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
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
Speaker 1
0:00
Questions from the committee? 1979. It's a warrantless search, I'm sorry.
Speaker 4
0:12
I'm sorry. It allows a warrantless search.
Can someone tell me what suspended imposition of sentence is? We got
any prosecutors here? Can you tell us quickly and briefly what suspended imposition of sentence means?
Speaker 10
0:48
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of committee. I'm Lori Comperis with the prosecutor coordinator's office. 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 the law.
Speaker 10
1:18
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 okay
other questions from the committee hearing none there's no one to sign sign up to testify
for against center history center hester center johnson you close for your bill thank you chairman yeah i'm close for the bill i make motion to pass a motion to pass second from center gilmore any discussion Hearing none, all
for the motion signify by saying aye.
Aye. Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Johnson. You have passed Representative Gassway's bill. Senator Wallace. This is House
sorry. My apologies. 1178, sir. 1178.
Speaker 23
2:12
Senator Wallace, would you identify yourself for the record? Yes, sir. State Senator Dave Wallace, District 19.
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
2:21
You are recognized to present your bill.
Sir, 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 ordinances that are being violated by criminals. As a mayor that's trying to do his job, it's turned out that if he enforces those ordinances, he then has to figure out how to get on the docket of a district court, then pay for its 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 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 ordinances by instructing the district court to collect fines or fees for city ordinance fees or other violations, and then provide an avenue to return some of that funding after court calls to the city. We have a lot of small towns that just don't have a police force. Dias, Arkansas is like 400 people. 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.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
3:43
Questions from committee? Senator 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. Okay, I'm
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
3:59
just trying to understand how it would work logistically. The court, because the town doesn't have a police force, they keep all the funds.
If it was in Leachville, my town, where we have a police force, then we would be able to get some of those funds back. But the little small towns are not able to. Get them back from where? From the
Speaker 22
4:22
portion of the money. From the district court?
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
4:27
Yes. Okay, and if there's no district court, then what happens? It just, the municipality collects the fund directly? No. The
Speaker 33
4:33
fee directly or what? No, it would have to go through the
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
4:37
court system. It would have to go through a district court.
But I may be wrong, but I don't, at least in my part of the country, we have district courts.
Speaker 22
4:53
Okay, so all the money is still being collected through the district court. Yeah. So, what's different? What does the bill change? What changes now is some of that money will flow back to the town. Why is
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
5:07
that not happening now? Well, from my understanding, the ordinance does not, or the law does not allow for it to.
Speaker 38
5:16
Senator, I think on page three, it's limited to line 21. It
Speaker 4
5:21
only includes those who have a police department, and there's an enforcement agent under the mayor that can place those things in the district court, that this would help. Okay. So this is making it, right now there's a
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
5:35
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 police.
Speaker 4
5:46
Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Johnson. Any other questions from committee? I want to tell Senator Wallace, I appreciate this bill and the work you've done on it for those small towns that 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 closed. Motion to pass from Senator Rice. Second from Senator Johnson. Any discussion?
Hearing none, all for the motion. One more,
Speaker 45
6:19
Mr. Chair. Did we have anybody to speak for and against? We did not, but
y'all were moving and he closed. All for the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Congratulations. Senator Wallace, you have passed the bill. Speaker Shepard, Senator Hester.
Speaker 45
6:51
Is it House Bill 1832? Yes. House Bill 1832, if y'all will identify yourselves for
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
7:01
the record. Matthew Shepard, State Representative, District 97. 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 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, 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, sometimes in federal court, sometimes in state court. And oftentimes when it's filed in state court, there are certain venue statutes that may be required to be filed in Pulaski County, but sometimes it's filed in other counties of the state.
And ultimately, many members 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 I've thought about this over the last number of years, and Senator Hester and I have talked about it actually for a couple of years now, 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 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 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 whose judges are selected from across the state of Arkansas and not merely from one county or one judicial district. Ultimately, 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. And then finally, I would say that this is something that, 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 gone 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 two or three 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 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 ready for
questions? Sure. Questions from committee? Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
11:59
Chair. Representative Shepard, do you consider the judicial branch of government to be 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 that. Okay, so what's
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
12:20
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
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
12:32
saying a circuit court is not qualified to make that
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
12:34
determination. No, it's not a different way of saying that. What's the harm in moving it to a court that's elected from across the state of Arkansas?
Speaker 37
12:43
We'll get to that. Let me ask you this. I understand we're
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
12:46
a state legislature. we're not the federal government, do you
believe a U.S. district court has the authority to invalidate an act of Congress or should that go to a certain court of appeals on a federal court? So
Speaker 60
12:58
this does not touch on that. Right. I'm just asking
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
13:03
your opinion. Well, clearly that's something that has occurred and does occur even to this day. And I think that's something that even as recently as last week, the U.S. Supreme Court
has been considering those issues. So I would defer to whatever the decision is of the United States Supreme Court. Let's
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
13:22
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 applied challenge? The as applied matters just as much in terms of the constitutionality of the statute,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
13:40
does it not? Well, number one, I wanted this to be relatively narrow in application.
Number two, an as-applied challenge is only 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 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, 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 provide even at the outset that that be in a court that's selected from across the state? Okay. I think that's where we may get to a fundamental
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
14:30
difference of opinion about whether the judicial branch is a co-equal 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 that?
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
14:50
Right now, probably not, but that's not too
involved. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in petition cases, so this would be not unlike that. There's mechanisms, whether it's the court hearing the evidence directly. But of course, as you know, these facial challenges are largely questions of law. 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 two, it's going to 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 applying or determining whether an action is constitutional. We can't determine
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
15:55
the procedures of the court except for in this
circumstance in which we're attempting to do that, correct? No, that's not
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
16:02
correct. Amendment 80, 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 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.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
16:30
At 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 plaintiffs will choose a forum, a venue that's most advantageous to them, correct? Is this not a legislative form of forum
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
16:52
shopping? No. How can it be forum shopping when the judge, this court 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 was many cases against the state have to be filed in Pulaski County. That's probably where a great number of these challenges are filed. And that's because there's a venue statute that, for a lot of reasons, it's probably easier for the state to litigate. There's other reasons maybe that are at play there. 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 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.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
18:11
So with the facial challenge, it would go, the whole point of the bill is it would be first heard in the Court of
Appeals. That's correct. It would be heard as a bench draw. It would
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
18:23
be functional. That's what the bill says. Potentially, but again, that's going to be up to the process and procedure that the court lays out, the rules adopted, and then what the Court of Appeals, how they handle that. And there might be the possibility to sever those claims from other cases. Facial challenges, there's 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 how we hear those. So I don't
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
18:54
know what the act number is, but take, for example, House Bill 1204 from this session.
Speaker 77
19:01
I don't know. What is it? I don't know bill numbers very
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
19:05
well. Yeah. That was the bill 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. It could be a simple lawsuit, it 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
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
19:34
to House Bill 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
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
19:52
the bill that they could do that one
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
19:54
way or the other? No, because that's process and
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
19:58
procedure. Well, I thought we were talking about form
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
20:01
and jurisdiction. Well, jurisdiction under the Constitution is the purview of the General Assembly, but rules of procedure is not within our purview, and so
Speaker 83
20:07
that's why we didn't attempt to address those issues. Okay, I'd like to ask questions of
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
20:15
DF&A, Mr. Chair, if I may, if they're here. Is DFA here?
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
20:28
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Ross. Senator Ross. Thank you. Representative Shepard, I may ought to know, and it's interesting, I can't say I wouldn't want to do it every day here. Two lawyers argue well. But 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 when they can do that or can they just keep that going for a long time?
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
20:59
You know, depending on how the order is entered, there may be some time limitations. For instance, if an order is entered without a hearing, there may be a matter of days or weeks. But my understanding, if the court ultimately determines, decides that an act is unconstitutional, then at the point of that decision, that is the law. And then it's in place pending the review by generally the Arkansas Supreme Court.
And so for that period of time, it is in place.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
21:38
And out of the, I'm trying to think, dozen, more than dozen years I've been on a judiciary panel or 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 is done and how it comes up that just
Speaker 91
22:08
certain judges continue to get these controversial cases?
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
22:12
So, and Senator Tucker, since he's a practicing attorney in Pulaski County, would know far better than I, and he can correct me if I'm wrong. But each circuit has a case management order. And I looked at the current case management order in Pulaski County. For example, in a civil lawsuit, there are five judges that received those cases. Now, in the past, I don't know how many. I think generally it has been approximately five, but it does seem that there are just a handful that do end up with those cases.
As far as how they draw among those, I don't know what the process is. You know, in some counties, 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. But ultimately, it's a process of the case management order entered by the circuit judges that determines who gets what.
And then it's generally supposed to be
Speaker 81
23:15
a random selection when the case is filed. I've just always thought it might be more fair if they just
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
23:21
put 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
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
23:43
bill do we don't we go in at 10:30 so in the session yes could we limit two or
three minutes whatever the committee give me a motion I'll make motion two
minutes. We've got a motion to limit debate to two minutes. Got a second from Senator Gilmore. That's a debatable motion, is it not? Any discussion? Person. Hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? motion carried. If you would identify yourselves for the record. I'm Mark
Speaker 96
24:26
Klappenbach chief judge for the Arkansas Court of Appeals and with me is Ann Solomon the courts chief staff attorney and we're we're not here today to to support or or not support the bill we're just concerned about depending on how it's done what how it'll affect our caseload in the Court of Appeals and we do appreciate the confidence Representative Shepard 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 we'll probably have to we don't normally take evidence if we have a contempt citation out on someone we usually are 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 okay yes so far we've done 180 written opinions since January 1st so we we have a pretty heavy load and just don't know how that will affect if it's very few than three or four years. That might be all right, but we just don't see how it's not
Speaker 104
26:08
going to affect us in some way. Ms. Solomon. Thank you, Senator Clark. I am primarily here to answer questions that the committee may have. I've managed the court's budget and also the court's docket, but I am concerned. I know DFA does not anticipate a fiscal impact, but I do. So with
Speaker 93
26:38
that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Sure.
Might that be because there may be a fiscal impact
on your end, but there'll be a fiscal savings at the
Speaker 104
26:52
circuit clerk, circuit judge level? It could possibly be, yes. However, I know that circuit courts are set up every day to take evidence. They have court reporters. They have judges who are fact finders daily, and we are not. So while I cannot speak to the impact on circuit courts, I would think that it
Speaker 108
27:09
would not make an effect on the circuit court spending. Senator Tucker, you're recognized.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
27:18
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was hoping to ask DF&A these questions, but since they chose not to appear here this morning, I'll do my best to ask you all. Did
anyone from DF&A 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. That's concerning. Can you elaborate a little more about the potential impact and cost on the
Court of Appeals? You mentioned there would be an impact.
Speaker 107
27:52
Can you tell us a bit more about that? I believe there will be an
Speaker 104
27:57
impact. Of course, this is a little bit of a known unknowns because we do not know how many cases there are. Representative Shepard has shared, we've had several conversations with Representative Shepard. He's 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 six months. Some of those would 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 our court. Irrespective of how many cases there are, we are not set up to take evidence. We may appoint fact finders, 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 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
29:10
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 to be a challenge to a 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? 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 the constitutionality of the statute. That's my understanding,
Speaker 108
29:52
although I'm not particularly familiar with all that. Yeah. Just for what it's worth, and I
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
29:57
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, then 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 data we have at this point is to know how many cases the attorney general actually intervened on, correct?
Correct. And there's no way to know whether it's tiny or huge how many cases the attorney general declined to intervene in,
Speaker 104
30:41
correct? That is correct. And we attempted to do some research on our own end through the administrative office of the courts, and that is not a marker that the AOC tracks for statistics purposes. Okay.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
30:54
So that's my question 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 what are you
Speaker 107
31:06
thinking? We do have a courtroom. It is not set up for hearings, as is it set for our
Speaker 104
31:12
judges to Meet Weekly for their 12-person conference. So instead of a bench and a bar, we've got a large table that seats 12, but we do have a room. And there's a
Speaker 108
31:20
seat for a court reporter already? No. There's no seat for a
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
31:24
court reporter? No. There's no seat for a witness? No. Well, yes, there is a spot for a witness. We have a bench. Okay.
Speaker 104
31:32
Obviously, you're not set up for a jury. We are not.
Okay. Thank you. See no other questions. Thank you. Representative Speaker Shepard, would you like to close for your bill? Thank
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
31:54
you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. You know, as I've said earlier, 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 they needed to hire a court reporter for the whole year, that would be a fairly minimal expense. I'm confident that somewhere over in the building across the street, that surely there's room to be able to hear cases. 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 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? Motion to pass from Senator Johnson. Second from Senator Gilmore. Any discussion? Senator Tucker, you're
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
34:10
recognized. 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 zero 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 NO. NEW SPEAKER: SENATOR STUBBLEFIELD, DO YOU
Speaker 123
34:58
RECOGNIZE? NEW SPEAKER: CAN I ASK A QUESTION? NEW SPEAKER: NO. NEW SPEAKER: YOU CAN
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
35:12
ASK A QUESTION TO US. NEW SPEAKER: YOU CAN ASK THE COMMITTEE. NEW SPEAKER: SENATOR TUCKER, DO YOU KNOW THIS, How many of the states' court of appeals are set up to hear these facial challenges? Do you know? My understanding from what I do not
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
35:24
know. My understanding from what Representative Sheppard 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 is one, then there would just be one. But they're not similar to this one. He mentioned a state that set up a panel of three circuit court judges. But 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 certain 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
36:04
So we would not know any of the financial physical impact of any of these states? Zero.
Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Other discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Congratulations, Speaker Shepard and Senator Hester, you have passed the bill. Representative Unger. That's good, sir. That'll be fine.
House Bill 1926. Is it House Bill 1926? Yes, sir, it is. Would you
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
36:40
identify yourself for the record, please? Yes, sir. State Representative Steve Unger, District 19.
And thank you, Mr. Chair. House Bill 1926 is a bill that takes a whack at recidivism. 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. A lot of judges do not suspend driver's license for unpaid fined 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 two 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 1613-708, where it says, however, the court shall not make a request to the department, that is DF&A, before the court has scheduled 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 said that the court needs to consider the financial state of the defendant before they ask DF&A to suspend the driver's license.
What this bill does is basically add a sample budget so that there's proof that that happened. And it's sort of forcing the judges to do what the law says. And I'm open for questions. Questions
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
38:26
from committee? Senator Stolbeville. Yes, Mr. Unger, Representative Unger. Is there a monetary limit to this? these
Speaker 134
38:35
fines sir i don't know that you mean how much the court can find somebody sir how much
Speaker 125
38:43
the court can find someone sir i don't know the
answer to that okay other questions from committee hearing none there's no one to testify for against uh representative would you like to close
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
38:58
for your bill 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 uh you've been damaged and i gotta 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 dm 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 do pass by Senator Gilmore. Second by Senator Johnson. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Congratulations, Representative. You have passed your
Speaker 89
39:44
bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senators. Representative Gramlich.
Is it House Bill 1975? Yes, sir. Would you identify yourself for the record? Yes, sir. Zach
Speaker 140
40:05
Gramlich, State Representative, District 50, Fort Smith.
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
40:11
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. A quote 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 will 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 compensated and how that compensation will be triggered. And it clarifies that minors who produce their own content are not included in this. 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 file a civil suit. Content creators must compensate a minor 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 if 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 a civil suit upon the refusal or an action 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 particular circumstance, 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.
Speaker 146
42:44
With that, I'll answer some questions. Questions from
Speaker 4
42:52
committee? Senator Johnson? So, I agree with part of this,
Speaker 148
42:55
but also, does it allow for the parents to be compensated for the raising of the child on regular
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
43:03
content? Yeah, yeah, so, if, so 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 creator's compensated content produced within one month, it includes a minor. So first off, it has to be content that's compensated. Second, the amount of money that is decided is 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 in 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 they're making money off of it, that could be another part of the trigger.
But the third part of the trigger, and that they receive either what the media platform allows to start getting monetized, so you receive over X number of views, you start to get money, or they get 10 cents of a view. So let's say it's an advertisement, and the kid is advertising a product. 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, 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 the child gets compensation as well.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
44:33
Senator Gilmore, you recognize? 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. That's probably an
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
44:58
oversimplification. Yeah, at some point this is like a child actor. But
they're not really under child actor code. Correct. It's kind of this new field. And so what we're
doing is we're providing protections for, and it's not even necessarily parents. It's adults as well. And if an adult enters into some sort of relationship with a kid and they're videoing and playing or whatever and they're making money off this kid's actions, then that kid deserves a piece
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
45:26
of their earnings. So walk me through then how that works.
So 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 say less than, it means a person 17 or younger. So let's just go with 16. Okay. What happens?
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
45:49
Okay, so first off, it has to meet the threshold that we just discussed. As far as the civil suit part, let's talk about, let me make sure I hit all the parts. So let's talk about not keeping data.
So if you look at page three, it talks about the data that has to be maintained by 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 minor. So if I become an adult, I'm 19, 20 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 don't even have access to the
money until they're 18. But I guess I would argue they don't necessarily, if they're 16, 17-year-old and they've been, their parents have been using them since they were a child or whatever the relationship is. 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 none of my kids are going to be doing this suit, but I guess I would argue is if you're making $15,000 a year
off the videos your kids are in, then I think we're kind of talking about a whole different scope. And then
Speaker 156
47:19
there's other ways. I mean, I could go outline the data or no trust or whatever. I'm being mindful of time, so I'll quit asking questions. Other questions from committee? Hearing none, there's no one to
testify for or against. Representative, would you like to close for your bill? I'm close for my
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
47:37
bill. Thank you for your time. I appreciate a good vote. Will of committee?
Motion to pass. Motion to pass from
Senator Dees. Second from Senator Gilmore. Discussion?
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
47:59
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick comment. This really is designed, I appreciate Representative Gremlick's work on this. This is designed for the folks that are, I think, allowing this to get out of hand. I think the thresholds are important to remember that the bulk 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
Speaker 89
48:29
there. So I'd appreciate a good vote. Senator Ross? Senator
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
48:33
Deese, can you tell us, I've looked at these and I've got one popped up, wasn't something I want to do on a non-controversial bill that I'm going to be running, but something this impactful we usually spend a little more time on in committee. Why does this
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
48:51
comes to light. 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. Thank you. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? From what I heard, the bill did not pass. we have one minute to get upstairs we will recess i don't know how this schedule is going to go
today so we will recess upon college here because we 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 22
Speaker 33
Speaker 38
Speaker 45
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 37
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