF SEXUAL IMAGES OR RECORDINGS. | K. Brown | Notification that HB1967 is now Act 981 |
|
HB1975
Act 982
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1975 Gramlich TO CREATE THE CHILD CONTENT CREATION PROTECTION AC…”
|
TO CREATE THE CHILD CONTENT CREATION PROTECTION ACT. | Gramlich | Notification that HB1975 is now Act 982 |
|
HB1979
Act 983
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1979 Gazaway AN ACT TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW TO ALLOW WARRANTLESS S…”
|
AN ACT TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW TO ALLOW WARRANTLESS SEARCHES BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1979 is now Act 983 |
|
HB1984
Act 984
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1984”
|
TO CREATE A DESIGNATION FOR A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER ON A DRIVER'S LICENSE OR IDENTIFICATION … | Hudson | Notification that HB1984 is now Act 984 |
|
SB144
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB144”
|
CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER TO THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION; TO PROVIDE FOR … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB145
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB145”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS RESULTING FROM LITIGATION INVOLVING THE USE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB452
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. SB452 B. King CONCERNING CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE OR REC…”
|
CONCERNING CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE OR RECYCLING OF WIND TURBINES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB461
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB461”
|
TO COLLECT DATA REGARDING THE USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN ARKANSAS PRISONS AND JAILS. | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB462
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB462 J. Scott TO CREATE A CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYABILITY FOR A PER…”
|
TO CREATE A CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYABILITY FOR A PERSON WITH A FELONY CONVICTION; AND TO … | J. Scott | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB472
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OR RECYCLING OF WIND TURBINES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. SB472 J. Bryant TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION…”
|
TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION OF AN E-LIQUID PRODUCT OR VAPOR PRODUCT … | Underwood | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB477
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AND CIRCUIT COURTS TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF EMPLOYABILITY. SB477 G. TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVI…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. | G. Stubblefield | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB5
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT OR CRIME VICTIMS REPARATIONS BOARD. SB5 B. King TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HA…”
|
TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB501
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. Stubblefield SB501 J. Scott TO CREATE THE TENANT POSSESSIONS RECOVERY ACT; AND…”
|
TO CREATE THE TENANT POSSESSIONS RECOVERY ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A LANDLORD TO PROVIDE CERTAIN … | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB509
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN BEFORE A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION. SB509 G. TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVI…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. | G. Stubblefield | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB548
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB548”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WARRANTS OF ARREST; AND TO REQUIRE THAT NOTICE OF A … | G. Leding | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB549
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB549 G. Leding TO ENSURE THAT MANDATED COSTS AND FEES PAID BY A…”
|
TO ENSURE THAT MANDATED COSTS AND FEES PAID BY A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE … | G. Leding | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB566
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB566 B. King PROVIDE FOR FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION, IMPROVEMENT,…”
|
PROVIDE FOR FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION, IMPROVEMENT, OR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE AND COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES; … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB581
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ORRECTIONAL FACILITIES; AND TO ADDRESS PRISON OVERCROWDING. SB581 B. King TO CREATE THE POULTRY INTEGRATORS DECEPTIVE TRADE P…”
|
TO CREATE THE POULTRY INTEGRATORS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES AND TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB595
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NG; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ROOSTER FIGHTING. SB595 G. Leding TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HI…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN … | G. Leding | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB6
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE. SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. SB4…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB609
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN BEFORE A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION. SB609 J. Scott TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN … | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB628
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB628 Gilmore TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COURT TRANSCRIPT FEES;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COURT TRANSCRIPT FEES; AND TO INCREASE THE TRANSCRIPT FEES TO … | Gilmore | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB630
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB630 B. Davis TO REQUIRE ONLY A COURT TO FIX PUNISHMENT IF A DEF…”
|
TO REQUIRE ONLY A COURT TO FIX PUNISHMENT IF A DEFENDANT IS CHARGED WITH A … | B. Davis | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB631
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE TRANSCRIPT FEES TO WHICH A COURT REPORTER IS ENTITLED. SB631 B. Davis TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING HEARINGS ON THE R…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING HEARINGS ON THE REVOCATION OF PROBATION OR SUSPENSION. | B. Davis | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB641
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IS IN A CHILD'S BEST INTEREST WHEN THERE IS DOMESTIC ABUSE. SB641 D. Wallace TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WORK-RELEASE PROGRAM…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WORK-RELEASE PROGRAMS; AND TO ALLOW A SHERIFF TO ELECT TO … | D. Wallace | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB642
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SEX OFFENDER ON A DRIVER'S LICENSE OR IDENTIFICATION CARD. SB642 J. Petty TO CREATE THE FAMILIES' RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIE…”
|
TO CREATE THE FAMILIES' RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ACT. | J. Petty | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1959
Act 986
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1959”
|
TO ABOLISH THE USE OF A WRIT OF SCIRE FACIAS AS THE MEANS OF REVIVING … | M. Brown | Notification that HB1959 is now Act 986 |
|
SB143
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB143 B. King TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE TO COORDINATE WITH LOCAL SHERIFFS AND THE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB356
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB356 J. Bryant TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBT…”
|
TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE ARKANSAS CRIME INFORMATION CENTER … | J. Bryant | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Speaker 4
0:17
sorry. I'm sorry. It allows a warrantless search. Can
someone tell me what suspended imposition of sentences. We got Any prosecutors
here. And you tell us brief quickly and briefly. But suspended position of sentence means.
Speaker 10
0:53
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I'm Laurie Camuris with the prosecutor coordinator's office, um, suspended imposition of sentence is really just a different form of probation. It's a way of suspending the sentence to see how the person does and then the sentence can be imposed at a later date if necessary.
So we're changing the law to include Something that's
very close to Probation, which is already in
Speaker 10
1:24
the law. Yes, and those people who are on probation are already subject to those warrantless searches, so this is just An effort to include people who are on suspended imposition of sentence.
OK. Other questions from the committee. Hearing none. There's no one to sign up to testify
for or against Central history. Central, Center Johnson, are you close for your bill? Thank you, Chairman. I'm close to the bill. I'll make a motion to pass. The
motion to pass, 2nd from Senator
Gilmore. Any discussion, hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying a motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Johnson, you have passed sinceresentative Gassway's
house. House Bill 1117. I'm sorry,
Speaker 23
2:17
my apologies. 1178, sir. 1178. Senator Wallace, would you identify yourself for the
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
2:26
record? Yes sir, Dave Wallace, District 19th. You are recognized to present your bill. Sure, House Bill 1178 is a simple bill
that came out because of a small town mayor who doesn't have a police force but has city owns that are being violated by criminals. As a mayor that's trying to do its job. It's turned out that if he enforces those those ordinances, he then has to figure out how to get on the docket of a district court didn't pay for his town to have a prosecuting attorney only
to find out that in the current statute, none of the fines or fees can flow back to the city, uh, for reimbursement or payment of the attorney fees of the enforcement, so this simple bill makes these changes allowing these small towns to work with district courts to be able to enforce their city of Ordinance city ordinances. by structuring the district court to collect fines or fees for a city ordinance fees, other violations, and then provide an avenue to return some of that funding after court costs to the city.
We have a lot of small towns that just don't have a police force. Dis Arkansas is like 400 people, uh, no one spoke against this bill down on the House side. I don't know of anybody here that's against it. And with that, I stand by for your questions. Questions from committee. Mr.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
3:48
Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, this doesn't create any new fees, does it? This doesn't create any new
fees. No, sir, it does not. OK, I'm just trying to understand how, how it
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
4:04
would work logistically the court because of the town. Um Doesn't have a police force. Uh, they, they keep all the funds. If it was in Leville, my town, where we have a police force, and we would be eligible to get some of those funds back. But the little, little small towns are not able to get them back from where? From the portion of the money
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
4:29
from the district court. OK, and if there's no district court, then what happens? It just the, the municipality collects the fund directly, the fee directly
Speaker 33
4:38
or what? No, it would have to go through the court system. It would
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
4:42
have to go through a district court. But I may be wrong, but I don't at least my part of the country, we, we have district courts. OK, so all the money is still being collected through the
Speaker 22
5:01
district court. So what's, what is, what's different? What does the bill change? What changes now is some of that money will flow back
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
5:12
to the town. And why, why is that not happening now? The, well, from my understanding, the, the ordinance does not or
Speaker 38
5:21
the law does not allow for it to. Senator, I think on page 3,
Speaker 4
5:26
it's limited to line 21. Uh, but I, you know, includes those who have a police department,
and there's, there's an enforcement agent under the mayor mayor that can place those things in the district court, that this would help. OK, so this
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
5:40
is This is making it right now there's a requirement in the law that a town or city has a police department to collect that, and this is limiting that for the towns that don't have. OK, all right, thank you. Thank you, Senator Johnson. Any
Speaker 4
5:55
other questions from committee? I wanna, I wanna, I wanna tell Senator Wallace, I appreciate this bill and the work you've done on it for those small towns
that that need to need to be able to enforce their municipal ordinances and codes that don't have a police department. Thank you, sir. And sir, with that,
I'm close. Most do pass from Central rice, 2 from Senator Johnson. Any discussion, hearing none, all for the motion. where do we have anybody to
Speaker 45
6:24
speak for and against? We did not. OK. But Y'all, y'all were moving and I'll, he closed but
uh, all for the motion saying I all pose, most carried. Congratulations, Central Wallace. You have passed the bill. Uh, Speaker Shepherd. Senator
Hester House Bill 1832. Yes. House
Speaker 45
6:59
Bill 1832. If y'all will identify yourselves for the record. Matthew Shepherd, State Representative, District 97.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
7:08
Bart Hester, state senator, District 33. You are recognized to present your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, House Bill 1832 is actually a very simple bill. It's simply moves jurisdiction for facial constitutional challenges to the Arkansas Court of Appeals and just to kind of give a little bit of background and explanation. Um, one of the things that
during my time as speaker, I became very aware of is the number of constitutional challenges that are filed against legislation that we passed, uh, sometimes in federal court, sometimes in state court, and oftentimes, uh, when it's filed in state court, there's certain venue statutes that maybe require it to be filed in Pulaski County, but sometimes it's filed in other counties of the state and um ultimately many members have And constituents through the years have come to me,
particularly when statutes are enjoined temporarily held up by the court, the question always is, well, how is it that a circuit judge in Pulaski County or some circuit judge in some other part of Arkansas can essentially enjoin and hold up the application of a law that has been passed by the General Assembly. And so, uh, I, I've thought about this over the last number of years and and Senator Hester and I have talked about it actually for a couple of years
now, and, and worked on some different ideas, looked at different ways to try to address this issue, and ultimately, if you look at Amendment 80, Section 10, the Arkansas Constitution provides that the legislature controls jurisdiction and venue. And so we bring this bill to simply move jurisdiction for these facial challenges from the circuit court to the court of appeals. And I should also also explain what a facial challenge is, because this is a very
narrow category of cases. A facial challenge is a challenge to an act of the General Assembly or the bill also covers rulemaking as well that is claiming that there is no Application of the statute. There's no application. There's no constitutional application of the statute. In other words, in no way is it constitutional and therefore they're essentially seeking to have it thrown out. There's also something called a
challenge as applied, which that is when you say that you're claiming that a statute or a rule is unconstitutional but only unconstitutional as it is being applied to you. This bill does not cover those types of challenges. This bill is Only covering challenges in which a claimant is seeking to invalidate. An act or a rule of the General Assembly. And my view on that is that
Given that these acts and rules have gone through the legislative process, it seems to me that it would be important that those are heard, even at the initial stages by a court that is that whose judges are selected from across the state of Arkansas and not merely from one county or one judicial district. Ultimately, we're not, we're not adding an additional step in the process. We're simply moving it from circuit court to the court of appeals. Oftentimes these challenges ultimately are decided by the Arkansas Supreme
Court, and so we're not changing anything about that. Um, and then finally, I would say that this is something that, uh, you know, through my years as speaker is something that I've looked at, but it just so happens that some of the complaints and some of the reasons that bring us to this piece of legislation, we're starting to see some of those things play out at the federal level. This bill is not in response to what's going on at the federal level, but I think it is demonstrating that as we're trying to be proactive and get out in front of this issue, we can see that
at the federal level, particularly over the last 2 or 3 weeks when you think about much of the discussion about how can a district judge in one part of the United States enjoin or enter a nationwide injunction of an action of the executive or legislative branch, I think that is confirming what I've long thought is that this is an issue that's going to become more and more to the forefront because as we know, any significant piece of legislation today. Regardless of its validity or not is likely going to be challenged. And so I simply
we're simply attempting to make it where those challenges are
heard even at the initial basis by a court that is elected from across the state of Arkansas. You're
ready for questions, questions from committee, Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
12:04
Chair. Representative Shepard, do you consider the judicial branch of government to be an equal, a co-equal and separate branch of
government. Absolutely. But some circuit courts are not
qualified to make this determination. No, I've never said
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
12:25
that. OK, so what's the justification then? The justification is, as I just said, shouldn't we, even at the initial stages, have it decided by a court. Whose
judges are selected from across the state of Arkansas. Which is a different way of saying
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
12:37
a circuit court is not qualified to make that determination,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
12:39
it's not a different way of saying that. What's the, what's the, what's the harm in moving it to a court that's elected from across the state of Arkansas. We'll get to
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
12:50
that. Uh, let me ask you this. I understand we don't, we're a
state legislature. It's more not the federal government. Do you believe a US district court has the authority to invalidate an act of Congress, or should that go to a straight to the Circuit
Speaker 60
13:03
Court of Appeals and a federal court, so this is not touch on
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
13:08
that, right? I'm just asking. Your opinion? Well, clearly that's something that is that has occurred and does occur even to this day. And I think that's something that even as recently as last week, the US Supreme Court has been considering those issues,
so I would, I would defer to whatever the, whatever the decision is of the United States
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
13:27
Supreme Court. Let's take for granted the justification for the bill that it's better to have a cross section of judges from across the state to make this determination rather than a single circuit court. Why the distinction between the facial
challenge and the as-supply challenge. The as-applied matters just as much in terms of the constitutionality of the statue does it not? Well,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
13:45
number one, I wanted to, I wanted this to be relatively narrow in application. Number 2, an
as-applied challenge is only uh challenging the constitutionality as applied in that situation, whereas a facial challenge is an attempt to throw out the act altogether. So if an as-applied challenge is successful, the act is still, is still in place and is still effective in all other applications, but a facial challenge, as you know, is an effort to throw out the act. across the board and it just seems to me if particularly if an act is going to be passed by a legislature of 100 members in the House and 35 in the Senate
and signed or allowed to go into law by the governor, doesn't it make sense to just to provide even at the outset that that being in a court that selected from across the state. OK, I think that's where we may
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
14:35
get to a fundamental difference of opinion about whether the judicial branch is a coequal branch of government, but let's go to the
practical implications. of this. If this were to occur, then the court of appeals is going to have to take evidence. Will they not? Potentially. Are they set up logistically for
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
14:54
that right now, probably not, but that's, that's not too
involved. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in petition cases, so this would be not in like that. There's mechanisms, whether it's the court hearing, hearing the evidence directly, but, of course, as you know, the These spatial challenges are largely questions of law. The factual, the fact, the facts that would be involved would be relatively
minimal and I'll admit that the success of this is going to be largely dependent on two things. It's going to be dependent on the rulemaking by the Supreme Court. In effectuating this because as you know, under the Constitution, we cannot, we can't get into the procedure of the courts. So that's left to them. And then number 2, it's gonna be dependent on the court of appeals themselves, but I think that they're well capable of being able to consider and gather whatever facts they need and being able to make a
decision apply or determining whether an action
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
16:00
is constitutional. We can't determine the procedures of the court except for in this circumstance in which we're attempting to do that, correct? That's not
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
16:07
correct. Well, with a 2/3 80 Section 1080 section 10 says we have jurisdiction and venue. Jurisdiction has nothing to do with process and procedure. I'd be glad to share what I think as far as if the court in the future, I could certainly offer suggestions as to how they would, uh, how they might hear these cases and enter
these decisions, but as you know, Amendment 80, Section 10 concerns jurisdiction and venue. That is something far different than process and procedure. At
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
16:35
the appropriate time, Mr. Chair. I'd like to invite someone from DFNA because I'd like to ask them about the fiscal
impact statement, but One of the things that gets criticized with civil litigation is forum shopping. Where
plants will choose a forum, a venue that's most advantageous to them, correct? Is this not a legislative form of forum shopping? No. How can
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
16:59
it be forum shopping when the judge, this court is governs the entire state of Arkansas is over the entire state of Arkansas, and the judges are selected from across the state. And to your point, actually, one of the things that I looked at, uh, was uh many cases against the state have to be filed in. Alaska County. That's probably where a great number of these challenges are filed, and that's because there's a venue statute, um, that, uh, for a lot of reasons
it's probably, it's probably easier for the state to litigate. There's other reasons maybe they're at play there. And, and I did look at whether we just do away with that venue. In other words, you could sue the state essentially in any county in the state of Arkansas, but that would have invited forum shopping. Because clearly if if a challenge from the left would likely be filed in probably Pulaski County, a challenge from the right would be filed in some other county, and so that would have invited forum shopping, and
that is exactly why I made the decision in talking with Senator Hester and working through this to just simply make the change under a provision of the Constitution that clearly allows us that authority and also does away with any risk of forum shopping. So with the facial challenge, it
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
18:17
would go, it would the whole point of the bill is it would be first heard in the court of appeals. They would be heard as a
bench draw. It would be functional. That's what it that's what the bill says, potentially,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
18:28
potentially, but that's again, that's going to be
up to process, the process and procedure that the court lays out the rules adopted, and then what the court of appeals, how they handle that and you know, there might be the possibility to sever those claims from other cases. facial challenges are not just a whole lot of them, so we're not talking about a huge number of cases, but obviously because of the fact that you're seeking to invalidate an action of the General Assembly. I think that just heightens the importance of, of uh how we hear those. So I don't know what
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
18:59
the act number is, but take for example, House Bill 1204.
Speaker 77
19:05
From this session, I don't know what is that I don't know bill numbers
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
19:10
very well, so that was the bill that that limited recovery for medical expenses as a result of a personal injury. I don't know. I'm guessing there will be a facial challenge to that act. That will be brought in the context of a personal injury lawsuit. Could be, could be a simple lawsuit, could be a very complex lawsuit. In that instance, The Court of Appeals will be hearing a multi-week personal injury lawsuit just because it
also happens to include a challenge to House Bill
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
19:39
1204. Well, they could, or they could hear, they could take up just the issue of the constitutionality of
the act as a separate matter decide that issue, and then if it's depending on how it's decided that would be instructive as to whether the case could be transferred to circuit court for ultimate adjudication. Is it set out in the bill that they could
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
19:57
do that one way or the other? No,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
19:59
because that's process and procedure. Well, I thought we
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
20:03
were talking about form and jurisdiction. Well, jurisdiction under the
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
20:08
Constitution is the purview of the General Assembly, but rules of procedure is not within our purview and so that's
Speaker 83
20:12
why we didn't attempt to address those issues. OK, I'd like to ask questions of DFNA, Mr. Chair,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
20:20
if I may. They're here. Oh. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Ross, thank you.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
20:39
Representative Shepard I may ought to know, but and it's interesting, I can't say would want to do it every day here to lawyers argue, well, but uh can you tell me, is there a time limitation on a circuit court judge. Staying or freezing or whatever you want to call it, is there a time limitation on they can do that or can they just keep that going for a long time,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
21:04
you know, there's depending on how the order is entered there may be
some time limitations, for instance, if a if an order is entered without a hearing, there may be a You know, it may be a matter of days or weeks, but my understanding, uh, if, if the court ultimately determines, decides that a that an act is unconstitutional, then at the point of that decision, that is the law, and then it's in it's in place pending the review by generally the Arkansas Supreme Court. And so for that period of time, it's, it is in place.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
21:42
And out of the Uh, trying to think a dozen more than a dozen years have been on a judiciary. Panel committee in the House and Senate, I keep hearing how does this Fair pick of judges happen in Pulaski County. Is there a Can you tell me real quickly how that was done and how it comes
Speaker 91
22:13
up that just certain judges continue to get these controversial
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
22:16
cases so and Senator Tucker, since he's a practicing attorney in Platts County would know far better than I, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, but each, each circuit has a case management order and I looked at the current case management order in Pulaski County, and for example, in a civil lawsuit there are 5 judges that received those cases. Now in the past, I don't know how many. I think generally it has been approximately 5, but it
does seem that there are just a handful that do end up with those cases as far as how they, how they draw among those. I don't know what the process is. You know, in some counties it's, it's as simple as there's, you have, you draw the clerk when you file, they draw from a box that has the names of those judges and then once everybody's been drawn from that, they put them all back into the box, so, but ultimately it's a, it's a process of it's the case
management order entered by the circuit judges that determines who gets what, and then it's, it's generally supposed to be a random
Speaker 81
23:20
selection when the case is filed. I've just always I thought it might be more fair if they just put
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
23:26
their names on a roulette wheel and spin it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Other
questions from committee. Hearing none, we have someone here to speak on the bill.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
23:46
That's true. Do we, we don't we go in at 10:30 in the session. Yes. Uh, could we
limit 2 or 3 minutes, whatever the committee, I don't know I mean we got Give me a motion.
I'll make a motion 2 minutes. Got a motion to limit debate to 2 minutes. Got a second from Senator Gilmore, uh, that's a debatable motion, is it not? Uh, any discussion? person.
Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying a posed. Motion carried, uh.
Speaker 96
24:31
If You would identify yourselves for the record. I'm Mark Clappenbach, chief judge for the Arkansas Court of Appeals, and with me is Ann Solomon court's chief staff attorney and um we're, we're not here today to to support or not support the bill. We're just concerned about,
depending on how it's done, what, how it will affect our Case load in the court of appeals and we do appreciate um The confidence. Representative Shepherd has in us to be fair and unbiased. But We Not knowing how it's going to work and what the rules are, we don't, we don't see how it can't have a some type of a cost
effect on our court will probably have to, we don't normally take evidence if we have a contempt citation out on someone we usually or things like that we usually hire a Hire a master to oversee and take the evidence and then get back to us. There would also be court court reporters costs that we don't have right now and that's just just a few of them plus we've done what 170 something. cases so far
OK, yeah, so far we've done 180 written opinions since January 1st. So uh we we have a pretty heavy load and just don't know how that will affect if it's very few, then, then like 3 or 4 a year that that might be all right, but, but we just don't see how it's not going to affect us in some way. Miss Solomon. Thank you, Senator Clark. Um, I,
Speaker 104
26:25
I am primarily here to answer questions that the committee may have. I managed the court's budget and also the court's do it, but I am concerned, I know DFA does not anticipate a fiscal impact, but I do. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Oh
Speaker 93
26:43
Sure, that Ma that be because there may
be a fiscal impact on your end, but there'll be a fiscal savings. At the circuit clerk, a circuit judge Lowell.
Speaker 104
26:59
It could possibly be, yes. Um, however, I know that circuit courts are set up every day to take evidence. They have court reporters they have judges who who are factfinders daily and we are not. So, um, while I cannot speak to the impact on circuit courts, I would think that it would not make
Speaker 108
27:14
an effect on the circuit courts spending. Senator Tucker, you're? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
27:23
hoping to ask DFNA these questions, but since they chose not to appear here this morning.
I'll do my best to ask y'all, did anyone from DFNA reach out to the
Court of Appeals before when they were preparing this fiscal impact report to your knowledge. They did not. So they prepared this report without communicating with the court in any way. That's correct. Um That's concerning. Can you elaborate a little more about the potential impact and costs on the court of appeals. You mentioned there would be an impact. Can you tell us a bit
more about that? I believe there will be an impact, of course,
Speaker 104
28:01
this is a little bit of a known unknowns because we do not know how many cases there are. Representative Shepherd has shared, we've had several conversations with Rore Shepherd. He shared the data he has. It doesn't seem terribly concerning as far as facial constitutional challenges. I believe the AG defended approximately 30 constitutional challenges in the last 6 months. Some of those will be facial, some of those would be as applied. What we don't know is how many times the AG declined to intervene in these
constitutional challenges. We're concerned about those numbers because they would still come to our court. Um, irrespective of how many cases there are, we are not set up to take evidence. We may Appoint factfinders, special masters like the chief said, again, the rules haven't been promulgated. We don't know how we'll do it. Regardless, we would need someone to take all that down, court reporters. I imagine we might need some support staff for um, setting hearings, things of that
nature, every circuit court has a trial court assistant who sets hearings. We don't have those at the Court of Appeals. And then we may potentially need more legal staff to attorneys, depending on the number. So let's, let's
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
29:15
talk about both of those aspects separately. The first is in terms of the number of cases, and I want to just make sure that my colleagues on the committee understand that the way the process works is if you
are in a civil lawsuit and you and you there's going to be a challenge to Code section that was passed by
the General Assembly, then you have an obligation as an attorney to notify the attorney General's office that there is going to be a challenge to that code section, correct? And then the attorney general has the choice as to whether to intervene or not, and that choice is largely based on whether the Attorney General determines that the opposing party is well represented enough that they can defend the constitutionality of the statute. That's my understanding, although
Speaker 108
29:57
I'm not particularly familiar with all that, yeah, just for what it's worth, and I
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
30:04
know you're not going to have an answer to this. Every single case I've ever been involved with in the entire history of my almost 20 year career, the Attorney General has never intervened once. When they've received that letter. It's commonly understood that if the parties are well represented on both sides and the Attorney General will not intervene. So given that there's a significant unknown at this point as to how many challenges there are out there. The only way, the only data we have at this point is to know how many
cases the Attorney general actually intervened on, correct? And there's no way to know whether it's tiny or huge. How many cases the Attorney general declined to intervene in, correct? That
Speaker 104
30:46
is correct. And we attempted to do some research on our own end through the, through the administrative office of the courts, and that is not a marker that the AOC tracks for statistics purposes. OK. So
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
30:59
in terms of that's my questions in terms of the volume
of cases in terms of the hearing of the evidence, would y'all anticipate having to construct new courtroom space, or
Speaker 107
31:12
what are you thinking? We do have a courtroom, um, it is not set up for
Speaker 104
31:17
hearings, as is, except for our judges to meet weekly for their twelve-person conference. So instead of a bench and a bar, we've got a large table that seats
Speaker 108
31:25
12, but we do have a room. And there's a
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
31:29
seat for a court reporter already. No, there's no seat for a court report. There's
Speaker 104
31:36
no seat for a witness. No, well, yes, there is a spot for a witness.
We have a bench. OK. Obviously you're not set up for a jury. We are not. OK, thank you. See no other questions. Thank you, representative, uh, Speaker Shepherd, would you like to close for
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
31:59
your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. Um, you know, as As I've said earlier, um,
This is largely dependent on the rules the court adopts. It's going to be largely dependent on the work that the Court of Appeals undertakes, but ultimately it's my belief that this is well workable if I didn't believe so, then I wouldn't have brought it. We could have set up a new judicial circuit to just hear facial challenges, and that would have involved paying for a judge and paying for all these other things, and again, as I mentioned earlier, the Arkansas Supreme Court already has original jurisdiction when it comes to
certain categories of cases, so it's not unheard of for an appellate court to have some type of original jurisdiction. The things that have been brought up, a court reporter. If, if they needed to file it to hire a court reporter for the whole year, that would be a fairly minimal expense. I'm I'm confident that somewhere over in the building across the street that there's surely, surely there's room to be able to hear cases and they do have a mock courtroom over there, maybe that
could be utilized and so I think that when it comes to these facial challenges. An effort to invalidate the action of the General Assembly. That at the very least that should be heard. By a judge or judges that are potentially elected from across the state of Arkansas again, the success of this is going to be largely dependent on the court of appeals, largely dependent on the rules that are adopted, but I believe, I believe that that those things can be addressed
and that this will be a step in the right direction. I should also mention that North Carolina and Tennessee have, while not exactly the same, they have North Carolina moved to a three-judge panel. of circuit judges hearing these types of cases, I think Tennessee has done something similar, so this is trying to be proactive and get in front of an issue that we're starting to see rise to the forefront across the nation. Will the committee Ocean
Du pass from Senator Johnson, 2nd from Cen Gilmore. Any discussion?
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
34:15
Center Tucker, you reckon on? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, this is a pretty stunning affront to the independence of the judicial branch of government. If we were going to
take an action like this, there are a number of questions that we would need to have answered. How many cases? How do we set up the court of appeals to hear these cases? How much is it going to cost them? What are they going to do if there's a facial challenge coupled with fact issues that need to be resolved by a jury. How many of these cases do we have at this point right now we have answers to exactly 0.
of these questions. So in addition to being an affront to the independence of the judiciary. We are unprepared to make this decision at this moment, and I hope
that as a legislative body we don't move forward on when we are this uninformed about what we're doing. I'll be voting now. Senator Stubblefield,
do you recognize? Uh, no, No. You can
Speaker 123
35:07
ask a question about this. Well, yeah, you can ask the committee.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
35:20
Senator Tucker, do you, do you know this? How many, how many of the sites, a court of appeals are set up to hear these facial challenges. Do you know? My understanding from what I do not know, my
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
35:29
understanding from what Representative Shepperd just said is that some other states have addressed this in different ways. I'm not sure if he said there was a state that did this or not, but if there if there is one, then there would just be one, but not like they're not. Similar to this one he mentioned a state that set up a panel of three circuit court judges if
you're going to walk down this path, that makes a lot more sense to me because these courts are already set up to take evidence the court of appeals is not, so the circuit courts are the ones currently hearing these cases, and they're set up to
hear them, so I'm not aware of another state that has directed these cases to the court of appeals.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
36:09
So we would not know any of any of the financial, uh, physical impact of any of these
states, yes sir. Thank you. Other discussion here
or none, all for the motion signified by saying aye I post motion carried. Congratulations, Speaker Shepherd, and Senator Hester, you have passed the bill. Representative Unger. That'll be fine. House Bill 1926. Is it House Bill 19. Would you identify yourself for the record, please? Yes. State Representative Steve Unger,
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
36:51
District 19, and thank you, Mr. Chair. House Bill 1926 is a bill that takes a whack at recidivism. Uh, I worked in a halfway house for felons on parole for a couple of years. And basically, if you really want to help people get past incarceration, stop taking away their driver's license for fines and fees. And I will tell you I had a judge help me with this, uh, a lot of judges do not suspend driver's license for unpaid fines and fees because they know how counterproductive it is, and
actually there's a trend across the nation to stop doing that. But in chapter 16 of the Arkansas Code, which deals with practice procedures in court. There's 2 times in the code that concerns itself with the payment of the fine. The first is in 16-13-702. If the defendant claims an inability to pay a fine, the court shall inquire into the defendant's ability to pay a fine. The second time is in 1613708 versus however, the court shall not make a request
to the department that is DFNA before the court has schedule a hearing to address the person's nonpayment of the court-ordered fine, and the person has failed to appear at the hearing. To put it in plain English, there's two different times in the code that the authors asked the court said that the court needs to consider the financial state of the defendant before they ask DFNA to suspend the driver's license. What this bill does is basically add a a sample budget so that there's, there's proof that that happened.
And it's sort of forcing the judges to do what the law says. And I'm
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
38:31
open for questions, questions from committee. Cent your stubble field? Yes, Representative Unger, is there a monetary limit. To
Speaker 134
38:40
this, to these fines. Sir, I don't know that you mean how much the court can find somebody, how much the court can't find someone,
Speaker 125
38:48
sir, I don't know the answer to that. OK.
Other questions from committee. Hearing none, there's no one to testify for or against Representative, would you like to close for your bill?
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
39:03
Yes, sir. So the judge that helped me with this said something that was really intriguing. Basically, if you had had your driver's license suspended without one of these hearings, you've been damaged. And I got to tell you, if I was the Jimmy McGill of Little Rock, Arkansas, I'd put a billboard out on the interstate saying something like that. So my
intention here, I'm advocating for poor people, but also this protects the court and DFNA to basically make them do something that the authors of this original language said over 20 years ago, and sir,
I'm closed. Motion to pass from Senator Gilmore, second by Centra Johnson. Any discussion? Hearing none, all the motion signified by saying aye, all opposed. Congratulations, representative you have passed your bill.
Speaker 89
39:49
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senators. Representative Gramlich.
Is a House Bill 1975. Uh, yes, sir. Would you identify yourself for the record,
Speaker 140
40:10
please. Yes sir. Zach Gramli State Representative District 50
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
40:16
Fort Smith. You are recognized to present your bill. House Bill 1975 comes from some languages starting to drop in different states all
across our nation in an effort to protect children, um. A quote from a from a member in Utah children cannot give informed consent to
be filmed on social media, period. If we as adults cannot understand the
emotional and psychological impacts of sharing our lives to millions of strangers online. How can we expect our children to understand them. All over the nation, parents film their children and post their content on their social media. Many of us in this room included. Some adults, however, take it to the next level. Some parents have turned their children into the equivalent of child actors and make money off their children's. work for adults who choose to monetize their children's actions, they'll be ready to pay and follow some regulations. This bill does the following things. It creates a system that
lays out how a child who appears in content online will be will be compensated and how that compensation will be triggered, and it clarifies that miners who produce their own content are not included in this. It adults who adult content creators who engage with minors for content creation will have to maintain a variety of records until the child turns 21, if a content creator uses children and fails to maintain data, it gives a path for a child to follow a civil suit. Content creators must compensate a manner who engages in this work by placing the money and how it is calculated, which is outlined
in the bill, earned in a trust that the child can access when they turn 18 or emancipated and allows for a civil suit that the content creator does not. The social media companies will notify the content creator of a request to remove content upon a minor or adult as a minor, and the obligation of a content creator to delete said content and allows for a pathway for civil suit upon the refusal or inaction of a content creator. Another section of this bill, which is a little different than what we've been talking about, is dealing with child sexual abuse material. It is unlawful
to benefit financially from producing or distributing content that features a minor with the intent to sexually gratify or elicit a sexual response to be a little bit broader on what that could include is this includes artificial intelligence, taking an image of a child, using it to generate child sexual abuse material, and then putting it out there for the above reasons if a child sees their image in that circumstance. It can be there's a pathway for a civil suit and then finally it requires a social media platform to develop
and implement strategies to reduce the monetization of the intentional sexualization of known minors that occur in the context of most known minors' engagement and the
work of content creation. With that, I'll answer some questions. Questions
Speaker 146
42:51
from committee. Senator Johnson. So, I agree with
Speaker 148
43:00
the parents to be compensated for the raising of the child on regular content, yeah, yeah, so if
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
43:09
So let me, let me, so if I post a video of my daughter doing something silly online, and I'm not making money off the content. That doesn't count. It doesn't. I'll go ahead and get into detail where it talks about how compensation actually triggers. First off, 30% of a content creators compensated content produced within one month. It includes a minor, so first off, it has to be content that's compensated. Second, um, The the amount of money that is dealt, excuse me, that is decided as a measure of the percentage of time that the
likeness name or photograph of the minor is visible or the subject of an oral narrative and a content as compared to total length of time. So if you're scrolling through videos, there's an image of a kid and whoever's talking about the kid and that's they're making money off of it. That could be another part of the trigger, but the third part of the trigger and Um, oh, and that they receive either what the media platform. Allows to start getting monetized, so you receive 10 number of views. You start to
get money or they get 10 cents of view. So let's say it's an advertisement and the kid is advertising a product, OK, um, and then finally the content creator, the adult has to receive actual compensation of content of at least $15,000 in the previous 12 month period, so $15,000,000 and then it starts counting and then even after that, still the content creator. acts as a producer and still receives money. It's just that the child gets compensation as well. Senator Gilmore, do you recognize?
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
44:43
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Representative. I agree with what you're trying to do here, so I'm just trying to work out how this works. So basically we're creating a civil cause of action for a minor to bring against their parent for doing something that is outside of their wishes per se. Yeah, I mean, it's probably an
oversimplification, yeah, at some point at some point
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
45:03
this is like a child actor, OK, but they're not really under child actor
code, you know, it's kind of it's kind of this new field that's what we're doing is we're
providing protections for and it's not even necessarily It's adults as well, like if an adult enters into some some sort of relationship with the kid and they and they're videoing and playing or whatever and they're making money off this kid's actions, then that kid deserves a piece of piece of
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
45:31
their earnings. So walk me through then how that, how that works. So we, we talk about, you know, courts in here we talk about, you know, criteria to bring litigation, but how does that work? So you got a kid, let's
just, you, you say less than Uh, means a person 17 or younger, so let's just go with 16. What happens?
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
45:54
All right, so first off, it has to meet the threshold that we just discussed, um, as far as the civil suit part, let's talk about there's, let me make sure I hit all the parts, so let's talk about not keeping data, so if you look at page 3, we talked about the data that
has to be has to be maintained by the 21. Documented age of the minor number of posts generated, number of minutes in the post, number of minutes that the minor was featured in the post, total compensation amount deposited into the trust account. Records are required to be maintained until they're inaccessible to the minors. So if I become an adult, I'm 19 or 1920 years
old, and I see that, you know, you didn't maintain any of this information that we're requiring you to maintain. I can
go into a civil suit based on that, so
they would have to be an adult before they can engage in the. Well, they not even have access to the money until
they're 18, but I guess I would argue they don't necessarily if they're 1617 year old and they've been their parents have been using them since they were a child, and or whatever the relationship is and the None of this data was maintained, I mean, I guess at any point in time they could bring up a civil suit. I would say this is a very narrow and as much as like you know none of my kids are going to be doing this suit, but I guess, I guess I
would argue is if you're making $15,000 a year off the videos your kid the videos your kids are in, then I think we're kind of talking about a whole different
Speaker 156
47:24
scope and then then there's other ways. I mean, I could go outline like the data or no trust or whatever and I'm being mindful of the time, so I'll, I'll quit asking questions. Other questions from committee? Hearing none,
there's no one to testify for or against. Representative, would you like clothes for your bill? I'm closed for my
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
47:42
bill. Thank you for your time. I appreciate a good vote.
Will of committee motion to pass from Central
Ds. 2nd from center Gilmore. Discussion. I thank
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
48:04
you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick comment, um, this, this really is designed I appreciate Representative Gramlock's work on this. This is designed for the for the folks that are, I, I think allowing this to get out of hand. I think the thresholds are
important to remember that the bulk of um of videos and content is really not going to be covered out there, but there are also a lot of concerning things that we're seeing. So this is really just to put some thresholds out there,
Speaker 89
48:34
so I'd appreciate a good vote. Ross Uh, Cen
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
48:38
D's, uh, can you tell us, look at these and I've got one popped up wasn't something I want to do a noncontroversial bill. I'm gonna be running, but something this
Impactful, uh, we usually spend A little more time on the committee why this come so light.
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
48:59
I can't speak to the timing of that, but I do know there was efforts to make sure that this fits with other safety online bills that we've had,
and I think it does mesh well. Any other discussion? none all for the motion signified by saying aye. All post. The, from what I heard, the bill did
not pass. Uh, we have one minute to get upstairs. We will recess. I don't know how this schedule's going to go
today, so we will recess up on call here because we've still got bills to hear.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
SB461
J. Scott
TO COLLECT DATA REGARDING THE USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN
SB548
G. Leding
SB144
B. King
CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER TO THE
SB145
B. King
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS
HB1611
G. Leding
TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS OR HER PARENT
HB1848
Hudson
HB1832
HB1926
Unger
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENSION, REVOCATION, OR
HB1984
Hudson
TO CREATE A DESIGNATION FOR A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER ON A
SB642
J. Petty
TO CREATE THE FAMILIES' RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ACT.
HB1959
M. Brown
TO ABOLISH THE USE OF A WRIT OF SCIRE FACIAS AS THE MEANS OF
Number
ARKANSAS PRISONS AND JAILS.
SB462 J. Scott TO CREATE A CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYABILITY FOR A PERSON WITH A
FELONY CONVICTION; AND TO ALLOW THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION AND CIRCUIT COURTS TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF EMPLOYABILITY.
SB477 G. TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. Stubblefield
SB501 J. Scott TO CREATE THE TENANT POSSESSIONS RECOVERY ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A LANDLORD TO PROVIDE CERTAIN NOTICE TO A TENANT WHEN A COURT HAS
ISSUED A WRIT OF POSSESSION.
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WARRANTS OF ARREST; AND TO REQUIRE THAT NOTICE OF A WARRANT BE SENT TO THE PERSON NAMED IN THE ARREST WARRANT.
SB549 G. Leding TO ENSURE THAT MANDATED COSTS AND FEES PAID BY A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE SHALL BE REFUNDED UPON AN ACQUITTAL, A DISMISSAL, OR
AN ORDER OF NOLLE PROSEQUI.
SB566 B. King PROVIDE FOR FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION, IMPROVEMENT, OR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE AND COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES; AND TO ADDRESS PRISON OVERCROWDING.
SB581 B. King TO CREATE THE POULTRY INTEGRATORS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES AND TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT.
SB143 B. King TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE TO COORDINATE WITH LOCAL SHERIFFS AND THE DIVISION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION IN
CRIME REDUCTION AND PREVENTION ACTIVITIES.
DIVISION OF CORRECTION; TO PROVIDE FOR A DESIGNATED DIAGNOSTIC
INTAKE FACILITY; AND TO CREATE COUNTY JAIL-STATE INMATE CLOSE-TO-
HOME PARTNERSHIPS.
RESULTING FROM LITIGATION INVOLVING THE USE OF FUNDS FROM THE
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT FUND OR ITS SUCCESSOR FUND OR FUND
ACCOUNTS.
Gonzales TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ANIMAL FIGHTING; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ROOSTER FIGHTING.
SB595 OR GUARDIAN BEFORE A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION.
SB609 J. Scott TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN BEFORE A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION.
SB509 G. TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. Stubblefield
SB628 Gilmore TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COURT TRANSCRIPT FEES; AND TO INCREASE THE TRANSCRIPT FEES TO WHICH A COURT REPORTER IS
ENTITLED.
SB631 B. Davis TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING HEARINGS ON THE REVOCATION OF
PROBATION OR SUSPENSION.
SB630 B. Davis TO REQUIRE ONLY A COURT TO FIX PUNISHMENT IF A DEFENDANT IS CHARGED WITH A FELONY OR MISDEMEANOR; AND TO REQUIRE ONLY A JUDGE TO SENTENCE A DEFENDANT FOR A CHARGE THAT RESULTS IN A
CONVICTION.
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN AWARD OF JOINT CUSTODY BETWEEN PARENTS IS IN A CHILD'S BEST INTEREST WHEN THERE IS DOMESTIC ABUSE.
SB641 D. Wallace TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WORK-RELEASE PROGRAMS; AND TO ALLOW A SHERIFF TO ELECT TO HOUSE WORK-RELEASE PROGRAM
PARTICIPANTS.
HB1178 R. Scott Richardson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONTRACTING OF A MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SUMS COLLECTED BY DISTRICT COURTS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COST SHARING FOR DISTRICT COURT EXPENSES.
HB 1832 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND TO AMEND A RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION.
HB1916 Bentley TO AMEND THE PROTECTING MINORS FROM MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACT OF 2023; AND TO INCLUDE GENDER-AFFIRMING INTERVENTIONS AS A RIGHT OF ACTION FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE.
HB 1926 Unger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENSION, REVOCATION OR NONRENEWAL OF A PERSON'S DRIVER'S LICENSE FOR FAILURE TO PAY A COURT-ORDERED FINE; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A DEFENDANT'S INABILITY TO PAY A COURT-ORDERED FINE.
HB1979 Gazaway AN ACT TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW TO ALLOW WARRANTLESS SEARCHES BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF A PERSON PLACED ON SUSPENDED
IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
DRIVER'S LICENSE OR IDENTIFICATION CARD.
REVIVING AN OUTSTANDING JUDGMENT; TO ALLOW A JUDGMENT TO BE
REVIVED BY NOTICE; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE FEES TO BE
CHARGED BY CLERKS OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS.
HB1967 K. Brown TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF SEXUAL
IMAGES OR RECORDINGS.
HB1975 Gramlich TO CREATE THE CHILD CONTENT CREATION PROTECTION ACT.
DEFERRED BILLS
HB1726 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT.
SB356 J. Bryant TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE ARKANSAS CRIME INFORMATION CENTER BY THE OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT OR CRIME VICTIMS REPARATIONS BOARD.
SB5 B. King TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE.
SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM.
SB452 B. King CONCERNING CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE OR RECYCLING OF WIND TURBINES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
SB472 J. Bryant TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION OF AN E-LIQUID
PRODUCT OR VAPOR PRODUCT BY A MINOR.
Adjourn
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Apr 14, 2025 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 1
Speaker 4
Senator Alan Clark Chair
Unverified
Speaker 10
Speaker 20
Speaker 23
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 33
Speaker 22
Speaker 38
Speaker 45
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 60
Speaker 77
Speaker 83
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 91
Speaker 81
Speaker 96
Speaker 104
Speaker 93
Speaker 108
Speaker 107
Speaker 123
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
Speaker 134
Speaker 125
Speaker 89
Speaker 140
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
Speaker 146
Speaker 148
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Speaker 156
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified