State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (39)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1524
Act 939
· 8 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…ZONING AUTHORITY OF THE CAPITOL ZONING DISTRICT COMMISSION. HB1524 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BIDDING PROCEDUR…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BIDDING PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES. | Wooldridge | Notification that HB1524 is now Act 939 |
|
HB1925
Act 846
· 6 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1925 Beaty Jr. AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLO…”
|
AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOTS; TO AMEND THE ABSENTEE BALLOT VOTER … | Beaty Jr. | Notification that HB1925 is now Act 846 |
|
HJR1018
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HJR1018 Ray THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT.”
|
THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. | Ray | Approved by the Governor |
|
HB1952
Act 947
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1952 Hawk TO ASSIST THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATE ATHLETIC COM…”
|
TO ASSIST THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATE ATHLETIC COMMISSION; TO PROVIDE FUNDING TO THE STATE … | Hawk | Notification that HB1952 is now Act 947 |
|
HB1683
Act 924
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…FACILITIES. HJR1018 Ray THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. HB1683 McAlindon TO PROHIBIT THE PROCUREMENT BY A GOVERNMENTAL ENT…”
|
TO PROHIBIT THE PROCUREMENT BY A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY OF AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE OR A COMPONENT … | McAlindon | Notification that HB1683 is now Act 924 |
|
HB1706
Act 829
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MEMBERSHIP DUES FROM THE COMPENSATION OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE. HB1706 McCollum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO PROH…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO PROHIBIT RANKED CHOICE VOTING. | McCollum | Notification that HB1706 is now Act 829 |
|
HB1739
Act 814
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1739 M. Brown TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIALS AC…”
|
TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIALS ACT. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1739 is now Act 814 |
|
HB1837
Act 999
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1837 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURE FOR MATTER…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURE FOR MATTERS REFERRED TO VOTERS; AND TO BAN FOREIGN … | McAlindon | Notification that HB1837 is now Act 999 |
|
HB1846
Act 946
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E ARKANSAS CODE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996. HB1846 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS 2036 COMMISSION. HB1879 Lun…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS 2036 COMMISSION. | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1846 is now Act 946 |
|
HB1949
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…A WITNESS FOR THE SIGNATURE OF AN ABSENTEE VOTER STATEMENT. HB1949 Schulz TO ADD MEDICAL, EMERGENCY MEDICAL, AND AMBULANCE SER…”
|
TO ADD MEDICAL, EMERGENCY MEDICAL, AND AMBULANCE SERVICES TO THE LIST OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR … | Schulz | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB241
Act 885
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AND PICKUP TRUCK ACQUISITION ACT FOR THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. SB241 J. Scott TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY A…”
|
TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY ACT; AND TO GRANT PAID LEAVE TO … | J. Scott | Notification that SB241 is now Act 885 |
|
SB343
Act 734
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…im Dotson CONCUR IN HOUSE AMENDMENT Number Sponsor Subtitle SB343 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING STATE-OWNED MOTOR VEHICLE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING STATE-OWNED MOTOR VEHICLES; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC PROPERTY; … | Irvin | Notification that SB343 is now Act 734 |
|
SB558
· 2 mentions in transcript
Matched: “…ng design processes that were laid out in 2023 as a part of Senate Bill 558 that was enacted and so just going back a little bit to 202…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE ELECTRONIC FILING OF CERTAIN CORPORATE INCOME TAX RETURNS. | Crowell | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB569
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…O DESIGNATE A RESTROOM FOR CAMPAIGN WORKERS AND VOLUNTEERS. SB569 M. Johnson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCER…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING BALLOT TITLES OF PROPOSED MEASURES; AND AMENDING THE … | M. Johnson | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB608
Act 991
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB608 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS FOR…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS FOR COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL OFFICERS. | M. Johnson | Notification that SB608 is now Act 991 |
|
SB640
Act 903
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB640 J. Dismang TO RECONSTITUTE THE STATE LIBRARY BOARD.”
|
TO RECONSTITUTE THE STATE LIBRARY BOARD. | J. Dismang | Notification that SB640 is now Act 903 |
|
HB1714
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…DIVIDUALS APPLYING FOR LIFE INSURANCE WHO ARE ORGAN DONORS. HB1714 Rose TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF PAID CANVASSER. SB517 J. Sc…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF PAID CANVASSER. | Rose | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1800
Act 998
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 4/10/2025 @ 8:03 AM) Removed HB1800 and HB1934 Senate Committee on State Agencies and Governmen…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURE FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE; TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE BY A REPRESENTATIVE … | McAlindon | Notification that HB1800 is now Act 998 |
|
HB1873
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO PROHIBIT RANKED CHOICE VOTING. HB1873 B. McKenzie CONCERNING NOTIFICATION TO PERSONS ELECTED TO S…”
|
CONCERNING NOTIFICATION TO PERSONS ELECTED TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF … | B. McKenzie | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1879
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…96. HB1846 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS 2036 COMMISSION. HB1879 Lundstrum TO REQUIRE ALL CITY COUNCILS AND COUNTY QUORUM CO…”
|
TO REQUIRE ALL CITY COUNCILS AND COUNTY QUORUM COURTS TO POST VIDEO RECORDINGS OF PUBLIC … | Lundstrum | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1934
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 4/10/2025 @ 8:03 AM) Removed HB1800 and HB1934 Senate Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FORWARD ENGAGEMENT COMMITTEE ACT; AND TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FORWARD ENGAGEMENT … | McAlindon | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1951
Act 929
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…LIST OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR PURPOSES OF PROCUREMENT. HB1951 A. Collins TO SET FORTH AUTHORIZED DOMAIN EXTENSIONS FOR HI…”
|
TO SET FORTH AUTHORIZED DOMAIN EXTENSIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT WEBSITES. | A. Collins | Notification that HB1951 is now Act 929 |
|
HB6
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “my notes. That was a good question. Yeah. House Bill 6, what is it? Senate Bill 82.”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB141
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EN INTERIM COMMITTEES MAY MEET DURING A LEGISLATIVE RECESS. SB141 B. King TO ELIMINATE FUNDING TO THE ARKANSAS CENTER FOR HEA…”
|
TO ELIMINATE FUNDING TO THE ARKANSAS CENTER FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB212
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TION ACT OF 1967 CONCERNING Page 2 of 3 PERSONNEL RECORDS. SB212 K. Hammer TO CREATE THE DOCUMENT VALIDITY DIVISION; AND TO…”
|
TO CREATE THE DOCUMENT VALIDITY DIVISION; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | K. Hammer | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB247
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NATE FUNDING TO THE ARKANSAS CENTER FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT. SB247 C. Tucker TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ABSENTEE VOTER INTEGRITY A…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ABSENTEE VOTER INTEGRITY ACT OF 2025; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB248
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE. SB248 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967;…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB395
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…E ENFORCEMENT LICENSING BOARD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB395 Hickey TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING STATEMENTS OF FINAN…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTEREST; AND AMENDING A PORTION OF ARKANSAS … | Hickey | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB398
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…HE DOCUMENT VALIDITY DIVISION; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB398 C. Tucker TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE PETIT…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE PETITIONS AND REFERENDUM PETITIONS; AND TO ALLOW A CURE … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB4
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…STATE LIBRARY BOARD. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB4 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS; AND TO ALLOW VOTERS TO ELECT "FOR" … | C. Penzo | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB434
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…S; AND TO ALLOW A CURE PERIOD FOR INSUFFICIENT SUBMISSIONS. SB434 J. Dotson TO CREATE THE "PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION ACT"; TO…”
|
TO CREATE THE "PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION ACT"; TO AMEND A PORTION OF THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION … | J. Dotson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB44
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…LLOW VOTERS TO ELECT "FOR" OR "AGAINST" WATER FLUORIDATION. SB44 Hester TO CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN INTERIM COMMITTEE…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN INTERIM COMMITTEES MAY MEET DURING A LEGISLATIVE RECESS. | Hester | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB453
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ILY MEMBER OR CHILD. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB453 B. King TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRIC…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB476
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. SB476 J. Scott TO ALLOW LEAVE FOR ORGAN DONATION FOR CERTAIN STAT…”
|
TO ALLOW LEAVE FOR ORGAN DONATION FOR CERTAIN STATE EMPLOYEES; AND TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST … | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB493
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 5, § 1; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB493 J. Bryant TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE THE DUTIES OF TRADE-R…”
|
TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE THE DUTIES OF TRADE-RELATED BOARDS TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT LICENSING BOARD; … | J. Bryant | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB517
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ORS. HB1714 Rose TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF PAID CANVASSER. SB517 J. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS; AND TO ALLOW A COUNTY BOARD OF … | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB579
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…E AUTHORITY OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 5, SECTION 1. SB579 M. McKee TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EM…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; AND TO PROHIBIT A PUBLIC EMPLOYER … | M. McKee | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB617
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB617 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CAPITOL ZONING D…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CAPITOL ZONING DISTRICT; AND TO AMEND THE ZONING AUTHORITY … | M. Johnson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB82
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…. That was a good question. Yeah. House Bill 6, what is it? Senate Bill 82.”
|
TO INCREASE THE SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR USED MOTOR VEHICLES; AND TO AMEND … | J. Payton | 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
this morning, so I would ask everybody just to take a brief moment of silence for him and his family, and please keep them in your thoughts and prayers. All right, thank you. I do want to recognize a few of my local elected officials. We've got Marion County Judge Jason Stomp, Batchelor County Judge Kevin Liddy, my good friend, and the best looking one of the group, Kander Reese. People always ask me how I keep on getting reelected, I say, look at Jason and Kevin Liddy. The competition's pretty low. Nice to be the
chair, gentlemen. Oh, they're good guys. They're good guys. But listen, happy to have you guys here. I know we got our county judges today, collectors. Hey, Josh Curtis, cheers,
talking to you. What all local county elected officials do we have here today? Seems like we're overrun with them. Well, I'm talking like, do we have all county judges here today? Is it county judges? Just the ones that have potential. All right, we've
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:03
got a Selene County judge here as well. Hey,
great to have you all here. All right, our Senate page today, where's Nathaniel Thomas Jr.? Where's Nathaniel? Nathaniel, stand on up, man.
We're happy to have you here today. Welcome. You were with Senator English, Maumelle High School. Senior? What's your plan to graduate? Listen, thank you for your service. Looking
forward to the great things you're going to do. Happy to have you here, Nathaniel. Thank you for being
here. All right. What's up? Jamie Scott, you got something quick and easy? What you got? Senator
Sullivan was going to do it for you. You know we're getting to the end of times when
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
1:57
Dan Sullivan's running Jamie Scott bills. Good morning colleagues. I have an amendment that I need to introduce yourself real quick. Senator Jamie Scott from District 12. I have just an amendment that I need to concur. Arkansas State worked with the governor's office because they are in a different section of the code and so that's what the amendment includes. All right. Members you've an
Speaker 19
2:15
explanation of the amendment. Any questions from the committee. All right, so you know questions
we'll take a motion. Senator Payton. Thank you. I'm just going by memory and looking
at this. It seems like the list of family members got smaller. I
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
2:40
don't have my notes but the definition for immediate family came from a code of statute that was already there. We didn't. Okay, I was thinking We didn't try to expand or do anything. It
looked a lot broader in my memory anyway. So that hadn't changed. No, sir. Okay, thanks.
Speaker 29
2:57
All right. Any other questions for the committee? All
right. Seeing none, take a motion to adopt. Or concur, excuse me. Got a motion from Senator Sullivan. Second from Senator Clark. Tucker?
Yes, sir. All right. All in favor, say aye. Opposed? All right. Thank you, committees. I appreciate your time. Amy. All right. Next up, Senator Tucker, do we have any Senate bills? Anybody got any Senate
bills in here? Can you get out? All right. So I don't see any Senate bills. All
right. Next up, we'll take Mr. David Ray. I know you're
running House concurrent resolution. what's that number, Representative Ray? 1018.
1018. And if you will introduce yourself and you'll
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
3:54
be recognized to present. HCR 1018. Good morning, committee. Yes, this is House Joint Resolution 1018. This is a proposed constitutional amendment that was referred
out of House State Agencies Committee and approved on the House floor. It would ensure that only United States citizens can vote in our state and local elections. So what it does is amends Article 3, Section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution, which deals with the qualifications of electors. That's all it does. You know, I think we all start from a pretty simple premise that Arkansans should decide the future of Arkansas, and Americans should decide the future of America, and yet there's four states across the country, along with 21 different municipalities,
that allow for non-citizen voting, legalized non-citizen voting in certain local elections. You've got major American cities such as Oakland, San Francisco, and sadly even our nation's capital that allow for legalized non-citizen voting in local elections. Another example is Chicago, a city of 2.7 million people, allows for legal non-citizen voting in their school board elections. So the reason this is an issue is because most states, when they put their state constitutions together in the 1800s,
they use language such as every citizen of the United States who's age 18 or older is eligible to vote. Arkansas's constitution says that instead of every citizen, our constitution uses the phrase all citizens. There are some states that use the phrase any citizen. But whether you use all citizen, any citizen, or every citizen, none of those are sufficient to prevent non-legal voting, non-citizen voting, because they constitute a floor rather than a ceiling.
The language, you know, any citizen may vote, that protects your right and my right as a citizen, but it doesn't limit people from being added to that list. And unfortunately, courts, when this type of non-citizen voting has been challenged around the country, more often than not, it's been upheld because state constitutions, most of the language, just simply isn't strong enough. So by moving to the only citizen language, you're setting a ceiling for eligibility. It's absolute, it's exclusive, and it's unambiguous.
I should mention that this is because of the states that have allowed non-citizen voting. There's a nationwide movement in the other direction. This citizen only voting amendment has been passed in 15 other states. In the last election, it was passed by our neighbors in Missouri and Oklahoma. They amended their state constitutions along with Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, North and South Carolina and Wisconsin. And then the last thing I would mention is these measures when they passed in other states
have passed overwhelmingly. the average passage rate is about 73.5%. In South Carolina, it was as high as 86%. And so, I think this is a good preventative measure to ensure that we never wake up one day and find an attempt to legalize non-citizen voting in our state. And with that, I'll be happy to take any questions. - All right, members, you've heard an explanation. Are there any questions
Speaker 44
7:07
from the committee? All right, there are no questions.
Is there anybody sign up to speak for or against? All right. Representative, you're
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
7:21
recognized to close. I'm closed, and I appreciate the committee's time this morning. I know
you all had a late night last night. All right. Got a motion due passed by Senator Payton, seconded by Senator Sullivan. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all
in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations. Passes. All
Speaker 47
7:40
right. Senator Gilmore, you got your amendment? All right. And you're doing House Bill 1524 and House Bill 1925? All right, members, we'll start with HB 1524 and Senator Gilmore, District 1.
Speaker 52
7:53
All right, I'll let staff get this amendment out and then I'll take a motion to
Speaker 53
8:18
adopt. Go ahead and introduce yourselves. Jeff King, Deputy Director for the Division of State Parks.
Speaker 55
8:26
Mike Wilson, Assistant Director of Arkansas State Parks. Great. All right. Members, you do
have a copy of the amendment in front of you. Got a motion to adopt. Got a second by Senator King. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. Amendment's been adopted. Senator Gilmore, you're recognized to proceed with House Bill 1524 as amended. Thank you, and I will
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
8:44
defer to the agency to walk through
it. This is a bill that you've already heard in this committee, so I'll let them explain what the amendment does to give members some comfort in here that had some issues before.
Thank you, Senator Gilmore and committee. I just want to take the opportunity to say thank you for some of the input that we received from committee members regarding House Bill 1524. We've gone back and the amendment really reduces the impact of this bill down to essentially a cleanup bill from 2023. The amendment keeps in place all of the requirements for notice, bid procedures, and advertisement that's in existing code. And the amendment really just allows
for maintenance projects in Arkansas State Parks to be exempt from some of the costly architectural and engineering design processes that were laid out in 2023 as a part of Senate Bill 558 that was enacted. And so just going back a little bit to 2023, Governor Sanders identified really the outdoor economy of Arkansas as an opportunity for real growth. And a big part of that is our state park system. So in 2023, the enacted Senate Bill 1558 exempted parks from the definition,
parks maintenance projects from the definition of capital improvements and so that was already put into the code in three areas two of those were in the public work section of code one is in the division of building a section of code but in terms of the public finance section of code the third area that that was left out and and really kind of inadvertently back in the 2023 bill so as amended all that this bill does is really add that add that piece of exemption for architectural and engineering projects for state parks up to $150,000 to this last section of code.
And so with that, I would be happy to answer any questions. And again, I appreciate the committee's kind of input regarding
this bill amendment. All right, Senator Payton, you're recognized for a question. All right, so remind me, how much of an increase is
this? I mean, currently this book of business is limited by what dollar amount? Currently, the statute in two areas allows for parks maintenance projects, which are really just repair and renovation projects to not be subject to capital improvement definitions,
which allow for architectural engineering. So this exempts that up to $150,000. I know what this does. I'm
asking where is the current threshold? The current threshold
in this area is $50,000. So we're taking it
from 50 to 150 on not having to follow the procurement law?
No, we're still following all the procurement laws that are enacted, even 50,000 and above. This is really just not making us do some of the engineering design costs that really add about 10% to our projects
for things that we don't really need architectural and engineering drawings to do, whether that's replacing a roof on a building with a like product,
Speaker 58
11:48
painting a building, some of those things that really didn't make sense in terms of maintenance.
- Well, you may not know this, so don't we require that as schools and county judges and quorum courts and things like that? When they do maintenance and repairs and modifications, I mean, alteration is the word, I guess. Aren't they required to live under that other threshold?
- I'm not fully aware of all the areas of the code that cover counties and municipalities, But I will speak for just for the state parks piece. And this was really an opportunity that was identified back in 2023 to tackle some of the backlog of maintenance projects that we have in our state parks. And a little bit unlike counties and municipalities, although it may be the same in some instances, but we're really trying to be able to tackle these projects in the off season. So anything we can do to shorten the time frame that it takes to get projects done really helps us in state parks to be able to serve our guests that are visiting both in state and out of state to our parks.
I understand we're always looking for more flexibility. I understand that. But if we're
holding elected officials, school board members, county judges, quorum courts, city councils, to a higher standard than what we are appointed officials, something needs to change. Thank you. - Thank you, Senator. All
Speaker 29
13:07
right, any other questions from the committee? Seeing no further questions. Christy, do we have, or Carly,
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
13:14
do we have anybody sign up to speak for against this? I don't see anybody on that.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
13:20
Senator, you're recognized at close for your bill. - Thank you, members. Thank you for the question, Senator
Payton. If you wanna run that bill, I'd probably vote for it. But anyway, I think this is a good way, again, to try to find some cost savings. Do we really need engineering design when it's, again, when you're replacing a roof with a like roof, when you're painting a building, you know, the same color that's already painted, those types of things, when you're adding engineering design on top of that, it just adds to the cost. So with that, I think it's a good bill appreciate a good vote. All right, members, senators just close for the bill. What's the will of the
committee? Got a motion to do pass as amended by Senator King. See a second. Second by Senator Sullivan. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Congratulations, your bill passes.
Speaker 76
14:12
Thank you. Thank you. As amended. All right, you got 1925. There's no amendment for that, correct? No, no. All right.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
14:19
Introduce yourself again and then you'll recognize and proceed with House Bill 1925.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
14:24
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of Senator Gilmore,
District 1. Sorry, my mic turned off. Senator Gilmore, Senate District 1. This is a bill from the Secretary of State's office, 1925. This is a bill from the Secretary of State's office that amends the absentee ballot statute. And so what we're trying to do here is making sure that our absentee process is secure as possible.
So the bill does a couple of things. The big thing in particular that it does is it requires a witness on an absentee, and they have to be 18 years or older. They can be a resident of any state because, again, absentees, typically, are for people who are out of state or something like that. In addition, though, there are exceptions to this for members of the military, for those that have some sort of a hardship, and then also it's adding to, in the first section
there, it's adding to the statement where it says, I'm duly qualified to vote at this election according to Arkansas Constitution. It's just adding them a statement swearing that they understand what they're doing and that they're voting properly and appropriately. With that, I'm happy to take any questions. All right, members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Are there any questions
from the committee? Seeing no questions. Don't have anybody sign up to speak for or against this.
Senator Gilmore, you're recognized to close. Members, appreciate your time. I'm closed. Appreciate a good vote. All right, Senator Gilmore's closed for his bill. What's the bill of committee? and a motion to be passed by Senator Sullivan, second by Senator Hammer. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. - Aye. - Opposed? Congratulations, your bill passes. All right. Senator Dismayne. All right, Senator Dismayne, if you'll come to the end of the table and introduce yourself.
And you're running what bill? a good question. I've got
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
16:37
my notes. That was a good question. Yeah. House Bill 6, what is it? Senate Bill 82.
Speaker 86
16:50
No. I didn't really mean to have a curb on that one. I just walked in from another meeting
that we weren't supposed to be having. Yeah. Senator Payton says he's got a little bill that didn't do
Speaker 90
17:01
much about nothing. 1852 or 1952? 1852. Which one's on the
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
17:04
The Athletic State, Arkansas State Athletics Commission. Yeah, all right. Then 19, or Senator Jonathan dismayed, district 18. - 1952,
yeah, thanks Carly. - All right, thank you members in, perfect. 2017 scripted wrestling was removed
from the purview of the athletic commission and since that point we've had to supplement that commission with state tax dollars because they're not able to cover their own cost. This is putting that back in place. And try to make so they can be sustainable on their own without having to have state general revenue.
all right senator payton you're recognized for a question so how does this affect professional
Speaker 100
18:09
wrestling uh in prior to 2017 they were underneath
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
18:18
commission we took them out uh out from underneath that purview at that point uh prior to that there was blood work and different things that were done for the wrestlers when they come in state we were called a no intentional blood stay thanks the way that they worded it um all those things
went away when they went out of the purview that that's a whole sidebar but also 70 of the commission's budget was derived from wrestling events which helped then supplement for all the programs that they oversee that they lose money on in the state. This would put the scripted wrestling back. It would allow them to cash flow in as an agency. Now, after 2017, they're having to have supplemental appropriations and income provided from general revenue from the state of Arkansas. So the events will not
cover themselves. Well, so I guess my real question is, I mean,
we've done a lot about entertainment districts and about filming and movies and things like that, trying to make sure that we were inviting to them. I understand that professional wrestling looks like a sport. I understand that they have real athletes. But it is in an entertainment industry. It's totally different, in my opinion, from regular wrestling and these other things.
And I'm not sure that it fits well in this setting as an entertainment industry. I understand. Okay, thank you.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
20:04
All right, thank you, Senator. All right, Senator Hammer, you're recognized for a question. Thank you. My understanding is, and correct me if I'm wrong, this will not affect what would be referred to as mom or pops in the professional
wrestling industry. is for it, is favorable to this.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
20:18
Is that a correct instance? - That is correct, it's for events that would have above 1,500 people. So, you know, localized events, that's correct. All right, thank you.
Speaker 113
20:27
- Thank you, Senator. Senator Dawson, do you have a question? You're
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
20:30
recognized. - Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do you happen to know why this was taken out in 2017? - No, I don't,
Speaker 86
20:37
I mean, I was here and I don't remember the
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
20:40
conversation. - I can't even remember who ran the bill. I remember there was a lot of discussion about it at the time, but I'm with you, I don't remember.
As far as I know, there's only one former wrestler in the legislature, and I think they voted against this. Do
you have any idea why the industry might be opposed? - I don't know if the industry is opposed. Some of the reports I got back
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
21:08
was that the industry actually wanted this, and at some point, we jeopardized future WWE events if we don't
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
21:15
have a sanctioning body. - So those might not come to the
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
21:19
state in the future. - Okay, and there's an example of an HIV positive wrestler
that did not participate in wrestling because of the protocols that we had in place in the state. And once we lifted that, they
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
21:30
now participate in wrestling in the state of Arkansas because we don't oversee it. - So we've lost, conceivably we've lost potential events for the last half dozen or almost decade now. - Or some of the bigger name wrestlers that are participating
is my understanding. Thank you. - Thank you, Senator. Any other questions? Senator Payton, I'm recognized. - Thank you,
so under this list of things that are included in this section of code,
is there anything other than the proposal for professional wrestling that's hinged on the number of attendees at an event? - No, there's not. - So it's gonna be the only one that's governed
by whether or not they reach a certain crowd size? - That's correct. - And
do we have any other professional sports like golf or tennis or something like that that we put under this? - These are for
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
22:20
combative sports. So I mean, it would be where we can train, you know, it's pretty much exchanged bodily fluids
because of the actions you're taking towards each other. And that's the-- - So football would then? - Football would not. I think they have their own set of sanctions and governing body, and we don't have a professional football team
in this day. But when I watch soccer and football, they swap a few fluids. But anyway, thank you.
All right, fair enough. All right, I got Senator King and Senator Hammer. All right, Senator
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
22:48
King, you're recognized for a question. Do you attend professional wrestling events, or have
you ever attended one? No, but I had a former chief of staff that's pretty infatuated with it.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
23:00
Who would that be? That would be Mr. Goodman. So, and that all makes sense to everyone in the room now. I mean, I grew up. You don't mind
Speaker 135
23:16
also if you could let him recognize himself. Representative Hawks, please. I apologize. I was
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
23:21
running from transportation. Representative R.J. Hawk, District 81. All right. So have you attended professional wrestling events in Arkansas above 1,500 or below 1,500? I have done both, yes, sir.
Okay. So this would apply when the WWE comes into that and some type of rules. But it's as a fee. I mean, I'm just being asked, are we trying to cash in on that event or what would happen when the
WWE comes in? Obviously, they're going to have more 1,500 people. So what I'm about to
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
23:49
tell you is going to sound crazy because it was crazy to me. But so the state athletic commissioner, Bob Edmonds, he and I got on a conference call with a representative of the WWE. Right now, every state in the country has a sanctioning body.
It's like a second set of eyes for them to check the ring, to check for different things. They said that the standard that goes across in every athletic commission in the country is that 5% fee that you're talking about. They are absolutely A-OK with doing that. What they told us was they don't feel comfortable coming back to Arkansas to do any events if there's not a sanctioning body because it helps bring their insurance down to have that second set of eyes, have those inspectors. And so what that fee does is it allows to help make the entire budget for not only that
event, but for the athletic commission. We never have to appropriate any money. The governor doesn't have to give any money for the athletic commission.
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
24:49
And so that's why that's in there. So the event, say WWE comes in and the event permit processing fee of $50.
So they, WWE would pay 50 bucks. What's the part about the national and federal fighter
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
25:02
database fees? So the national, so from my understanding, talking to the athletic commission, they also do blood tests, blood testing, right?
So whether it's a UFC event, a WWE event, anytime there's blood, so our inspectors with the athletic commission, they will do, if there's blood drawn, like if somebody gets blood on their face, they will test it to make sure
there's not HIV in the blood, things like that. that thing goes into a database that's nationally known for other athletic associations. That's the way it
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
25:32
was explained to me. So we don't know how much. So there's extra revenue from the national fighter that the WD would pay. Where would that revenue go?
Into the Athletic Commission Fund, just overall. You don't have any idea what it, based on the past events, or WWE did not have?
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
25:56
$5,000? Well, the last time, so before wrestling got taken away from the Athletic Commission, what Mr. Edmonds told me was the last WWE event that was sanctioned, they made $40,000 off that event that was
at Simmons Bank Arena. They had approximately 8,500 people at that event.
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
26:12
Okay. So, okay, now I have been a wrestling fan, I'll just admit
it, from the 80s. And so we've had wrestling events at the Carroll County Fairgrounds. I don't know that there was 1,500 people show up. I know they have them in Harrison, where there may or may not be. Who's going
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
26:35
to regulate whether it's 1498 or it's 1507? So Representative Tosh, a couple of sessions
ago, took wrestling out to protect the small like Carroll County and some in his district.
One of the big things at the time was that these counties that are doing small wrestling events, I'm going to say small people wrestling events, and things of that nature, they didn't like the regulation board. They didn't have the funds to pay the fees. And so Representative Tosh at the time took all wrestling out of the Athletic Commission together, right? And so when that was done, if you remember, Governor Hutchinson, shortly thereafter, he gave them $300,000 as a rainy day fund to offset that.
Well, since that time, that money's run out. I did a study with BLR, and right now, as of this last year, the Athletic Commission is putting out $80,000 in inspector fees and stuff like that. They've only brought in $40,000, so they're losing money at a rapid pace. And so I understand what you're saying with Carroll County. For this bill, when I talked to Representative Tosh and others that did that bill, they said the small towns and the fairs, they don't want to be sanctioned at all for these events.
And so that's why we did it at 1,500 to really just accommodate the
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
27:55
WWE. I just don't know how we regulate 1,500 out there. And then, so I did, the Carroll County Fairgrounds did have Jake the Snake Roberts and Greg there and Valentine, who did a great job for less, I don't think there was less than 1,500 people there, But for guys that old in that condition to do a great job in front of
people that sold out Madison Square Gardens, you know, was pretty cool. I just, so this is just basically kind of coming to the Athletic Commission is looking for a revenue stream because they're hurting for money now?
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
28:26
And they don't want to have to ask the General Assembly for an appropriation or they have to have to ask the governor for extra money that way. This is just so where they can have a revenue stream that's in-house. It's covering the inspectors. if you know i don't know if uh senator dismay said this so right now in statute uh all they can charge is 125 dollars an inspector when they're doing those when those inspectors go out they get mileage if it's if it's across state they get lodging plus their fee uh when the athletic
commission broke that down for me they're losing about 225 dollars an inspector on that and so at the current at the current rate right now and so we're just trying to allow for them to make rules and they're going to post those rates, the mileage rates, the inspector fees. They're going to let everybody know what those fees are, but just
Speaker 152
29:14
to be able to recoup all those funds. I feel more comfortable about
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
29:18
it, but if those promoters or WWE or the Carroll County Fairgrounds or Harrison or wherever they have these, if they would just pay for that, I think responsibility.
I'm not somebody that's, well, these guys get down here and I'm anti-fee. Well, if you're anti-fee and we're having to do it, somebody else is paying it and somebody's getting a free ride a lot of times. That's why I vote for fees when I think it. But I think it'd just be better to just charge them the fee to have the inspector come out rather than look like, to me, it's looking like trying to tap a revenue stream. But I guess, and I've asked enough questions. So would you be willing, if we cleared these tables out and take on Representative Duffield, and if you can pin him, then I'll vote for the bill?
Speaker 153
30:01
You know what? I like that. Can we do that? How about this? You vote for
Speaker 154
30:06
it, and we'll set it up after sessions over. No, no, no, I'm not smart enough. I want you to pin Representative Duffield. Right here. Let Senator Flippo
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
30:15
be the ref. And if you can pin Representative Duffield, I will vote for this bill. If not, I just see it as a little bit of
a revenue stream trying to get to save their budget rather than just, if they are paying the inspectors, just charge the inspector fee and be done, not this other fee part.
It's just a little nervous for me. But if you pin Representative Duffield. I
Speaker 88
30:38
feel good about my athletic abilities. I can pin Representative Duffield. Okay, boy, we've got it. Let's get it on. Let's get
this match going. All right, Senator Payton and Senator Amhert and Sullivan. All right. I'm getting really confused here. So if the crowd size is less than 1,500, they're not swapping
bodily fluids when they wrestle? Repeat your question. I'm sorry. Well, you said this is because we've got to worry about them swapping bodily fluids. Well, he asked about the database.
Well, no, I'm talking about when I had my questions and you were answering them a while ago. That was him. I
just walked in when he came. Well,
I mean, I agree with what Senator King said. It looks like it's a revenue stream. I know that the second floor is vehemently against fee increases or new fees. I have learned that by banging my head on that wall for two and a half years. So, I mean, how is this bill going to survive that?
So I took this to the governor's office, and
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
31:37
they did not see this as a new fee. What they told me was this was what we already
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
31:43
had in place before it got taken away. And so we're just reinstituting what we had previously, right, except for regulating the small-town wrestling like Carroll County
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
31:52
or Saline County, because, by the way, Jake the Snake came to Saline County as well. Would you be interested in
co-sponsoring a bill with me? I will, absolutely. I think I could use your salesmanship.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
32:05
I will absolutely do it with you. All right, Senator Hamard, Senator
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
32:11
Sullivan, and Senator Clark. All right, I just want to boil it down. So if this bill goes in effect, the only ones that are going to be financially affected by it are going to be those that are sanctioned events. Is that right? Correct, yes, sir. Okay, everybody else that is in a sanctioned event won't have to worry about this. They will not, no. - So if they're 1,500 and under--
- They're not sanctioned. - You gotta draw a line, some of their 1,500. Because they are, and they would, in order for it to be sanctioned, then what's the sanctioning process? They register with whoever the agency is in here and say, we're coming to your town, we're gonna do an event, we want a sanctioned event, right? -
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
32:57
Correct, and they ask for the inspectors to come. If it's a boxing match, they'll check
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
33:02
the gloves, check the hand wraps, things like that. And also like what Senator King said, the database for the
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
33:08
blood and things like that. Right. So because I remember distinctly driving between here and Sheridan and there was a double-wide mobile home and they had a ring in the back and they probably had a hundred people back there and they were they were just wrestling. They were doing their thing. And that would not be a sanctioned event because they voluntarily did that. If the fair said we're going to have so-and-so in but we don't want to be sanctioned and it starts off there's 1,100 people, but it grows to 1,700 people doesn't
really make any difference because they didn't ask to be a sanctioned event.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
33:38
Is that correct? Correct. And it's also based on, like, so in that case,
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
33:42
whenever they first promote the event, they're promoting it for 1,100 people, correct? So I got that number from Representative Duffield because he used to promote wrestling events across the state. And he says, because you know if you're a small town, what we're going to bring in. He said the average small town is going to bring in between 500 to 600 people for a wrestling event. He said, let's take that number and put it at 1,500 because that's a safe number to keep the small towns from being sanctioned.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
34:10
Okay, because where I'm going with this is forget the numbers.
What I'm thinking about is you have an event, it starts off at 800, all of a sudden you've got 2,000 people show up. Whoever decided to put on the event now has chosen not to be a sanctioned event. correct so if something happens at that event it's on them it's on them the liability rests on them so if I want to have a sanctioned event where I've got all the protections this doesn't say I want to have a sanctioned event but I'm only expecting a thousand if they want the assurance and the safety that it's a sanctioned event so everybody is safe whether it's the participants
or the fans 1500 doesn't mean they I mean you could have 500 but if you want to pay the sanction fees, you can get it, correct? Correct. Yes, sir. So it comes down to individual liability, individual choice. If you want a sanctioned event and the protection of it, here's what you got to do. If you don't, that's fine. But the liability's on you. Go forth and have a good
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
35:10
time. 100%. And the shall in there for the 1500, if you're promoting like a WWE or AEW event, they know
they're going to have 15. So that has to happen, right? But in your case, yeah, if you don't want to do that and you're
Speaker 169
35:24
promoting a smaller event, that's on you, whether you want to have that extra coverage. I think Senator
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
35:30
Dussman is going to say something. But without this, then it's not even an option for them to come in and sanction and provide
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
35:38
that we explicitly say they can't. Which means we have just cut ourselves out of bringing in some big-time wrestling events without this, because they're not going to come into the state unless we sanction it
and provide the public health. I don't know why this may not be in public health, honestly. Public health and safety for those that are there, whether in the ring or outside the ring. Am I right or wrong on that? It's a detriment because
Speaker 132
35:59
it's an insurance issue. It's a liability issue. Yes, that's right. It's an
Speaker 177
36:03
economic issue. And that's the reason there is the conversation about if we don't do this, what will happen? Which means that those smaller ones aren't
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
36:10
going to have to pay these fees so it doesn't apply to them.
Speaker 91
36:14
Correct. Thanks. I haven't had wrestling. Take up this as much as my
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
36:19
time since I was 10. Right. Senator Sullivan, you're recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So what training do these inspectors
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
36:27
have? So according to the Athletic Commission, there are training protocols, much like the Department of Licensing and Labor has things for electrical inspectors. There are boxing inspectors, there's UFC inspectors, there's judicu, I can't say that, but they've got individualized inspectors and there's training courses applied that they send all
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
36:43
their inspectors to. Okay, do you know where Representative Tash is on this bill? He voted for the bill, and he was the very first person that I went to.
Okay, you know Representative Duffield, his name has come up several times. Yes, and he's for the bill. I talked to him about it and helped him write it. I believe he is. Okay. Yeah.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
37:08
All right, thank you. Thank you. Senator Clark. Thank you,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
37:14
Mr. Chair. How many people in the Athletic Commission are from this industry? How
many folks on the Athletic Commission are from this industry?
Speaker 187
37:27
That's actually from that particular industry or from this industry. I've actually seen that in our nose. Currently, the Commission has cried
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
37:36
to stakeholders in combative sports at every level, including two members
of the Commission are inductees of the United States Martial Arts Hall of Fame. One member is inductee of the International Martial Arts Hall of Fame. And the chief inspector is recognized at the International Olympic Committee in the sport of judo and a medical doctor. And the commission has been a well-recognized speaker presenter at the Association of Ringside Physicians, as well as the Association of Boxing.
So there are members of the commission that are, you know, from
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
38:10
the industry. Okay. Senator Sullivan asked about Representative Duffield. When I, if something comes up in Raising Chickens, I talk to Senator King. If something comes up in Pharmacy, I talk to Senator Boy, besides people that are constituents of mine. If we had questions about car auctions,
I'd talk to Senator Payton. You're under the impression that Representative Duffield supports this bill. his text to me indicate that he does it and i was going to ask if you knew why but since you don't know that he doesn't support it i don't
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
38:51
guess you know why and that's that would be news to me because he and representative tosh i went to them before i even filed this bill and the 1500 number was given to me directly from representative duffield um i i mean i i've sat outside the
committee room right before i went to go file it and he and i had a
Speaker 14
39:09
conversation about that okay thank you yeah all right uh senator payton and senator hammer thank you i just want to
try to straighten up something i thought i heard you say that there was some pretty good size event uh two or three months ago here in little rock that involved this am i right there's
Speaker 194
39:34
been a wwe event and i know it's scheduled 2025 i know it's
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
39:38
happened yet. I looked it up myself. Okay. They were under the old rules of the $125 fee and the commission
lost money on that event. But I thought you told Senator Hammer that they won't, unless we change this law, they're not
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
39:53
coming to Arkansas to do those events. That was already, that was already preset, right? And so basically what, what I've been told by the Department of Labor, because they are hemorrhaging money right now, remember I said that BLR said they brought in 40, they're putting out $80,000 a year. From what I've been told from the Department of Licensing
and Labor is that if we can't figure out a
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
40:14
way to make them whole, there's not a sense in having an athletic commission because we're
losing money. So it's a fee increase, it's revenue stream, dedicated revenue increase, and it's to buy
insurance? No, no. How are you saying that
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
40:32
it's affecting the insurance? This provides some certainty of what's
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
40:36
happening and a following what's happening in those fights, which then, you know, there's liability insurance and everything
else that goes on with the promoters that put these on. And my understanding is sanctioned event minimizes some of the risk, obviously not all of the risk,
which has a direct impact on the liability cost to put on an event in Arkansas.
Okay. Well, I'm just having a hard time putting professional wrestling
in with these other sports because I think it's entertainment, but thanks. The chair's having a
hard time with this. It's 45 minutes of his life that he's never going to get back.
So with that, Senator Clark, then everybody gets another question.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
41:16
Then you, Senator King. Representative, you've talked about
Speaker 45
41:21
him hemorrhaging money. Representative, you've talked about hemorrhaging money, so I want to
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
41:27
go to that. You know, I don't know what's going
to happen with the tariffs, but if tariffs on China goes to 100%, I will have to increase
the prices on flooring. I can't sit back and say I don't believe in increasing prices.
And so if they're hemorrhaging money, then they're hemorrhaging money because their fees
Speaker 206
41:59
are too low. Because the current statutes only allow them to charge $125.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
42:04
Which means their fees are too low. So how do we fix things with inflation if we can't raise fees? So in this
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
42:12
bill, what we're allowing for them to do is to raise it to what the costs are.
So basically, they're not making any money off these inspectors. They're just getting made whole. So if an inspector costs $225 and the mileage and the lodging, all they're going to do is invoice the organization for the cost. And that way they can be then made whole and they're not costing. And I
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
42:36
think that's probably one of the most sensible things that I've seen, that in this one area, in this one industry, we're going to get back our costs, but we're going to continue to hemorrhage money in other areas.
Speaker 159
42:54
because our fees are too low. I think the main, I mean, I see what
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
43:02
you're saying. I think the main reason why we are losing so much money is because of the inspectors themselves. And that's where the major, from what I'm being told from the Athletic Commission, the major revenue loss that this commission
Speaker 191
43:16
has is from the inspectors, because they send out four per amount. But inspectors cost
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
43:22
what inspectors cost. Correct. Right? Correct. and getting rid of used tires cost
what getting rid of used tires cost, right? So again, I think how this gets approved when other things don't, I don't know, but at least there's some sense in this one. -
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
43:44
Thank you, sir. - Senator King, do you have a question? - So I did talk to Representative, he said he voted
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
43:53
no, and then so-- That's a surprise to me because, once again, he and Representative Tosh were the first two people that I collaborated on.
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
44:02
Anyway, and then he did say he would take that match with you, so I think that correctly. Let's
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
44:07
go. I'll do it. All right, see no further questions. Don't have anybody signed up to speak for or against this bill, shockingly enough. With that, Representative, Senator, you're recognized and closed for your bill? I think we're closed.
Speaker 76
44:22
All right. Senators close for his bill. What's the will of the committee? From the top rope?
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
44:36
We've got a motion due passed
by Senator Hammer. Lame attempted humor by Chairman Flippo. Do I see a second? Anybody got
Speaker 216
44:46
a second? Second by Senator Dotson coming from the top rope. All right,
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
44:51
got a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Senator Clark coming in for discussion. I think there's a chance, and I know we're
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
45:01
at the end and don't have much time. I think there's a chance I can be convinced, but I'm a no today.
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
45:10
Senator King, come on in here. I know we got the motion, but Representative Duffield is our wrestler. I mean, if we could hear from him, I mean, you had Monday to vote, and so I don't know. I would just appreciate, not a no vote, but a not passing until we can hear at least his side being a wrestler. He's the
only wrestler we know, so I just would appreciate it. So, Senator King is
neutral. I can stop passing it, but not voting for it.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
45:42
Gotcha. Okay. All right. So, got a motion and a second. Seeing no further discussion. All in
Speaker 88
45:53
favor, say aye. Opposed? Sorry, Senator Tismayne, your bill failed like the
Speaker 223
46:06
WWE in Arkansas. Been holding on to that one. All right. Golly.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
46:14
Let's see here. Senator Dotson, yeah. Representative Mix, have you had any luck with putting up those votes on 1846? I've never ready to give you a
shot. All right, well, yeah, okay, Senator Desmayne. Okay, all right, Senator Desmayne, go ahead, 640. Does this have anything to do with wrestling on any single level? It
Speaker 227
46:39
does not. All right. Is this Senate Bill 640? It is. Okay, Senate Bill 640 members.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
46:51
Senator Jonathan Dismanning, District 18, talked to Senator Sublin about this bill, I think even prior, whenever the last library bill came through, became apparent to me, I took a lot of time just kind of reading through or in watching what was happening in some of the library, State Library Board meetings, It became very apparent to me that it's fairly dysfunctional and a reconstitution would be
the best thing to do, start all over, and I think that's going to fix a number of the issues that are existing right now. So this bill is simply a reconstitution of the board, state library board, everything else stays in place, the way that it is. There'll be staggered terms, appointed by the governor, and then confirmation by our members. All right. All right, members, you've heard
an explanation of the bill. Are there any questions from members of the committee? Senator King,
Speaker 188
47:47
you're going to ask for questions. But just as you said, you're just wiping the board out. Wiping the board clean. Let's start
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
47:55
this over and let's stop some of the why.
This is just, you're just, I wouldn't, so I spent three hours watching a board meeting
prior to voting on Senator Sullivan's bill. I'd encourage you to do the same and I think you'd join in on this. This is a dysfunctional board. It's time to, I believe, start things over. I think this is the best way to do it. It's in our purview to reconstitute, and so that's what I'm asking for. Okay. Do you
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
48:25
think if myself and Senator Rayford were appointed to the board, it would be more better functional then?
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
48:32
I'm sure that you all would get along well. We'd probably have one of those wrestling sessions and maybe a cross-faced chicken wing or a choke slam.
Chair
Unverified
48:43
I don't know. Okay, Senator Tucker, you're recognized for a
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
48:47
question. So would the governor have seven appointments under this? That's correct. Do you know whether any of the current members would be reappointed? To the discussion, there's one member
in particular that I'm more concerned about than others, so I'm just curious.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
49:03
I haven't had any conversation with the governor's office about this bill. All
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
49:09
right, thank you. Thank you, Senator Tucker. Senator Dodson, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So if this bill were to pass, you would be eliminating the current board, including former Senator Jason Rapert and Senator Sullivan's wife? - That is a, she's on the AETN
board, I believe. - Sorry, wrong boards. - Representative McKenzie's wife is on this board. - That's right, sorry. - And they're on this board. - So they would both be off of this board? - When we wipe
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
49:31
the slate clean, we wipe the slate clean.
- Okay, thank you. - All right. - Thank you, Senator. Senator Sullivan, you recognized? -
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
49:39
Yeah, I don't know if you had a chance watch it yes the testimony but there were
several people there were several people that testified against the bill who said there were problems with
the board did you what did you hear
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
50:03
that yesterday I did not okay I would agree
again, but it's just my limited exposure, there are problems with the board. Yeah, okay, thank you. Thank you,
Senator. All right, any other questions from the committee? All right, seeing
none, don't have anybody signed up to speak for or against this? Not signed up, Krista. I know, but we just
wasted an hour on wrestling. So we're going to spend more time on wrestling than... Point of order, point of order, point of order.
I'm not going to answer it from the chair. All right, moving on. All right, got a motion to do pass. Senator Hammer, second by Senator Clark. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations, Senator. Your bill passes. All right. Senator? You may not have heard me,
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
50:57
but I was a no on that. Yeah, I got you. Just because I don't know. Okay. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. The Chair heard, yeah.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
51:19
Bill 343, concurring in a House amendment for Senator Irvin. It's at the top of your agenda. State Senator Jim Dotson, Senate Bill
343, concurring in this House amendment. The House Amendment
there? Okay. Do you need anybody from the agency up here?
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
51:39
Or do you have the amendment? I have the amendment. Okay. If anybody has any questions on the amendment that I can't answer, I think someone from the department is here. Otherwise, I'm unaware of any opposition. All
right, members. Any questions? All right. Got a motion from Senator Tucker. I see a second. Second Senator Dotson, any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. - Aye.
- All right, no, opposed? All right,
Speaker 204
52:14
amendment's been concurred. Yeah, go ahead and you're up there,
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
52:18
go ahead. What's your bill number? - This is House Bill 1706. - 1706
members. - State Senator Jim Dotson, Senator Hester asked me to run this. This is the law concerning elections prohibit ranked choice voting in the state of Arkansas. It's a very short bill. I'll give people
time to review it and then see if there's any questions I might be able to
answer. All right, members, you've heard an explanation. Are there any, I'll give you just a quick time to glance it over and recognize anybody's got any questions. All
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
53:01
right, Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we know what the bill does. Why do
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
53:07
we need to prohibit ranked choice voting? Well, currently Arkansas does not expressly prohibit ranked choice voting.
So potentially, I guess, if you had local elections that might want to try to do this, some local municipalities and other states have tried to do some of this stuff. The Secretary of State is supportive of this bill. So I don't think we would have any attempt to try to do this at a statewide level. at the current time, but this would prohibit
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
53:36
it. Right. So my same question, we know what the bill does. Why do we want to do
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
53:42
it? Well, I think it's a very terrible voting process,
and we've seen it in many states that it's been tried to be very confusing to the voters. And so that's why. How is it terrible? Well, if you've seen any type of response from voters in other states that have tried this, their confusion at the ballot box is fairly significant sometimes. And so making our elections clean so you know who you're voting for
and then you don't get frustrated with the results at the end because, hey, somebody I didn't vote for first or second, it makes sure that someone gets the majority of the votes the way we do the elections now. Ranked choice voting, you might have some candidate that didn't receive the majority of the votes the first time around, get
additional votes added to, and so it's just a terrible process. I think we're probably going to disagree on that.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
54:48
Do you have any examples of where there's been voter confusion? What jurisdictions? I
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
54:53
don't, off the top of my head, like I said, this is Senator Hester's bill that he asked me to step in and run. I'm very supportive of the concept
Speaker 71
55:03
and the bill as written. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. All right.
Any other questions for members? Yeah. All right. Senator Payton. So I know Arkansas
has never practiced ranked choice voting. I would have assumed that something in our constitution or our code already designated how we would vote and how we would select the winner.
So, I guess my biggest question is, is that not pretty clear in our code that
we're going to, each party have a nominee, sometimes there's a third one in there, and maybe have a runoff if somebody doesn't get 51%. I mean, it definitely does not spell out anything that would be similar to
ranked choice voting, right? I believe that is the
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
55:57
current, the Secretary of State's office might be able to answer the specifics of that a little bit more.
If someone is here from the Secretary of
Speaker 270
56:09
State's office, they could. Yeah, come on up,
Speaker 273
56:27
Nathan. Nathan Lee, Chief Counsel, Arkansas Secretary of State. It is our opinion, and we've discussed it
Speaker 274
56:34
with the Association of Counties and Municipal League as well, that currently it would not
be allowed under Arkansas law for the fact that Arkansas law spells out how counties and municipalities should vote, which is not, I'm just speaking generally, kind of simply explaining it, but counties, it's majority, 50 plus one. Municipalities, it's a 40-20 rule, which isn't ranked choice. So this would just make it more clear, though, and spell it out for that way. It would save everyone time, the state, as well as municipalities, in deciding to do these
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
57:12
things. They would know what the law says. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. Thank you. Senator Hammer, you have a question? Hey, Nathan, at the table, please. Thank you. refresh my memory and it it may have happened earlier this session but it seems like for sure last session was there not legislation introduced to start ranked choice voting do either one of you all remember that uh i vaguely recall discussions i can't remember if there wasn't
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
57:42
potentially a constitutional amendment filed like one of the hjr's or sjr's It may have been four years ago, but I'd hate to test my memory on that
Speaker 177
57:53
for sure. Go ahead. I don't recall. I'm
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
57:59
sorry. Okay. Because for some reason, my memory is telling me that it has been attempted here, not successful, but it has attempted to have laws put in to establish that. If not here, I know for certain in other states. So what this would do is preempt either what is previously an attempt here or attempted elsewhere,
and in some cases has been successful elsewhere. Is
that the intent? That's the intent, yes. Okay, thanks. Thank you, Senator. Senator Tucker? Would it not take a
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
58:30
constitutional amendment for us to have ranked choice voting in Arkansas? I'd have to go research
Speaker 274
58:37
that question, I'm sorry. I don't know the answer to that right now. I do
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
58:43
believe it would, so I think what this bill does is make something illegal that we would have to have a constitutional amendment
in order to be able to do so, just for
what it's worth. Thanks, Senator Tucker. All right, any other questions for the committee? All right, seeing none, currently don't see anybody sign up to speak for or against this. Senator Dodson, recognize closed. I'm closed. I make a motion due pass. Second. Got a motion due pass by Senator Dodson, second by Senator Payton. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
59:17
All right, the bill passes. All right. Representative Meeks, you want to give House Bill 1846 and Eric Crack?
Yes, sir. You got the votes? I vote so. When they look you in your eye and they say, yes, I'm going to vote for your bill, that's
when you know. There you go. And is there an amendment on there? Is there what?
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
59:40
Okay. So it'll be as amended. As amended, yes. Yeah, put the Senate speech
around there. All right. Members, 1846. So first off, colleagues, I want to say thank you for hearing that wrestling bill this morning. As you all know, this is an extremely busy time of session.
And just having the hour to sit over there and chill and relax was a nice break. And I know you all get where I'm coming from with that. So it's maybe, I don't know, fate, destiny, whatever, that we're actually hearing this bill in this room. Because if you look at the ceiling, all those squares have 36 dots in it. And that's to commemorate when Arkansas became a state in 1836. And what I'm trying to do with this bill is to set up a celebration of our state's 200th birthday.
I think we have a few senators that weren't here when I originally presented the bill, so I'm just going to briefly go over what this does. All this does is it has the governor's office, the senate, and the speaker appoint two people, Department of Education and the Department of Heritage to set up a basically a voluntary task force. These are non-paid positions to begin exploring what we could do to celebrate our state's 200th birthday. As I, you know, travel around the country and as I see, talk to other
people about, you know, what is your impressions of Arkansas? Unfortunately, and I know this frustrate y'all just as much as it does me. For too many people across the country, Arkansas is just flyover country. It's not worth visiting and I know that y'all are sick and tired of that and we want to change that impression that our state gives to people outside. I read an article just a couple weeks ago that was trying to promote the hiking and biking in our beautiful state and all
the comments were mostly negative. There's nothing to do in Arkansas. And so what I'm proposing to do with this is set this commission up to see if there's an opportunity for us as we get ready to celebrate our state's 200th birthday to create something beautiful, to dream big, to inspire the next generation. And again, I don't know what that is. That's the point of this commission. you know, is this something that we have to do? No, it's not. But like our astronauts going to
the moon back in the 1960s, they didn't have to do it. But as President Kennedy said, we're going to do the hard things because it's an opportunity to inspire the next generation to grow as a country. And that's what I'm hoping to do here. The way I envision this is I would love to see this challenge put out to all of our high schools, to our architectural firms, and say, give us your best ideas about what we could do in this state to create something magnificent that would give people a reason to come to our state. You know, when they built the arts in St.
Louis, it was controversial at that time. But I tell you what, it's been one of the greatest economic drivers for that area of the country. And I would love to see us do something here. Last thought that I'll give is this. Fifty years from now, a hundred years from now, No one's going to remember or care about what we're doing now. Most of the stuff we do, it's either going to be changed or modified as we go through time. And unless we leave that legacy, it's going to be forgotten. And that's what I'm proposing here. What can we leave as a legacy for the next generation to inspire them,
to encourage people to look better at our state? And again, they may not come up with something, but I'd hate to kill this idea before we even give it a chance. And so, like I said, as far as I know, it's non-controversial. Department of Heritage is ready to go on this. So, with your blessing, let's do something awesome for our state. And with that, Mr. Chair, I'm closed and be happy to answer any questions. All right, members, you've heard an explanation of
the bill. Any questions from members of the committee? Senator Sullivan, you were recognized for a question.
Speaker 62
1:03:41
Okay, okay, okay. All right, any questions? Senator Tucker, you're recognized for it.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:03:45
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for this, Representative Meeks. I'm just curious if there's going to be any special role for the members of the legislature who are in office now and were also in office in 1836.
Speaker 292
1:03:57
Not from 1836, unfortunately. I guess it just feels that way. Right,
yeah, yeah, exactly, yeah. And kind of on that point, you know, I'm a senior member of the House. I'm getting ready to leave office, and part of my, I wanted to leave kind of a gift to the state, kind of a parting gift.
And that's part of what's motivating me to do this. Our current freshmen, kind of your question, our current freshmen will be the senior class when this comes to fulfillment. So this is basically, I'm giving this project to them, so they'll be the ones overseeing this to its fulfillment. All right, Senator Payton, you're recognized.
So Representative Meeks, when you leave the house, will they be perpetually in session? I hope not. Who's going to adjourn them?
Representative Cozart is next in line and I've already been prepping him with it so yeah yeah and if you haven't heard I've actually that that real long adjourn motion we I actually got it short and so it's like one line now so I have every confidence in Cozart's ability to take it yep
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:05:04
all right thank you all right sir Dawson thank you mr. chair so is that adjourned motion past the
readability standard I think so because it just says pursuant to House House Rule 33-M, I move we adjourn.
And regardless of anything else I do down here, that's probably the only thing I'll be remembered for. Can we hear it one more time? Yeah, after the announcements, reading the bills, transferring the bills, placing the calendars on the desk, members amending their own bills for their own amendments, members withdrawing their own bills, finalizing resolutions, reading communications, and any remaining committee reports, I move we adjourn this bill, or move this bill on. Yep.
Thank you. All right. So I got a motion from Senator Sullivan, a second from Senator Hammer, a third from Senator Payton,
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:05:47
a fourth from Senator Tucker. Awesome. As amended, any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations, Representative. Your bill passes. Thank you, colleagues. I hope we can come back here in
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:05:59
10 years to celebrate something that we started here today. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, Senator Hammer, you got
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:06:12
a couple of bills you want to? that's don't tempt the chair here senator tucker don't tempt the
chair all right senator hammer you got uh house bills 1949 and house bill 1840
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:06:23
or 37 excuse me thank you mr chair kim hammer state senator district 16 on uh house bill 1949 i've got the county judge fling county here if i could get to come up and present with Judge Brumley, come on up.
Speaker 191
1:07:01
My name is Matt Brumley. I'm the county judge in Saline County. All right,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:07:07
Senator, you guys are recognized. Proceed. Tell you what, for the sake of time, because we've had a lot of debate and we've
got one more coming behind this, I'm just going to yield to Judge Bumley and we'll get to the point.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:07:19
All right, Judge Bumley, you are recognized. Proceed with House Bill 1949. Yeah, my state paramedic number is 18416. I received that a long time ago. I'm fairly familiar with the ins and outs of the EMS portion, medical service portion,
And before I made the decision to run for county judge, I spent the previous 30 years in health care. One thing that I would say is that the RFQ process versus the RFP process for professional services, if we could bring this under professional services, I think it would make a world of difference for our state. Our state has progressed over the last 30 years greatly when it comes to pre-hospital emergency care.
I think these providers who have risen to what communities expect would welcome the challenge. That we don't just look at the lowest reasonable price if there's subsidy involved, but we look at the qualifications and the expertise of those that are submitting their qualifications. For us, that has proven to be a difference changer. As you look around Arkansas, diverse service areas, and an ambulance service is not just an ambulance service.
They need to be interrogated and they need to find out, is this a service that has expertise and qualifications to serve their area? And I think that blind, sealed openings of RFPs is not the way to go. It also makes it rough on a county judge and the municipalities and the leadership in those municipalities to go to your quorum court for an ordinance to circumvent this process by two-thirds vote to allow for an RFQ.
If we could bring them into the professional services, I think that our state would be much better off. I also think that medical facilities inside the jail would benefit from this also. That if you have a medical director that signs off, what is the structure below that medical director and what services can they provide respective to the county in which they are in?
Last thing I'll say. In medicine, I believe the best outcomes are evidence-based outcomes. And if we have the ability to look at evidence-based outcomes by those that submit their interest to provide those services in your district, our constituents are better off. If response times are extended and employee staffs today are very short-handed and our constituents feel that
through lesser medical treatment and care, I don't think that they're going to be comforted by at least we took the lowest reasonable subsidy that was available by our applicants. With that, I'll take any questions. All right, members, you've heard an explanation
of the bill. Any questions from the committee? All right, Senator Dodson, you have
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:10:41
a question? You're recognized. This bill has been, a very similar bill has been ran the last few sessions, and I still maintain the same position I've had on each of those last two or three, four sessions.
I can't remember, this one keeps coming up every time, that when we're talking about medical services, ambulance services, things like that, those shouldn't be arbitrarily chosen based off of anything other than the competitive bid. And so I don't know if there's a question there other than I just finished up looking up the last session. and this looks like you're expanding in two places
instead of one, but it's the exact same language from at least two years ago. So I don't know if you have any response to that, but I'm just still opposed to it after all these years. So thank you. Thank you, Senator. I've got
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:11:43
a response to it. Some of y'all may or may not know, I think my EMT number, I was a nationally registered EMT intermediate back when they had them in the day, and I think my number's lower than Matt.
When I first got in the medical side of things, working for an ambulance, I was a volunteer for the DesArc Ambulance Service. We were a volunteer-run service because that is what worked. From there, I moved to work for Pafford way back in the day when they were based out of Pine Bluff on the corner down there, worked for them. And then I finished my career with MIMS here in Little Rock, And I was actually, I think, in the air pretty close to Mother Jugs and Speed. If any of y'all ever watched that movie, I think I was in that transitional period from what it was then to what it is now.
Medical services now are state of art in that they are life-saving. We call them trucks. We call them units. We call them ambulances. We are life-saving, or they are life-saving services. And there's a big difference in that. So what we're going to say, if we don't vote for this bill, in my opinion, we're going to say we have more value on the architect. We have more value on the engineering. We have more value on the construction manager.
We have more value on the land surveying that we're willing to not use competitive pricing in those areas. But by golly, when it comes to the people that we're trying to save their lives and get them to the hospital, get them to where they need to, we're going to say they may not be the best, but they'll be the bottom dollar. And quite honestly, in that position, I think by passing this bill, what we're going to do is we're going to ask the services to have the cream rise to the top,
and I think that they will respond in the industry so all of our constituents will actually have the best opportunity to get the best medical services, whether it's in the jail or whether it's in the back of the truck, the back of the unit, the back of the ambulance, whatever you want to call it. And that's why I would appreciate a good vote on this bill. All right. Is that closing? No. Yeah. Senator Payton, you have a
Speaker 29
1:14:02
question? No. Okay. All right. Any other questions from the committee?
All right. Seeing none. Christy, don't have any...
Oh, he's already up there. Yeah. All right. Seeing none, don't have
anybody else sign up to speak for against this. Senator and Judge Brumley, who's speaking for. Senator Hammer,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:14:20
you're recognized to close for your bill. May I use a portion of my time, let
the judge say anything, and I'll tag mine like real short. There are a lot of matrixes to look at. Those should be looked at at subject matter experts, I believe, to scrutinize the expertise and the qualifications for those that are rendering care to our citizens.
I understand that all 75 counties are not the same. I think that competition oftentimes for those with all due respect that are not subject matter experts go to the margin on the far right and the bottom. And that is, is this a reasonable price? Are you giving me an ambulance and for how much? I think there is much more to that and it should come to the county judge and all other appropriate parties within the county to, again, scrutinize expertise and the qualifications for what might be best.
for their citizens. I believe that this bill allows that to take place. - Thank you, Judge. - And I would
say in closing this, and this may be a little bit of an emotional tug, but it's a reality tug. I've been in the back of the ambulance. I've had family members in the back of the ambulance. I've had my wife in the back of the ambulance when our third child was born. If something goes south because the best was not there for my loved one, They're not going to come to us as legislators.
They're going to come to whoever's responsible for it, and they're going to ask them, was this the best you had to offer? And my hope is that we'll vote for this so that we can have the best that there is to offer. With
that, I'll make a motion due pass. All right. We've got a motion due pass by Senator Hammer. Do I see a second? Second by Senator Sullivan. There is
discussion on the motion. Senator Payton, you are recognized for discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm from Cleburne County, and there was a huge dust-up about eight or ten years ago were changed ambulance services the county judge got accused of all kinds of
improprieties the quorum court got crucified over it there was a division in the county that is not healed to this day over how it was chosen i think it's important that we have a procurement process and a competitive bidding process so that there is complete transparency in how the decision was made on which ambulance service to use. When you let out a contract for bid,
you can put whatever standards, however high you want them to be, in that bidding process. You can demand the latest equipment. You can demand the highest trained people. You can demand the hours that they're going to be on call, how many ambulances are going to be on call. All of that can be protected in the competitive bidding process. The only thing that we accomplish by eliminating by shall not use a competitive bidding process, the only thing we accomplish
is giving a few people the right to make a prejudice
Speaker 166
1:17:25
decision without question. And I'll be voting no on it.
All right. So we've got a motion by Senator Hammer, a second by Senator Sullivan. Seeing no further discussion, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Sorry, your bill fails. All right, next up, House Bill 1837.
Representative still in the room, Mindy. All right, Representative McElhinney, you want
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:18:07
to come up here? Kim Hammerstein, Senator District 16, presenting House Bill 1837. Representative Mindy
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:18:12
Macca, Linden, House District 10. All right, and
we're recognized. Proceed with your bill. I'm going to yield to the representative to present, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:18:21
All right, representative. Thank you, committee. Thank you, Chairman. House Bill 1837, this was worked on
and crafted with the governor's office as well as the Secretary of State office in order to protect the integrity of our democratic processes and safeguard Arkansas voters from undue foreign influence. It seeks to amend existing laws concerning disclosure from matters referred to the voters and, most importantly, bans foreign funding for ballot measures. Arkansas has a proud tradition of direct democracy through ballot measures.
It allows citizens to shape laws that directly affect their lives. However, this process is vulnerable to manipulation when foreign entities are allowed to fund campaigns aimed at influencing our votes. House Bill 1837 addresses this vulnerability by preventing foreign funding, ensuring the decisions about Arkansas's future are made by Arkansans, not by external interests. Currently, foreign entities cannot contribute to campaigns, and they can't contribute to PACs, but there is a loophole where they can contribute to ballot measures, and we have seen incidents over the last five years.
Hansjord, I'm going to say it wrong, Vice has contributed millions to legalizing and decriminalizing drugs, as well as focused on carbon taxes and other environmental justice ballot measures. Often, organizations, countries contribute to organizations, so you kind of have shell companies like Nikolai, this gentleman from Russia, and this bill is designed to help bring light to that and to stop the shell company game of having foreign entities or foreign countries contributing to our ballot measures and make sure that we are upholding our Kansans values
and our Kansans' preferences when it comes to ballot measures. And with that, I'll be happy to take any questions. All right, members,
you've heard an explanation. Any questions for the committee? Senator
Chair
Unverified
1:20:09
Tucker, are you recognized? Mr. Chairman, before we go any further, is there an amendment? Sorry. No, we don't have an amendment. Okay. Oh, maybe you engrossed it.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:20:22
Bill, you have, does Bill, you have, have my name on it? Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 326
1:20:26
Okay, mine didn't. Okay, thank you. I apologize. - We got it.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:20:30
- Thank you, sorry, Senator. - Senator Tucker, you're recognized. - So thank you, Mr. Chair. You answered some of my questions with your presentation, so it's the loophole just with the
ballot measures that we're closing because PACs and campaigns, so it's already prohibited. - Okay, so is the contribution limit for a ballot measure $10,000? -
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:20:50
No, so what we did was, because we were asking for an affirmation, we set it at $10,000. I will say it was probably a
little bit arbitrary, But what we didn't want was if my grandmother gave $100
to a ballot measure, I didn't want her to have to make an affirmation that she's not a foreign entity or didn't receive
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:21:06
from a foreign entity. There is no contribution limit for a ballot measure. Correct. Okay, so that's what, okay. Correct. All right, I'm tracking now. On page five, line 30. Just legislative question, what does that mean? To influence a ballot question or legislative question?
Speaker 335
1:21:29
Let's see if Josh, can you clarify that,
Speaker 336
1:21:35
can you clarify it, oh, can I ask Graham to come
Speaker 340
1:21:38
to the table? Yeah, come on up Graham. Thank you. Graham Sloan, Director of the Arkansas Ethics Commission. There's two types of ballot measures, which are questions presented to voters. One's a ballot question, and it gets on the ballot by circulating the initiative, a referendum
petition. And the legislative question is when a legislative body, it could be the General Assembly, Quorum Court, City Council, puts something on the ballot, so it's referred by a legislative body. Okay fair
Speaker 342
1:22:21
enough. Don't go anywhere just yet Mr. Sloan, may I?
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:22:25
So I was looking around for you, I didn't see you and there
you are so, but the enforcement, is the enforcement exclusively for the AG? Yes. Okay. I don't
want to put you on the spot Graham, I mean I agree in principle like we,
for candidates packs ballot measures it should it should there there should not be foreign influence i don't care if it's russia and china or england and france you know it should be um americans right but uh uh so do you the way that this has been structured we're sort of uh
paralleling over what we do for campaigns and packs already
Speaker 340
1:23:12
for ballot measures i think that is the intent of it The Ethics Commission, our jurisdiction ends at the state line.
And so, you know, if you've got a PAC in New York City that didn't register and made a contribution, they're probably going to ignore us. And then so, but, you know, to the extent that this is trying to keep foreign money out of ballot process, ballot, you know, the question process. You know, unless they're going to voluntarily come here, we can catch them inside the state, then, you know, there's really not much we can do.
Speaker 350
1:23:52
Okay. All right. Thank you, thank you. Thank
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:24:06
you, Senator. All right. Any other questions? All right, Senator Sullivan. So, an organization like the King Pod Center at the University of Arkansas, they are a foreign entity owned and operated. So, this would prevent a group like that from being engaged in the donations or impacting political actions.
That's what this does? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right. Any other questions, members? All right. I see no further questions. Representative, you were recognized to close your bill. Nothing, we're good. Make a motion, do pass. Got a motion to pass by Senator Hammer. See a second by Senator Sullivan. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none,
all in favor say aye. - Aye. - Opposed? Congratulations, your bill passes. - Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, committee. - All right.
Senator Johnston. All right, you've got three bills. You've got Senate Bill 617, 608, and 569. You let me know which one
you want to start with. Well, let's go in order then. We'll start with Senate Bill 569.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:25:30
Mark Johnson, State Senator, District 17. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee. This bill
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:25:37
simply really just does one thing. It says that the ballot title, make sure I
Speaker 360
1:25:53
brought the right language here, that the ballot title for an initiative,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:26:02
and we're talking about constitutional amendments here because this is a constitutional amendment by bill, and I hope everyone understands what that is. This would be ultimately a challenge to the Edgemont decision, which is already, I think, before the Supreme Court. And we had an opinion that Senator Dotson requested that the Attorney General determined through his staff that the provisions of the Edgemont decision in the early 1950s
were inappropriate based on more current case law and that the General Assembly indeed could, by two-thirds vote of both houses, amend any measure that had been passed by the voters. And I want to emphasize that doesn't include anything in the original corpus of the 1874 constitution, but anything that had been passed by the voters can be amended by two thirds vote of both houses. So that's the principle of this. That's in article five, section one. The purpose of this bill is simply to add a provision that says that the ballot title
for those initiated measures may not exceed 500 words. We're not talking about the full text, We're talking about the ballot title. This is a readability and a simplicity measure. It would, before I make a case for the 500 words, let me say that it also adds a provision that the General Assembly may by statute define a readability standard, which we have already done. The bill that we just passed, I'm sorry, the number of it escapes me,
but that came out of this committee, I think it's on the governor's desk now, but it was Representative Rose and I were sponsors. And it uses the Flesch-Kincaid readability standard at the eighth grade level. And you all probably remember that bill. But again, this amendment will make reference to that. And going back to the 500 words, I want to emphasize the entire Bill of Rights in our U.S. Constitution, the first 10 amendments is 482 words and I figured that if if our framers could put that much good
stuff in 482 words surely someone that was trying to communicate with our voters on something that's readable and understandable would be able to communicate the title of it in 500 words. So with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. All right, members, you've heard an
explanation. Any questions for the committee? Senator Tucker. Thank you,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:28:49
Mr. Chair. 100% of my concern with your bill.
Could you speak up just a bit, Mr. Chair? 100% of my questions and my concern about
your bill is about the legislature's ability to amend the state constitution, not about the subject matter of the bill itself. Okay. So the first point is in Edgemont, it says, you know, I'm not going to read the whole quote, but it says, it is inconceivable that in defining constitutional amendment as a measure, the purpose was to invest the General Assembly with power to repeal a constitutional amendment or to an amended amendment. You think that the Supreme Court was wrong in that decision? Yes, sir. I think they
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:29:27
were absolutely wrong. I think that the Attorney General's opinion, which I don't know if you've read it or not, points that out. I've talked to many brilliant constitutional lawyers, and I know if you want two different opinions, you get two different smart lawyers, and I don't, I respect your interpretation of it, but, and I'll go down this rat hole as far as you want to go, Senator Tucker, but we can have long conversations, but I'm going to try to be concise. I have studied the
history of Amendment 7, and remember that before that passed, the people had absolutely no ability to initiate any measures, and this was done a little over 100 years ago, but I believe that there was a safety valve that the General Assembly wanted to put in, so if something that was just plain bad policy or you know horrible wrong could be fixed with it and they put that two-thirds in extraordinary majority and and I think it was a good
policy you remember over a hundred years ago the most powerful political organization in the state was the Ku Klux Klan they could have probably got an initiative and got something on the ballot and passed it but the General Assembly could come back and say whoa whoa we we're gonna we're gonna we're the safety valve. We've got to protect the people from sort of a mob, so to speak. So, you know, so they couldn't, for example, do a constitutional amendment that we would secede from the union. I mean, that's an absurd example in 2025, but, you know, in 1920, it might not have been such an
absurd example. So I do believe that Edgemon was wrongly decided. Several people, including our former Senate counsel had pointed out to me that they did no justification in it. They just said that it's inconceivable, but they didn't show why it was inconceivable. And that's something that the AG's opinion, I think, addressed very carefully. The Andrews decision, which is the most recent one, basically says, I'm paraphrasing, that words mean things in the plain language of the Constitution.
When it says something, that's what it means. And to try to say, well, that really wasn't what they meant. It's inconceivable that they meant that. I think it was a wrong interpretation and I agree with the interpretation that General Griffin and his staff gave us. Okay, well. And again, we go to the Supreme Court, we'll
Speaker 369
1:31:59
get a definitive answer. Well, we got a
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:32:03
definitive answer in the Edgemont decision, correct? That's the way that the judicial process works.
I don't want to get into
Speaker 370
1:32:11
a jurisprudential debate with you, Senator
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:32:13
Johnson, because I still want Senator Filippo to talk to me later. Right, Mr. Chair? You're reading the room,
Clark. You're reading the room. But so I'm going to, we have a difference of opinion about what Article 5, Section 1 means. But let me ask you this separate question.
Do you think it's a good policy for the General Assembly to
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:32:46
amend the state constitution for amendments adopted by the people of Arkansas? Yes, Senator, with the extraordinary majority that Amendment 7 allows. I think a simple majority would not be a good thing, but I think two-thirds is a high enough bar to allow us to tweak and to modernize and to, frankly, fix something. You know, we make mistakes, too, and the people have been fooled, I think, in many referenda.
Gambling, marijuana, even the confusing issue, too, of last year, which a lot of people, pretty smart people, couldn't exactly figure out what it actually did. So I think this is a safety valve. I think it lets the General Assembly deal with that again with an extraordinary majority. So it's up to us as the legislature to determine when the people were
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:33:30
right or when they just were confused. - Yes, sir. - Okay, all right. - Let me say that, Senator,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:33:43
that you are one of the members of the General Assembly that I totally respect your opinion even when I disagree with
it and you make me think and I appreciate that. - All right,
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:33:59
thank you. - Thank you, Senator. All right, any other questions to the committee? Senator Sullivan, we're gonna ask for
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:34:12
an exception and a way for the legislature to override the will of
the people in an amendment, correct? No, sir. It implements an existing provision in the Arkansas Constitution, which by a controversial Supreme Court decision over 70 years ago said basically, ah, that constitutional provision doesn't really mean what it says.
And we have more recent cases that the Supreme Court has basically said the plain language says this, and so that's what it means. And let me cite one, Senator Sullivan. We passed a good amendment that said we're going to have a temporary half-cent sales tax to build four-lane roads. And someone sued and said, well, you're using that money on the 30-crossing project, and that's a six-lane road, so that's unconstitutional. And a lot of us said, that meant multi-lane highways, that meant freeways.
But someone sued for an illegal exaction and the Supreme Court ruled that the plain language of that amendment, I believe it was 98, meant exactly what it said. So yes, it does, we're going back to what was passed in Amendment 7 that says by two-thirds vote we can change it. that's existent this this bill doesn't change that but it uses that tool to allow us to amend an amendment we can't touch
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:35:41
the original corpus of the constitution it almost made me
forget my question you asked me if we were creating a new thing no we're using an old preface to the question yes so does this work in reverse in other words we are setting the legislature has a has a standard for overturning it does do the
people have an opportunity to overturn what we do is there a reverse mechanism
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:36:10
there? Yes sir and minute seven is where that is it lies it's if they can you might
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:36:16
recall there was an effort I guess a year or so go to by petition to overturn the LEARNS Act and they failed to get the adequate signatures, but there was a strong effort. They didn't like what we did and they were out circulating petitions to refer that to the voters. So yes sir, it cuts both ways.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:36:39
The last part of my question, you mentioned several times that things occur over time. If something is wrong, does it make any difference if it's wrong for
one day or one year or 10 years if it's wrong. What does the time passage have to do with whether something is right or
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:37:02
wrong? I think that, and I said something to Senator Tucker, and that was more of a general thing, but I said that Plessy v. Ferguson said that separate and unequal, or separate but equal is not, was good law. And in Brown, the Supreme Court ruled that no, separate was inherently and equal.
So it took, I don't know, what, 60 years or something to fix that one. And this is what I meant by how something could evolve. But when Andrew's case was decided and the Supreme Court basically said, look, it says these words exactly, and the plain language of the Constitution means what it says. Then I went to some smart people. One works here still. Steve Cook was the one, and he and I talked about this hours on end.
And he said, Edgemont, that's settled law. You can't do this. And so when Andrew's decision came in, I walked in Steve's office, and he said, Senator, I know why you're here. He says, you saw that Andrews decision. And I said, yeah. He goes, you may be on to something. And I believe that Andrews was arbitrarily done. I've talked to a former attorney general who actually said he thought it was legislating from the bench to overturn.
Edgbon was legislating from the bench because, again, the plain language says something to the contrary.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:38:37
I get that. I'm just, that's different. The question that I'm posing is that if it's settled law and then it's overturned, the passage of time doesn't make any difference whether it was overturned a year later or 10 years later. The fact that it was overturned, it was overturned. I agree with that,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:38:58
Senator. And again, for something to be overturned, there has to be litigation.
Someone files a lawsuit. Okay, thank you. I'm going to jump in just real quickly. It's 1145. I'm going to adjourn
this committee at 1230. We've got three bills people signed to speak against and two more people, you know, and two, if not three, more members waiting to write bills. So, members, berevity. Berevity, we have got to get through this because I'm adjourning this committee at 1230. Mr. Chairman, I thought
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:39:24
that we had established a policy that we weren't going to hear Senate bills and Senate committees after Tuesday of this week. Yeah, that was a light policy.
Speaker 379
1:39:34
Yeah, that was a guideline. Mr. Chairman, in respect to Senator Tucker, if I could say. - No, no,
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:39:42
no, move it on. Senator Dotson, you're recognized for a question. - Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Senator, I'll be brief. As far as, I think we have basically four things, I think you'll probably agree with this, but four things that are binding on people, on the public. You have constitution, you have statute, you have case law, and then you have rules and regulations
things like that, that carry the force in the way of the law. And I assume you would agree with that. In that instance, what is higher pecking order in that? Is the Constitution higher or a case law? Obviously Edgemont is currently the established case law that's been decided by judges 70 some odd years ago, but the Constitution, I think, supersedes that and is binding even on the Supreme Court. Yes, sir. And so, in your opinion, does the Constitution supersede a
potentially activist decision from 70 years ago? Absolutely, yes, sir. And so the current court could overturn that and be in line with the Constitution still?
Speaker 389
1:40:52
Absolutely, yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:40:55
sir. All right. Senator Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do we ever come back in the next session and even in a special session and change, make corrections to a bill, which is at that point a law that both houses passed,
the governor signed, and we say, whoa,
there was an error there that we need to really fix? Do
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:41:25
we ever do that? Yes, sir. I think of the cyber,
the crypto mining bill that 132 people voted for, and within a year we were all clamoring to come back and fix it. Let's be as brief
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:41:38
as possible, make the chair happy. Who do we represent, this branch of government? Who do we represent? We represent the people who elected us.
So if the people wanted something corrected, they've
got a choice of either going out to the Herculean effort of grassroots and doing it themselves or asking their representatives to do it. Yes, sir. So if we're changing something, we're not necessarily going against the people, but fixing something that people saw that details that weren't right. Am I correct? Yes, sir. So the--are you aware, and you may be, especially since you're around me, are you--well let me ask
you this, on the last, not the last casino amendments, but the ones that actually allowed the one in Jefferson County and would have allowed the one at Russellville, did the people vote for casinos or did they vote for all the details down in
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:42:46
the bill in the amendment? I would think that that was why we're sitting here on this because they voted for gambling, I think.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:42:55
I don't have any doubt because are you aware, and you may be,
are you aware that we cut the taxes for the two gambling entities in Arkansas in that amendment by $17 million each a year? Yes, sir. I was not aware until two weeks before the election, and
I represent one of those areas. uh do you know many people that know that no sir
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:43:20
but i think you're absolutely right and that's why 500 words would have to be concise and tell them what's
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:43:26
in it so almost no one knows what they voted for uh they won the casinos they got that but a lot of the other details they're not aware
i agree 100 and so sometimes when they become aware they want to change it and who do they come to us? Thank you.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:43:46
All right. Senator Payton. I move, do pass, and immediate consideration. So we've got, first
of all, is going to have the motion for immediate consideration. So we've got a motion for immediate consideration. It's not debatable. Do I see a second? Second by Senator Sullivan. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. All right. Next thing on the floor. I move for do pass. Got a motion do pass by Senator Payton. See a second by Senator Clark. Any discussion
on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations, your bill passes.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:44:18
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's correct. Do
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:44:22
you want me to run these other two?
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:44:29
I think they'll be quick. That's your call, Senator. Okay. Thank you, committee. Mr. Chairman, Senate Bill
608 is very simple. You either like it or you don't. We have an exception to our general way we run elections
in Arkansas where in some municipalities you can elect someone with less than a majority by if someone gets 40 percent of the vote plus one then they can be elected if they win by a particular margin over the person that finished second.
This basically returns us back to the days we used to have where if there's a, no
one gets a majority, the top two go into a runoff in a designated time. I think now it's four weeks later and that's all the bill does. It just says
if you're in, if you don't get a majority, you're in a runoff. All right, members,
you've heard an explanation of the bill. Any questions from the committee? Senator Dodson, recognize for a
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:45:25
question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Johnson, I don't see there's a house sponsor on this bill. I will
get one. I've been promised one, but I do not have it. We'll get it done. I know what I have to do. All right. Thank you. Senator Hammer, you're
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:45:41
recognized for a question. I'm not saying I'm opposed to the idea.
I'm just trying to think through it on the fly real quick. As far as the cost or increase in manpower, does it affect it in any way or what's the?
No, sir. Of course, it's, you know, now, I guess you could say that if you elect everyone by plurality,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:46:02
then you can avoid a runoff, and that might cost some money. But this is to make sure that you have majority rule at the municipal level. Okay, thanks.
Any other questions from the members? All right, seeing no further questions. Christy, don't have anybody sign up to speak for or against this. Senator, you're going to ask close for your bill? I'm close. Got a motion to do pass by Senator Clark. I see a second. Second by Senator Sullivan. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:46:33
none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations, your bill passes. Thank you, sir. And if we can do 617, it may even take less time. We're going to find out. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Mark Johnson, Senate District 17. Senate Bill 617 amends the Capital District Zoning Commission's authority
and adds to that the puts them in charge of the within a one-mile radius of the capital all streets, paths, bike lanes and right-of-ways and it specifically we did amend it to make to say that that doesn't include anything that's controlled by RDOT so if it's you know state highway or something RDOT has that's RDOT still has it but if it's otherwise if it's one of our streets roadways, bike paths, and right-of-ways. That's controlled by the Capital District
Zoning Commission which has the control over both the capital grounds around it and also the Governor's Mansion area. Senator Johnson, what brought this
bill about? Did somebody come to you with this?
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:47:37
Honestly, Mr. Chairman, these silly bike lanes on 7th Street and every time I drive by it and see the traffic, I have seen one bicycle since they put these things up, one bicycle. But I see a lot of people trying to make left turns into the Capitol grounds and have some near collisions because
you're trying to basically just have two lanes of traffic with this monument to bicycles taking its place. So this wouldn't say it changes. It just says the people that are in charge of this area can regulate that. Okay now I would just ask like sometimes cities get you
know federal grants you know if they do you know greenways they allow for a bicycle lane I get your aggravations with it I see the same thing but are you aware of any monies that the city of Little Rock has received or the state has received you know from the federal government or any other you know you know agency
that you know for you know for you know doing these bike lanes and if so would they be required to pay that money back if the Capital Zoning Commission
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:48:40
was to go and undo that. No, sir. And let me clarify that the federal government does have grants for that,
but they tend to allow local people to decide. For example, in my district in Conway, they have some wonderful bike paths and they're well thought out. But in most cases, they don't want you to, where they're having to compete with cars and set up a dangerous situation for the pedestrians, the motorists, and the bikers.
Also, I might add that this idea was brought to me by a Little Rock City official. Okay. All right, Senator Payton. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. So, obviously, we can see in the bill who you're giving the authority to. Who are we taking away from? The city of
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:49:21
Little Rock. Okay. Only in this one-mile radius of
the capital. Do you know how big a one-mile radius is? I mean,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:49:28
that's two miles diameter. Yes, sir. But
we have this area from here to the governor's mansion that has this additional layer of regulation,
and that's the Capital District Zoning
Commission. How much do they know about roads and traffic patterns? Probably as much or less than the city board of Little Rock.
I hate that bike lane. I come in that way. It used to be two lanes. But I don't think we need the Capital Zoning Commission handling a one-mile radius, which is a very significant part of the downtown area, crossing 630 for a wide area.
I think you need to narrow this down significantly.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:50:10
Well, and I like to think that that organization who has a mandate to protect the capital and its area would not be concerned about what happens on the other side of 630 as they are the things along 7th and 3rd and those streets. I don't think
they would abuse it, Senator. I think they'll do it with some measure of reason just like any entity that is charged with taking care. - Senator Tucker, you're recognized for a question.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:50:36
- Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to clarify, it would not only be taking authority from the city of Little Rock, it would also be the city of North Little Rock too, since we're less than a mile from the Arkansas River and one mile goes well into the city of North Little Rock, that the Capital Zoning Commission would be
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:50:52
controlling what's happening over in North Little Rock within a mile from here. I'm not so sure that that applies because the Capital District Zoning Commission has a specific thing about the radius, and I don't think... Which this changes by. Well, it does, but I don't think we are a mile from,
say, downtown North Little Rock. We would be a mile from, say,
the marina over there, but I just don't think they would abuse this. Senator Tucker, if you let me jump in. Senator Johnson, you're
not going to have the vote's fastest bill, So if you want to pull it
down, that's going to be your call. But if not, I can tell you which way this bill is getting ready to go. With respect and appreciation to the committee, I will pull this
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:51:27
bill down. That would be greatly appreciated. All right. Thank you all. All right. Representative McElhinney, you can come back up.
I appreciate Senator Johnson warming you all up. And if you'll introduce yourself and what bill are you going to be
running? This is House Bill 1683. House Bill 1683. Yes, sir. All right, go
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:52:05
ahead and introduce yourself for the record. You'll be recognized to proceed
with House Bill 1683. Okay, Representative Mindy Michael Linden, House District 10. This is House Bill 1683. It's a measure to ensure that Arkansas taxpayers do not support industries that are built on forced labor. This bill specifically prohibits governmental entities from procuring electric vehicles
and their components if they are manufactured using forced labor. It's not a hypothetical issue. It's happening right now. A significant portion of the world's cobalt, a mineral essential to electric vehicle batteries, is mined using children as young as four, according to our congressional commission. In the Congo, these children spend up to 12 hours a day in dangerous gravel fields or in perilous mine shops, not by choice, but because they are forced, because the demand for cobalt has skyrocketed. Likewise, in China, where over 60% of the world's lithium and cobalt are refined,
Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities are subjected to forced labor under state-imposed labor transport programs. These programs involve coercion, mass detentions, and constant surveillance, with workers being forced into mining and refining operations for critical minerals. I'm a firm believer in the free market. As an educated market, can and should regulate itself. But there are also some more lines that we should not cross. One of those lines is allowing children to be exploited for the sake of electric vehicle production. especially when ethical alternatives exist. Just as the diamond industry took steps to eliminate
blood diamonds, automakers are working to source minerals responsibly. Many leading manufacturers are shifting towards battery technologies that reduce or eliminate the need for cobalt. For example, Tesla uses a lithium-ion phosphate battery in some models which require no cobalt. General Motors is transitioning to a nickel-magnesium, excuse me, manganese, cobalt-aluminum, as well as the LFP battery chemistries which significantly reduce cobalt and Rivian is also investing in ethical sourcing and developing battery technologies that minimize the reliance
on cobalt. Federal guidelines already encourage the shift in order to get rebates by 2025 at least 60 percent of battery components must be manufactured or assembled in North America and critical minerals must be sourced from U.S. and free trade partner countries. So this transition is already underway. House Bill 1683 ensures that Arkansas leads by example. As legislators, we are entrusted with taxpayer dollars, and we have a duty to spend them wisely and ethically. This means ensuring that we do not fund industries that exploit and enslave children.
House Bill 1683 upholds Arkansas's commitment to human rights and moral responsibility. The Ottawa Alliance engaged extensively in discussions on this bill
and they remain neutral. The governor's office supports it. And with that, I'd be happy to take any questions. All right, let's try. question. Okay, define forced labor. I'm
going to start with these iPhones. I know
there are a lot of components are made in China and fought. I forget the industry, but it's, I mean, maybe they're paid, but they're like people jumping out of windows committing suicide. I've got an iPhone. So like, is it just, you know, slavery in the sense of like forced servitude and no payment
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:54:57
and no freedoms, no rights. You do what you're told. It is defined in here on page three, starting at line four, obtained by force, fraud, coercion, including threat of serious harm, physical restraint against any person, a scheme plan pattern intended to cause the person to believe the person did not perform the labor or services,
another person would suffer serious injury or harm, mean of abuse or threaten of abuse of law or legal process. And
you're confident that currently the Arkansas State Government doesn't procure any products in which any component is made, you know, what, you know,
is manufactured in a way that would fit the
Speaker 418
1:55:32
definition of forced labor. This is only talking about
Speaker 19
1:55:35
electric vehicles. But why, so let me get to the disk.
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:55:38
Why electric vehicles? So a couple of reasons. One, because it's different than your phone, for example, or
a computer. But forced labor. I want to get to like the forced labor component. I mean, like when you're making iPhones or electric vehicles or lithium batteries, I don't think the person who's in the
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:55:52
forced labor really makes the distinction. Correct. So a couple of things. This, honestly, is a stake in the sand. Electric vehicles require so much more of those essential minerals than a phone does or than a computer does. So it has a, this is driving.
okay if it's like it's not okay but it's a start and so it's not it's not all but it is a start to say let's stop doing this and it's at a position where we can do that because we have a few counties that have started to buy electric vehicles and so it's we can start by saying let's not perpetuate it but let's go ahead and start there and say let's not buy any that are made that way was there an industry that brought
you this I mean was this an idea that you came up with on your own? How did this idea originate? Sure. So
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:56:33
it came from a conference that I went to
and heard about this bill and heard about the ability to kind of say, let's stop this where it's starting. And I figure we're kind of ahead of that in Arkansas in terms of buying those electric vehicles as a governmental entity. And so if we can stop that, I figure it's a start. I guess where I'm getting
at, is this a way to like, I know that we've got apparently some pretty large deposits of lithium in South Arkansas. Correct. So, you know, and I have no idea, but is this just a roundabout way to, you know, to help out with that industry and using
this forced labor and servitude as this kind of, you know, backdoor? Is this really about forced labor? It
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:57:10
is truly about forced labor. It is also, I will say, just on a side note, it's also not about climate. So I'm not against electric vehicles, because that has been brought up before. This is truly about forced labor and saying, let's stop where we can where we can make a difference.
Speaker 223
1:57:24
Let's make a difference. Okay, fair enough. All right, Senator Sullivan,
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:57:27
we're going to ask for a question. So it refers to anyone who is found doing this. Who's doing the finding? Is
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:57:34
that a court order? So you, someone could report that, right? So if someone said, hey, I think that they're doing that,
they report that, and I believe that, as I recall, this goes through the Attorney General's office. So
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:57:44
is that a, when you're found, who's doing the finding? Is that a court? It would be a court, yes. That would be my, that is my understanding. And is there an appeal, oh, wait a minute now. So you're, that's your opinion that it's a court finding? - Well, if it's a. - I mean, it's not defined in the bill. It just says if they're found.
I don't know, is that us that finds them? But the next question, follow-up question, where's the appeal process here? So we're gonna be found by someone that we don't, is not defined, and then they're going to pay a fine, and there's no process for an appeal unless it's a court decision. But that's not defined here. So it will go through
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:58:33
the attorney general's office. And so I assume that any other way that you had a finding in any other appeal process--
Speaker 325
1:58:40
What does it say, the attorney general's office? I guess I missed it. Let me look. Let me see.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:59:21
Well, it does not say that in here. It doesn't say Attorney General's office in here. I mean, it says the state government should take steps to, but I just don't see any mechanism
far. All right. Let's you hold on that, Senator Sullivan. I'm going to ask Senator Tucker real quickly
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:59:45
for a question. Senator Tucker, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm looking at that definition of forced
labor on page three. Yeah. So it starts there on line four correct it goes down
through line 20 and there's there's four options for forced labor
and it's there's an or so it's any one of those qualifies as forced labor i'm reading that right correct yes so on line 16 it's the third option subdivision 2c there and so
if the if the service is not provided voluntarily by the worker it qualifies as forced labor
uh okay i just think um most of the work that i do as a lawyer is not done voluntarily right um so i i just think there's a ambiguity in the way that that i mean if you're being paid
Speaker 325
2:00:37
for your work then you're not doing it voluntarily i don't think that's how that's not how i read that says if
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
2:00:48
it's not offered or provided voluntarily by the worker, you are doing work, you are agreeing to do it, no one is forcing you to do that, right? So it is voluntary. So even though you do work as a lawyer, maybe you didn't want to voluntarily do it, but you're not choosing to not do it. So you are actually doing it
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:01:03
voluntarily. - Okay, I understand what you're saying. I think there's an ambiguity with the way that that's written.
Speaker 29
2:01:08
So just mentioning it, thank you. - Thank you.
- Thank you, Senator. All right, any other questions for the committee? All right, so you know for questions don't have anybody
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
2:01:27
signed up speak for against this representative you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, just to recall what we're doing here the point of this is to have HB 1683 helps Arkansas lead by example to be sure that we are spending our tax dollars wisely and ethically and we are not funding industries
that exploit and enslave children. And with that, I would ask for a motion.
Speaker 405
2:01:45
All right, members, we've got a motion to pass from Senator Dotson. Do I see a
second? All right, sorry, you're both fell for lack of a second. Thank you. Thank you,
Speaker 445
2:01:57
Chairman. All right. Representative Brown, come on down.
Speaker 446
2:02:11
Thank you, Mr. Chair. May I have Jamie Jones, please
join me at the table. Yep. Y'all introduce yourself, and then you're going to
Speaker 447
2:02:21
be running Carly. House Bill 1739. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Brown, House District 55. Jamie Jones,
Speaker 449
2:02:28
Arkansas Bar Association, and Friday Eldridge and Clark, if I may be heard. Great. All right. Go ahead and
Speaker 447
2:02:33
proceed with House Bill 1739. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm standing in for Senator Deese, who had some other bills this
Speaker 451
2:02:37
morning. I think that the committee had already heard this earlier in the week and had a question regarding the language at the very end of the bill,
which provided this act preempts a federal law. And the gist of that preemption, that federal law, which governs electronic materials as well, has a specific provision that says state law may preempt it if it cites this law and contains these provisions, which our bill does. But I have the expert here that can get a lot more into the weeds on that than I
Speaker 452
2:03:02
can. Thank you. Senator Sullivan, I wanted to make sure I had an accurate answer to your question. and so since I had not looked at that, I wanted to make sure to get a complete answer to your question, and that is that the federal law has what's called a reverse preemption clause,
which allows state law to have their own law under two circumstances. One is that you have to expressly mention that you have specific reference to e-sign, which is what this provision does, is have the specific reference to e-sign. And the second requirement is that the state has to have their own e-sign bill, which we do. That was the Electronic Transaction Act that was passed in 2001, and it's codified at 25-32-106.
So there's absolutely no conflict. All right. Members,
Speaker 44
2:03:52
you've heard an explanation of the bill. Senator Dotson, you're going to ask
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:03:58
for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was my question, actually. and so just to
just make 100% certain because the the situation I foresee is if that is ever reversed where they come back and say no you can't supersede and then we have a whole bunch of contracts and things like that that are out there you know that's five years from now and
for five years we've been doing it the wrong way it cannot invalidate any of the things that happen so if they make that change down the road those would still be grandfathered in so to speak so that hey we're operating under this this standard now we make this change everybody starts e-signing stuff and doing all that five years down the road they make a change and say okay we're superseding all these state laws and invalidating them the the things that happened in that period
of time, from when we pass this to then, will be grandfathered
Speaker 452
2:04:57
in. Yeah, that's not going to be a concern for you, Senator. And, you know, the E-Sign Act is actually the current act as it is right now. So this doesn't do anything to change Arkansas law. In fact, we're just being consistent with what Arkansas law is and what federal law is. So the federal law allows for the states to have their own E-Sign law, which this assembly did enact in 2001 and has been the law since 2001 and so this language is just
Speaker 455
2:05:27
consistent with Arkansas law and federal law. Any other questions
Speaker 44
2:05:35
for members? All right, see no further questions. I don't have advice
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:05:37
and I'll speak for this. Representative, you're recognized to close. I'm close. Appreciate a good vote. All right, members, what's the rule of the committee? Got a motion to
be passed by - Second by Senator Sullivan, second by Senator Tucker. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. - Opposed? - Congratulations, your bill passes. - I appreciate your support.
Speaker 203
2:05:59
- Members, seeing no further business coming before this committee,
Speaker 457
2:06:05
we are adjourned. - Was I the fastest bill? I tried to be. Was I the
Speaker 458
2:06:10
fastest bill? I tried. - The wrestling band, who we are.
Agenda
COME TO ORDER - Senator Scott Flippo
SB343 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING STATE-OWNED MOTOR VEHICLES; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC PROPERTY; AND TO AMEND THE AUTOMOBILE AND PICKUP TRUCK ACQUISITION ACT FOR THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.
SB241 J. Scott TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY ACT; AND TO GRANT PAID LEAVE TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES IN THE EVENT OF THE DEATH OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE'S FAMILY MEMBER OR CHILD.
HJR1018 Ray THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT.
HB1524 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BIDDING PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES.
HB1925 Beaty Jr. AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOTS; TO AMEND THE ABSENTEE BALLOT VOTER STATEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A WITNESS FOR THE SIGNATURE OF AN ABSENTEE VOTER STATEMENT.
SB569 M. Johnson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING BALLOT TITLES OF PROPOSED MEASURES; AND AMENDING THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 5, SECTION 1.
HB1706 McCollum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO PROHIBIT RANKED CHOICE VOTING.
SB608 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS FOR COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL OFFICERS.
HB1739 M. Brown TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIALS ACT.
SB617 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CAPITOL ZONING DISTRICT; AND TO AMEND THE ZONING AUTHORITY OF THE CAPITOL ZONING DISTRICT COMMISSION.
HB1683 McAlindon TO PROHIBIT THE PROCUREMENT BY A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY OF AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE OR A COMPONENT OF AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE THAT WAS MANUFACTURED IN WHOLE OR IN PART USING FORCED LABOR.
HB1837 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURE FOR MATTERS REFERRED TO VOTERS; AND TO BAN FOREIGN FUNDING FOR BALLOT MEASURES; TO AMEND PORTIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996.
HB1846 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS 2036 COMMISSION.
HB1949 Schulz TO ADD MEDICAL, EMERGENCY MEDICAL, AND AMBULANCE SERVICES TO THE LIST OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR PURPOSES OF PROCUREMENT.
HB1952 Hawk TO ASSIST THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATE ATHLETIC COMMISSION; TO PROVIDE FUNDING TO THE STATE ATHLETIC COMMISSION TO CONTINUE ITS MISSION TO PROMOTE A ROBUST, HEALTHY, AND SAFE COMBATIVE SPORTS INDUSTRY.
SB640 J. Dismang TO RECONSTITUTE THE STATE LIBRARY BOARD.
ADJOURNMENT
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS-SENATE, Apr 10, 2025 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Scott Flippo Chair
Unverified
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
Speaker 19
Senator John Payton Chair
Unverified
Speaker 29
Speaker 44
Speaker 47
Speaker 52
Speaker 53
Speaker 55
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Speaker 58
Speaker 76
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 86
Speaker 90
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Speaker 100
Speaker 102
Speaker 113
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
Speaker 135
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Speaker 147
Speaker 152
Speaker 153
Speaker 154
Speaker 88
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
Speaker 169
Speaker 132
Speaker 177
Speaker 91
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Speaker 187
Speaker 14
Speaker 194
Speaker 45
Speaker 206
Speaker 159
Speaker 191
Speaker 216
Speaker 223
Speaker 227
Speaker 188
Chair
Unverified
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 204
Speaker 71
Speaker 270
Speaker 273
Speaker 274
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 62
Speaker 292
Speaker 166
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
Speaker 326
Speaker 335
Speaker 336
Speaker 340
Speaker 342
Speaker 350
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 360
Speaker 369
Speaker 370
Speaker 382
Speaker 379
Speaker 389
Speaker 418
Speaker 325
Speaker 405
Speaker 445
Speaker 446
Speaker 447
Speaker 449
Speaker 451
Speaker 452
Speaker 455
Speaker 203
Speaker 457
Speaker 458