State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (54)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB12
· 6 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ions, your bill is passed. Uh, next up, we're going to have Senate Bill 12. I think Senator King is here to Present that bill.”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING … | B. King | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB516
Act 761
· 5 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…ARKANSAS CODE WHICH RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1914. SB516 Gilmore TO ALLOW A PERSON FILING AS A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFF…”
|
TO ALLOW A PERSON FILING AS A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE OF THE … | Gilmore | Notification that SB516 is now Act 761 |
|
SB443
Act 949
· 4 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “Thank you committee. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair, uh, Senate Bill 443, uh, we”
|
TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE STATE BOARD OF APPRAISERS, ABSTRACTERS, AND HOME INSPECTORS; TO … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB443 is now Act 949 |
|
SB489
Act 950
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…QUARTERS IN CERTAIN ENTITIES BASED ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S SEX. SB489 G. Leding TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE PLACEMENT OF…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE PLACEMENT OF A MONUMENT ON THE STATE CAPITOL GROUNDS … | G. Leding | Notification that SB489 is now Act 950 |
|
SB578
Act 766
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “Thank you, sir. I recognize the presenter bill. Senate Bill 578, Senator Hester. This is a complementary bill to the primar…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EARLY VOTING; AND TO ALLOW A COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION … | Hester | Notification that SB578 is now Act 766 |
|
HB1024
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1024 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; AND TO REPEAL THE LAW PROHIBITING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1028
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…S; AND TO REPEAL THE LAW PROHIBITING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. HB1028 A. Collins TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE LAW CONCERNING OBSCEN…”
|
TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE LAW CONCERNING OBSCENITY AND THE PROCESS FOR CHALLENGING MATERIALS INCLUDED … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1035
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ORITY GRANTED BY ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, § 19. HB1035 A. Collins TO CREATE THE ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 2…”
|
TO CREATE THE ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 2025; TO ALLOW ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION; TO … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1036
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MENT 51; AND TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE. HB1036 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO ALLOW VOTER REGISTRATION DURING EARLY VOTING AND … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1037
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1037 A. Collins AN ACT TO CREATE THE PREREGISTRATION TO VOTE ACT…”
|
AN ACT TO CREATE THE PREREGISTRATION TO VOTE ACT; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1038
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1038 A. Collins TO CREATE THE NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING ACT OF 2…”
|
TO CREATE THE NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING ACT OF 2025; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1039
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1039 A. Collins TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOT…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOTS; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1040
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EE BALLOTS; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS. HB1040 A. Collins TO CREATE THE WATER IN LINE ACT OF 2025; AND TO…”
|
TO CREATE THE WATER IN LINE ACT OF 2025; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1041
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1041 R. Scott Richardson TO PROHIBIT DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DE…”
|
TO PROHIBIT DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES IN ELECTION COMMUNICATIONS. | R. Scott Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1042
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RNING PENALTIES FOR MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES RELATED TO VOTING. HB1042 A. Collins TO CREATE THE DIRECT DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2025; TO R…”
|
TO CREATE THE DIRECT DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2025; TO REPEAL THE ENSURING ACCESS FOR ALL … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1043
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…PROHIBITING BOOK BANNING IN ORDER TO RECEIVE STATE FUNDING. HB1043 A. Collins TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING OF NONCANDID…”
|
TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING OF NONCANDIDATE EXPENDITURES PERTAINING TO APPELLATE JUDICIAL ELECTIONS; AND TO … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1058
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ield TO ESTABLISH GOOD FRIDAY AS AN OFFICIAL STATE HOLIDAY. HB1058 Unger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF I…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FOR PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; … | Unger | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1059
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1059 Unger TO PROVIDE THE OPTION FOR A FREE LIFETIME HUNTING AND…”
|
TO PROVIDE THE OPTION FOR A FREE LIFETIME HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSE TO A COMMERCIAL … | Unger | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1069
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENTS. HB1069 S. Meeks TO OBSERVE STANDARD TIME YEAR ROUND IN ARKANSAS; A…”
|
TO OBSERVE STANDARD TIME YEAR ROUND IN ARKANSAS; AND TO ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME IN … | S. Meeks | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1078
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…PROVIDES CERTAIN INFORMATION RELATED TO HUMAN TRAFFICKING. HB1078 Long TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS; AND…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR A RUNOFF ELECTION FOR … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1162
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO ADOPT NEW LAWS CONCERNING APPELLATE JUDICIAL CAMPAIGNS. HB1162 Duffield TO ESTABLISH GOOD FRIDAY AS AN OFFICIAL STATE HOLI…”
|
TO ESTABLISH GOOD FRIDAY AS AN OFFICIAL STATE HOLIDAY. | Duffield | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1281
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1281 McAlindon TO AMEND REPORTING FOR A CANDIDATE FOR CERTAIN MU…”
|
TO AMEND REPORTING FOR A CANDIDATE FOR CERTAIN MUNICIPAL OFFICES AND FOR COUNTY OFFICE; AND … | McAlindon | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1415
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E ARKANSAS CODE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996. HB1415 L. Johnson TO REQUIRE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO RESPOND TO A…”
|
TO REQUIRE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO RESPOND TO A REQUEST FOR A FIRE INQUIRY. | L. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1459
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1459 L. Johnson CONCERNING RECURRING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GE…”
|
CONCERNING RECURRING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. | L. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1461
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1461 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE EVALUATION OF NE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE EVALUATION OF NECESSITY OF VARIOUS COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS. | L. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1494
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1494 Hawk TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS GUIDANCE OUT OF THE DARKNESS AC…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS GUIDANCE OUT OF THE DARKNESS ACT; AND TO REQUIRE STATE AGENCIES … | Hawk | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1614
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1614 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATIONS RELATED…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRANT PROGRAMS. | Lundstrum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1621
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1621 Wardlaw TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO EXEMPT PERSONAL INFORMATION OF … | Wardlaw | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1631
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1631 Wardlaw TO ADDRESS THE ISSUANCE OF HUNTING AND FISHING LICE…”
|
TO ADDRESS THE ISSUANCE OF HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENTS. | Wardlaw | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1667
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AND THE STATE LIBRARY BOARD TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. HB1667 Bentley TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | Bentley | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1720
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RKANSAS; AND TO ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME IN ARKANSAS. HB1720 Vaught TO CREATE THE BABIES AT WORK ACT; TO ALLOW STATE AGE…”
|
TO CREATE THE BABIES AT WORK ACT; TO ALLOW STATE AGENCIES TO PERMIT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES … | Vaught | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1753
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…DIANS TO BRING THEIR INFANTS SIX MONTHS OR YOUNGER TO WORK. HB1753 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO OPT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO OPT-OUT OF THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1769
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…UNDER THE FREEDOM OF Page 3 of 4 INFORMATION ACT OF 1967. HB1769 Barnett CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER STANDARDS; AND T…”
|
CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER STANDARDS; AND TO REQUIRE A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION OR ASSESSMENT TO BECOME … | Barnett | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1773
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…END PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, § 5. HB1773 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR BA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR BALLOT QUESTION COMMITTEES AND LEGISLATIVE QUESTION COMMITTEES. | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1849
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES IN ELECTION Richardson COMMUNICATIONS. HB1849 Gramlich TO ALLOW FOR THE CROSS DEPUTIZATION OF MUNICIPAL,…”
|
TO ALLOW FOR THE CROSS DEPUTIZATION OF MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, STATE, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ON … | Gramlich | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1878
Act 978
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EMENT ON FEDERALLY-RECOGNIZED TRIBAL LAND WITHIN THE STATE. HB1878 McGruder TO ENSURE EARLY VOTING ACCESS FOR ARKANSANS RESIDI…”
|
TO ENSURE EARLY VOTING ACCESS FOR ARKANSANS RESIDING IN POPULATION CENTERS; AND TO REQUIRE A … | McGruder | Notification that HB1878 is now Act 978 |
|
HB1883
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ERS TO CONDUCT EARLY VOTING IN A CITY IN CERTAIN INSTANCES. HB1883 Long TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1884
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF ELECTRONIC DATA AND METADATA. HB1884 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MARKING AND COUNTING O…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MARKING AND COUNTING OF PAPER BALLOTS. | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1973
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E LAW CONCERNING THE MARKING AND COUNTING OF PAPER BALLOTS. HB1973 B. McKenzie TO PROVIDE THAT A GOVERNMENTAL BODY SHALL NOT U…”
|
TO PROVIDE THAT A GOVERNMENTAL BODY SHALL NOT USE STATE OR LOCAL FUNDS TO ENTER … | B. McKenzie | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB184
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EVALUATION OF NECESSITY OF VARIOUS COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS. SB184 D. Sullivan TO TRANSFER THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ARKANS…”
|
TO TRANSFER THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ARKANSAS EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION COMMISSION AND THE STATE … | D. Sullivan | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB376
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IONS REGARDING REDISTRICTING BY THE BOARD OF APPORTIONMENT. SB376 A. Clark TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; A…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | A. Clark | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB439
Act 737
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E LAW CONCERNING LOCAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM PETITIONS. SB439 Irvin TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMEN…”
|
TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND LICENSING; AND … | Irvin | Notification that SB439 is now Act 737 |
|
SB445
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB445 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE LICENSURE OF ELEC…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE LICENSURE OF ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS. | K. Hammer | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB471
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE LAW CONCERNING THE LICENSURE OF ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS. SB471 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CANDIDATES FOR NONPART…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CANDIDATES FOR NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS; AND TO ALLOW CERTAIN CANDIDATES FOR … | A. Clark | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB486
Act 955
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AND THE STATE EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFIT ADVISORY COMMISSION. SB486 B. Johnson CONCERNING SAFETY AND PRIVACY IN CERTAIN ENTITIE…”
|
CONCERNING SAFETY AND PRIVACY IN CERTAIN ENTITIES; AND CONCERNING THE DESIGNATION OF MULTI-OCCUPANCY RESTROOMS, CHANGING … | B. Johnson | Notification that SB486 is now Act 955 |
|
SB491
Act 956
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB491 K. Hammer TO REQUIRE A VENDOR THAT CONTRACTS WITH THE OFFIC…”
|
TO REQUIRE A VENDOR THAT CONTRACTS WITH THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION TO SUBMIT DATA FOR … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB491 is now Act 956 |
|
SB508
Act 756
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ICATION BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR; TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB508 Irvin TO AMEND THE FREQUENCY OF PAYMENT OF A STIPEND FOR CE…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREQUENCY OF PAYMENT OF A STIPEND FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC … | Irvin | Notification that SB508 is now Act 756 |
|
SB521
Act 748
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…F THE CHARLESTON AND FAYETTEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN 1954. SB521 B. Davis TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING REIMBURSEMENT; AND TO EXTEND THE TIME PERIOD … | B. Davis | Notification that SB521 is now Act 748 |
|
SB536
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…COMPLETION OF TRAINING FOR WHICH REIMBURSEMENT IS REQUIRED. SB536 D. Sullivan TO ABOLISH AND TRANSFER THE ARKANSAS STATE LIBR…”
|
TO ABOLISH AND TRANSFER THE ARKANSAS STATE LIBRARY AND THE STATE LIBRARY BOARD; AND TO … | D. Sullivan | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB551
Act 764
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB551 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CANVASSING FOR A PETI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CANVASSING FOR A PETITION FOR A LOCAL OPTION ELECTION. | K. Hammer | Notification that SB551 is now Act 764 |
|
SB565
Act 936
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB565 Flippo TO ALLOW PROCUREMENT CERTIFICATIONS TO BE COMBINED;…”
|
TO ALLOW PROCUREMENT CERTIFICATIONS TO BE COMBINED; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE REPRESENTATION IN … | Flippo | Notification that SB565 is now Act 936 |
|
SB570
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB570 J. Dotson TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP O…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE. | J. Dotson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB584
Act 768
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB584 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LOCAL INITIATIVE AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LOCAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM PETITIONS. | K. Hammer | Notification that SB584 is now Act 768 |
|
SB613
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 04/08/2025 @ 9:07 PM) Added SB613 House Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs…”
|
TO CREATE AN ELECTION PROCEDURE TO DETERMINE FLUORIDATION OF A PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM. | C. Penzo | Died in House 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
will be 443. Senator Debrun. Representative Rose, are
Speaker 5
0:21
you ready for 443? Please identify yourself for the
committee and you'll be good to go.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
0:50
Thank you, committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senate Bill 443, we passed this
out of here last week and went to the House floor, had one or two concerns maybe when we got to the vote and spoke with some members after the fact and made an amendment. We took the major area of concern, which was the expanding a statute of limitations from one year to three. The amendment's been engrossed. We moved that back to how it was,
which was the one-year statute of limitations. Everything else in the bill is the same. I don't want to belabor the point. Open any questions, appreciate a good vote. - Seeing no questions from
the committee. Are there anybody to speak for or against the bill? No? Would anyone like to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none, you're good to close for your bill. Thank you. Just
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:49
want to reiterate, we made the amendments based on the concerns of committee members, House members, industry leaders, and believe it's a good bill.
I'm closed and make a motion. Do pass. We
have a motion. Do pass on the table. Is there any discussion on the motion? Representative Hawke.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:07
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to commend Representative Rose for working on this because on the House floor, we did have discussion, and he corrected everything
that needed to be corrected. So I'm going to be voting yes on this, and I would encourage everybody else to do the same. Seeing
no other comments, we have a motion on the table.
Do pass, is that do pass? Not in a minute,
just do pass. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations, Representative Rhodes, your bill
is passed. Thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you, committee. Next up, we have Senate Bill 516. Please identify yourself with the committee, and you are good to go. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
3:02
State Representative David Ray, District 69, Senate Bill 516, I apologize in advance. This is the bill we've passed twice already through this committee. This is the way we deal with ballot titles for certain judicial positions that are appointed. When we found out that we left out a previous portion of the code, Senator Gilmore and I filed identical bills, and so his made it over here quicker than mine made it over there,
so that's what this is. I'm happy to take any questions. Are
there any questions? Do we have anybody to speak for or against the bill? No to sign up to speak for or against the bill, is there anyone in the group that would like to speak either for or against the bill? Seeing none, you are recognized to close for your bill. I am closed for
Representative David Ray
Unverified
3:57
the bill and I make a motion to do pass. All
right, we have a motion to do pass, is there any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. All right, congratulations, your bill's passed. If you'll give me just a second, we'll keep this thing going.
Representative Clowney, are you prepared to present Senate Bill 489? Senator Letting wanted to present that, so if I can just get him
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
5:02
over here when the next bill uh comes up if you can hear one more i'll be ready to hear it all right thank you
you're going to start on 570. 578 please identify yourself for the committee and uh you're good to go Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
5:37
Thank you, Committee. Jeremy Wooldridge, District 1. Am I recognized?
Thank you, sir. I recognize the presenter bill. Senate Bill 578, Senator Hester. This is a complementary bill to the primary bill that I ran a couple of weeks ago with Senator Hester. And basically what this does is puts an inclement weather provision into law. So it says basically that with unanimous support of the election commissioners in the county, so not a partisan issue with both sides of the election commissioners, that they can make the decision based on inclement weather to close all of the early voting precincts
that are outlined in the counties, but they have to keep one open in the county seat to allow voting to continue. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Representative Collins,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
6:35
you're recognized for a question. Can you
tell me about why this is needed? Was there a specific incident that gave rise to this? I can't speak
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
6:43
specifically to the incident. I can have someone from the Association of Counties come up that can probably give you some specific detail if that's.
Speaker 48
6:51
Yeah, that might be good. Sure. I'm just interested in that. All
right. Please identify yourself for the committee. While she's
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
6:59
coming up, I do want to add some context. So, the election commissioners and the clerks that I visited with when we were working on the primary bill, this was their concern about moving to a March primary because that puts the early voting window, obviously, into what we consider to have potentially inclement weather. And I think previously on the presidential election years, they've had this issue happen
where they've had poll workers, election workers that have fallen trying to get to the polls, to work the polls, and they're trying to minimize the need for staff on site is my
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
7:35
understanding, but I'll let the association speak in depth to that. That's correct. This is in response to moving all of the primaries to March because early voting does take place in February when we typically have most ice and snow.
Although if it were in May right now, we would be having tornadoes and floods. So either way, this is good. We're still keeping an early polling location open. It does take a unanimous vote. And I think you stated the reasons very well. We have had slip and falls, and staffing is the big thing. Because if you have every early voting site open, you have to have the bare minimum number of poll workers at all of those. But the
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
8:18
intent, and thank you, the intent here is to capture snow and ice and maybe extreme weather, if not rain.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
8:25
Inclement weather, yes. Dangerous inclement weather. That's why it would take a unanimous vote by everyone involved to ever get to
this point or enact this legislation. Okay. Thank you. Seeing no other questions, we
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
8:41
have no one that signed up for or against the bill. Is there anyone who would like
to pick for or against the bill? Seeing none, you're good to close for your
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
8:51
bill. Mr. Chairman, I'm closed and I make a motion do pass. We have a motion to pass.
Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations, your bill is passed. Next up, we're going to have Senate Bill 12. I think Senator King is here to present that bill. Please identify yourself for the committee and you're good
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
9:37
to go. Brian King, State Senator, District 28.
Proceeding. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Ministers of Committee. Senate bill 12 is
about I can tell you that 20 I don't know 20 plus years ago I served on as a election commissioner as a minority Republican on we were tasked with at least drawing county lines and then we have the board of apportionment which as we know draws legislative lines the board of apportionments made up the
governor attorney general and the secretary of state so basically what's happened over the years and as somebody that's been a former election commissioner and that is actually busted out voter fraud here in Arkansas not just talked about it actually done it experienced among elections been involved in court cases even almost for federal court cases I view gerrymandering the drawing of districts no different than trying to steal an election when you have members manipulating districts to specifically
draw for their own intentional purposes. And the reality is the danger of that is that that impacts the next 10 years. And I can think about my former Senate colleague Linda Collins who had her districts juremandered to try and beat her as a state rep and as a state senator. Those impact our districts and they impacted for 10 years. If you have a certain location drawn out of a district just trying to specifically beat somebody. And I've seen it on Democrat side, Senate or Republican side, gerrymandering happens with both parties. And I believe that Sunshine is
the best disinfectant to backroom deals. This last time in the drawing of the districts, lobbyists were hired to help draw the districts. So as a legislator, you have to go in. If you want to talk about a district, then you have to go to the governor or a lobbyist. and they are the influencers in where you are drawing these districts. These things, even pieces can be moved, and it's like a rudder on a ship.
You know, you could have a big cruise ship, but the small rudder under the water can do it. What this would basically do is make it where the communication with the Board of Apportionment is out in front in the public, in FOIA. No different than some of the FOIA laws that have already been passed through here, And the reason that we need the extra scrutiny is because it will impact votes for 10 years. It could impact any vote. We have votes that pass by one vote in the Senate or the House or committee. So that can actually impact a lot of other votes for 10 years.
It can actually disproportionately represent. There's towns that were drawn in a district in the past that the senator never even went to that town because they didn't have to. So those people lost representation for 10 years, and that just shouldn't be right. This is just disinfected. It brings sunshine. It brings open transparency to it. It does not limit free speech, as some of the critics want to say. If you want to talk about limiting free speech, you know, our bodies down here limit free speech a lot.
When we limit testimony, we can have people show up to testify, and then they're not allowed to testify. You know, this just brings transparency out here, much like a lot of the disclosure bills that I tried to pass in the past. They're all in Medicaid when legislators were hiding their ties to Medicaid entities. And this just brings disclosure out there, and I'm happy to answer any question. Representative
Wright, you're recognized for our questions.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
13:26
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator King, you mentioned voter fraud. This bill doesn't have anything
to do with voter fraud. This bill has to do with the Board of Apportionment, which draws lines for the various districts, legislative districts. Is there something in the bill that I'm missing that deals specifically with voter fraud? Yes. When you have
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
13:49
voter fraud, just say in the Hudson-Hallum case where they were destroying ballots, if you have voter fraud in case of Republicans when the same thing happened in Newton County years ago,
that determines the outcome of the election. If you draw districts, as I've mentioned, the thing of Senator Collins, Senator Collins would still be senator today had her district not been juremandered. So it absolutely influenced and manipulated election, the same way destroying ballots are. So obviously, yeah, when the districts are drawn specifically to determine an outcome, it's no different than the method of voter fraud of destroying a ballot. It's about influencing and manipulating instead of having
a fair and equal upfront process.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
14:33
But you know that no one draws their own district lines. We draw the lines for the congressional districts and the board of apportionment draws the lines
Speaker 65
14:42
for the legislative districts. That is, they do do that, but this
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
14:47
would make it where a governor or anybody to influence your decision wouldn't purposely manipulate. It would bring it out transparency. Had we had transparency happen, we had the town of Alpena, for example, a town of less than 400 people that had three state centers and two state reps. It was specifically drawn to that.
You had other situations where districts like Linda Collins that have been drawn to produce results. This just brings it out in the public. And if you're going to make a decision, much like we make a decision in a jury trial, if you've ever served on a jury, well, then it's presented based your decision on determining that is based on the
Representative David Ray
Unverified
15:28
evidence or whatever is presented. You mentioned in your presentation you said people lost representation in the last round of redistricting or redrawing the lines or something like that.
So what do you mean by that? Because everybody has a representative and everybody has a senator. Who that individual representative or senator is may change based on the redrawing of the lines, but nobody loses representation. The idea that
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
15:54
if you draw a town, as I mentioned in Senator Collins' case, if I mentioned a town of Alpena, if I mentioned a town in Green Forest, that is drawn in another district, that senator never visited, never returned phone calls to that small town, never had any interaction to these little sprigs and spragglers out there that they don't have to pay attention to.
So, yeah, no, they did not, when a senator doesn't return phone calls, never made one visit to their, we had representatives never represent a part of a county because it was only a sprig and a spraggler and a small part of it. So, no, they feel like they did not have representation when their senator or rep did not show up, did not return phone calls, because it made no impact in his election. You know, with the technology today, with drawing districts, it's not like the old days that I can remember
where it took a lot of paperwork and figuring out, and it still happened. But now, with technology, an eighth-grade civics class could look and use it to draw districts in continuous lines, not fork districts up for a specific political purpose to determine an outcome. Yeah. So, last question, and
Representative David Ray
Unverified
17:05
I'll move on. But, I mean, are you aware that the main impact of this bill would basically be to empower Democrat lawyers at places like the DNC and the DCCC to engage in lawfare against our state so that they would end up having the courts redraw lines to elect more Democrats to Congress?
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
17:24
That is, I want the districts to be drawn fairly. I came from an area when I was a Republican leader, when it was a super majority down here, Representative Ray. I was a Republican chairman back before many people were down here, were even elected. Representative Dan Greenberg and I, if you want to talk about Republicanism, former Representative Dan Greenberg and I filed independent redistricting things to just draw the lines fairly. That's all we wanted then. We have never changed the standard. I want the lines drawn fairly where people can have fair representation.
If you do not draw the district's line first, and it's done manipulative, If it's done with lobbyists and back doors, and it's done in secrecy and backroom deals, then how can you trust the process going forward? I don't know. Representative Dan Greenberg and I still believe in independent redistricting that can make fair determinations for the people. I had the same standard of wanting fairness, however that turns out. And the way this state has changed everything, Representative Ray, there's almost no way that it can—the congressional redistricting is the only way.
I want it fair. I wanted it fair when Democrats were doing it. I want it fair. I don't want lobbyists and backroom deals influencing how our districts are drawn.
Speaker 73
18:47
Mr. Gray, are you finished? Representative Rose. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
18:53
Chair. Senator King, thanks for joining us today, presenting this. I had a question. You mentioned that you were here long before a lot of the folks who are here now, such as myself.
And I didn't know Representative or Senator Collins while they were in office. And you're saying that because she lost, that that district was gerrymandered. I'm just curious how you're defining that. Is it gerrymandering simply because an incumbent doesn't retain their seat? How do we know that that particular district, since it's the one you brought up, was gerrymandered? When
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
19:27
you take pieces, these sprigs and spragglers pop up, and you take one piece and move it to another piece.
Former Representative Linda Collins was a Democrat at the time. The governor gerrymandered her district, rigged it to try to beat her, accomplished that. They also did the Senate district at the same time, so we ran the Senate. It was disproportionately put in another district, and we have districts where Representative Bentley is here, is from the River Valley. The River Valley was drawn almost to the Missouri line. So how do you have the Ozark Mountains and the gerrymandering other than you want a predetermined result to try and happen?
And that's exactly what happened. You take pieces and things, you can change elections where a plus turns into a minus just
by changing one little piece. So if a district's redrawn and the incumbent retains the seat, you wouldn't consider gerrymandering that? My position has been
the same with Democrats and Republicans that we need transparency in the process. Whether Democrats are in control, Republicans or whoever, and the districts need to be drawn fairly above board without lobbyist influence. We talk about does all the time. Then why did we have our tax dollars paid to actual lobbyists to help influence and draw the districts?
That is the complete waste of hard-to-earned taxpayer money. That process needs to be disinfected, and we need it open and transparent. I have not changed one bit from being a Republican when there were literally almost no Republicans down here. We need a fair, transparent process
where the districts are drawn fairly. Same thing Representative Greenberg, former Republican, had. We have not changed. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Representative Mark D. McElroy
Unverified
21:15
Representative McElroy. you Senator King for bringing this bill. I was redistricted and my district went from Gould to the Louisiana line. I was the Shea County judge for 20 years. They split the Shea County up three ways and put a circle around my house and sent me to 34 miles from Memphis.
And I understand gerrymandering. And the governor, Hutchinson's lawyer, called me the day before the districts were revealed. And he said, hey, the governor wants to tell you that he's sorry for your district. I thought, that don't sound good, does it? But I'm going to tell you, it happens. And they put me in there running against two incumbents, but I still won.
But it was surely hard. And I think this is a good bill, don't you?
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
22:25
Absolutely. It would just bring the process where people wouldn't cowardly try to manipulate districts and bring it out. It's like our jury system would crumble if we do not have a fair process where everything is above board. If jurors are allowed to go outside the court system and hire lobbyists or go to get evidence, this just brings it to there. And this idea that it's limiting free speech from our body, which limits free speech all the time.
We limit debate. People show up to testify. This would allow them to be able to have the evidence where they could not cowardly go behind. And it would allow every representative. And let me say the biggest thing about this bill. With the new term limits and the restructures and the resetting, it will not impact any about our district. We can set forth a clean process, above board process, to try and draw the district lines fairly. I don't want them, I still have the same standard or want it fair. This cowardly way of manipulating, whether it's a Republican or Democrat, it quite frankly is fraud.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
23:30
Thank you, sir. Representative Wartlaw. Thank you. I've read your bill like 10 times. It's easy to read because it's not very long. Nowhere in here does it limit who, so if I remember right, when Governor Hutchison and Thurston and I don't remember who the Attorney General was at that time now all of a sudden, but who? Rutledge. Rutledge. They did appoint some lobbyists to their board, and you keep referring to that, but nowhere in this bill does prevent that from happening.
So you keep saying that over and over again, but where in the
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
24:06
bill can you point out to me you're preventing that? Because when you bring sunshine, the lobbyist will run, as they do, in the back doors. So where is sunshine at? I would say by having everything open and bringing it out from the closed doors will bring a different situation, much like I equated it to the jury situation, much like me and Representative Miller several years ago ran Medicaid disclosure bills
down here. But what I'm trying to tell you is I'm asking the questions, and you're in our committee.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
24:36
Yeah. I suffered the same redistricting problems that Representative McElroy did. I ended up with part of that Deshaies County piece when I'd represented a district to the west my whole career. And I understand what it's like to run a new district, because I did four years ago. And I wasn't happy about who was on that committee. Probably, I guess, like you're not happy. We found something you and I can finally agree to. But what I'm reading here doesn't do what you're saying. And if it did, I'd probably be 100% supportive of it. But it doesn't.
It doesn't kick those people off the committee. It allows them to be on there. All this does, it says you're going to see
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
25:15
what they say. They're already having public meetings. And as I mentioned before, if we had Medicaid disclosure
bills, we would have known about all the Medicaid fraud and convictions. Jeremy Hutchison would not. When you have disclosure and you have open and transparent, The back room deals, the votes, trading, all that ends.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
25:31
Mr. Chair, point of order. What's your point of order? He's talking about another bill and not his bill, and it's ridiculous.
Please keep your statements to the bill that we're in
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
25:49
front of the committee right now. I just say, when we have an open, transparent process, we end the back room deals, all that stuff stops. And if it does happen, it's out in front of people the way it should be. These votes will impact for 10 years,
and whenever you have disclosure and disinfectant and sunshine, then these things run away.
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
26:15
Thank you. Representative Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Once again, you keep referring to lobbyists. When I went in at the Secretary of State's office and talked to them about my area, my district, and the redistricting there, there was not a lobbyist there. Can you tell me who the lobbyists were that they
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
26:41
hired? Yes, if you look at it, it was, I believe, Richard Bearden was hired.
I believe Red Hatcher had some capacity with Governor Hutchison, and I think some other entities had. But I know of at least one lobbyist that was hired with Taxpayer Donald. Follow-up? Go ahead. And what was
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
27:02
their role? You would have to ask
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
27:05
them. I've never, as I've said, as somebody that's been around and been around in district drawing lines, now with the technology today, an eighth grade civics class can draw with the technology today. It was a total waste of money.
It was an ethical breach, I think, to hire lobbyists to help draw a district with taxpayer money. And I think that it's easy to draw districts today with the technology.
It was not needed. Thank you. Next, we
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
27:38
have Representative Hawk. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, I mean, I like
the concept of the bill. I do, and I think I'm with Representative Wardlaw in the fact that I'm not seeing where we can fix this problem in the bill.
I understand what you're saying. I really do. My question is, I wasn't around when the redistricting happened. Was there any court cases of fraud, or was there anything publicly that I don't know about? Could you fill me in on that that would bring this to light? I wasn't here, so I don't know if there was anything like that, that we knew of fraud going on when that was happening. Yeah,
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
28:19
and I think that's the big issue here, that when you have transparency and you have recorded conversations
and you have actual evidence presented, much like a jury trial, then you're able to have fraud. As somebody that's been down here that we've had a horrible list of legislators that are either in prison now or have been in prison, and agency people had you had recorded and a lot of times they were caught in doing things they shouldn't have in the GIF scandals through FOIA. And that's what brings all this evidence out to everybody when they're making their determination. So it would actually make it a cleaner, transparent process and you're actually able to either stop fraud by them not doing it
or you're able to catch them. When you don't have those things, it is much harder to do that. FOIA allowed citizens and authorities to be able to get documents of FOIA to be able to have convictions. So transparency above board, much like in a jury trial, brings out where you can stop corruption. Now, and once
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
29:22
again, I'm just asking because I wasn't here, but from my understanding from hearing from others, those meetings were public though, correct?
Speaker 79
29:31
No. Oh, they weren't. Okay. No. Okay. Have you talked to the FOIA task force about this bill? I think they may have something to say. I don't know, but they support the bill. Okay, thank
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
29:47
you. Okay, next we have Representative Warlaw. I request to hear from the AG's office if possible. Is
AG's office here? Yes, sir. Please identify yourself for the committee and you're good to go.
Speaker 106
30:06
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Alex Benton, Attorney General's Office.
Speaker 108
30:11
I believe the concerns that our office have are purely constitutional concerns under the First Amendment. I believe I've spoken with this with Senator King. I think just at the end of the day we disagree. But our concerns are that this bill, as currently written, intent about what this bill may or may not actually accomplish aside, there are First Amendment concerns as it pertains to compelling specific speech, content-based restrictions on speech, and time, place, and manner restrictions on speech.
This bill would not survive strict scrutiny if a court is looking at it because specifically it talks about requiring the members of the board of apportionment, if they receive any oral communications, to tell the speaker that communications, that they must be written electronic or oral and that they have to take all reasonable steps to remove him or herself from the oral communication.
So if any of the members of the Board of Apportionment are at an event and somebody comes up to them and wants to speak to them about anything regarding their duties under the Board of Apportionment, this bill would unconstitutionally require them to take specific steps to say specific things and then to direct a member or a citizen specifically to reduce their communications either to writing or to say you can only talk to me about this in a board meeting.
As a matter of policy, I understand the intent behind it, but as it's currently written, that's blatantly unconstitutional. Additionally, the time, place, and manner restrictions about the speech, I mean, there are FOIA protections that already encompass the communications and how they must occur under the board. And so those FOIA requirements would apply already, so requiring any member to not just
affirmatively say something, but then to have time, place, manner, restrictions, content-based restrictions on speech, and compelled speech are three distinct constitutional First Amendment fatal flaws in this bill. Representative Warlaw, do
you have any? Yes. So what you're
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
32:52
saying is they had a public meeting in Monticello last time. I remember it very blatantly because I went and members of the city were there.
Quite a few folks showed up and spoke. But after the meeting was over and those members of the board apportionment walked through the crowd, they would not be able to have casual conversations from the public if the
words district or my state rep or my senator came up, correct? That's correct.
Speaker 108
33:19
And this bill would also require the person who receives this communication from a citizen to then say, you have to put this in writing, send it to me, or you must wait until we meet again next to be able to tell me any of this.
And then they must physically remove themselves from the conversation. Am
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
33:41
I okay? Go ahead. So that's actually great, because in the meeting, they asked for people to submit written comments if they didn't want to speak on the mic. But what you're saying is they couldn't even have those conversations without having to put it in writing, wait to another meeting. And those meetings took place basically in congressional districts, so you'd have to drive halfway across the state, because we're so rural, to be able to be at another meeting, correct?
Speaker 116
34:07
I must admit the bounds of what I know about the process, probably, if what you just said is true, then yes. Well, the way it took place the last two times,
Speaker 89
34:17
I've been through two of these since I've been elected. I've never been to one. I think that that's correct under what you're saying. I, too, like Senator King,
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
34:25
have been here a long time. I'm in my third house district, so I've been through three, basically three new districts
as I've been here. But that's horrific that we would put our public through that just to have their voice heard.
But thank you for your comments. Mr. Chair, can I respond
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
34:45
to that? Yes, go ahead. So, number one, if you have a meeting, it can be recorded. The other thing is, too, about the free speech, this body limits free speech all the time. If there's anything unconstitutional, we should be in a constitutional Alcatraz. when you have limitless people here to testify, and they show up and not able to testify. This just brings the process out in front of everybody. It does not restrict free speech at all, any more than you go out in the hallways.
The evidence is based on what is presented to this body. It is the same thing in this district. It just stops the backroom deals. It does not limit free speech. Anybody can say anything. These meetings are recorded. they could have the conversation much like our jury trial works. If I'm a juror if you've served on a jury and you go to lunch you're allowed to have conversations with people but when it comes to the evidence you have to do it based on what's here. This is just this is not limiting free
speech at all. If anybody is limiting free speech it's our bodies that limit and shut off people to testify. Thank
you. Is there any other questions from the committee? Seeing none, I think we have one individual that has shown up to speak for the bill. Jimmy Calvin, can you speak for them? Please identify yourself for the committee and who you're representing, and you're good to go.
Speaker 121
36:20
Jimmy Calvin, Arkansas First News, but I'm here representing myself as a citizen. And I'd just like to start by saying that if this bill is truly unconstitutional, then quite a bit of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act would be unconstitutional. And to Senator King's point, if you want to talk about limiting free speech, I don't see where this limits free speech. But the point is my free speech is limited every day somewhat in the legislative session
and in boards and committees and councils across this state. uh all the time so i'll go back and say it again if this bill is is clearly unconstitutional then we got big problems with a lot of what we do as far as being constitutional right i don't i can't see why anybody would not be for this bill it's simply about transparency it's simply about making the communications public record i'm wondering if anybody can give me an argument
why they should not be public record. Corruption finds loopholes. I say that all the time, corruption finds loopholes, right? And I'm not accusing anybody of corruption, but we have a reality. And the best deterrent to corruption is transparency. That's just a proven fact. And I think that's Senator King's point is that when we have sunshine, when we have transparency, then we have less corruption, we have less bad actors, and we have less wrongdoing.
I will go back and say this committee unanimously supported Senate Bill 227. This bill is similar in a lot of ways in its goal as far as it applies to open meetings and the transparency, and so I can't see why anybody on this committee would not vote for Senator King's uh bill i'm going to finish with it again by saying this bill we've talked a lot about fraud we talked a lot about lobbyists we've talked a lot about that but let's don't let's don't get
away from the meat of the bill the bill is transparency for communications that's it that's it and i know some people try to make the argument well the you know we're talking about the governor and the attorney general who are exempt from for you they're not exempting for you when they're part of this board i i get that the governor's working papers and and all their stuff doesn't apply for you and i get that with the ag but when they're appointed to a board then that's a different scenario this would be their communications as a member of the board
this would be their conversations as a member of the apportionment board so i would hope this committee uh y'all shown a willingness to be very supportive of transparency when you voted for 227 I will help you vote, unanimous vote on this as well, and I'll be more than happy to take any questions.
Speaker 28
39:25
Seeing no questions from the committee, thank you for your testimony. All right, are
there any others that would like to speak for or against the bill?
Seeing none, Senator King, you are recognized to close for your bill. Well, I appreciate the testimony by
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
39:44
Mr. Kavan. I appreciate that we now have video that people can see what's going on. We have rules and regulations that are done in public meetings, in recorded situations. This thing of limiting free speech, if this limits free speech, then we, as Mr. Kavan accurately said, we've got bigger problems because we limit free speech all the time up here.
Let's just be honest about that. This process just brings a transparent process. We all know what it is. We all know the entities, we know the things about lobbyists, we know the backroom deals, we know all that stuff. Let's just bring the process out in a transparent process. It's just that simple. This does not limit free speech. If anybody's limited free speech, this body all the time limits free speech. And I appreciate a
good vote. All right, Senator King is closed for his bill.
What's the wishes of the committee? Representative
Ray. Representative McElroy. Motion do pass. Okay, we have a motion do pass on the
table. Is there any discussion on the motion? Representative
Representative David Ray
Unverified
40:54
Ray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I feel like this whole presentation has been one continuous non sequitur. This bill doesn't prevent voter fraud. In fact, it doesn't have anything to do with voter fraud. It doesn't prevent gerrymandering, even though that's basically a Rorschach test.
People see what they want to see. believe what they want to believe on that. This bill doesn't do anything to prevent members of the board of apportionment from hiring a lobbyist, even though that was alluded to a bunch of times. I think it's important to remember the members of the board of apportionment are elected officials. This is the Secretary of State, the AG, and the governor. All of these folks are elected by the voters. They can be held accountable for their actions at the election if the voters aren't pleased with what they're doing on the board of apportionment. And again,
I would just state that the main impact of this bill is basically just going to empower Democrat lawyers at places like the DNC and the DCCC to engage in lawfare against our state and have the courts redraw maps. So I'm going to vote against the bill for all those reasons. Representative
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
42:04
Beatty. I got here a little late, but I was down in insurance and commerce and listening to a lot of the comments and testimony.
I just felt like that I'd want to put my two cents worth in too, since I just got in here.
I agree with everything that Representative Ray just said, and I'm going to be a hard no on this as well,
thank you. Okay, we have, is there any more discussion on the motion? Okay, we have a motion to pass on the table. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. Aye.
Sorry, Senator King, your bill has failed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Next up, we're gonna have- Senator Redding is here.
Next up, we have Senate Bill 7, excuse me, 376, 376. Representative Bentley, are you prepared? Yeah. Please identify yourself with
the committee and you are good to go.
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
43:31
Thank you chairman. Thank you committee. Today I bring before you Senate bill 376. Senate Bill 376 simply allows
JPs, city councilmen and school board members in Arkansas to join every other state in the nation, and let me repeat that, to join every other state in the nation that allows two JPs, two councilmen or board members to meet and talk like we do, like you and I do, every day outside of a public meeting. America is a constitutional republic dependent upon strong elected legislative branch, not allowing members of the legislative branch to talk with each other outside of a public
meeting while allowing the executive branch to do so, without a doubt, it weakens the legislative members who are duly elected by their constituents. Those elected officials closest to your constituents should be the strongest, but we have made them the weakest. How could each of you get good legislation passed if you never could talk to a member of this committee before you came to a public meeting? What if Chairman Gasway opposed your bill and had the opportunity to talk to each member, telling them why your bill was a bad idea before you ever got here? Would that make good bills getting passed in this committee? Doubtful.
The JPs on your quorum court, school board members, and city councilmen are neighbors who attend church together. They're at local ballgames together. They gather at local restaurants and coffee shops. How could we possibly think they should not be able to talk to each other about a good idea or a solution that's facing their constituents? I truly wonder what our founding fathers would think about what we have done in this state, taking the freedom of these elected officials away and removing their ability to best serve their constituents. When the Constitutional Congress met to draft the Constitution,
the delegates spent over three months in secret session because they were fearful if their debates were reported to the people before the entire documents were ready for submission, the opposition would unite to kill their efforts. We would not even have a Constitution without putting some trust in the people we have duly elected and allowed them to meet privately. With all of the recent tornadoes and flooding and power outages we have faced, Do you think it's beneficial to our constituents that these JPs and city councilmen are not even able to talk to each other on the phone? SB 36 does nothing to stop Arkansans from making a four-year request to these elected
officials for any documents that they wish to see. Every vote they cast will be in public for everyone to see as well. This bill was passed in the Senate with bipartisan support, and I will be happy to take any questions from you guys regarding SB 376.
Seeing no questions from the committees, we do have, oh, I'm sorry, Representative Collins. Thank you,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
46:03
Mr. Chair. I think one of the concerns that
was raised in the Senate, and I just want to get your opinion on it, is that this would allow the daisy chain form of communication where effectively
you can have a meeting by one member talking to another and another talking to another. Can you address that concern
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
46:20
about this bill? Thank you, Representative Collins. I think if you look at the bottom of the bill, the amendment that Senator Clark put on the bill was to address that exact issue on page two. It would stop any daisy chain from happening because that member could not tell the other member how they're going to vote on a particular issue coming before the quorum court or the council or the city council. So that wasn't put on there, again, to answer that concern in the Senate.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
46:50
Okay. And do you know, I mean, I guess they can speak for themselves, but do you know if the people who felt
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
46:59
like that was a concern felt like this amendment adequately addressed that concern?
I haven't talked to them specifically, so I would have to just, I couldn't tell you. I'm sorry. Okay. But that was
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
47:11
because of their concerns. Thank you. Representative Bainey. Representative Bentley, my only question is, how would this bill affect the previous FOIA bill that was all agreed upon?
language, that Senate Bill 227, would this have any shape, bearing or effect on the bill that we passed that's been delivered to the governor now? No, sir. It's been, actually, we go hand
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
47:29
in glove, and that was the conversation. Senator Clark and committee openly said he'll support both bills, and he asked everyone else to do the same. So there's been votes. So like I said, it's been bipartisan support on the Senate end for this bill. So no, it does not conflict at all with that, with 227. All right. Thank you. Representative Hawke.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
47:50
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Bentley, you and I
have kind of had some conversations about this. And look, I've been a champion for this since before I got in the legislature as a former city council member. But when we passed 227, I felt like the guardrails on that one were good, right? And we had people that worked, whether it be the FOI task force, we had both sides of the aisle working on that bill. So it just seems
to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, does this bill not kind of take those guardrails off?
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
48:22
I don't think it does at all. I think this opens, because again, we're talking about board members. Every board member across the state has to follow this as well, correct? So these were done in conjunction together. I think if you've listened to the Senate when they had their Senate committee meetings, that it does not. I don't think at all it takes away the guardrails that were put in place, and
that's why they worked hand in hand together. Both bills were presented, I think,
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
48:47
on the same day on Senate state agencies. Okay, and to that point, if there was so much working together and they were presented at the same time,
it almost seems like if everybody was on board, they would have combined the two bills to try to get a little bit of it. So we wouldn't have two conflicting bills, wouldn't you agree? I mean, because it just
seems like this one's very different than the one that we've already passed and is sitting on the governor's desk right
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
49:10
now. I would say that we pass bills together all the time. In
health care, I'm passing bills all the time that deal with, especially when they were talking with happy, healthy moms, happy babies. I've done three other bills after that bill to get things to where we need them to be. I am about the constitution of this nation, right, that people should be able to talk freely and to make good things happen.
I think you and I deal with billions of dollars. The guys on the quorum court aren't dealing with that kind of money. And they're seeing each other at ballgames and stuff all the time. They should be able to talk to each other. I'm concerned that we have these people on witch hunts all the time trying to get you with people that are actually trying to serve and do a good job. These people are serving for nothing. School board members are serving for nothing. We have people that don't want to serve on the school board because they want to be able to go out to dinner with their friends, and we've stopped that. People that are on the board cannot even go out to have dinner with their friends without somebody coming up with a microphone and trying to do gotcha. We're in a different age with cell phones and people doing cameras and all that,
putting things on Facebook, harassing people constantly. I think they should be able to sit at a ball game and have a conversation and serve our constituents and serve them well. I want strong JPs. They are the people closest to our constituents. And we have, without a doubt, weakened the legislative branch on a local level. I think if this was so effective, why does Arkansas have the highest sales tax on the county and local level? I don't think that does not speak of having a strong legislative branch. That speaks of a weak legislative branch. We have weakened it. And we are the only state in the entire nation that doesn't let two board members talk to each other.
That should say something to us as well. Not every other state in the nation allows. In fact, in 47 other states, it has to be a quorum before it's considered a public meeting, a quorum, okay? We don't even let two people talk to each other. It's time for us to a lot of freedom, a little bit of freedom.
We've got guardrails, even more guardrails here with the amendment that was put in place, and that's why I got
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
50:55
some support on both sides of the aisle. And I agree with you. As a former city
council member, I wanted to go to Taco Bell with another council member and talk about the last night's football game or do like I agree with that premise, but we've done that.
And my thought is the implementation of the first bill, wouldn't you agree we should see how that goes before we try to dismantle that bill? I think this
bill makes that bill better without a
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
51:19
doubt. Thank you. Otherwise, I would not be running
it. All right, seeing no other questions from the committee, we have a few people to speak on the bill. First up
is Jimmy Calvin to speak against the bill.
Speaker 121
51:42
Jimmy Calvin, Arkansas First News, but here speaking for myself as a citizen. Before we start, let me make clear on something that Senate Bill 227 accomplish what Representative Bentley just said. It does allow members to meet, and it allows more than two members to meet to discuss those background and informational items. We went into great discussion about that, right?
So we've taken care of that in 227, and we didn't limit it to two members, right? As Senator Clark Tucker said here and said, which, by the way, I just want to make clear, Senator Clark Tucker is not in support of SB 376 at all. But, you know, we've taken care of that. And as he said, it's not about the number of people speaking. It's about the substance of the conversations, right?
We've already been through this about going to ballgames and things like that. You can do that, okay? Now, the Senate and the House always kid each other, right? kind of like firefighters and cops do, kind of like that. And so on March 20th, it just struck with me because Senator Petty on the House floor said, we are the upper chamber. And he said, what we do in the upper chamber is a lot of cleanup. Well, we clean up a lot of stuff that comes from the House.
Now, he said that kind of in jest. But what the people are depending on this committee to do is clean up the mess from the Senate sent down here in 376. We've already done this in 227. it's hard to present opposition on 376 without contrasting it to 227. When I spoke for 227, I read you 2519-102 legislative intent, okay, for you, and it's so important that I want to read it again to you.
it is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner so that the electors shall be advised of the performance of public officials in the decisions that are reached in public activity and in making public policy. Toward this end, this chapter is adopted, making it possible for them or their representatives to learn and to
report fully the activities of their public officials. Senate Bill 227 embodies that. Senate Bill 376 actually repeals it as it applies to open meetings. 376 allows members to meet in secret to discuss, basically poll, and decide the people's business outside of a public meeting. That's not just me saying it. That's the top legal minds on this. You have Joey McCutcheon, who nobody's going to argue that he is not the
top for you litigator in the state. He's going to tell you that Senator Clark Tucker, while I don't agree with him on hardly anything, nobody's going to deny that he's a smart guy. And when it comes to law, he calls balls and strikes better than anybody. Okay, so that's not just me saying it, That's them saying it, okay? What this does when it comes to deliberation, which is a key word here, as we talked about, you know, I think you should get together to discuss information, right?
And we took care of that when you vote on SB 227. But there's a difference when you can use this to actually segregate other members of a governing body. and that's what this allows and so i'll give you an example most school boards are made up of seven members right and we have some that are made up of five okay so in this situation uh member a and b can talk to each other then they can split and go talk to b and c then they're actually under 376
allowed to deliberate and make decisions outside of the public eye so when they get to a meeting I'll give you an example. My school board in Conway, thank God, is very conservative, but I don't want to cut anybody out of the conversation, so they could actually meet under 376, talk about this, deliberate, and decide, and when it gets to the meeting, they have effectively segregated the non-conservative members of that board. Now, you take that to a different area where you have boards that are more liberal than conservative,
and you create a thing of segregation, okay? The 376 is not a loophole. You always hear me talk about corruption finds loopholes. 376 is not a loophole. It's a wide-open, 14-foot gate with a sign in front that says, Corruption Welcome. Now, I talk about corruption all the time, and you all know I fight corruption all over the state. We have so many governing boards across the state that are just good people that want to do the right thing, that are out there giving service to the community, and they just want to do it right.
They're not about corruption, but this 376 will allow those bad actors to be corrupt. And so with that, I would say, look, you pass 227 unanimously. You know, I hope you're going to unanimously vote 376 down because it would effectively kill 227. And when we talk about it on the governor's desk, let's also remember this. Say the governor signed 227 today, and then you pass 376, and then the House passes,
and then it goes to her, and then she signs it because she signed it last. It just killed 227. And, you know, in 227, we had one of those rare kumbaya moments in here, right, where everybody is on board with 227 the arkansas attorney general the arkansas association of counties the municipal league the foyer task force the arkansas school board association me all the proponents of foyer that go around the state fight for you everybody's on the same page on this and we're clearly not on 376. and so anyhow with that i'll be more than happy to take any
questions. Seeing no questions from the committee appreciate your testimony. Next up we have Joey McCutcheon
Joey Mccutcheon
Unverified
58:23
to speak against the bill. Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Joey McCutcheon. I'm from Fort Smith. I'm here to speak on behalf of the courageous folks that I've represented over the last decade and a half on open meetings cases because of the confusion that the Supreme Court has created. Patrick Henry is this country's most fierce
defender of liberty. Patrick Henry said that liberty is the greatest of all blessings. Guard with special, guard with attention our public liberty and suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. And in my opinion and the reason that I've gone around this state defending FOIA in every way possible is because knowledge of the citizenry of the electors is the key to public liberty and if we don't have knowledge we don't have squat
and that's why protecting FOIA is so important for every citizen not just republicans not democrats Not leftists, not rightists, not liberals, not conservative, but for everybody in this room. Black people, white people, everyone. Today, we're protecting the open meeting prong of the Freedom of Information Act. And I asked you to consider why is that so important, especially on the local level.
Because it affects every single issue. Everyone, not just some, but every single issue. Tax increases, millage increases, the right to hire fire, the abolition of the Civil Service Commission. I'm speaking of some of the issues that I've taken four different times up to the Supreme Court. Porn in libraries, the rights of the transgender folks in our communities. Everyone's affected, and every issue on the local level is affected.
The public needs to hear the entire process, the entire legislative process. We need to hear why someone is voting for an issue. We need to see and hear the sausage-making, because only when we hear why someone is voting, not just the decision, Only when we hear the whys, only then, guess what, do we trust government.
And maybe that's why some people have problems with this legislature, because your business is done behind closed doors sometimes. But Winthrop Rockefeller knew that to get FOIA through that body, through a Republican governor, through a Democratic body, he had to make that concession. But trust in government, when we have trust in government, that's good government. The committee passed unanimously Senate Bill 227.
Now, there's not consensus in the Senate. One Democrat voted for this, surprisingly, quite frankly. But Senate Bill 227 did some miraculous things. That's unanimous. I mean, we have the Jimmy Cavins of the world, the Joey McCutcheons of the world, combining with the Arkansas Municipal League on an open meetings bill. That bill gave a clear, cogent definition to what a public meeting is.
And I can tell you from personal experience on four different cases I've taken to the Supreme Court how important that is. 227 will eliminate lawsuits, and that's a good thing. Our local governing bodies, the definition made it very clear about they cannot deliberate outside the presence of the governing body, and that's important. And it defined what deliberation was in terms of communicating background information and non-decisional information.
To sit here and say that it's incorrect to sit here and say that two JPs can't go discuss how the hogs are doing or how the wampus cats are doing or how the Fort Smith Northside grizzlies are doing. They can and they always have been able to. So I want to briefly talk about Senate Bill 227, just so you understand what was appropriately discussed earlier in the question that was asked.
Senate Bill 227 that you voted on.
I want to ask you, we have a lot of people to speak for the bill, and try to
limit your comments to the bill itself. I'll allow you to be
Speaker 167
1:03:45
very brief with your comments correcting
Joey Mccutcheon
Unverified
1:03:48
another bill. Senate Bill 227 stated an informal meeting that includes deliberation or that is for the purpose of exercising a responsibility, authority, power, or duty of a governing body is strictly prohibited.
Now along comes Senate Bill 376. The Senate Bill 376 Trump, Senate Bill 227, when the governor ultimately signs, I think the answer to that is yes, and I think that's why this bill was brought late. Senate Bill 376 allows serial secret meetings, and on public business, the most important
matters that we've talked about, Senate Bill 376 encourages secrecy in government, and here's how. If you take school board member A meets with school board member B in the back of the McDonald's, then B meets with D, which is allowed under this bill. This bill did not close loopholes. Then A meets with D. And before you know it, we see no discussion. We see nothing as
the public and the deal's been cut all in the back of mcdonald's so if we're if we're if we're serious if we're if we're going to allow serial meetings where the daisy chain and create loopholes create end arounds create the dipsy do then let's just be honest with what we're doing here let's just if we're going to allow serial meetings then let's just stop the charade And let's let all seven school board members meet in the back of McDonald's, have it out, discuss it all, and we'll never see anything.
We'll never see the sausage being made, and we'll never see the final decision. We won't hear anything in a public discussion, and that won't do anything to create a stronger legislative branch because they're strong now. They can say there's no First Amendment violations. They can say as much as they want to in the public meeting so that we hear. So I would ask you and implore you to please vote against this bill.
This bill which creates bad secret government. This bill that I fought for for a decade and a half. You've done a great job in supporting unanimously 227. I ask that you unanimously turn down this bill. Thank you. Are you open for questions? Are you open for questions? Oh, sure. Yes, sir. Sorry,
Speaker 162
1:06:36
I thought you were asking. Representative Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. McCutcheon.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:06:43
So, I'm curious because Representative Bentley said that this amendment, I guess this subpart 2 in Section 2 right at the end, took care of the daisy chain serial communication issue. Can you tell me,
Speaker 162
1:06:56
in your opinion, why it doesn't? Well, because it still allows daisy chains.
Joey Mccutcheon
Unverified
1:07:01
They can still meet. They just can't disclose what the opinion was. I mean, if they wanted to create, if they wanted to stop serial meetings, they would have, Senator Clark Tucker created an amendment
which would stop the daisy chain process. If they had that discussion, they cannot talk with another board member. But there's no effective amendment that's going to accomplish what Representative Bentley wants to do, and this certainly has not done that. And there's nobody that I've talked to, again, in this broad coalition, who has ever said that this amendment to 376 by Senator Clark and Representative Bentley solved anything.
It doesn't. It just allows them to go about and give a wink and a nod, you know, hey, I can't tell you my position on that. I mean, are we that gullible? We can't be that gullible that we're going to allow these daisy chains and act like that, well, if you don't tell what your opinion is, you know, the four conservatives on the board or the four liberals on the board are excluding the three others. And all the business will be done in the back of McDonald's, at the back of Doe's, down here in Little Rock, and we'll never see anything.
And we will continue to have distrust of government. Thank you, Representative Collins. Thanks. Seeing no
other questions from the committee, next up to speak is Andrew Bagley with the Arkansas. Oh, I'm sorry. My
Andrew Bagley
Unverified
1:08:45
name is Andrew Bagley, and I'm the president of the Arkansas Press Association and the publisher of the Hell in the World, Monroe County Argus, and the Waldron News.
I want to endeavor to be brief because I appreciate that y'all have been working very, very hard. But just some quick points on the amendment. The amendment does not answer the concerns about the serial meetings. In fact, this bill, even in its current form, results in a gutting of Senate Bill 227 and its guardrails. And let me tell you how the amendment fails to not take those guardrails that are in 227 out.
As Mr. McCutcheon mentioned, you can talk in pairs. And then one from that pair talks to another one from that pair. and then one from that pair talks to another. And while the amendment says they can't tell each other what the opinion is, it doesn't address one of them telling someone from outside the governing body what the opinion is. For instance, one quorum court member could meet in pairs and find out the lay of the land
and then tell the county clerk who could then tell the county judge who presides over the meeting. And so you effectively still have this gaping hole that allows for the serial meetings. I also appreciated Representative Hawk's question because Senate Bill 227 was unanimous. It was nice to be a part of a true consensus moment where we all work together.
but we haven't even allowed that to be implemented and see how it works before we're down here with a bill that would gut those provisions. Senate Bill 227 establishes a clear stop sign for everybody that everybody can understand. And what this bill does is essentially say that stop stands for straight through on pavement and you can just roll right on through it.
and I think that is problematic. And then I wanted to answer Representative Bentley's argument that we should just trust everyone to do the right thing. I like to be able to trust people, too. But if we were able to trust that everybody would always do the right thing, we would need no laws at all, because we would all be living the right way. And unfortunately, that's just not the case.
So we do need guardrails. Senate Bill 227 establishes the appropriate balance. It brings all the interested parties and stakeholders to the table. And I'll close with this. All those stakeholders that were for Senate Bill 227, not a single one has come out in favor of Senate Bill 376. And I would urge you to vote against this bill. And I'm willing to take any questions if anyone has any. Seeing no questions for
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:12:09
the committee, we thank you for your testimony.
Thank you for your time. Next up we have Aaron Hanson. Speak
against the bill. Please identify yourself for the committee and who you may be representing. My name is Aaron
Aaron Hanson
Unverified
1:12:29
Hanson and I represent myself. The way I see it, the only reason a bill like this would be put forward is so the bosses don't ever find out what their elected employees are doing.
And if you can chip away at the FOIA request, someone like myself that wants to know what my representative is saying and doing, I don't see anywhere in here where it says you can't get together and talk about your family, grandchildren. I see it as more of when it's the people's business. And as far as I'm concerned, as far as the people's business goes, the bosses, the constituents should be able to see anything and everything that has to do with how their lives are going to be run.
That's what this body does, is figure out how we're going to run our lives. I'd like to have a say in that, and I'd like to see anything that pertains to that. And then I also hear a lot of bellyaching about having to do your job. You have to drive across the state to get together to do things. Well, it's a shame you have to do what you get paid to do. I have a sign above my toolbox that says nobody cares, work harder. And that's kind of how I feel about my representatives. I expect you to have to do your job. Sometimes it's inconvenient and sometimes it's a bummer you have to drive across the state.
But when you're discussing something that has to do with the law or a bill that's going to affect my life, I'd like to see it in writing and I'd like to have a chance to speak on it. That's it. I'm open to any questions. Seeing no questions from
the committee, thank you for your testimony. Next up, we have Donnie Scroggins to speak against the bill. Please identify yourself for the committee and who you
may be representing, and you're good to go.
Speaker 183
1:14:20
I'm Donnie Scroggins, Truman, Arkansas, Poinsett County. I'm representing myself, probably going to be shockingly brief here. About four years ago, I attended a quorum court meeting and they did all the regular agenda items, the reporting, new business, old business. They discussed the purchase of heavy equipment and allowed no comments in. I'm just going to tell you, as relates to this bill and sunshine laws, that quorum court meeting lasted less than 20 minutes gavel to gavel. So as I left there, I wondered, they're either the most intelligent,
efficient people have ever seen my life or something that's not adding up here. So that's just a real life example of what you can call polling or serial meetings does. And I'm from a smaller county, so more local to the politics there. But I believe 376 is anti-thesis to 227, so I ask that to you. You vote down the current bill. Thank you. I yield my time.
Seeing no questions from the committee, we appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Sharon Moore?
I'm sorry, Sarah Moore, sorry. That's
Sarah Moore
Unverified
1:15:37
okay. It might be my handwriting, so I apologize. My name is Sarah Moore. I am a council member in the City of Fayetteville currently. I'm only speaking for myself, not for the City Council or the City of Fayetteville, but as a sitting elected official, I am asking for you to vote against this bill like much of the other speakers have spoken about there had been a bill that was in much discussion and is waiting for the governor to currently sign it.
That's had a lot of discussion. I'll hit a few key areas that I think are important for me in particular when I think about representing my constituency. I think it is incredibly important that the public's business is done out in public. And so I appreciate the amendment that was done by Representative Bentley and Senator Clark to recognize that there was some concern about the daisy chain effect that could happen where you could meet, you know, with two and maybe do the subsequential meetings. However, I think, you know, many of these bodies have been talked about, you know, could be representation of, you know, five to eight individuals and thinking about the different sizes or different towns.
even if you're going to meet and you don't have the intention of sharing that information, it's really easy for, you know, folks that are in common areas to be able to lean and share, not even really knowingly or maliciously trying to do so. And so, again, my consideration I'd like to have you think about is that those things, the deliberations are incredibly important and the details behind the direction that your legislative body is going are important for the public to see out in the open.
And so for that reason, I'd like to ask you to consider to not vote for this bill today, and I'm open for any questions. Seeing
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:17:30
no questions, thank you for your testimony.
Speaker 189
1:17:32
Thank you. Ed Bullington will speak against the bill.
Please identify yourself for the committee and you're good to
Speaker 190
1:17:43
go. Ed Bullington for myself. I have been involved with FYI going back to the 70s.
I value it. I was elated when 227 passed because it resolved an issue I had to deal with with my local improvement district, with the school board, medical board, and other boards and agencies. And this bill is an end around. It's a Trojan horse. It's a poison pill to 227, which will just eliminate all the gains of 227, which you guys all supported. When I was active in one group, I had board members over my house for functions not to
discuss business and they discussed all kind of stuff, just not business. So I'm opposed to this bill and it's companion bill, I support 227, it resolved finally. In my community we have an improvement districts that have done polling, sent around a form to say if you support this and they've actually spent money and engaged in contracts without them meeting in a public meeting, so I know how this works one-on-one, it's just not good public business. And I appreciate the FOI because it's used by the media to let me know what's going on
where I don't have the choice to learn, so opposed. Thank
you. I see no questions from the committee. Thank you for your testimony. Next we have Evelyn Rios-Stanford to speak against the bill. identify yourself for the committee and you're good to go. Thank you, Mr. Chair and
Speaker 192
1:19:19
members of the committee. My name is Evelyn Rios Stafford. I'm a Justice of
the Peace on the Washington County Quorum Court, although I'm speaking just on my own behalf and not representing the body as a whole. Arkansas has the strongest FOIA laws in the nation and that is something that we should all be proud of, whether you're conservative, liberal, independent, or non-political at all, and we should take those laws very seriously. As a member of the quorum court, I can't think of a single thing that this bill would allow
me to do that I can't already do, but I can think of a lot of stuff as we've already heard. I can't think of a good thing that it would allow me to do that I can't do now, but I can think of a lot of bad that could come from it, as we've already heard from all the folks that have spoken, like Jimmy Calvin and folks like that. I also just wanted to point out that, you know, the idea that two members of the quorum court can't get together to talk about personal stuff, you know, for a long time on our quorum
court, we had a mother and a daughter who were both serving in different seats, Sue Madison and Eva Madison. And, uh, the idea that they couldn't talk to each other about how are the grandkids doing or something like that, uh, is just completely false. Um, so we've, we've all already been able to do those things. Uh, and this, this bill I think would destroy transparency as we've already heard. Um, and I can't see a reason for it. I can't see a way that it would
helped me do my job better than I'm already doing, but I can see ways that it could definitely get in
the way. Thank you. Seeing no questions from the committee, I would appreciate your testimony. I do not have anyone else to speak for. Do I have someone else that I've missed?
Please identify yourself for the committee and you're good to go. Thank
Alex Kinlan
Unverified
1:21:32
you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Alex Kinlan. I'm speaking for myself. I am a working journalist.
I cover, right now I'm working for the television station right across the street, channels 4 and 16, and cover a lot of politics. Prior to that, I spent a number of years in newspapers working over three counties, and I've attended roughly a million quorum court meetings, city council meetings, school board meetings, water board meetings. and so on and so forth. And I'll also add that I was, during that time, I was a member of a municipal board.
I was on the airport board for the city of Clinton. All that to say this. The vote is important. The debate is critical. We need to be able to hear the debate so we can understand what led to the vote. And this would eliminate that. would eliminate that ability. Two members would get together and perhaps their stance would otherwise be unpopular, but it gives them a chance to discuss that in private and
out of the public eye. And it's simply not fair to the people I attend those meetings on behalf of. And right now I'm thinking about, as I was listening to the debate, I was thinking about Jefferson County. And of course, what a great time they're having with their quorum court down there he said sarcastically and from that i say if if this door were to be opened and they were allowed to have off the record conversations one-on-one i can't imagine how
much worse it could make it and i say that as someone who's been reporting on this jefferson county thing now for some time so again i am opposed to this bill i thank you very much for allowing me to speak. I know y'all are very busy so I'm keeping this brief, but I am available for
any questions. Seeing no questions for the committee, thank you for your
testimony. Thank you sir. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like you to speak for or against the bill? All right seeing none, Representative
Bentley you're recognized to close for your bill.
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
1:24:04
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, committee. I think you guys should all get a gold
medal or a gold star for something that you have put in long hours, and I appreciate you putting in some more long hours to listen to another bill today. So I will close with this. SB 376 says absolutely nothing to stop Arkansas from making a four-year request to their elected
officials for any documents they wish to see. Every vote they cast will be in public for everyone to see as well. This bill was passed with bipartisan support in the Senate. I don't know why we wouldn't allow JPs to co-sponsor each other's resolutions. It's like we co-sponsor each other's bills so they can work together as a great team. The state of Arkansas is the only state in the nation that does not allow its duly elected officials to talk to each other. We haven't, without a doubt, weakened what should be the strongest branch on the local level, the legislative branch. I don't know how we continue to allow this without being complete hypocrites.
Our local officials should be able to serve their constituents with the same capacity and the same ability that we do. Everything in this bill undoes 227. The folks that supported this bill supported both bills. This bill does not allow serial meetings. That's exactly why the amendment was added to the bill. You and I get to discuss things all the time. We have worked on over 2,000 bills this session. It's ridiculous that we would not allow our JPs, our school board members to do this for nearly free to be able to help their constituents. Again, we would not have the United States Constitution if we hadn't allowed them to be in secret and to pass the Constitution.
So with that, I know you all have heard it all, made your decisions. would appreciate a good
vote. Thank you. All right, what is the will of the committee? I have a motion to do pass. There's any discussion on the motion. Representative Hawk. Colleagues, we
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:25:43
talked about this the last time this FOI bill or a FOI bill came to this committee and we all on this committee voted unanimously for that bill. And, you know, when I was a city
council member I thought it was ignorant that we couldn't go and talk about issues not make decisions but that we could not go and sit there and talk about issues that affected our city at the time we couldn't do it we couldn't do anything till we got to the table and I think we've already addressed that with the last bill that came through I think we've addressed that and we all there was five or six of us that said it was pretty amazing that there were so many people that got together to work on that bill and made it work.
And until that bill doesn't work anymore, I just don't see that we need to do this right now. Now, if we come back in two years and we realize that the bill that we already passed is not going to work, then I say, let's bring it back. Let's talk about it. But I think we've got to at least see this bill, the one that we already passed for our local officials, see if it works, and then we can go from there. And I'll be a no vote on this
bill. Thank you. Representative Long, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:26:54
The reason gun laws don't work is because law-abiding citizens follow them, but the crooks are able to take advantage of the honest, disarmed citizens. The current FOI law, as it's currently written, is doing the same thing to our honest elected representatives. The dishonest officials are having secret meetings right now. gives them a real advantage over the honest folks that don't want to break the law and have these secret meetings. Like one of the persons said earlier, he witnessed a 20-something
minute court meeting. That's under the current law. If the dishonest folks have this advantage and the honest ones are not doing this. I think it's doing a disservice. The other thing, it gives, I think, a real advantage to the county judge and the executive branch because he is able to talk individually with these members
to kind of line up his votes. But JP can't bounce off ideas off of another member to see if they think it's a good idea or not. And you can't even ask them to second your motion for a proposed ordinance. You can't do it legally. I'm sure it probably is being done. But because of that, that's why I supported this bill two years ago and that's why I'll support it again today. Thank you.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:28:36
Seeing no other discussion on the motion, we have a motion to pass. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
All those opposed? No. Sorry Representative
Bentley, your bill has failed. Thank you Chairman, thank you committee. Next up we have Representative Hauck, Senate Bill 445.
Please identify yourself for the committee and you're good to go. Representative
Hauck, if you'll hold for just a minute, we got an amendment you need to sign and before we can hand it out.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:29:53
Representative RJ Hawk, District 81, Committee, oh, I apologize. Give us just a moment to get it
out and then everybody get a chance to read it. All right, Representative Hawk, you're good to go.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:30:28
R.J. Hawk, District 81. Colleagues, I apologize for the late rush on
the amendment, thought it was already sent over and it wasn't. But what this amendment does, you can see where we delete page one, line 36 off the original bill, and then we're also deleting page two, line three. And we're adding in here that upon hiring, anybody hired as an inspector would have to then take the Department of Labor and Licensing two-day training course that is mandated by
the state. And with that, I'll take any
questions. All right, any questions from the committee? We have, oh, just a second. Is there anyone that would like to speak for or against the bill? I'm just giving you the amendment, I'm sorry, got ahead of myself. All right, have a motion to pass on the amendment. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
Any opposed? All right, now, we're good to
go with the furniture bill as amended.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:31:38
Thank you, committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Senate Bill 445 is concerning electrical inspectors for our local governments. And right now, we've got a problem in our cities because right now, as it states in law, in order to become an electrical inspector for a city, you've got to have a master's electrician license. Well, if anybody knows the construction world right now, you know that if you're a master electrician, you're not going to go to a city and make $35,000, $40,000 because you're going to be making quite a bit more in the private sector, you know, doing what you went to school to do.
And so I had one of my mayors in Benton, and he's here to testify today, but they spent 16 months looking for an electrical inspector to do these services that are needed by code enforcement. In fact, because some cities, I've found out, are not having electrical inspectors, they've got the plumbing inspector doing the electrical inspections in some cases. And in no way, shape, or form is that a good idea as to having the water guy doing the electrical guy's job.
And so all this bill is doing is we're expanding what, whose cities can hire. So we leave the master electrician on there. We say you can have a journeyman electrician license. Or if you have attended the Arkansas Fire Training Academy International Fire Service Accreditation, Congress accreditation inspectors, one, two, or three, that would then qualify you to be able to become an inspector. Now, some people ask, why would you include firefighters in this?
Well, a lot of times your fire marshals are already doing inspections on like commercial outfits, and they do get a limited amount of training when it comes to electrical inspections. And so we are broadening the scope of who a city can hire, but upon hiring, based on the amendment, we are saying you cannot do an inspection in a city until you go and do this two-day course that the state has for code enforcement and specifically for electrical
inspectors. And that's all the bill does. And
I'll take any questions. Are there any questions by the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee, we do have someone signed up to speak for the bill. John Parton.
Speaker 208
1:34:16
Mr. Parton, if you would identify yourself, any organization you're here representing, and then you'll be recognized to present your remarks.
Speaker 211
1:34:25
I'm John Parton. I'm the Director of Community Development for the City of Benton, and part of my department includes our building inspections and permits. We, as Representative Hogg mentioned, we had some difficulty hiring a, when fully staffed, we have two electrical inspectors or building inspectors. We had some difficulty 14, 16 months trying to find one. And even though the statute as written provided some flexibility, it just said relevant working
experience. It was very narrowly interpreted, and it's generally meant to say that they required master's electrical license. The bill as written provides multiple pathways to gain the necessary experience because to be a master electrician, of course, you have to have baked-in experience and training, but also you have the same experience inherent to become a journeyman, to become a fire marshal, those kinds of things. When you have that experience and that training layered
with that annual two-day course with respect to electrical inspections gives us, I think, very adequate preparation and training to conduct these inspections, but also, too, it gives us flexibility to hire folks who would be excellent for the job. All right. Thank you, Mr. Parton.
Are there any questions by the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee, thank you for those remarks. We have one other individual sign up to speak for the bill, and that is Mr. Brad Moore.
Brad Moore? Brad Moore. All right. Don't see Mr. Moore in attendance at the moment. So with that, Representative Hawke, you're recognized to close for your bill. Colleagues, at
Speaker 197
1:36:13
the end of the day, this is just helping
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:36:17
our cities to do something that is for the safety of our citizens. Look, I get it. And I know that some of you may have gotten an email that say these inspectors, you know, they're not electricians. I would agree with you, but we're expanding it to where they have, they've got some qualifications.
And once again, they're not installing the electricity. They are expecting the guys that have put it in and just making sure that it's done in a safe way and that they're following code. And so with that, I would make a motion to do pass as
amended. Representative Hawk has closed for his bill. made a motion. Do pass as amended. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Aye. The ayes have it. Congratulations. You've passed your bill as amended. Thank you. Next, we're going to,
without objection, we're going to move to Senate Bill 551. Mr. Chair, if you don't mind,
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:37:12
I was prepared to do 584 since I have to go to rules. Can I do that or without objection? If not, I'll just
Speaker 208
1:37:21
hold it and then I can come back after rules. Is Representative Eubanks
here? Okay. So I'll let you, you can run, which Senate bill is it? It's Senate bill 584.
584, okay. And the reason I wanted to run 551 is because it's Representative Eubanks and he also has to go to rules and he would like to get this done if he can. So, Representative Hawk,
Speaker 208
1:37:49
you're recognized to present Senate Bill 584. And Mr. Chair, if I could have Lindsey French from the Association of Counties join me at the
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:38:05
table? Yes. Lindsey French, Association of Arkansas Counties.
R.J. Hawk, District 81. Colleagues, I know that we've heard a lot about a ballot initiative this session, and I'm not trying to add to that in the fact of what stuff we've already done. This bill takes all the ballot initiatives that we have already passed and we're applying it for the county level as well. It was not in those original bills. It was not included for counties. It was only at the state level. And I think that if we're going to do this, there should be no gray areas.
We should be able to do this at the state level, the county clerk's level, and all the rules should apply equally. And so that's all the bill does. If you go through the bill, you'll notice that it says county clerk and it's line after line. It talks about the county clerk. There's no new language from the initiatives that we've already passed. All we're doing is applying it for the local folks, the county clerks in that realm of ballot initiatives. And with that, I'll take any questions.
Representative Hawkes explained his bill. Are there any questions by the committee?
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:39:18
Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, just so I understand, all of
the bills we passed this session restricting the process, the reading of the ballot title, the affidavit, the ID, I guess, all of that is not going to apply if this passes to local initiatives? No, those
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:39:39
only applied to statewide, and not all of those are applicable in this bill, like the making, the reading of the title and those things.
This is dealing more with the paid canvasser aspect of that they do have to turn in the canvassers ahead of time, ensuring that if they're paid canvassers, they're in state, those type of canvasser integrity initiatives. Okay. So, on a couple of
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:40:06
those bills, people asked the sponsor, does this
apply to local elections? And they always would say no. And I think that there, we had some people come and speak who were concerned that it was going to apply to local elections, and we assured them no. But now, we're going to go back and say all of those things now do apply to these local elections.
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:40:30
I think that was accurate. We are not applying all of those things to local
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:40:35
petitions. But everything regarding paid canvassers and other, I mean, I just, I don't know the full scope of it, really. Any
more detail you guys could provide on what we are applying to local, I think would be helpful. So they are
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:40:48
going to have to turn in their list of paid canvassers ahead of time. The sponsor needs to do a background check on those. They do have to be residents of the state of Arkansas.
And otherwise, other than that, just where it says Secretary of State, we're making it county clerk because the county clerk determines the sufficiency of a petition constitutionally. That's it. So if someone wants to
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:41:17
do a wet-dry election or something like that, they're going to have to run a background check on these big canvassers?
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:41:24
Wet-dry is going to be in SB 551 that Representative Eubanks is bringing. This one doesn't apply to wet-dry.
that's a different section of code. Okay. All
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:41:41
right. Thanks. Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So currently if you've got something that I guess I'm looking at just to give you a heads up, I'm looking at page four. So the part of this bill that deals with determining constitutionality or conflicts with other laws, how is that determined for local initiatives right now? Right now,
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:42:04
under the Constitution, and I don't have that specific
provision in front of me, I'm sorry, but the county clerk determines the sufficiency. So that's not new,
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:42:13
we're just moving it to this section of code? Why is that? It's just, it's showing up underlined in our bill,
and I'm trying to figure out what about the determination is new. Because it's
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:42:24
not in statute, you have to go to that separate constitutional provision, and we're adding in there that the county civil attorney will have to help her in making that determination. And so
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:42:37
I guess I'm just confused. I'm trying to figure out on the ground,
how is this going to change what's happening right now? That just with respect to that little piece.
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:42:47
This is going to make things more clear for people who are circulating petitions and for county clerks who are having petitions turned in. It's a cleanup type bill. There was a lot of confusion with some local petitions that were circulated last year that there was extensive JPR committee testimony about. And this is the result of that to clean it up and make things more clear for everyone.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:43:12
last one, but I think, I mean, what
really makes me nervous is giving a county clerk with the assistance of an attorney, but it doesn't necessarily say that the attorney's guidance is binding or any of that. It just says that a county clerk with the assistance of an attorney determines whether a proposal is in compliance with statute and the United States and Arkansas Constitution. That makes me super nervous. So what I'm trying to get at is, is that new or not? It is not new. It's already
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:43:41
been the law. It's what has already happened with local petitions. I tried in my defense to get the
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:43:47
AG to take that job on and
They declined, understandably. Okay, thank you. Representative Collins,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:43:57
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I see on page three, the section four. One of the things that does apply in this is the thing that was a new bill by Representative Hammer, or Senator Hammer, Representative Underwood, that we talked about a lot on this committee. It makes the Secretary of State have to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the
canvasser has violated Arkansas laws regarding canvassing, perjury, forgery, or fraudulent practices. And we talked a lot about how that's in a few ways a strange formulation because, number one, those are criminal laws in most cases, which are usually found by, you know, beyond reasonable doubt. But this is a preponderance, 50 plus one. And also, the Secretary of State was unsuited to act as the judge, essentially.
No due process, no opportunity for rebuttal written into law. I think the county clerk is probably even less suited to make that kind of adjudication about whether a canvasser has violated Arkansas laws. Can you assure me, on
what basis is the county clerk in a position to do all this without due
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:45:12
process? I believe there is due process, Representative Collins. I believe it's in 14-14-9-15, which is the last statute being amended here.
And I'm not sure if that portion of the statute is in here. But what that law says, and we're not taking it out, is that if a county clerk suspects forgery or has reason to believe that there's forgery, they shall send that to the county prosecutor. And that did happen this past year. That is already in the law, and we
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:45:40
are not taking that out. Yeah, but respectfully, that's a totally different thing because, you know, that is the next step in
referring a forgery, which is fine. I mean, then they'll get due process once they're in the court system.
But if, I mean, forget fraud. If there's any law regarding canvassing or perjury that have nothing to do with fraud, that the county clerk finds by preponderance of the evidence that the canvasser has violated that law, the signatures are out, all of them, and they can't do anything about it. There's no opportunity for rebuttal, presentation of evidence, collection of evidence. And when Representative Underwood presented his bill, he made the point that Supreme Court had original jurisdiction and they could appoint a special master to do the fact-finding.
I don't think that's the case
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:46:26
here. So maybe I didn't make myself clear in my response to you before. It would be an appeal to the circuit court. The circuit court would have jurisdiction over that, and they could
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:46:38
appeal the county clerk's decision to the circuit court. Well, you can appeal anything to the circuit court. Exactly. Yeah, but I mean, that's true for any law that's violated. Here, we do have this quasi-judicial process, and the county clerk, it boggles my mind that they're going to be assessing whether someone
violated all of these Arkansas laws that they, frankly, don't know.
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
1:46:59
I mean, that's not what they do. So your concern is also already what's existing in the law and what we're trying to help clean up with this bill. Last year, nine petitions were denied by county clerks across the state because they had duplicate signatures, forgeries, et cetera. And the sponsor merely went and filed an appeal with the circuit court. And every circuit court heard it, and they heard it within five days, as is set forth in the law already. It doesn't slow down the process. It worked in Independence County.
They got it overturned. The people passed it. There's a process already in place that we're not disturbing. This
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:47:38
is brand new for the county clerk to be assessing whether or not a canvasser has violated laws regarding canvassing, perjury, forgery, or fraudulent practices. It just
is. So, I mean, I know that there's certain types of determinations that maybe could be appealed that were in current law, but this is new. So, thank you. All right.
Are there any other questions of the committee? Representative Law.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:48:07
Y'all mentioned earlier that there's going to be a second bill coming up.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:48:11
That'll be Representative Eubanks. He's got the local option
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:48:14
bill. Okay, and it's the one that's going to include all the other provisions that we passed for state level
Speaker 50
1:48:21
on county level? His will apply to wet dry alcohol elections. Okay, thank you.
Seeing all the questions from the committee, is there anyone here to speak, we have no one signed up, is there anyone here that would like to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none, Representative Hawke, you're cleared
to, or, cleared. Cleared to launch? No, I was going to say land, because you're finishing the thing up. All right, you're cleared to close for
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:48:54
your committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. Look, hey, we've heard a lot of these this session, thanks to Representative Underwood and Representative Hammer. We just want to make things the same on both the county and the state level,
and that's what this bill is trying to do, do a lot of cleanup in that, and I would appreciate a good vote.
I'll make a motion to do pass. All right, we have a
motion to do pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Congratulations, Representative Hawke. Your bill is passed. Thank you, committee. Give me just
Speaker 244
1:49:31
one moment to catch up where we're at, and we'll start.
Representative Rawls, are you good to present SB 439? Yes, sir. Please identify yourself for the committee and
you're good to go. Can I have some folks
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:50:09
from labor and licensing join me at the
table, please. Yes. Please identify yourself for the committee. Lacey Kirchner, counsel
Speaker 246
1:50:18
for the Department of Labor and Licensing. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:50:24
Thank you, committee. SB 439, as I understand, it's a cleanup bill. This is Senator Irvin,
Representative Lee Johnson, and he has held up running, I'm sure, what is 40 or 50 bills in Senate Public Health right now. And so I'm going to let Labor and Licensing present this bill, and they'll be able to answer any questions that you have. But to my understanding, it's a cleanup bill, updates outdated references and code, and replaces Director of the Division of Labor with Secretary of the Department of Labor and Licensing to reflect the current structure.
So at this time, I'm going to
Speaker 246
1:51:00
let them share. Thank you, members of the committee. As Representative Rose said, this is a cleanup bill. It's stemming from the Transformation Act, at which time, instead of putting reference to the secretary or his or her designee, any place it said Department of Labor, it was changed to Division of Labor and left Director of the Division of Labor. This bill is simply deleting the director of the Division of Labor to ensure that all of those powers and duties that were the director of the Division of Labor, which is what the old head of the Department of Labor was, those are to the secretary, our current secretary of the Department of Labor, or his or her designee.
And it's also clarifying the hiring and firing authority of members of boards and commissions staff. And there's been some confusion about that as well. So that's what this bill does. I'm happy to answer any questions. I also had
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:51:59
a quick point to make. There was a part in Section 16 has to do with the appointment of the director and gives the appointment discretion, I believe it's to the secretary and the governor's office is supportive of that
and it passed in the Senate with 35 votes. Just wanted
to make sure, I know there's a lot of pages there, didn't want anything to be hidden. It's truly clean up language. Appreciate
a good vote. Seeing no questions from the committee. Make a motion, do pass. We have a motion, do pass. All those in favor say aye.
Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. I'm going
to last for just a little bit so we can decide what bill comes up next.
Okay, next we're going to move to Senate Bill 536, Representative Long. I believe that's 536, Senate Bill 536. All right,
so give me just a moment
to find out who we've got here that can present a bell.
Speed things up a bit. Is there anyone here that's ready to present a bell? We can get that heard. Oh,
Speaker 254
1:54:17
Unger's here. Unger's here. You're good
to go on 521, Senate Bill. I wrote it on
All right, next we're gonna hear Senate Bill 521. Representative Leninger, please identify yourself for the committee and you're
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
1:54:56
good to go. Thank you, Mr. Chair, colleagues, Representative Steve Unger, District 19. I'm going to ask Mr. Taylor
Hannaford to join me here at the end of the table, and Sheriff Brady also.
Please come in, and before you start, both of you please identify yourselves, and then we'll be good to go.
Speaker 262
1:55:15
Taylor Hanford, legal counsel, Arkansas Sheriff's Association. I'm Scott Bradley.
Speaker 233
1:55:24
I'm the director of the Arkansas Sheriff's Association. Go
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
1:55:34
ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You could really call this a cleanup bill in many ways. When the original bill was passed, and this has to do with the reimbursement of a police
department or law enforcement agency which has hired an officer paid for their training paid for all the expenses in the pipeline and then that either deputy sheriff or officer gets hired away it's basically when the original bill was written the language in section 1 line 26 if a county city town or state agency pays the cost or expenses well at that time they had a minted school districts
that have their own police departments in many cities the SROs are actually employees of the city police department there are some schools that actually have their own police departments and so they've changed the language basically to say law enforcement agency and the period of reimbursement originally was set at 18 months and you can see in line 30 it's been changed to 24 and the changes in the rest of the bill really reflect that and that's all I got I'm
open for questions seeing no questions from the committee is where everyone there's no one signed up to speak for against the bill is there anyone who'd like to speak for against the bill all right saying none you recognize the Close
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
1:57:10
for your bill. Colleagues, I ask for a
good vote. Thank you. Representative Hammer, it's closed for the bill, Unger.
I'm sorry, I'm doing about four things up here. Representative Unger, what is the will of the
committee? I have a motion to do pass. All those, there's any discussion on the motion. Seeing no discussion on the motion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations, Representative Unger, you have
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
1:57:50
passed your bill. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Representative Gazeway.
All right. All right, next up we're going to hear 551.
And Senator Hamer is here to present that bill. Please identify yourself with the committee and you're
Speaker 183
1:58:24
good to go. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Kim Hamer, State Senator, District 16, presenting 551. Recognize, go ahead, Mr. Chairman.
- Yes, go ahead. - All right, thank you. So earlier this session, we passed some bills regarding canvassing for a petition on the statewide level. What this does is take that same language that we've already passed, it's already been enacted, and it applies it to the local option election, which is pretty much a dry, wet county issue, and that's what the bill does. It just takes existing language we've already passed, it's already in law, and puts it in so we've got consistency across the board.
And I'm ready to take any questions. Seeing no questions from the committee, is there anyone here to speak for against the bill? Anyone in the audience would like to speak for against the bill? Seeing none, you
Speaker 183
1:59:25
recognize the clause for your bill. Thank you. Representative Eubanks asked me to run this, and we started out in Senate and
came down here, so I appreciate a good vote out of the committee. Representative Collins, oh, Representative Collins, motion to do pass?
Crawford, Crawford, Crawford, I'm just all switched up today, all right, got a motion to do pass. Is there any discussion
on the motion? Representative Collins, you recognize the discussion. Thank you. To be clear,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:59:57
not a motion to do pass for me. So this one, and I guess
the other one didn't bring in all of the things that we passed this session with regard to gumming up the works on the process, but this does, and this
will make it very difficult to get one of these local option elections through. He's got the campuser affidavit. This one has the reading the ballot title and the presence or making sure that the signer has read it. All of these things which were bad on the state level are also bad on this level. And it's particularly going to burden people who are just trying to make their local areas better. So I'm a no. Thanks. Is there any other discussion on the motion?
Seeing none. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Congratulations,
Senator Hamer, you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Senator Hamer, while you're at the end of the table, are you prepared to
Speaker 183
2:01:09
present Senate Bill 491? Could you tell me the title on
that one? Oh, yes sir, yes sir. Please identify yourself for the committee and you're good to present on 491.
Speaker 183
2:01:22
Could I have indulged 30 seconds, please, real quick? Sure. We've got it
Speaker 109
2:01:25
drafted in as an SOR, SOR getting reviewed. I don't know if she's got it down to committee yet or not. Mr. Chairman,
Speaker 183
2:01:32
do you all have an amendment on this bill down there yet? No. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I need to work with EBD on this, and there's a amendment that's coming over. It's in review. Can I just yield, and when the amendment gets here, I'll be here. Thank you. All right. Hold on just a second.
Representative Ray, you're recognized for Senate Bill 508. I'm sorry, which one? Representative Ray. Oh,
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:02:05
sorry. 508? Sure. You're ready? Yes, we're ready. Please identify yourself
with the committee and you're good to go. Thank you, Mr.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:02:30
Chairman, David Ray, State Representative of District 69.
If it's okay with the chair, I'd like to ask Mr. Grant Wallace to come help me present this bill. That's fine. Colleagues, this is legislation from Senator Irvin and Representative Lee Johnson. They couldn't make it to the committee this morning, so I was asked. So I'm going to let Mr. Wallace explain the bill and let him answer any
questions that members of the committee might have. Grant
Speaker 279
2:03:03
Wallace, Director of Employee Benefits Division. This is a cleanup bill.
We ran a bill earlier in the session to revise the frequency and the stipend that the advisory commissions to EBD received. We missed one part where it said per month and the change in this bill is to per meeting. So it's making the stipends coincide with their meeting frequency. All right. You up for questions?
Are there any questions in the committee? Seeing none.
Is there anyone to speak for or against the bill? Anyone in the audience would
like to speak for against the bill. Seeing none, Representative Ray, you are recognized and closed for your bill. I'm closed
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:03:50
for the bill and I'll move do
pass. All right, we have a motion do pass on the table. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations, Representative Ray, you passed your
bill just give me just one second we'll find our next bit
Speaker 281
2:04:39
All right, committee, we're going to
adjourn at 12:30, so this bill is going to take a little bit longer to get through, but we're going
to go ahead and start it and then we'll just recess and go up and come back and finish it up but this look this will get it
Speaker 204
2:05:09
started on this bill all right so that
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:05:20
been that bill would be hi you recognize to present five thirty six Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
2:05:31
Wayne Long, House District 39. Senator Dan Sullivan, District 20. All
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
2:05:37
right, we're good to go. We've all
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
2:05:43
witnessed state boards and commissions that have gotten too big for the britches. They act like they're unaccountable to anyone once they get their appointment. The Arkansas State Library Board has a seven-year appointment and this is what we're experiencing from that board. I was told that the library board publicly ridiculed Act 372 that was passed by this body back in 2023. It put in place standards and guidelines to the display of inappropriate sexual materials
that are being paid for in our publicly funded libraries. They have repeatedly ignored the request of members of the General Assembly and Arkansas citizens to put policies in place to protect children from these inappropriate sexual materials. They've also refused to disassociate themselves from the Arkansas-- excuse me, the American Library Association, whose official policy is that children have the right to see any materials that they want,
regardless of the parent's stand on the issue. I would encourage everyone to review the Arkansas Library Board meeting on March 13th, 2025. That will bring a lot of clarity to the reason why we're bringing this bill. There you'll see that a majority of the members of the board voted not to protect children from inappropriate sexual materials. That's why I support this bill to remove the -- I'm sorry, I lost my phrase -- to remove
the task performed by the library board to the Arkansas Department of Education because they're answerable to the elected governor of the state. And I'd like to turn it over to Senator Sullivan to present
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
2:07:42
the bill. Thank you, Representative, and thank you, Mr. Chair. Folks, I'd like for you to just be aware of a couple of things. One, the original bill was Senate Bill 184 that eliminated, relocated the Department of AETN, Educational Network, and the Library Board.
I got a call from the director at AETN. He said, yes, we agreed that, yes, they'd had some problems and they were going to fix them. handshake, we agreed that they would fix them and I would remove them from the bill and let them remain solvent. When I talked with the library board and folks, I called almost all of them and offered them a very simple solution. One, to disassociate with the American Library Association,
which they had a very loose association with. And then two, just come up with a statement, non-binding statement that they would protect children from sexually explicit material. They took a vote, and the library board voted that down. They decided they did not want to make that kind of a statement. And folks, I guess my ask of you would be to wonder why they would do that, to take such an easy path to remain solvent and the legislature back off.
You know, our number one charge as a legislature is to have oversight. We had testimony in the Senate on this bill, and it was very clear that librarians don't want oversight. If you read the first part of the bill, where it abolishes the state library and just moves it under the Department of Education, the Department of Education is here.
They'll be prepared to testify this afternoon about their capacities and capabilities to achieve that. The bill lists very clearly. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I think we have an amendment. Do you have the amendment to the bill? They didn't send that over? I'll make sure that you have that. They were supposed to send that over to you. hold on just a second
All right. Due to the fact that we do not have that amendment, I do not want to proceed any further with that. What I'm going to do is I'm going to recess this until an actual adjournment, and then you'll have your amendment here in the committee ready, and we'll be good to go with that. Representative Rose, did you
Speaker 286
2:10:46
have a question? Yeah, parliamentary inquiry. Oh. Go ahead.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:10:50
Something for you or staff. Is there anything we have to do procedurally for them to be able to restart their testimony since there is an amendment coming?
and then began to present the bill without the amendment. And if you need to recess before we get an answer on that, I'm fine to
Speaker 287
2:11:10
wait until after the recess. Hold on just one second. Mr. Collins. Yeah,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:11:14
I was just going to suggest, I feel like we've seen this in other situations, if they pull the bill down, then they can do the amendment and
start over when we come back, would be my thought if everyone agrees to that. Yeah. And again, I don't know if staff needs to confer before you.
That would be appropriate if you guys just pulled your bill down and then we'll recess and we'll go right
back at it upon adjournment of
the house. That's what we'd do then, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. That's what we'd like to do then, Mr. Chairman. All right. So the request is to pull the bill
down? Yes, sir. Alright, that's good. So with that, there is no other, we have no other,
so we're going to be in recess until 15 minutes upon adjournment of the House.
Agenda
CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1614 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRANT PROGRAMS.
RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
Number Sponsor Subtitle
SB443 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE STATE BOARD OF APPRAISERS, ABSTRACTERS, AND HOME INSPECTORS; TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING LICENSURE OF ABSTRACTERS; TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING LICENSURE OF HOME INSPECTORS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1041 R. Scott Richardson TO PROHIBIT DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES IN ELECTION COMMUNICATIONS.
HB1849 Gramlich TO ALLOW FOR THE CROSS DEPUTIZATION OF MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, STATE, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ON FEDERALLY-RECOGNIZED TRIBAL LAND WITHIN THE STATE.
HB1878 McGruder TO ENSURE EARLY VOTING ACCESS FOR ARKANSANS RESIDING IN POPULATION CENTERS; AND TO REQUIRE A COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS TO CONDUCT EARLY VOTING IN A CITY IN CERTAIN INSTANCES.
HB1883 Long TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF ELECTRONIC DATA AND METADATA.
HB1884 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MARKING AND COUNTING OF PAPER BALLOTS.
HB1973 B. McKenzie TO PROVIDE THAT A GOVERNMENTAL BODY SHALL NOT USE STATE OR LOCAL FUNDS TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH A LOBBYIST FOR THE PURPOSE OF LOBBYING ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY.
SENATE BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
SB12 B. King TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING REDISTRICTING BY THE BOARD OF APPORTIONMENT.
SB376 A. Clark TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC MEETINGS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967.
SB445 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE LICENSURE OF ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS.
SB471 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CANDIDATES FOR NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS; AND TO ALLOW CERTAIN CANDIDATES FOR NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS TO USE THE TITLE OF THE NONPARTISAN JUDICIAL OFFICE ON THE BALLOT.
SB491 K. Hammer TO REQUIRE A VENDOR THAT CONTRACTS WITH THE OFFICE OF STATE PROCUREMENT FOR SERVICES FOR THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION TO SUBMIT DATA FOR VERIFICATION BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR; TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB508 Irvin TO AMEND THE FREQUENCY OF PAYMENT OF A STIPEND FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFIT ADVISORY COMMISSION AND THE STATE EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFIT ADVISORY COMMISSION.
SB486 B. Johnson CONCERNING SAFETY AND PRIVACY IN CERTAIN ENTITIES; AND CONCERNING THE DESIGNATION OF MULTI-OCCUPANCY RESTROOMS, CHANGING ROOMS, AND SLEEPING QUARTERS IN CERTAIN ENTITIES BASED ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S SEX.
SB489 G. Leding TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE PLACEMENT OF A MONUMENT ON THE STATE CAPITOL GROUNDS IN RECOGNITION OF THE DESEGREGATION OF THE CHARLESTON AND FAYETTEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN 1954.
SB521 B. Davis TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING REIMBURSEMENT; AND TO EXTEND THE TIME PERIOD AFTER COMPLETION OF TRAINING FOR WHICH REIMBURSEMENT IS REQUIRED.
SB536 D. Sullivan TO ABOLISH AND TRANSFER THE ARKANSAS STATE LIBRARY AND THE STATE LIBRARY BOARD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB570 J. Dotson TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE.
SB551 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CANVASSING FOR A PETITION FOR A LOCAL OPTION ELECTION.
SB584 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LOCAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM PETITIONS.
SB439 Irvin TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND LICENSING; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF ARKANSAS CODE WHICH RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1914.
SB516 Gilmore TO ALLOW A PERSON FILING AS A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OR JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS WHO IS AN APPOINTEE IN THAT POSITION TO USE THE TITLE OF THAT POSITION AS A PREFIX WHEN FILING AS A CANDIDATE.
SB565 Flippo TO ALLOW PROCUREMENT CERTIFICATIONS TO BE COMBINED; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE REPRESENTATION IN STATE CONTRACTS REGARDING CONTINGENT FEES; AND TO AMEND THE COOPERATIVE PURCHASING REPORTING DEADLINE.
SB578 Hester TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EARLY VOTING; AND TO ALLOW A COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS TO CLOSE CERTAIN EARLY VOTING LOCATIONS DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER.
SB613 C. Penzo TO CREATE AN ELECTION PROCEDURE TO DETERMINE FLUORIDATION OF A PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM.
DEFERRED BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1024 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; AND TO REPEAL THE LAW PROHIBITING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
HB1028 A. Collins TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE LAW CONCERNING OBSCENITY AND THE PROCESS FOR CHALLENGING MATERIALS INCLUDED IN A LIBRARY; AND TO REQUIRE A LIBRARY TO HAVE A POLICY PROHIBITING BOOK BANNING IN ORDER TO RECEIVE STATE FUNDING.
HB1043 A. Collins TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING OF NONCANDIDATE EXPENDITURES PERTAINING TO APPELLATE JUDICIAL ELECTIONS; AND TO ADOPT NEW LAWS CONCERNING APPELLATE JUDICIAL CAMPAIGNS.
HB1162 Duffield TO ESTABLISH GOOD FRIDAY AS AN OFFICIAL STATE HOLIDAY.
HB1058 Unger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FOR PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; AND TO PROHIBIT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FROM GIVING ADVANCE NOTICE TO ENTITIES OF REQUIRED INSPECTIONS.
HB1059 Unger TO PROVIDE THE OPTION FOR A FREE LIFETIME HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSE TO A COMMERCIAL TRUCK DRIVER WHO IS A RESIDENT AND PROVIDES CERTAIN INFORMATION RELATED TO HUMAN TRAFFICKING.
HB1078 Long TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR A RUNOFF ELECTION FOR CANDIDATES FOR THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
HB1281 McAlindon TO AMEND REPORTING FOR A CANDIDATE FOR CERTAIN MUNICIPAL OFFICES AND FOR COUNTY OFFICE; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996.
HB1415 L. Johnson TO REQUIRE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO RESPOND TO A REQUEST FOR A FIRE INQUIRY.
HB1494 Hawk TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS GUIDANCE OUT OF THE DARKNESS ACT; AND TO REQUIRE STATE AGENCIES TO PUBLISH FEDERAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS ONLINE.
HB1459 L. Johnson CONCERNING RECURRING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
HB1461 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE EVALUATION OF NECESSITY OF VARIOUS COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS.
SB184 D. Sullivan TO TRANSFER THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ARKANSAS EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION COMMISSION AND THE STATE LIBRARY BOARD TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.
HB1667 Bentley TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC MEETINGS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967.
HB1769 Barnett CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER STANDARDS; AND TO REQUIRE A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION OR ASSESSMENT TO BECOME OR BE EMPLOYED AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
HB1621 Wardlaw TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO EXEMPT PERSONAL INFORMATION OF ELECTED CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS, JUDICIAL OFFICIALS, ELECTED COUNTY OFFICIALS, ELECTED MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS, AND THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILY.
HB1631 Wardlaw TO ADDRESS THE ISSUANCE OF HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENTS.
HB1069 S. Meeks TO OBSERVE STANDARD TIME YEAR ROUND IN ARKANSAS; AND TO ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME IN ARKANSAS.
HB1720 Vaught TO CREATE THE BABIES AT WORK ACT; TO ALLOW STATE AGENCIES TO PERMIT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO ARE PARENTS OR LEGAL GUARDIANS TO BRING THEIR INFANTS SIX MONTHS OR YOUNGER TO WORK.
HB1753 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO OPT-OUT OF THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 1993; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, § 5.
HB1773 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR BALLOT QUESTION COMMITTEES AND LEGISLATIVE QUESTION COMMITTEES.
HB1037 A. Collins AN ACT TO CREATE THE PREREGISTRATION TO VOTE ACT; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, § 19.
HB1035 A. Collins TO CREATE THE ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 2025; TO ALLOW ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION; TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51; AND TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
HB1036 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO ALLOW VOTER REGISTRATION DURING EARLY VOTING AND ON ELECTION DAY; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51.
HB1038 A. Collins TO CREATE THE NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING ACT OF 2025; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE VOTING; AND TO REPEAL VOTER QUALIFICATIONS FOR ABSENTEE VOTING.
HB1039 A. Collins TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOTS; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS.
HB1040 A. Collins TO CREATE THE WATER IN LINE ACT OF 2025; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PENALTIES FOR MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES RELATED TO VOTING.
HB1042 A. Collins TO CREATE THE DIRECT DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2025; TO REPEAL THE ENSURING ACCESS FOR ALL ARKANSANS AND VOTER PROTECTION ACT OF 2023; AND TO AMEND THE PROCEDURE FOR THE FILING OF A BALLOT INITIATIVE PETITION AND REFERENDUM PETITION.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS- HOUSE, Apr 9, 2025 | Agenda | 4 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 1
Representative Rick Beck Chair
Unverified
Speaker 5
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Representative David Ray
Unverified
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Speaker 48
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
Speaker 65
Speaker 73
Representative Mark D. McElroy
Unverified
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
Speaker 79
Speaker 106
Speaker 108
Speaker 116
Speaker 89
Speaker 121
Speaker 28
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
Joey Mccutcheon
Unverified
Speaker 167
Speaker 162
Andrew Bagley
Unverified
Aaron Hanson
Unverified
Speaker 183
Sarah Moore
Unverified
Speaker 189
Speaker 190
Speaker 192
Alex Kinlan
Unverified
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Chair
Unverified
Speaker 208
Speaker 211
Speaker 197
Speaker 225
Speaker 50
Speaker 244
Speaker 246
Speaker 254
Speaker 256
Speaker 258
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
Speaker 262
Speaker 233
Speaker 109
Speaker 279
Speaker 281
Speaker 204
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
Speaker 286
Speaker 287