State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (53)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1884
· 8 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
HB1883
· 5 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “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. |
|
HB1041
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…TICE GRANT PROGRAMS. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1041 R. Scott TO PROHIBIT DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES IN…”
|
TO PROHIBIT DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES IN ELECTION COMMUNICATIONS. | R. Scott Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1849
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
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. |
|
HB1614
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
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. |
|
HB1024
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EFERENDUM PETITIONS. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1024 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; AND TO REPEAL THE LAW PROHIBITING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1028
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1028 A. Collins TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE LAW CONCERNING OBSCEN…”
|
TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE LAW CONCERNING OBSCENITY AND THE PROCESS FOR CHALLENGING MATERIALS INCLUDED … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1035
· 2 mentions in 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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ISSION FOR FREE OR DISCOUNTED HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES. 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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…. AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51. HB1038 A. Collins TO CREATE THE NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING ACT OF 2…”
|
TO CREATE THE NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING ACT OF 2025; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1039
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NG; AND TO REPEAL VOTER QUALIFICATIONS FOR ABSENTEE VOTING. HB1039 A. Collins TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOT…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOTS; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1040
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CANDIDATES FOR THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TATE AGENCIES TO PUBLISH FEDERAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS ONLINE. 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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. Page 3 of 4 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. |
|
HB1621
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MENT TO BECOME OR BE EMPLOYED AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. HB1621 Wardlaw TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO EXEMPT PERSONAL INFORMATION OF … | Wardlaw | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1631
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…S, ELECTED MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS, AND THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILY. HB1631 Wardlaw TO ADDRESS THE ISSUANCE OF HUNTING AND FISHING LICE…”
|
TO ADDRESS THE ISSUANCE OF HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENTS. | Wardlaw | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1632
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E LAW CONCERNING THE MARKING AND COUNTING OF PAPER BALLOTS. HB1632 Wardlaw TO REQUIRE REIMBURSEMENT TO THE ARKANSAS STATE GAME…”
|
TO REQUIRE REIMBURSEMENT TO THE ARKANSAS STATE GAME AND FISH COMMISSION FOR FREE OR DISCOUNTED … | Wardlaw | Died in Senate 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: “…BLIC MEETINGS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF 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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
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 |
|
HB1951
Act 929
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NG OF A BALLOT INITIATIVE PETITION AND REFERENDUM PETITION. HB1951 A. Collins TO SET FORTH AUTHORIZED DOMAIN EXTENSIONS FOR HI…”
|
TO SET FORTH AUTHORIZED DOMAIN EXTENSIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT WEBSITES. | A. Collins | Notification that HB1951 is now Act 929 |
|
HB1952
Act 947
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1952 Hawk TO ASSIST THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATE ATHLETIC COM…”
|
TO ASSIST THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATE ATHLETIC COMMISSION; TO PROVIDE FUNDING TO THE STATE … | Hawk | Notification that HB1952 is now Act 947 |
|
HB1973
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MOTE A ROBUST, HEALTHY, AND SAFE COMBATIVE SPORTS INDUSTRY. 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. |
|
HB1974
Act 948
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1974 Long TO PROHIBIT STATE ENTITIES FROM EMPLOYING UNAUTHORIZED…”
|
TO PROHIBIT STATE ENTITIES FROM EMPLOYING UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS; TO ESTABLISH THE E-VERIFY REQUIREMENT ACT; AND … | Long | Notification that HB1974 is now Act 948 |
|
SB12
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB12 B. King TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING … | B. King | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB184
· 2 mentions in 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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
SB445
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…BLIC MEETINGS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967. 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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 |
|
SB489
Act 950
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB489 G. Leding TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE PLACEMENT OF…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE PLACEMENT OF A MONUMENT ON THE STATE CAPITOL GROUNDS … | G. Leding | Notification that SB489 is now Act 950 |
|
SB491
Act 956
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE TITLE OF THE NONPARTISAN JUDICIAL OFFICE ON THE BALLOT. SB491 K. Hammer TO REQUIRE A VENDOR THAT CONTRACTS WITH THE OFFIC…”
|
TO REQUIRE A VENDOR THAT CONTRACTS WITH THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION TO SUBMIT DATA FOR … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB491 is now Act 956 |
|
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 |
|
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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NING CANVASSING FOR A PETITION FOR A LOCAL OPTION ELECTION. 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 |
|
HB1867
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 4/4/2025 @ 9:30 AM) Removed HB1867 House Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE NO GOVERNMENT TRESPASSING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT GAME WARDEN TRESPASS ONTO PRIVATE … | B. McKenzie | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
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 7, 2026
Speaker 2
0:00
Earlier we're going to your House Bill today
and I intend to start at the top of the agenda and we're just going to work our way down. So beginning with House Bill 1614, Representative
Lundstrom. Representative Lundstrom, don't see her here. Someone may want to text her. I want to make
sure she knows that she has a bill on the agenda because if the house bills aren't run tonight, they're not going to be run.
So next we have House Bill 1041, R. Scott Richardson, R. Scott
Richardson, R. Scott Richardson. All right. Next we have
House Bill 1849, Representative Gramlich. I think he's in the day's Senate committee tomorrow. Okay, Representative Collins.
He did the Senate version of this bill already, so I don't. Okay, I think that one won't be ran, all right. Talked with Representative Magruder.
I think he told me he had an amendment on his bill, so we'll pass over that. House Bill 1883,
Representative Long. Representative Long, do you intend to present that? All right. You're recognized.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:41
- Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Wayne Long, District 39. And I've got an amendment for my bill. - All right. -
Oh, I'm sorry. Didn't you say, you did say 1884, didn't you, sir?
- 1883 to create the Arkansas Fourth Amendment Protection Act and to amend the law concerning the collection of electronic data and metadata. Yes, sir, thank you. Could you give me just one second, I grabbed
the wrong paper, sorry. All right, we do not have an amendment for that bill, is that right? No, no, sir, no, it's 1884.
Okay, all right, you're recognized. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
2:56
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry for that delay, kind of caught me off guard. I thought we were going to have some more bills presented before mine. What I was wanting to do on this one, I've never done it before, but I was wondering what the proper procedure is to ask for your bill to
be put into interim study. All right, I think you just simply make a request. Is that what you would like to do with House Bill 1883? Yes, sir.
Please. Send it to Interim Study? Yes, sir. All right. Staff, is there any particular? Okay. Have to let Ms. Martha know that you'd like this to be referred to Interim Study and that shouldn't be a problem. Okay. Thank you, sir. All right. Are you prepared on House Bill 1884? Yes, sir. All right. You're recognized to present House Bill 1884. Yeah. And I did have an amendment on
Speaker 21
3:47
this one. We do have an amendment on that. Staff will be passing that out. Thank you.
All right, this appears to be quite the amendment, Representative Long. Do you want to move to adopt the amendment, and then we can just discuss the bill as amended? That would be great, sir. All right, you make a motion? Motion to pass. The amendment. Motion to adopt the amendment.
Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed. Amendment's been adopted. Representative Long, you're recognized to present
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
5:04
House Bill 1884 as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like the chairman said, it's quite an amendment. It's a five-page amendment on a two-page bill. But basically, I went to work talking to some folks in the Election Commission and basically try to come up with some ways to eliminate some of the objections that was
brought up the other day when we first started hearing this bill and basically what I come up with was there was some concern about shutting down the accounting process. So what I did was basically put into the bill that the county would not take place from 10:00 p.m. till 6:00 a.m. and that during this time period the doors would be locked and we would place either a certified law enforcement officer or a licensed security guard to guard the door of the room or the
building whichever the case is. And they also would add seals to the doors similar to what the police use when they have a crime scene and want to seal it to make sure no one's entering or exiting. And also because of the stopping and starting, because the issue, if you recall, was in my bill that I passed two years ago, I had set up that once the county started, they had
to continue until finished. Searcy County during the general election this past November counted for 18 hours straight. And I got concerned that during that long of time period, errors would maybe start to happen. Fortunately with them, it did not. They made 100% on their audit, but that was, you know, a small county. It could have went much longer if it was been a bigger county, more ballots to count.
So we basically just tried to come up with, you know, everything that we needed to try to secure those situations. So I also put in here that we require at least two of the election commissioners to be present at all times. That would waive one of the commissioners could go get something to eat or go to the restroom, that type of thing without counting, happen to come to a stop, as it is considered required now.
And let's see, one other thing was, oh, and require at least two representatives, two election commissioners to be present to break the seal, to enter the room or building at the starting of the next day. and also two of those folks to break the seals on the ballot boxes. I think that's about it as far as the things that I added.
I'd be happy to try to answer any questions. - All right, Representative Long has explained House Bill 1884. Are there
Representative David Ray
Unverified
8:29
any questions by the committee? Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So am I understanding this correctly, Representative Long?
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
8:37
They're going to stop counting at 10 p.m.? That would be the latest that they could count. They'd give them basically 16 hours per day. Oh, that's one thing I forgot to mention. Once they do start counting, which in Searcy County's case,
they opted to not start that night after having worked all day during the election. So they started the next day. So whenever they do start, that there would be no stopping as far as daily operations. So they wouldn't be taken off for the weekend or
anything if that was necessary. They'd keep counting until all the ballots are counted. But they would only do
it up to a maximum of 16 hours a day. I did put in this amendment to require them to post the time and hours,
excuse me, the hours and location of where the counting center is going to be ahead of time. And so I think that's 30 days before the elections
Representative David Ray
Unverified
9:34
when they generally post that. I guess I'm just confused. It's been
a long day. Yes, sir. So the polls close at 7 p.m. 7.30. Or 7.30, sorry. Okay, so the polls close
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
9:48
at 7.30. They count until 10 and then they stop?
No, sir. That's on the election night, they're just running the ballots through the tabulator.
That has to be done within 24 hours, which they knocked that out in like three hours or so. And that's to get your unofficial total that's sent to the Secretary of State, and he distributes it out to the public and to the media, so you get your unofficial count. Then the counties that do paper ballots have the opportunity not to start counting the paper ballots that night because they've already worked, you know, like 18 hours, so that wouldn't be a good idea. So they opted to start the next day, and I think they started at like 9 a.m.,
and they ended up working until 3 a.m. the following morning. That's where I mentioned earlier the 18 hours straight. And with, you know, President Trump really being fond of paper ballots, So I think we're maybe one executive order away from maybe all 75 counties being required to have paper ballot elections. If that's the case, we don't want 75 counties with sleepy people trying to count ballots.
All right, any other questions by the committee? I have
a couple. Representative Long. Yes, sir. So when
we refer to paper ballots, so the machines that I use to cast my vote issue a paper ballot, which I'm able to review before I go put it in the box that ultimately is scanned and tabulated. Is that what you're defining as and considering a paper ballot?
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
11:34
Yeah, I should have made it more clear. I'm sorry. This law here concerns counties that elect to do hand-marked, hand-counted, paper ballot. Okay, hand-marked, hand-counted. Yes, sir. Do you see a
significant distinction between hand-marked and hand-counted as opposed to the machine-marked and machine-counted? I mean, I suppose the point is, like, when I vote, it prints out a sheet of paper, and I review the sheet of paper.
Is this the whole issue about the barcode? No, I don't address. Somebody can't
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
12:12
read barcode? I don't address the barcode. Basically, this bill is just trying to make things a little more secure and maybe more accurate for counties that do elect to do paper ballot elections, which we now have two. Okay. So
I'm just basically working on that for those counties. So this only applies to the counties that have chosen to do hand-marked, hand-counted paper ballots.
and which counties are those? The Searcy County and one of my counties, Independence County. All
right. They have to stop counting at 10, is that right? Yes, sir. And then when
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
12:48
can they resume counting? They would be able to at 6
a.m. if they chose to. All right. And how do you expect with the number of votes in those two counties that it might delay the ultimate determination of
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
13:01
an election? Well, you know, since we've been through the county with Searcy County, it took them 18 hours the first time.
So I suppose that would be, you know, kind of a pretty close average for the next election. Maybe a little faster because general elections during the presidential year, you know, you should have a greater turnout. So, you know, if we said 18 hours, basically they could, you know, knock it out 16 hours the first day and come back the next day in two more hours and they're finished. All right. But, you know, I mean, there's nothing to stop them from saying eight hours today. eight hours tomorrow. That
would be up to them to decide. And who makes the decision as to whether or not a county adopts
hand-marked, hand-counted paper ballots? The quorum court can
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
13:41
decide or the people can circulate a petition, get it on
the ballot. That's what they did in Independence County. They got it on the ballot and 63% of the
people voted to go to hand-marked, hand-counted in Independence County. Okay, Arkansas law allows that? Yes, sir. In Searcy County, they did it through the quorum court. The
court majority voted to do it. All right. And then all this language about double locking hard shell ballot boxes and being stored and guarded by a certified law enforcement officer, licensed security.
Where did you get all of this? Did you work with someone
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
14:19
on that? Yes. I worked with some of the election commissioners of
the counties that have been doing it. I also spoke to Mr. Madison from the State Board of Election Commissioners, basically bouncing some ideas off of him also because, like I mentioned the other day, this hasn't been done in a generation. So we're basically going to have to start from scratch on trying to come up with security measures and procedures. Is Mr.
Madison here? I don't think so, sir.
It would be a fine time to be in state agencies. Yes, sir. All right.
Speaker 43
14:51
Representative Woodridge, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Representative. I had
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
14:56
read the bill originally, but the amendment, I'm trying to kind of get caught up on that. So we passed a series of bills during the last session that were election integrity bills, and as part of those bills, we put the requirements on for any community that wanted to do hand count ballots, right, or paper ballots? That was actually my bill, yes, sir. I thought that it was.
So how does this work in contradictory to that bill? because originally we had said that if you wanted to do that, they had to be seal marked and there had to be a continuous time that they were counted and those kind
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
15:30
of things, correct? Yes, sir. When I wrote that bill, like I said, we were basically just starting from scratch on trying to come up with a procedure and security measures. And at that time, I just talked to different election commissioners and election coordinators throughout the state just basically to get an idea of how should this work.
You know, so far it's been small to medium-sized counties that did it. But I needed to try to
be prepared in case a larger county did it. Okay. So that was me that put the thing in there about
the count until you're finished. And that was because of what I'd witnessed during the 2020 election. It seemed like when people stopped counting in the middle of the night and they came back, that's where a lot of questions came up. So I thought it would be best if we had basically required them to just continually count.
Well, having seen people trying to do this in the real world, I decided that's probably not a good idea. I think with the procedures we have in place as far as keeping up with the ballots, that they keep up with which ballots have been used, which ones were unused. And I forgot to mention a moment ago, we also put in here
that once the ballot is counted, it has to be stamped with a red stamp that says counted. So that way there's no confusion when they come back and restart of possibly counting the same ballot twice,
Speaker 46
16:53
which we've seen that happen in some instances in other states. Ryan, just one follow-up, Mr. Chair, and I don't want to belabor
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
17:00
the point because I know we have a lot of things to do and I sure don't want to say anything that, I don't mean this to sound any way other than I thought that when we did that to have them count continuously while, you know, I think that the Secretary of State's office has done a good job showing us that the machines are tabulated correctly. They've audited those, all of the kind of things. But if a county wants to do hand count ballots, that's fine. But I thought the whole premise
behind that was that it would not delay the process for everyone else in the state. So what I'm hearing from you, I guess, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, this is just what I hear, that you're telling me that you created a system during the last session for counties to be to use paper ballots hand count those they had to count them continuously but you're seeing that that maybe is not working like you originally thought that it would it's time um i guess it's a burden from time standpoint and some other things so when we roll this out to bigger county
and i think that i brought this point up i can't i wouldn't swear to it verbatim but i think last session when we talked about this my concern was that would this work in pulaski county or washington County or Craighead County or some of these other counties, it sounds to me like you don't believe that it will from a continuous counting standpoint. So we're needing to create a break to where they can count in eight-hour windows and have armed security guards to maintain the ballots. And I guess my question would be to that is what are we trying to accomplish if we continue
to change the process for this system? At what point do we just decide that this is too burdensome for our clerks, for our commissioners for all of those involved. And I guess, would
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
18:42
you agree? And with that, I appreciate it, Mr. Chair. Well, I wouldn't agree. The, as far as delays, the tabulation still occurs immediately, just like it did in original law. And like in most of the laws we do,
sometimes you have to come back and tweak things. Because you see it in the real world, it didn't work out just quite the way we had imagined. And that's kind of what happened in this case. I saw that my desire to make sure nobody stopped counting because of possible fraud, really that now to me is outweighed by the possibility of errors being made by people that are not used to working third shift or whatever, trying to count ballots for the official total, which is, you know, in the hand count, hand marked counties,
that's the official totals based on that total rather than the tabulation. Unless they don't, like I mentioned the other day, unless they don't make it or not finish before the 24 hours before the deadline. So they basically have nine days in a primary and 14 days, I believe, in a maybe 13 days in a general election to get it done. If for some reason they're unable to get the hand count done at that point, then the official total becomes the tabulated unofficial total.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
20:05
Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Long, I remember when this ran last time, counties were concerned about the potential that the box would be left with, or that the ballots would be left with one and only one election commissioner. I see that a lot of the language in the amendment talks about two election commissioners, But can you explain to me how the language on page three squares with that? So I know there aren't line numbers, but I would say two-thirds of the way down page three,
we're talking about, you know, circumstances under which poll workers can be exempt from counting. And one of the conditions that must be met is that the ballots are stored in a locked room or building that is guarded by a certified law enforcement officer or a licensed security guard unless a member of the county board of election commissioners is present. So it does sound to me like even with this amendment, there is a scenario where the ballots
can be left with one and only one commissioners. Am I reading that correctly? I'm just trying to understand how it squares with the rest of
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
21:17
the new language. Wait, give me just a moment.
Yeah. I'll catch that. Okay, it was, no, I say on page three, um, B. B, yes, ma'am. Or stored in a locked room or building that is guarded by a certified law enforcement or licensed security guard unless a member of the county board--
Oh, I see what you mean. Should have said, I guess, members because I think everywhere
else we try to indicate that two or more is required. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Representative
Collins, you're recognized. Representative McElroy, you're recognized. Do the county clerks support this will? I doubt it.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
22:08
They've not supported it up until now.
They fought against it with tooth and nail two years ago. But election commissioners, the people that run the elections, Pretty much the extent of the county clerk, once they get the tabulated vote, it's like a little thumb drive, they give that to the county clerk, and the county clerk transmits that to the Secretary of
State's office. Thank you. If we took that out, they wouldn't have anything to do with it at all. Representative Ray, you're recognized.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
22:43
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is not really a policy point, but just something I noticed, Representative Long. I know you just amended the bill. I don't think there's a Senate sponsor on there. I know the last time I took a bill down to the Senate side without a Senate sponsor, they would not let me run it until we amended
it. Do you have a plan to pass this bill on the Senate side if you were to get it through the House? Who's going to run
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
23:11
it? I can't say yet, but I know I've got somebody lined up.
You know how they tell us, it's like, if you can get it through the House,
then get back with me kind of deal. that's one of those jails. Okay. All right. Representative Long, I have a couple of questions about similar to Representative Woodridge's questions. We all want secure elections. It's a vital part of having a functioning democracy, to have secure elections, but we also need
to be able to get returns in a relatively reasonable amount of time. If some of these bigger counties were to, as Representative Woodridge asked, adopt hand marked hand-counted ballots, do you, I mean, given the time restrictions that you put in here, do
you think they would be able to complete the work in a reasonable amount of time?
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
24:20
Yes, yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Of course, the initial unofficial totals, they're required within 24 hours currently
under current law. What I foresee is knowing how many hours that you have available and having a pretty good idea of how many people it takes, you know, per hour to count, you know, 1,000 votes. Basically, they'll step up to the point where they're ready to go. I would suppose that a county would, you know, decide if they want to get into that before they make the decision, you know, on the quorum court level to go this route. But, you know, like I mentioned earlier, I don't know if the big counties will ever do
it on their own the small counties do seem like they're very interested in doing it I think nine counties attempted to do it last time but they
run into technical difficulties on their petition drive. Representative Ray you're recognized. Okay Mr. Chair I I
Representative David Ray
Unverified
25:19
hate to drag this out any longer because I know there's a lot of other bills but if there's somebody here from the Association
of Counties that could offer their opinion I'd be interested in hearing it. I believe there is. Thank you. Lindsay French, Association of
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
25:53
Arkansas Counties. And I apologize. I would have signed up for this, but we We didn't have the amendment.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
25:59
Is it okay if I just phrase this in the form of a
question? Yes. So you guys are the ones that are going to have to implement whatever is passed here. So I would just like to hear your opinion on the bill. If it's workable, if you could comment on that. Sure.
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
26:19
So I will say last session we did work with Representative Long and get an agreed-to bill.
So I know it was said that we fought that. But we actually got a bill that was agreed to and we were good with. This one, we have not seen this until now. We still have a lot of issues with this. And I've also been told that the state board has not taken a position on this bill. If you would like me to go through some
of those issues, I can do it very quickly. So you have some specific objections to Representative
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
26:53
Long's bill? I just think this has been thrown together kind of last minute.
It's a very important process. Representative Clowney has already pointed out one discrepancy in the bill where one county board of election commissioners can actually be with the bill. But even if you have two election commissioners and one sheriff who is of the same party and not of high ethical standards, I still just see a lot of room for organized fraud. Not that our sheriffs over there are not good upstanding sheriffs, but we still have issues with that.
The solution here that already exists is to just have enough people to count, have enough people to work in shifts, and if you do that, there's no reason to stop. I'm also not sure what would happen if something did happen to these ballots and someone did get into the box and you have your tabulated count, but you never got to that amount with the hand count. um, what, what would the solution be then? Um, also the cost of paying for security guards to sit eight hours overnight would be a cost that I'm guessing they'd want the county to cover
and we would be opposed to that as well. I do like the very last page, um, part B that says a state board of election commissioners shall promulgate rules to assist election commissioners with compliance. Um, I think, uh, all counties who want to do paper ballots would probably welcome some assistance and guidance from the state, but it's going to take some time to come up with a good process. Any other questions
by the committee? Seeing no further questions by the
committee, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. I will point out staff has notified me that we previously adopted amendment and an amendment to this bill. Now we've adopted another amendment to this bill so before we vote we will need to expunge the vote
vote by which the first amendment passed and was adopted so do I see a motion yes you would have a jumbled up bill I suppose all right representative
Collins moves to expunge the vote by which amendment number one to house bill 1884 passed is there any
discussion on the motion representative rose uh parliamentary inquiry i guess you're recognized is the language from the amendment and the and
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
29:21
this could be ignorant speaking here is the language that's in the first amendment that we adopted being struck or is that language intended to remain and that may be a question more for the bill sponsor i just wasn't sure if this was a complementary amendment or if it was a replacement amendment
Okay. All right, that's a good question, and I appreciate you asking that. What I'm told by staff, actually, and so I was wrong in my response to Representative Beatty that we would have a jumbled up bill. That's not correct. The old amendment that we passed has been incorporated, that language has been incorporated into his new amendment, but for, I guess, procedure's sake, we don't need to have the first amendment and the second amendment, although it is duplicate language, but the second amendment added additional language in addition to the language that was a part of amendment number one.
So I guess for procedure's sake, the way I understand it, the proper thing to do would be to only have the one amendment, which would be amendment number two, which means we need to take the motion that Representative Collins has made, which is to expunge the vote by which amendment number one passed. Is there any more discussion on that motion? Seeing no further discussion on that motion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed. Yeah, as have it, the amendment number one, the vote by which it passed has been expunged.
Representative Long, you're recognized to close for your bill as amended. Well, I appreciate y'all taking
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
31:09
the time to listen to my amendment. Like I mentioned earlier, one of the things that really prompted me to try to meet y'all's objections that you brought up the other day was, you know, really thought, you know, maybe if we, If we can make you feel a little bit better about the security measures, which I added everything that I could think of, that you'd be okay with it because I really feel like the potential for errors does outweigh the potential for fraud.
And with President Trump basically pushing for paper ballots, I'd like for the state to be prepared if we do go to the whole state being paper ballot counts. And with that, I'd
be closed and make a motion to pass. Representative long has closed for his bill. He's
made a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion as amended? Do you make a motion do pass as amended? Yes, sir. I'm sorry 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. All those opposed The noes have it. I'm sorry representative long the bills failed. Thank you committee appreciate your attention Next, we have House Bill 1632, Representative Wardlaw, Representative Wardlaw, Representative Wardlaw. Next, we have House Bill 1037, Representative Collins.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
32:46
Thank you, Mr. Chair. With the Chair's permission, could I have someone come up and join me to present this bill? Candace Edwards. you may thank you and
Speaker 90
32:57
I guess you may need to introduce yourself Edwards if you
would just state your name and any organization you're here representing and you'll be recognized to help present with representative Collins my name is
Speaker 93
33:11
Candace Edwards and I'm assistant chief deputy for the Pulaski County and circuit clerk thank
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
33:17
you and to be clear this is not the clerk's bill but I invited her
or just to answer any questions that may come up about details of implementation that I can't answer. So this bill, which is, and I have a few today, but this is 1035. This would allow online voter registration. So slowly but surely, we are modernizing for a digital world here in Arkansas. As we all know, we'll soon offer a digital driver's license. Our most sensitive transactions like banking and paying taxes are done online, and many services are only offered online.
I wish that this actually were a cutting edge idea to make Arkansas a leader in modernization and customer service, but actually it just catches us up to where we should have been 20 years ago. Online voter registration is old news. It was first done in Arizona in 2002 and is now adopted in 42 states as well as the District of Columbia and even Guam. No state that has offered online registration has gone back on it, and it now, at this point, is a fully vetted, fully integrated, easy to implement service.
So it's actually, and I didn't fully realize this until I looked into it, but it's actually already available as part of the existing software that the state has a contract with, which is available in all 75 counties. It's just not activated in Arkansas because it's not been authorized in law. So for a long time, since 2005, Arkansas has had a vendor that provides a suite of applications that manages our statewide voter database. One of those applications you may be familiar with is VoterView, and that is where currently
it's used as a public-facing portal. People can check their registration, see if they're registered, see their sample ballot and
other things like that. VoterView is actually how people would register to vote online. It would need to be activated, but the functionality is there, and it's actually available at no additional cost. We would
just have to turn on the functionality if it were legal here in Arkansas, configure the online form to match our voter registration
requirements, and everything that a voter provides in their current paper application
would also be required in the online application. Briefly, and then I will move along, answer questions, and we're both available to answer questions if any deal with issues of implementation, but I do wanna talk about the benefits to both the state and the public. The benefits to the state, I believe there's really three principal benefits. Number one, it solves a problem of incomplete applications. Currently, clerks get some applications where not every field is filled in, and that's both the DMV and that's through the paper applications.
This would eliminate that issue because the way the form works, you don't get to advance to the next screen unless you input into every field that you have to input in. So that will avoid the time of the clerk's office trying to rectify the issue of incomplete applications or just someone not getting to register. Number two, when a clerk gets an online registration, that data that's gonna go into the voter file is already in the form it needs to be, the electronic form.
So that will remove the need for a lot of manual data entry that's currently done in the system. In Maricopa County, Arizona, there was a case study and it found that processing a paper registration form costs $0.83 compared to $0.03 for electronic registration. So over time, online registration absolutely will save the state money. And finally, the bill requires the Secretary of State to develop additional integrity measures in rule on online registration only beyond what is required for paper applications to reduce the
chance of registration fraud. And to be clear, registration fraud is rare. The Heritage Foundation found only 182 cases over a 22-year period nationwide, but that's not zero, so we should take it seriously, which is why, again, we have a higher threshold for online registration that the Secretary of State will be tasked to develop. As with every voter, when someone When registers online and then comes in to vote, they have to produce a photo ID, their name, likeness and address will need to be matched.
But even more importantly than the benefits to the state are
the benefits to the public. Government is in the business of customer service and when at all possible, it is simply good customer service to offer a service in
the way people want to access it. This offers the choice of an online option which many people find more convenient and that alone is a good reason to do it. Number two, it's good for people with disabilities. So last session when I presented this bill, advocates for the disabled community spoke in favor of it, in particular the benefits for people who are blind or have low vision
and can use their own integrated accessibility tools like speech to text to complete online forms much more easily than paper forms. And finally, it's been shown to increase rates of registration and voter turnout. The effect is particularly noted among young voters who might not even own a printer or mail letters customarily. Arkansas is second worst among states in registration and third worst in turnout, so we have a long way to go in this area. Why not try something that we know will work
and will help increase that? And also, I just wanna say why, you know, because some of these bills do deal with voter turnout, and I think the question comes up, why do we care if people vote? It's critical to the health of our democracy. Number one, voting translates popular will into public policy. As more citizens vote, the composition, orientation, and goals of government will more closely match the will of the people, and carrying out the will of the people is the fundamental task of representative democracy.
Number two, voting keeps elected officials accountable. And number three, it makes citizens feel invested in their government, which leads to
further engagement and productive citizenship and less alienation frustration with that I'm happy to take any questions representative Collins has explained
the bill are there any questions by the committee representative Hawk you're recognized thank you mr. chair
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
39:34
well representative Collins I've worked a lot with the SOS on digitizing things where that where do they stand on
this as far as implant implementation have you do they even need an input on this I'm just asking just as far as the voter registration goes yeah I
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
39:49
haven't heard from them on this. I know that the clerks have not taken a position, and I know our clerk here supports it. So it's really out of, you know, it is handled by the clerks for the most part, and I think it's
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
40:02
a public policy issue that really is up to us. So my, I guess, follow up, or I guess I'll
get leeway. My question is, so if we go online,
is every county clerk going to have to have an online database, or does the state
have an overall system that they would have to buy into what's that
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
40:22
look like so the state already has an overall system and it's through this vendor and every clerk's office has access to it and that's already there right now this application is by the same vendor voter view and it would all be integrated in so when they get a
paper application right now they're typing into what is called ES&S power profile so they type those in manually with this it will come in from
Voter View and be automatically integrated into Power Profile. Those applications work together. Okay, thank you. Sure. Any
other questions by the committee? Representative Rose, you're recognized. Thank you. Sir, are you saying there's no
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
41:03
cost? No, I'm not. The initial setup cost was estimated at $70,000 for the Secretary of State, and then there was no ongoing cost. So they do have to get configured with the initial form and everything like that. They have to amend
their contract with the SNS to do that. But on an ongoing basis, no, we got a fiscal impact on this
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
41:28
last session and they said no ongoing costs. Okay. So there are associated costs, 70,000, rough estimate from previous run
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
41:35
of this. Yeah, $70,000 initial setup costs from the Secretary of State and then ongoing no costs. But like I said, because of the efficiencies and
less data input, it's expected to save the state money over the long term.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
41:51
Mr. Chair, would it be all right to have SOS, somebody from their office, support that?
Absolutely. Is there anyone here from the Secretary of State's office that can shed some light upon Representative Rose's question?
If you would, just state your name, who you're
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
42:09
here representing, and you'll be recognized. Just to reiterate my question, just to confirm or add to whether there are associated
costs and what that looks like. Josh Bridges, Assistant
Speaker 119
42:19
Director of Elections for the Secretary of State.
Speaker 120
42:23
We have not, for this iteration of the bill, we have not received a fiscal impact from our vendor at this time. I know Representative Collins said that the $70,000 figure was from the last time that this was ran, I believe in the last session, but we have not received a current fiscal impact on this. And we do not know if this will, in the long run, save the state money. We have not done any kind of analysis on that at all. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Hawke, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just, you know, I know whenever I
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
42:59
was, and I keep going back to this, when we worked together on the digitizing of the election report, right, that was the first thing I asked the Secretary of State was, what was this going to cost the state? And we knew that on the front end, right? And so, I agree with the premise, Representative Collins, but wouldn't you agree that we should hold off on this until we know the exact cost from SOS? Because whenever I did mine, they said they had the money already in their budget to be
able to do that. With this, we don't even know if they've got the budgeted money as it sits today to be able to implement the
$70,000. Correct? Is that a question for me? For you, for Representative Collins. Yeah. You know, with the information
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
43:41
that we got that it was $70,000, I suppose that's a decision for this committee to make, whether or not we feel like it's something that's important. If we do, we can move forward and find a way, and if not, then we won't. I just hate to
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
43:58
pull the fiscal impact card on you with having one week left in the session.
But I also know that just my time working on digitizing the election reports, that that was a big conversation piece was how much it was going to cost to upgrade the system. And I just think it's hard for this, or at least for me, to say a yes vote without knowing definitely what that's
going to cost Secretary of State. And if they've got the money in their budget. Yeah, and I think
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
44:24
if we hadn't gotten that fiscal impact from the Secretary of State, you know, recently, two years ago, I would agree with you. But I think
that on that basis, I feel pretty confident that it's not going to have changed significantly from that $70,000 estimate.
But maybe, you know, they feel otherwise. I don't
know. Thank you. Representative Collins, is there an emergency clause on this
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
44:48
bill? No, and in fact, I believe it's
scheduled to start only after January 1st, 2026, to give a little extra run out of time. Okay, so you'd have
time to, in a fiscal session, get an appropriation bill and go through that process if need be? Is that what
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
45:06
you're saying? If need be, if $70,000 is needed in appropriation, sure.
What is the primary objection or the primary objections to doing voter registration this way? That's question number one. And question number two, how many other states do registration this way? You know, I think
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
45:24
that if I think about the questions people have about it, it's always
cost, implementation, and fraud, right? Those are the three things people talk about with any election procedure.
I've tried to address all three of those. I actually think it's, again, long-term savings.
Implementation is very straightforward, and I think it's a more secure way of doing things. We've moved so many things to electronic over paper precisely for that reason. Paper is very susceptible to fraud, and this is a, you know, tried and true thing. It's done in many states with very—I've not heard of any incidents, and I think that's been testified to in the past as well. As far as other states, 42 other states do it. So, this is the vast majority of states are already doing it, have been doing it in most cases for many years.
So, we're really, we're behind on this one. Okay, we're talking about online voter registration. That's right. Not voting, just registration. Okay, and
so, I mean, from a fraud standpoint, there's not anything that would keep me from going online to say my, for example, my Secretary of State's office website or the county clerk's website and entering someone else's name and saying, "Hey, I got you registered to vote." -
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
46:38
No, there are actually a number of
things. You would have to provide a signature, for one.
You'd have to have an electronic capture of a signature. You would have to provide the last four of your social security number or your driver's license number. You'd have to provide a large number of other information as well that you would have to have, personal information. Again, all these things are also where you'd have to have if you're doing a mailed-in paper registration. And then, of course, when you go in
to vote, they're gonna match that ID to your information, your name, your likeness, and your address
that you've already provided in the past. - Fair enough, Representative Barry, yeah? All right, Representative Beatty, you're recognized. All right, any other questions by
the committee? Seeing no other questions by the committee, Do we have anyone signed
up to speak for or against the bill? We have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Collins, you're recognized to close for the bill. Thank you. I'm closed for the bill.
I'll move to pass. Representative Collins has closed for his bill. He's made a motion. Do pass. Is there any discussion on that motion? Representative Beatty,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
47:53
you're recognized. Well, I really didn't want to ask for a fiscal impact, but for that reason that we just have an anticipated cost on this bill, I will be voting no. without the exact hard dollar all right any other discussion on the motion representative
Hawk you're recognized I like the bill I mean I told other people
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
48:14
I like the bill but the cost is a major thing for me whenever I did mine that was the first thing that I talked to SOS about and and made sure I had that when I brought it to this committee and so with that being said I'll be
voting no any other discussion on the motion seeing no other discussion on the motion we do have a motion do pass. All those in favor say
aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. The no's
have it. Sorry Representative Collins, the bill's failed. Next we have House Bill 1035.
Speaker 140
48:56
So, Representative Collins, we just ran 1037, correct? That's 1035. We just ran 1035. What about 1037? I don't see 1037 up there. I have House Bill 1037, an act to
create the pre-registration to vote act. 1035 was to create the online voter registration act.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
49:20
We ran that last week. I'll pass over 1037.
Okay, very good. So then we have
House Bill 1036 to amend the law concerning voter registration to allow voter registration during early
voting and on election day.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
49:39
I'll pass over that one too if
that's all right. Okay. Then we have House Bill 1038 to create the No Excuse Absentee Voting Act of 2025. Are
you prepared on that? Yes. All right. Representative Collins, you're recognized. Okay. This is just what
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
50:00
it says. This would allow anyone to vote absentee without needing a reason. Currently, you can only vote absentee if you'll be unavoidably absent from the polls on the date of the election,
have an illness or disability, or for religious reasons. Voting, as we mentioned, is important for our democracy and something people want to do. If someone has a mobility issue, busy work schedules, taking care of a sick parent, or just finds it more convenient to vote absentee, why not let them do that? We already allowed this form of voting, and this would just be extending the opportunity to more Arkansas citizens. 36 states already offer no excuse to absentee voting. So this is, again, well-trodden territory, and over 60% of Americans support it.
Here, there would be no cost, and in fact, costs, again, should be reduced because of the simplification of the absentee ballot form. If we can get that back to one page, that would save on printing and mailing costs. It had been one page, and it was recently extended to two, not to mention as
easier for the public. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions. Representative Collins has explained his bill. Are
there any questions by the committee? Seeing no questions by the
committee. Is there anyone signed up to speak for or against the bill?
Seeing no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Collins, you're recognized to close for your bill. I'm closed. Move do pass. Representative Collins
has closed for his bill. He's made a motion do pass. Is there
any discussion on the motion? So this is my understanding is no excuse absentee voting and I guess just my comments are absentee ballots have been a source of fraud over the years and if there's no
excuse needed to get an absentee ballot I may have some concern that that could increase fraud and so those are my discussion
my discussion points on the motion this is there any other discussion on the motion seeing none all All those seeing
no further discussion on the motion, we do have a motion do pass. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed?
No. The no's have it. Sorry, the bill's failed.
Next, we have House Bill 1039 to amend Arkansas law concerning absentee
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
52:51
ballots. Representative Collins, thank you
okay so 1039 is very simple it would just go
back to how we handled absentee ballots prior to 2021. So at that time there was a bill by Senator Hammer and it moved the deadline for hand-delivered absentee ballots from Monday before election day to the Friday before election day. So it attracted a little bit of controversy and actually the Benton County election coordinator and Washington County director of elections both spoke against it. It was a relatively close vote in the house and it passed into law as act 973 without the governor's signature. The governor at that time said it
unnecessarily limits the opportunities for voters to cast their ballots prior to the election. It does limit voting, as Governor Hutchinson said, and creates the possibility that someone won't get to vote at all and does not serve the public interest. So before that bill passed, between 20 and 30 percent of voters who hand-returned an absentee ballot did so in that three-day window that the bill eliminated. And if that's when a third of the voters want to return their ballot, we shouldn't arbitrarily deny them that period.
The other point and this was actually raised by that Benton County coordinator Is that the deadline to request an absentee ballot is seven days before the election? And so that creates a pretty good possibility that if they mail that out They won't get that before the Friday of the election But Friday before the election and so that creates this impossible situation where you can request validly request an absentee ballot But not get it in time to hand return it
If it were moved back to Monday, those extra two mail days would really make a big difference in terms of time. There's also really no rational justification for the Friday deadline. So part of the rationale that Senator Hamer gave at the time was that he had a companion bill that would have gotten rid of early voting on Monday so that this bill would lend consistency. But that companion bill never passed, so we have inconsistency. And accepting hand-delivered absentee ballots on Monday really does not create a significant administrative burden on counties either.
Either way, people are going to come in and try to hand-deliver those ballots. It's just going to be whether or not the clerk tells them, you know, you have to go drop those in the mailbox, or they can accept them and process them. And either way, they cannot start opening ballots until Election Day in any event. So I think basically that's it. This would go back to the way the law was. The law worked, and the law made it
easier to vote. It better serve the public interest, and I'm happy to take any questions. And if you'd like to add anything, you're welcome to.
Speaker 93
55:38
So in Pulaski County, that's the only county I can speak for, it would not change our workflow at all. Because like he said, we have a large amount of people who come in on that day, on that Monday, and we have to send them to the post office. So it just delays the amount. have to work them the next day when they come to us through the the post office on election day but it doesn't change the amount of absentee ballots that we have to work they come in either way happy to take any questions
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
56:08
representative collins has explained the bill uh are there
any questions from the committee representative
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
56:12
rose you recognize thank you i was looking at um just
kind of the the changes or the amending of the language here can you walk me through the rationale behind adding the designated bearer and administrator on the delivery of the ballot and the removal of physical office instead of just authorized agent and why physical office of the county clerk is removed in that
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
56:42
sure so the physical office and again this is just a reversal of what was done in that act but that was one of the additional things so in i guess 2020 2020 it was right before this bill was proposed and passed that we would be repealing uh kovid made the need for some drop-off tents outside the clerk's office and and those um
were i guess what was being targeted here
I think that the testimony at the time from Washington County, and
I believe it probably would be shared, although Pulaski County can speak for themselves, is that just in case of something like that happening, those tents were helpful to have. And so allowing that other drop-off point to the clerk, not necessarily at the physical office, was something that if
we restore that, it's just a useful, possible thing for them to have. Did you have anything to add on
Speaker 93
57:40
that? So going back to 2020, the way that it affected Flasky County is that our county judge closed our courthouse,
which meant that the public was not allowed into the courthouse to drop off their ballots. And so the way that their solution to that is that they created tents outside. Nothing changed. You had to show your ID. You had to sign everything. But they were all manned boxes. What we did is we moved the employees outside, and the office became just right outside our door. And so, like I said, nothing changed, all the processes were still handled, it's just that we were able to step outside, whereas had we not had that ability, we would not have been able to accept some votes, because the voters were not allowed inside the building, and so we had to come up with some way to be able to meet them outside, and my understanding is that we were not the only county that did that.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
58:35
Were you able to comment on the designated bearer and administrator and why those are being
Speaker 93
58:43
added? So the designated bearer and administrator added to the authorized agent. So first of all, the authorized agent is able to drop off their absentee ballot until noon on Election Day. And so the authorized agent or the designated bearer and the administrator allow the nursing homes to be able to come in on the day before, as opposed to having to come in on that Friday.
And the designated bearer, we have a lot of voters out there that are disabled. And they have a designated bearer try to bring in their ballot to us because they may not request it until that deadline. And the mail, they don't always get their ballot. And so they know that if they stick it in the mail, we're not going to receive it by Election Day. And so they will designate a bearer to bring that in. And so that allows them to have that extended time when they receive it and they don't have time to mail it. Does that make sense? I'm following what you're saying.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
59:37
So currently this is not allowed. Correct. They have to bring it in by Friday. Representative Collins, I think you spoke to, and I apologize if it was a previous bill, but I think you spoke to on this one as well, that this
will not expand fraud. Is that your belief? Or it's not a
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
59:56
cause for concern? There's not an additional risk? Well, I don't think I've commented on it with respect
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:00:00
to this bill. Okay, I apologize. I can rephrase it.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:00:03
do you think that it that it could no so i mean again we currently allow designated bearer
administrator or authorized agent to deliver absentee ballots right now the deadline's friday this would make the deadline tuesday it i don't know i don't think it would increase fraud because it's not changing who can deliver the absentee ballot um mr chair mr chair representative beck would it be
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:00:24
all right to ask somebody from the secretary of state's office come to the table on this yes go ahead
all right i'm just curious their their perspective on that just with these changes things that are currently maybe not allowed or the timeline or the individuals just kind of get
their perspective i know we've heard some uh testimony from county clerk but curious what the sos has
Speaker 119
1:00:48
to say josh bridges assistant director of elections for secretary of state uh representative rose i want to rephrase
Speaker 120
1:00:54
your question make sure i understand your concern is will changing these deadlines open the door for fraud is that correct yes
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:01:02
changing the deadline just removing I guess what was already instituted in the previous what's in the law and what
was the previous bill that represent Collins referenced so as
Speaker 120
1:01:12
representative Collins stated these deadlines were changed back in 2023 by legislation so representative Collins bill would revert back the deadlines to to what they were prior to 2023. So in terms of the sample size from, you know, the 2024 election cycle, I don't know that this would necessarily open up the door for more fraud simply because we just, we don't have a good sample size of that data. - Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. - I think next time we have Representative Wright. - Representative Wright has asked my question. All right, seeing no other questions from the committee, is there anyone here to speak for or against the bill? All right, seeing none, Representative Collins, you're recognized and closed for your bill. I'm closed. I'll move to
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:02:14
pass. Okay. We have a motion to pass, is there any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All
those opposed, no. I'm sorry, Representative Collins, your bill has
Speaker 175
1:02:38
failed. Thank you. So are you prepared to present
HB 1040? Yes, yes, thank you. Recognize yourself with the committee, and
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:02:48
you're good to go. Okay, Andrew Collins. So, this one would repeal the criminal prohibition on a person entering or remaining within 100 feet of the entrance to a polling place.
And y'all might actually like this one, just throwing it out there. So, this would reverse the change enacted by Act 728 of 2021, also by Senator Hammer. And so when he presented the bill, he talked about loitering, blocking access, and harassment as things we wanted to stop with the bill he presented. So those are already all illegal under other laws. Also, electioneering, which is the display of audible dissemination of information that
advocates for or against any candidate issue or measure on a ballot, is also already illegal within 100 feet of the entrance to a polling place under another law. so what act 728 does is criminalize a volunteer bringing water to voters waiting in line on a hot day as well as numerous other innocent and even positive and productive activities so if you go shake your friend's hand who's waiting in line within 100 feet of the entrance you've committed a criminal offense same if you offer an arm of support to your mother or
grandmother while she attempts to stand in a long line
same is if you just walk by on the sidewalk within 100 feet of the entrance even if there's no line at all
you're minding your own business it's not just a violation it's a class a misdemeanor the most serious category of misdemeanor which is punishable by a year in jail and a 2500 fine and i realize people might say oh that wouldn't be charged but i would say two things in response to that first of
all elections are very charged they're very you know hot sometimes and people may be watching very closely for any
small slip-up, cell phone camera, and it's not unimaginable for an overzealous prosecutor to actually prosecute someone for a de minimis violation here. And second, if that is the only reason that we think it's okay, I don't understand since when do we pass criminal laws and just hope they won't get charged. I don't think that's a responsible way to make laws. But beyond all that, beyond the overbroad scope and the criminalization of innocent acts, I think that the more insidious aspect of act 728 which i hope that you
all will agree with me on is that it discourages people from
voting at all so if lines are long and you need someone with you and you can't have that person because they'd be breaking the law or if you're in the sun you start to feel faint but you can't get that water because no one can bring it to you because they'd be breaking the law in those situations you might just not vote at all and it's a particular problem in minority communities because minority voters on average wait nearly 30 percent longer to vote than their white counterparts. That's been studied. So making it more difficult to vote with the disproportionate impacts on our minority communities is bad for Arkansans and bad for democracy, and that's why
this bill would reverse that situation and again go back to where we were in 2021 where electioneering is illegal, loitering is illegal, harassment and blocking access
are all illegal, and this would would just, I think, remediate a problem in the law. I'm happy to take any questions.
- Representative Ray, you're recognized for
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:06:04
a question. - Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Collins, the study that you just alluded to, can you
tell me what that study is
and was it based on Arkansas? - It was testified
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:06:16
to in court by an expert witness, a professor of political science, and I don't know if it was
a published study, but it was information presented. I'm not sure if it was based on Arkansas. Okay. But it was sworn under oath. Representative Hawk. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:06:34
once again, Representative Collins, I like the intent of the bill. I think it's great. But you know what? One thing that I've been, in fact, my county clerk was in the room,
he yells at a lot of people in Saline County if somebody walks up and has a button even on their shirt and they forget to take it off, right? There's nothing in the bill, though, that says if you go up to take that water to somebody that you've got to remove all, unless that's part of the electioneering portion of that. I'm just trying to read between the lines, I guess. And I would just hate for us to pass something like this and the unintended consequences. There's a gray area for somebody to go, well, this will give me an opportunity to take my favorite candidate's
button and just go up to the line and tell everybody, hey, here's your water.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:07:15
Also vote for this guy. No, I absolutely appreciate that. And that's the thing. I didn't actually fully realize that when this bill came before us the first time. But we have a full electioneering statute. And it clearly states in a different section, but within the same, well, I'd say different subpart within the same section. Electioneering includes handing out any literature, soliciting signatures, displaying a candidate's name, likeness, or
logo, all that stuff. Disseminating buttons, hats, pencils, pens, shirts, signs, stickers, all that's in law already.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:07:47
So they could still put their sign up to where you don't have your button,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:07:53
but you could just pass out water. You have to have nothing on you. Okay. You know, if you're going to go pass out water, nothing having to do with any candidate at
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:08:06
all, if you're going to be doing that. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Representative Rose. Thank you. Representative Collins, I'm sure you're more well studied on this section than I am. Do you know why and when part 24 of that Arkansas Code 71103 was added?
Since that's what we're, I think that's the totality of the bill as we're removing that, correct? Sir,
Speaker 184
1:08:30
just let me pull that up. Oh, yeah, that was in 2021. Do you know the why behind why
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:08:37
it was added? - Yeah, people, well I think that, again, the main reasons that were given in committee were loitering, blocking access, and harassment. I think people were saying that there were volunteers,
you know, getting within 100 feet of a line, and some people were probably breaking existing laws, and
some people were probably doing things that were perfectly innocuous, and shouldn't have been actionable, because they were giving out water or
food, whatever the case may be. So I think that's the why. That's where it generated from. That
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:09:11
was all from the 2020 election. And I know this isn't, I'm not asking you to quote testimony from five years ago. You said loitering, blocking, and harassment. Harassment. And so that was why,
was 24, part 24, was that kind of like the totality of what was added or was it a whole section
of lines. That's it. That was the whole bill. Okay. So it was added for that reason, I'm guessing, past this committee and then the
House. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:09:49
And this is something I experienced actually campaigning, where there was a group that were right outside of the hundred,
you know, they do that line with the rope. And they were just right outside of that, and they had a big banner on the front of their table, and it was advocating not to vote for certain individuals, or to vote for certain individuals, I should say. And they were handing out water. Now, the people would have to walk over there and get the water and walk back, but with this, you would say that they could actually bring that water. And I guess my concern would be, wouldn't that, or maybe the campaigning or the other
law would catch that, but you see where it'd definitely be where I'm seeing who's giving me the water, just the person just walked a few feet over here to me type of deal. So we kind of interfere with that, because where they go and pick it up, which would be in clear sight of the individual, they'd be able to see who was giving them a glass a bottle of water. Well,
and I guess I'd say if you're 101 feet outside of the entrance right now, you can offer
somebody a water and they can take it, you know, under
current law because that, you know, you just can't cross that threshold. You could have as many buttons and pins and everything on it as you want. You can electioneer to your heart's content if you're outside of that range. And so, I mean, is it really solving anything by preventing someone who has nothing to do with electioneering from coming within that 100 feet? I mean, I would say probably not. I
guess my concern there would be, you know, that's a little bit of a fuzzy line, right?
Could I, you know, you're right. Maybe if I just had some water over there and I could just carry it in there, that would certainly be all right. But now I'm getting the water from an obvious location where I'm advocating a vote for someone. You know, it kind of creates a little bit of a blurry line. Wouldn't you agree? Well, I guess
I wouldn't in that right now, under all the laws that we have passed, some voter who's coming to vote can walk over to their
tent or kiosk or whatever it is,
if it's outside that 100 feet, get the water, and they know it's from the candidate or group or whoever it is. So I think to the extent that's a problem, that's an existing problem that would neither be added to nor detracted from under this, in my opinion, but I understand the question.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:12:25
Oh, Representative Ray. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Collins, what year did you say this law was passed? 2021. Okay, I remember that because that was my first term.
And I think if I'm remembering correctly, one of the rationales for this
was that people were sort of blurring the lines between simply handing out water and electioneering. They were giving out water with candidates' names on it and things of that nature, if I'm remembering correctly.
Has this law been challenged, and if so, what was the disposition of that case? I believe that this law, I
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:13:04
don't want to say for sure.
I kind of think that this one was challenged, and I think that it was enjoined and then appealed and that it was allowed to be constitutional. But it doesn't mean necessarily that that should be the end of the conversation. If our Supreme Court allows it on constitutional grounds, that's one thing. But is it the policy that we want? That's another thing. And I do recall that some people were talking about that. I think there was a lot of confusion back during that debate. What you're talking about with a bottle of water with a candidate's face on it or name on it,
that's electioneering. And that wouldn't have been allowed in any case, with or without this Section 24. And so I think to be real clear, electioneering
is and should be and would remain under this illegal within 100 feet of the entrance to a polling place. Seeing no other questions, there's
no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Is there anyone in the group that would like, the audience would like to speak either for
or against the bill? Seeing none, Representative Collins, you're recognized and closed for your bill. I'm closed. do pass. Okay, we have a motion do pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. I'm sorry Representative Collins, your bill has failed. Thank you. That looks
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:14:35
like we're continuing the Representative Collins show with
1042. Trying to make it at
least swift here. So this is the last one of these
the theme here. This one is HB 1042, calling it the Direct Democracy Act, and this would be another change course. This would repeal Act 236 of 2023 by our good friend, Representative Underwood. This was, in many ways, the canary in the coal mine for the assault on direct democracy that we've seen this session. It took the constitutional requirement to get signatures from the constitutional requirement of half the electors in 15 counties to half the electors in 50
counties and that is again in direct conflict with the constitution clearly it was designed to chill direct democracy by making it more difficult and expensive for citizens to get a popular constitutional amendment or initiated act on the ballot and it
has succeeded so it'll come as a surprise to no one that I think our direct democracy process is or was one of the best features of our
law. It made our government responsive to the people, gave the people a check
over government overreach, and if we weren't listening to what the people wanted, the people could go out and put it into the Constitution or the law themselves. So I think it's valuable and necessary. But I think Act 236 wasn't just a mistake because it hurt direct democracy. It also is just genuinely one of the most blatantly unconstitutional acts I think we've ever passed in my time in legislature. And I don't usually like to opine on these things, but I just want
to drive home how clear the conflict is between the Constitution and this law. So Article 5, Section 1 of the Constitution says, upon all initiative or referendum petitions provided for in any of the sections of this article, it shall be necessary to file from at least 15 of the counties of the state petitions bearing the signature of not less than one half of the designated percentage of the electors of such county. Act 236 says it will be necessary to get signatures from half in 50 counties, not 15.
Additionally, Article 5, Section 1 says that the threshold for a cure period is 75% of the lawful voters from 15 counties, while Act 236 says that it is 50% of the electors from 50 counties. So this part actually is unconstitutional in three ways. It's the percentage going from 75 actually down to 50, the number of counties going up from 15 to 50, and using electors rather than lawful voters, the latter of which refers to the people who voted for governor in the last election.
We simply can't rewrite the Constitution. That's what this bill does.
This one is in litigation, which is still pending. But I think beyond being unconstitutional, it's just not good policy, and we should repeal it. So, happy to take any questions. Are there any questions from the
committee? All right, seeing none, we have no one
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:17:54
to speak for or against the bill. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against the bill?
Seeing none, Representative Collins, you're recognized or closed for your bill. I'm closed. I'll move to do pass. We have a motion to do pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all those in favor
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:18:23
say aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. No. Sorry, Representative Collins,
your bill has failed. That's okay. Thank you. Are
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:18:31
you going to present 1951? Yes, I'll present 1951 on a totally different note, so just forget all that.
All right. Please recognize yourself with the
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:18:41
committee, and you're good to go. Okay. Thank you. So 1951 sets forth the authorized domain extensions for higher education and government websites. So this is a cybersecurity bill, very different from the other bills. This basically would say that our government websites, state, city, higher education would need to use a .gov, .mil, or .edu authorized domain extension only.
And there's a run-up period under the bill up to the effective date is June 1st, 2026, except for cities and towns with less than 10,000 people who would need to comply by January 1st, 2027. So the reason for this primarily is that .gov is a secure and restricted domain extension, as is .EDU and .mil. You can't just apply and get that.
So because of the issues with any other domain extension is that people can sign up for a website that sounds similar to a government website but is not, engage in phishing, fraud, scams, take advantage of the public. And so it's widely established that having one of these secure domain extensions is important for cybersecurity. it's also free the .gov is free you do have to apply to the federal government
and you can get that in most cases our state websites have been a .gov for a while many of our municipalities
and others have moved their higher education for the most part is already on .edu everybody who is impacted by this bill I believe is good
with it or supportive actively supportive that's the state we have the state chief information security officer here if you have any technical questions I can't answer. Municipal League is good with this and ASU
and University of Arkansas both also are good with this. As far as I know there's no opposition to this. This would just make sure that we are as secure as we can be when it comes to
our government websites. Happy to answer any questions. Representative Collins has explained the bill. Are there any
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:21:10
questions by the committee representative rose you're recognized thank you thank you mr chair um so for about 15 years i've built and administered websites um so something you said which is great is that the
domains have no cost but domain administration and site uh administration and moving i don't even know if they're able to use the same name servers if government ones are hosted in a different way Have you done any investigation into the cost of the transfer from a .AR site or a .state government site to a .GOV or .mil that are,
I don't know, federally regulated or federally firewalled or any of that?
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:21:52
Yeah, you absolutely, and I appreciate the question, you can absolutely direct, you can have it hosted elsewhere, you just have your domain as a .gov. And so whatever
your hosting costs are is what your hosting costs are. That, you know, currently, if you have a website,
you have to pay that already. And so you can continue to pay that with whoever. If you want to email, migrate your email over, that varies. But, you know,
it could be, I've seen estimates of like $50 per inbox or something like that.
The thing is with this bill, you don't actually have to migrate your email. You can redirect it to that .gov site,
use the alias. and so under this, that would be totally fine. I recognize, you know, that there will be some costs if you do do that migration. I think that, you know, pretty much everyone
I've talked to about this feels like that's a cost that they're prepared to take, that they need to take for Cybersecurity Municipal League. Again, they're supportive of this because they're willing to help their cities. They recognize the cities need to get there, and that's just one of the things we're going to have to do over the coming years.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:22:56
You said those you've talked to, do you mind, I
know you mentioned Municipal League, but are there others that have kind
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:23:04
of jumped? Are they agencies, organizations? I mean, I haven't talked to every agency.
I've talked to the governor's office, talked to the state SSO, talked to Municipal League, and then, yeah, Arkansas State and University of Arkansas. All of those are for this? For neutral, yeah, one or the other.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:23:19
All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Well, once again, Representative Rose beat me to my question.
So I'll just add, have you consulted our house technology chair? - You know, a very important
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:23:30
question. I did consult our house technology chair and I believe I have his full support, which I appreciate. - All right, any other questions by the committee? Seeing no further
questions by the committee, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Collins should recognize to close for your bill. - I'm close for the bill, I'll move to pass. - Representative Collins is closed for his bill. made a motion do pass. Is there any discussion by the committee? Representative Meeks, you're
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:24:00
recognized. Thank you. Just be real brief. I appreciate Representative
Collins bringing the bill. This is something we should have done many years ago and so has
my full support. Appreciate it. Thank you. Any other discussion by the committee? Seeing no further discussion, we do have a motion do
pass. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Congratulations, Representative Collins. you passed your bill. Got one out
of here. Thank you. It's a tough committee. All right. Next we have House Bill 1952, Representative Hawke.
Speaker 210
1:24:43
Mr. Chair, if I could have a guest join me at the
table. You may. Sir, if you would identify yourself for the record, state your name, any organization you're here representing, and then you'll be recognized along with Representative Hawk. Bob Edmonds,
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:25:08
Arkansas State Athletic Commission. Representative Hawk, you're
recognized. RJ Hawk, District 81. Colleagues, so this is a bill that is going to assist in the funding of the State Athletic
Commission. One thing that we have looked at
over the course of the last couple years is that when you have events like the MMA or WWE or these national companies that come in, they're not going to come to Arkansas anymore unless there is an athletic commission that can send out inspectors that can verify that they've done everything right. Every state has an athletic commission that sanctions these events. And so
after looking at the Athletic Commission, one thing that I was talking with them about was funding.
And we know how funding is right now. And so rather than doing an appropriation
through general funds, we wanted to find ways within the system that could get them funding. And really what that comes down to is right now, whenever they send out an inspector, it's a flat fee of $125, right? And that could be one inspector. That could be four inspectors. That's just the way things have been in the past. Well, with the cost right now of mileage, lodging, wherever that might be, the commission is losing money at a dramatic rate right now.
And so all we're asking in the bill is that the event itself is going to have to reimburse the athletic commission for the number of inspectors that come out, that mileage and the lodging. There's no new fees. All it is is just saying, look, you guys, we have to sanction this. We're going to recoup the money that it's going to cost us to be able to do that. Also, every athletic commission in the state or in the country takes a percentage of the gate, right, of gross receipts.
And that number we looked is about 5% across the state. And so that's what we're adding into the bill to help make the commission a whole. Now, one thing you'll see in the bill, we added back professional wrestling. And if you remember Representative Gassaway and others that were here, Representative Tosh, a few years ago, he eliminated wrestling altogether from the Athletic Commission. Well, when we did that, it dramatically cut their budget because of the amount of wrestling that goes on, whether it be a mom-pop shop or whatever in these small towns.
Well, so we're adding it back, but we're putting a caveat in there that it will only be sanctioned by attendees of 1,500 people or more, meaning that we're really just doing this for, like, the WWE. I know the looks on some of your faces right now, but that's big business when it comes to Arkansas. They average about 7,000 to 8,000 members that come into Arkansas, and the economic impact into Arkansas is huge when those organizations come in. And so those will still continue to be sanctioned.
I will also say that like the WWE, for example, speaking with their representatives, they say that they will not come back to Arkansas unless there's a sanctioning body that is able to oversee what they do. And so we've added that back into the bill. I've talked to Representative Tosh as well as Representative Duffield, who is a former wrestler, and they both agree that if we put it at that 1,500 mark, it protects the local small towns that do small people wrestling and things of that nature. So, with that, I will take any questions.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:28:40
Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. representative hawk when you when you filed this bill
and spoke to me about it um it prompted me to just do a little bit of research and digging and you're right i i asked blr to send me a 10-year look back on the revenues and expenditures for the state athletic commission so and this question may may be for the director but what what happens when like for example in
2024 2025 fiscal year it's showing 40 roughly 40 000 in revenues and 85 000 in expenses well obviously those
expenses have to be paid by somebody where does that money get back filled from yes sir so
Speaker 216
1:29:28
um we got some special appropriations of some rainy day funds from governor hutchinson i believe those are going to run out in 2026.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:29:45
okay so the representative hawk your your goal in running this bill is to basically help this agency become self-sustainable 100 yeah and so we don't
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:29:55
have to go back to governor huckabee sanders and ask for her to do another appropriation ultimately what this bill is going to do is so we don't have to do any more
appropriations uh we this is going to be something where they can uh they can promulgate rules within the athletic commission and be able to determine
what those fees are and basically be made whole at the end of the day whenever uh whenever they
have to send out those inspectors okay thank you all right representative hawk i have a constituent who is really concerned with these issues he is a wrestling promoter if you will and he likes to host these kind of smaller community shows and he has emphasized the point to me time and again that wrestling wrestling is not real okay and as representative tosh made the clear
distinction when he presented his bill that took this out from underneath the athletic commission But there's a difference between wrestling and wrestling. Correct. And wrestling, per Representative Tosh, is entertainment. It is not real. It's not athletic. There is no reason for it to be, by definition, under the Athletic Commission. And so, you know, I have some hesitation, number one, because I know that my constituent would be awfully upset
if he thought that we were taking what is entertainment in any form and classifying it as the same thing as football, basketball, baseball, et cetera, regardless of the size of the event. So can you speak to that? Yeah, so I actually had a
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:31:37
conversation with Representative Tosh about this. By the way, I love hearing you say wrestling. I love that. But, no, I talked to Representative Tosh about that, And his biggest thing was, I want to protect our small mom pops in our small towns that put this on, right?
And I said the same thing. I said, that's what I want to do. Really, I asked him, I said, what's your average attendance for something like that? And he said, anywhere between 500 and 750 people that come to one of those things. I said, well, let's double what you said would be the most that would come out to a local event and put it at 1,500. And then that would really just curtail these national groups that come in into Arkansas that really bring a lot of money. And so I feel like Representative Gassaway or Chairman Gassaway that we are protecting your constituent or these small people that promote these wrestling events.
No, and I understand that, and I do appreciate you making a distinction there, but the bigger point is that even the
large events, WWE, WWF, it's fake. Yeah. It's entertainment. It's not an athletic event, and it's the equivalent of a concert or a theater production. It
is not an athletic event. So why would we take what is essentially a theater production and put it under the athletic commission?
Regardless of the size. Because they are asking for it. So the WWE, after
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:33:06
having conversations with the athletic commissioner director, they said they will not come back to Arkansas unless it's a sanctioning body because it gives them a second layer of support. Because while it is a theater production, they have had members get severely hurt or die even because of some of the acrobatics that go on in that. And so they actually like having the athletic commission there as a second layer of security to make sure the inspectors look at the ring,
they look at the steel cage that they're jumping out of, all the things that might go into a boxing match or
things of that nature. That request was done, and the commissioner can confirm this, that the WWE has asked for that
we do have a sanctioning body. Okay, I just find that a little,
just in response, I do find that a little interesting. I've never heard of really companies saying, regulate me more. Yeah, no, I agree. I want your regulatory body. I don't like all this deregulation. I want more regulation.
That seems to be a very uncommon position. I'm surprised that they would take
Speaker 216
1:34:14
it. So you're recognized. - Yes sir, so the WWE boxing, all of these organizations, Like if we have a boxing event, they would not come to the state if there were not a sanctioning body.
To more directly answer your question on this being more of a theater scripted event, I would just say, you know, more due to the nature of the entertainment, you know, these guys are punching, they're kicking, they're head-butting, doing all of these things that we sanction.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:35:14
All right. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I want to piggyback somewhat on your line of
questioning, but I think I disagree with you. So when we say that professional wrestling is, quote, fake, I think what people
generally mean is it's choreographed to some extent. Maybe the outcome might be determined in advance, but it is a combative sport, as I understand it.
And people are jumping off of turnbuckles, and they're throwing people around. I mean, it's a lot. I mean, can you speak to that? I've obviously never been a professional wrestler, but, you know, maybe you can speak to that. And I've never been a professional
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:36:05
wrestler either, but I do know in this country the acrobatics that they do, we also call cheerleaders athletes, right? And they tumble, they flip, they do. And by the way, I'm not saying a cheerleader is not an athlete.
I'm just saying that we classify them also as an athlete. And so while we say that it's fake, it is in the outcome. But the athleticism of the participants and
the event is very much real. Okay.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:36:36
And, you know, in full disclosure, I don't watch professional wrestling, but I do watch
a lot of UFC, for example. And I noticed that every time there's a UFC fight, at the beginning, Bruce Buffer or whoever's doing the announcing,
they announce, and this is the same in boxing as well, because I do watch some boxing as well, they announce at the beginning of the match that this fight is sanctioned by the fill-in-the-blank State Athletic Commission. So do they do that also in professional wrestling bouts? Is that the reason that, I guess you sort of explained that it would be difficult for us to land some of these events in our state, you know, without sort of the imprimatur that comes with having a state athletic commission that provides, you
know, safety, you know, ambulatory service.
I don't know what all comes with this, cut men,
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:37:40
all that kind of thing. Yeah, so it's my understanding that they do announce it at ringside before every event, that today's event's being sanctioned by such and such body. You know, every, like the WWE, when we talk to them, they carry insurance just like anybody else. But it's just always good to have that second set of eyes to be able to make sure that everything's safe because nobody wants to get hurt. And at the end of the day, while the athletic commission, it's a commission that oversees this, It's about safety.
There's only been one person that has died under the Athletic Commission watch, right, in the history of the Athletic Commission. And so that's a prideful thing for them in that their inspectors are going out and making sure that all events, no matter whether it's the WWE or a boxing match or, you know, the UFC, that these events are up to
par as far as the rings, even down to the fighter's gloves, things like that, just making sure that everything is on a fair playing field. And that's exactly what the Athletic Commission is about.
Representative Beck, you're recognized. Just a question. I don't watch
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:38:55
a lot of wrestling. But anyway, so is there some type of, and I'm, for lack of a better word, liability that comes with us sanctioning them? In other words, if there were to be a problem, maybe the ring wasn't put together right or whatever, and someone got hurt as a result of that.
By us doing this sanctions, is that maybe what the-- there's got to be some goal why these people want us to do this. And is it to cover them? Or maybe it just makes their insurance cheaper or something. I guess-- That may be true. I'm not 100%
Speaker 209
1:39:34
sure of that. I would imagine this is the second set of eyes, once
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:39:39
again, like I talked about. I know that I was a part of a MMA fight that we put on down at the amphitheater here in Little Rock.
And the promoter that I talked to at the time, he triple checked. Like he had the athletic commission check, his guys checked, and then they went back and checked again to make sure things are good. So I think it's just the secondary checks to make sure this is right. As far as the insurance and stuff like that, I think that's an individual business thing. But I would imagine that if you had enough of those checks, it would probably bring down premiums a little bit. Thank you. All right.
Well, I'm just going to, once again, kind of express my concern.
We had a bill just a couple of sessions ago that did the exact opposite of this, And everybody voted for it because we realized that this is a production. This is entertainment. This is not athletic in nature. And to Representative Ray's points that there are punches thrown. I mean, I understand UFC because there are real punches thrown that are intended to cause serious injury. And they're made with that specific purpose. But these, WWF, WWE, Memphis, Saturday Wrestling, which I used to watch as a
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:41:01
kid and loved, Lance Owens, Lance who?
Jerry Lawler, yeah. By the way, social media is just lighting up right now with us
talking about this. Memphis Wrestling, he was the best. So anyway, the point
is, is it was a production. And so at some point, I mean, the ballet carries risk also. The theater carries risk when you have Peter Pan floating around on a string suspended above the stage. I mean, are we going to classify those as athletic events? At some point, we have to recognize what is intended for entertainment value only, that this is too much regulation, that it be regulated like any other entertainment,
any other event that is primary purpose is entertainment. And so I just, you know, again, have some objection here. But if you want to respond to that one more time, I'd be happy
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:41:56
to hear it. We'll move on. I'm with you. I'm for deregulating government. But when I hear these organizations come to me and the chairperson saying that we want this, it's hard for me to say, well, okay, well, we're going to deregulate something that these organizations want.
And I agree with you. If the ballet, though, comes to the legislature and says, hey, we want to be under the Athletic Commission, then we might take it under consideration. I just think that without losing sight of the bill, at the end of the day, what we're trying to do with the bill is get funding without having to appropriate more money out of the general fund to the Athletic Commission. This is a way for them to be made whole without the governor giving a rainy day fund or the General Assembly to have to do an appropriation.
And that was really
Speaker 216
1:42:49
the reasoning for the bill. May I speak to that? Yeah. Sir, we've had, in the last 20 years, we've had one death in boxing. We've had multiple deaths in scripted wrestling. So the safety component that the Athletic Commission offers by sanctioning these events, a ringside physician, requiring paramedics and an ambulance.
Speaker 218
1:43:16
There's some very important safety components that we bring to the table for these events. And when he says we, he
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:43:25
wasn't talking about the Athletic Commission. He was talking about those organizations and those bodies. Thank you. All right, well, I never envisioned
that we would engage in this in-depth debate about wrestling, but here we are. All right, any other questions by the committee? Seeing none, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:43:48
Representative Hawke, you're recognized to close for your bill. Colleagues, look, at the end of the day, I don't
want to take any more money out of the general fund. I don't want to have the governor try to appropriate more money to the athletic commission. I just want them to be able to recoup the cost of sending out these inspectors and do it under their own umbrella without us having to give money out of the general fund. And so that's why the bill is here, and I would make a motion due pass.
All right. We have a motion due pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Representative Ray?
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:44:20
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want
to say I think this is a good bill. You know, as I mentioned, I asked when I talked to Representative Hawk about this, I asked BLR to pull a 10-year look back on this agency's revenues and expenditures, and they are losing money pretty much every year. And when they lose money, that forces GR to be used to backfill their budget so they can pay their bills. And what they're using this money for is, as I understand it, to provide inspectors and staff for these private events.
And so, you know, these are not government events. these are private events, but if they can't charge a fee that's commensurate with the cost of the service they're providing, then what that means is the taxpayers, you and I, have to backfill that money. And I am a big sports fan, and the reality of living in a small state like Arkansas is we're never going to have enough population to get a real professional sports team like NFL or MLB
or NBA. And so, you know, the one thing that we could attract are things like professional wrestling events, professional boxing events, professional, you know, mixed martial arts events. And so I think that putting the professional, you know, regardless of how you feel about professional wrestling, I do think putting it back under the purview of the Athletic Commission would lend the imprimatur of the state so that these events could actually come
to our state, which would bring tourism dollars, which would bring sales tax dollars, which would bring entertainment options for our citizens. So I love it for all
Chair
Unverified
1:46:14
those reasons. Representative McElroy, you're recognized. My grandpa was up in heaven kicking the dirt off his grave because he knows wrestling is real so i'm voting yes all right if
we pass this bill representative hawk i'm going to expect
wwf or wwe to be here i'd like to see the undertaker brought out of retirement and i'd like to see the ultimate warrior although i think he's deceased at this
Speaker 23
1:46:41
point but i'd love to see him i'll even get hulk hogan over here to say yeah brother
maybe even hulk all right uh we have a motion to pass on the bill all those in favor say aye aye
Speaker 23
1:46:54
all those opposed no the eyes have it congratulations thank you committee thank you
all right next we have house bill 1973 representative mckenzie Britt McKenzie,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:47:15
State Representative, District 7, Rogers, Arkansas. Committee, I'm here to present today something that's not
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:47:20
foreign to you because I've presented as a possible constitutional amendment to refer to the citizens. It's a prohibition on taxpayer-funded lobbying. It's just that simple. It's a very quick read. The reason for bringing this is I think all of us in this room who have a vote have understand the influence that we get as legislators here.
You'd probably be surprised to understand what's fueling that influence. It's oftentimes taxpayer money. I have run a bill similar today. I got snuffed out by the Senate, but hopefully we can bring it back, relevant to lobbying. I have a great respect for lobbying. It is a protected, regulated form of political speech. What I do take umbrage with is the use of taxpayer funds against the interests of the citizenry. Oftentimes we're told that if X and x occur the world will end or the sky will fall or my town will cease to exist or our county will
fall into the crust of the earth none of that has taken place um and i'm happy i want to make sure because i know there's going to be a lot of people signed up to speak against this bill to reserve time for them and then i'd ask for you guys to just take simply like a moment i'm not going to encourage you to ask questions but ask why are taxpayers funding this organization If it's such a great need, the individuals who are professionals, elected officials most often, but partly not elected officials, why are these individuals using taxpayer funds to exercise their need in that elected seat?
And I hope you guys can derive your own answer from that. But I'm concerned because these organizations act as professional associations. If the interest of a mayor or the interest of a county judge or the interest of an assessor or the interest of a clerk are that significant, that they have to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars for a membership to an association or tens of thousands of dollars to a contract lobbyist that walks these halls, don't you think that those interests would be, you know, primarily served by that individual talking to you? Or in their capacity, like we have, I made an analogy to someone who's a bar card-carrying member of our legislator,
who pays for your bar card? That organization exists to advance the interest of attorneys at law. I would say the same is true for those elected officials and those members in our communities. So I'm
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:49:47
happy to take any questions. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative McKenzie, there was a phrase
at the beginning of your testimony that I missed, and I'm going to try to—you said what you find objectionable is the use of taxpayer funds
to come and lobby on an issue where the stance that's being taken may be at odds with the taxpayers. Is that correct, basically what you were saying? Do you draw any parallels between that practice and the practice of, say, public sector unions? That's a great question. I mean, there's
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:50:28
parallels, yes. I mean, A public sector union, albeit we only have a few here, they're more prominent in non-right-to-work
states. The only difference being that most of those are, they're working on behalf of the group of individuals for collective bargaining, so for the advancement of their contracts. This has, you know, most of the time the associations and organizations in the state of Arkansas that are lobbying us, they're not collectively bargaining for their pay, they're collectively bargaining for the advancement of a millage or a carve-out or a sweetheart deal on a tax abatement or something to that extent. So there's parallels, but they're slightly different. Okay. Thank you.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:51:06
Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Given how one or two of my bills
went on the floor today, I sometimes wish I had a lobbyist. But maybe that will help me with some future bills. Anyways, so just for clarification, so they can still hire someone to be a lobbyist within their organization. So the Municipal League or whoever, the assessors, they can still have a lobbyist come down here, but it's going to be somebody within their own organization and not a third-party lobbyist. Correct.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:51:36
Someone that fills like a government affairs or a government relations role. You should be familiar with those two because the universities within our state deploy a similar tactic. When you're a staffed, paychecked, W-2ed employee of municipality, an institution, an organization, I'd like to think that you form a function higher than that of a lobbyist, the job is to work with government relations, so in all levels of government, local, state, federal, whatever the case may be, but they would have
to be, because they drive a monetary benefit, register for lobbyists, that's anyone that makes over $400, by the way, folks, anyone that takes $400 or more would have to register as a lobbyist for an entity or organization. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:52:24
Representative Hawk, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative McKenzie, I'm just trying to get my head around
this. So I'm going to use real-world examples. So my mayor and the city of Bryant, they are a part of the Municipal League. So under this bill, if
it were to pass, they could no longer be a part of the Municipal
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:52:43
League. Is that correct? False. I'm just asking questions. No, they could still find a way to pay for their membership outside of local or state dollars. So that mayor could take a part of his paycheck because ostensibly a municipal league represents the interests of those who hold positions in municipal governments. So it could be turned into a professional organization. The other caveat, and we have, again, two examples of this working, two state institutions, the Arkansas Game and Fish, as well as the AETN, Arkansas PBS, They have parallel foundations set up where monies are raised either directly from philanthropy or from other entities in the form of, like, corporate grants or federal grants that can go to serve their functions.
Both Game and Fish and Arkansas PBS have contract lobbyists. That would not be in conflict with the way this bill is written. Because I
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:53:31
just look at this, and I think about cities and counties, that when they get elected, their job is to run those cities and counties, right? And they don't need to be up here hanging out with us on those situations. And so that's the only reason I looked at, like, the Association of Counties or the Municipal League, things like that. Because, you know, like, I'm a part of an association, right, as a realtor. And I don't always agree with what they agree on, right, what they put out there.
But it's just part of it sometimes. And so I guess that was just my pushback. I just
Speaker 247
1:54:01
wanted to ask that question. And I think it's a great question because I think those associations do
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:54:06
have quite a bit of worth. They have a good amount of merit. You know, I may not agree with them on subject matters that, you know, we're running bills on or that come up in front of us as a body. I think they do serve the function of them. I'm just asking that we not use taxpayer funds and conscript those funds to pay for their memberships. Representative Woolbridge, you're recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative McKenzie, for bringing this bill. So what is the annual dues for the Municipal League or the Association of Counties? Do you have any idea
offhand? I saw an email that got forwarded around, I think, municipality is $40. I don't know Arkansas
counties, though. So my point to that being, I mean, do you feel like a little bit this may be stepping over dollars to pick up dimes? We're going to cause every city in Arkansas to create a foundation to raise $40 to pay dues instead of utilizing something that's beneficial for their community through collective voice?
I wouldn't. I think that every tax dollar is created equal. So for every dollar that we painstakingly spend 90 days to try to save to our taxpayers, the same expectation should be on our local officials. But to that end, and I don't want to use the specific instances, any association that has dues but then also offers ancillary services, what really are we asking of those local governments? Is it the membership of the dues or the use of those ancillary services? So I understand and respect that, and the dollar amount can seem menial,
But I think every dollar that is taken through tax, through a millage, through a sales tax, through property taxes, whatever, deserves our utmost respect. Follow-up. You're recognized. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. And I understand that, and I appreciate your stance on that for sure. I think it was Representative Meeks that made the point. So would this not encourage more government relations jobs that are going to come as a W-2 with a benefit package and all of those kind of things? I mean, don't we typically find, or I think I have found typically, that it's cheaper to outsource a service than it is to bring that internally and make that a W-2 position?
I have the benefit of representing an area of northwest Arkansas, and I've seen some of our towns and counties commit existing personnel to it. So the same could be shared and applied across other municipalities of the same or similar standing, or even maybe in the, if we're doing quartiles, upper or lower. Maybe not the same for rural communities. There could be a cooperative, similar how we have needs in our education space and our utility space, and local rural communities manage to pull together resources in order to do that. So I would say there's a chance, but there's also a chance that it could be an existing function within local and state government.
Yeah, I understand that, and I appreciate it. Again, I appreciate you bringing this. I respectfully disagree. I think that it creates a burden, to your point, kind of for rural Arkansas, but I definitely understand why you brought the
bill. Thank you, sir. Thank you. any other questions by the committee seeing no further questions by the committee we do have individuals signed
up to speak for and against the bill first to speak for the bill j robertson opportunity arkansas
Jay Robertson
Unverified
1:57:22
Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Jay Robertson. I represent Opportunity Arkansas. For those of you who don't know us, we're a state-based non-profit that advocates for simplifying government and solving generational problems. I'm here today because I'm a registered lobbyist that actually is speaking in support of this bill because we advocate for taxpayers. And Arkansans work hard for their money, and when they pay their taxes, they expect those tax dollars to go to fund things that improve their quality of life, like public education, public safety, infrastructure.
What they don't expect is for those tax dollars to get funneled behind the scenes to hire contract lobbyists that can often advocate for agendas that might run counter to their own policy preferences. This bill respects the right of government agencies to communicate with the legislature, to offer their ideas and perspectives, to employ staff to advocate for those interests. And that's an important distinction because someone who is directly employed by a governmental entity is directly accountable to that entity and to the voters and to the taxpayers and to this body, whereas contract lobbyists are not.
This bill would end the practice of outsourcing influence to third-party lobbyists that don't have that same line of accountability. These organizations, I understand, can sometimes provide helpful information to you all. And as Representative McKenzie mentioned, nothing in the bill would prevent governmental entities from using private dollars or fundraise dollars to support those organizations. This bill says that if you're going to speak for the government when lobbying this body, you should be a part of the government, not someone paid to lobby using tax dollars.
I also want to highlight that Arkansas voters clearly agree. We conducted a poll of Arkansas voters on this very issue. 73% of all voters across party lines support ending taxpayer-funded lobbying in Arkansas. We support this bill because we believe it's a common-sense policy solution that restores integrity to the way government works, and it makes a strong statement that public funds should always serve the public good. Thank you for your time, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
All right, any questions by the committee? Representative Hawke, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Robertson, you said this was done behind the scenes.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:59:52
That is a trigger word to try to get something that you want passed because you know darn well that taxpayer dollars at local governments is not behind the scenes. It's done in every—we just passed or we just talked about a bill on the House floor talking about every city council meeting has to be recorded and posted online. So would you not agree that that was a trigger word to try to get this committee to say that this was done behind the scenes?
Jay Robertson
Unverified
2:00:22
Representative respectfully, no. And the reason I say that is because I think most voters are not aware that their tax dollars are even being used to hire contract lobbyists. And as I said, I think they expect their tax dollars to support public functions. Taxpayers deserve to know exactly who's speaking on behalf of the government that they fund to support and to be able to hold those people accountable.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:00:52
You referenced some poll you guys did. How many
Jay Robertson
Unverified
2:01:02
people were polled in the poll? We polled a total sample of 357 registered voters within the state of Arkansas, comprising Republican, Democratic, and independent voters. The total support I mentioned was 73% of all
voters, 69% of Republican voters, 71% of Democrats, 78% independent.
Cool. Thank you. Yes, sir. Representative Collins,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:01:37
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So if your concern is that tax dollars are being used for lobbying, this bill would allow tax dollars to be used for lobbying, right? So I don't really understand if that's your concern, this bill still allows that thing that is happening that you don't want to
Jay Robertson
Unverified
2:01:56
have happen. Thank you for the question. And I think the key difference is that this bill would allow for public employees to still speak with you, to still advocate, lobby the legislature.
It would not allow for the hiring of an independent contract
lobbyist. what's the difference from the taxpayer standpoint
Jay Robertson
Unverified
2:02:14
because a public employee is directly accountable to a public agency and the taxpayers into this body whereas a contrary lobbyist could not be held accountable in the same way that a public employee could it's
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:02:26
a little hard for me to see the difference
but I understand what you're saying representative Meeks you're recognized thank you mr. chairman Based on kind of the
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:02:37
way you described that poll, I think if you ask most people, yes, you're going to get that answer.
But I don't know that they fully understand the entire depth of what we're talking about here. If we're talking about, in the case of what my colleague said, the city of Bryant, no, I don't think they should be going out and buying third-party lobbyists to lobby on behalf. My concern is that when you start with the membership, like of the Municipal League in Arkansas counties, they do so much more than just lobby. I mean, they do insurance, they provide training, they provide legal counsel and all that.
And so it's way more than lobbying. And so, you know, if you have a city, you know, the bigger cities, they've got resources. But I'm talking about the small towns, and I've been on the audit committee enough to know what kind of trouble those small towns get into because they need help with stuff. I'm just concerned that when you say 73%, yeah, that's not getting the full scope here of what we're talking about. And I think my concern is I support what the representative is doing.
It's just this is where I'm getting the heartburn at is that one aspect of it. And so I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on
Jay Robertson
Unverified
2:03:58
that. Yeah, so I obviously can't speak for all these organizations. but to the degree these organizations provide valuable services to governmental entities, they can offer those as professional organizations that don't engage in lobbying. Or to the degree they do engage in lobbying, and that's an essential part of it, entities can still raise funds to do that. This bill just says that taxpayers shouldn't be forced to fund lobbying
when lobbyists can come up here and advocate for positions that undermine the taxpayers' own positions.
Any other questions by the committee? Seeing no further questions by the committee.
Thank you, Mr. Robertson. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill, Lindsey French.
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
2:05:02
I would like to start out by saying we agree with I think the basic gist behind this bill of Representative McKenzie's, he talked about rural counties and rural municipalities and how,
you know, he recognizes that they're different than some of his area where they could have the resources and money to hire lobbyists. And the vast majority of the state does not. And that is why organizations such as the Arkansas Association of Counties exists, because the small rural counties in addition to the larger counties have pulled their resources together and that's why we're here. We believe that one was a system was developed 60 years ago, longer ago I believe for
the Municipal League and for the Sheriff's Association that allows county and district elected officials to lobby on behalf of their office. We represent about 1500 county and district officials who are also elected by the same people who elect you all. And their bidding is what we do. We don't go and tell them how they should feel and what they should lobby for. They very much give us our marching orders.
The idea of eliminating the Sheriff's Association, Municipal
League, and Association of Counties' ability
to advocate on our members' behalf would unwind smooth communication between your local officials and you resulting in dozens of county officials alone having to attend committee meetings instead of remaining home and doing the work for your mutual constituents. As we deal with disasters across the state, some of which we're dealing with now, can you imagine county sheriffs and county judges having to drop these critical responses to be here to testify on even the most insignificant bills that impact their offices?
All session, this committee has asked for county clerk opinions on bills, sometimes into the late evening, and they're not going to be able to be here doing that because they're at home doing the work that their people elected them to do. At the Association of Counties, we're subject matter experts who train county officials and answer questions daily. We assist state agencies and constitutional offices with research, both in and out of session, all year long. Under this bill, lobbyists could be employed on staff with cities and counties.
We all agree that the only areas that would be able to do this are large urban areas, leaving rural towns and counties largely without a voice at the Capitol. And those lobbyists that they would hire most certainly would not have the decades' worth of subject matter expertise in the many areas of law that the AAC does. I would like to quote an attorney general's opinion. 2007-189, that says both the Municipal League and the AAC are recognized by the IRS as
Instrumentalities of Government Units for Tax Purposes under 26 U.S.C. Section 115. As the Municipal League and AAC are classified as Instrumentalities of Government, lobbying activity undertaken by them is analyzed as government speech. We're not a nonprofit. We're not a private organization. We are a 26 U.S.C. Section 115, which is under IRS code, an instrumentality of government.
So when we are here, we are acting on behalf of the government. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled government officials are expected as a part of the democratic process to represent and to espouse the views of the majority of their constituents. When we are advocating for the will of our members, they're also advocating on behalf of the people who elected them. With countless advocates outside of the government seeking to influence its policy, this was the U.S. Supreme Court,
it would be ironic if those charged with making governmental decisions were not free to speak for themselves in the process. I think I've talked a lot. I know you all are about to go back, so I guess I'll
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:09:47
pause there. Thank you, Ms. French. Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you. Just a real quick question. Based on
your position, you are considered a lobbyist and not a government affairs. Can you kind of maybe go over that distinction between those two?
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
2:10:03
So we do have a governmental affairs director who is also registered as a lobbyist. We tend to think of ourselves more of subject matter experts and bringing you information, but we do register as lobbyists out of an abundance of caution.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:10:17
Okay. So I guess maybe I'm trying to split hairs here. Would you necessarily have
to register as a lobbyist as, you know, if you were just a government relations liaison between the Association of Counties and us, would that still be
required? Because I don't think you all are giving donations and stuff to us for political campaigns.
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
2:10:38
- I'm not an expert on the ethics rules behind that, but I think
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:10:48
I would agree with where you're going. - Okay. Representative Ray, you're recognized. - Thank you, Mr.
Chair. So, Ms. French, I guess, is it the model that you guys use, is that uniform across all the states that have these types of, I mean, Or are there different models?
I guess I'm wondering, is there, do other states utilize a foundation model like we have with Game and Fish and Arkansas PBS
and that kind of thing for local governments?
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
2:11:20
Sure, sure. I know, I can't speak for all, but I believe all states have an association of
counties. I know they are all organized differently. We're a voluntary association. There is no county that has to pay us dues or choose to be a member. Because of the services that we provide and how cost-effective it is, we are 100% membership.
But that is different in other associations, so other state associations may operate differently than we do. We do not have any lobbying expenses that are funded
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:11:55
out of taxpayer dollars. Okay. So you said that there's no lobbying expenses that are out of taxpayer dollars. How do you, can you walk me through how you get to
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
2:12:10
that point? I'm not an accountant and I'm not a tax attorney,
but I have been assured by our leadership team
that none of what we do here is funded out of the nominal amount of taxpayer dollars that we
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:12:27
receive in voluntary membership dues. So, okay, do you mind just
explaining to me on like a surface level, how is your organization, how is it funded? I mean, I know you've got several
different offices and sort of satellite groups that make up your organization.
Sheriffs, assessors, clerks, judges, so on and so forth. all of them have different dues that they pay or help me understand i'm sorry it is it is one membership due for the entire county okay
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
2:13:04
and counties pay that with with i assume taxpayer
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:13:08
money from their from their coffers uh yes i believe that would be accurate so what's i mean what's the total amount of money that we're talking about here um for us i'm told that it
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
2:13:24
is about $200,000 a year statewide. So
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:13:28
the rest of the funds, like the funds that
you guys would use for lobbying purposes, where do they come from? We have
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
2:13:37
a, and again, I'm getting way above my pay grade here,
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:13:41
so bear with me. I don't want to sound like I'm grilling you.
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
2:13:46
I'm just trying to understand. Sure. So we have a self-pooled insurance program that also generates some revenue for the operation of our association.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:13:57
Okay. So you're saying that the taxpayer money that you guys receive in the form of dues
is segregated in some sort of account to ensure that it's not
used for lobbying? Absolutely. Okay. All right. And with that, I
hate to interrupt a great debate, but we have to be back on the floor at 8
o'clock and staff says that we must gavel out. Before we leave, however, I'm open to coming back to hear this
bill and I think Representative Long has a bill and Representative Magruder has a bill after we gavel out from the floor if that's the wishes of the committee. Mr. Chair, may I ask if that's contingent on quorum though?
Speaker 119
2:14:43
Because I'd hate for us I'll come back and hear all the testimony if there's not 11 people. Yeah, absolutely. We're going to have to
have a quorum or otherwise I'm not going to have a meeting. Okay. Here's
the, I guess, suppose the issue is if we don't come back, my intention was to hear
only Senate bills on Wednesday. We would have a couple of House bills to pick
this up on Wednesday. And with all the Senate bills we have, we'll probably have to end up meeting because we'll only have a limited number of hours Wednesday morning. I'd probably have to come back Wednesday afternoon also. And I just, here's the issue with the House bills, if we
don't get them out now, if they're going to get out, if we don't get them out now, then if you wait until Wednesday to get one out and you think you're gonna get that through the Senate, good luck.
I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but. So that'd be up to the will of the committee to come back after
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:15:42
adjournment. Representative Rose. Yes sir, just support your recommendation for us to come back if there's time this
evening. All right, well that'll be the plan 15 minutes after adjournment of the house we'll be
back in session. This committee will stand in recess until 15 minutes of the 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.
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.
HB1632 Wardlaw TO REQUIRE REIMBURSEMENT TO THE ARKANSAS STATE GAME AND FISH COMMISSION FOR FREE OR DISCOUNTED HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES.
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.C
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.
HB1951 A. Collins TO SET FORTH AUTHORIZED DOMAIN EXTENSIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT WEBSITES.
HB1952 Hawk TO ASSIST THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATE ATHLETIC COMMISSION; TO PROVIDE FUNDING TO THE STATE ATHLETIC COMMISSION TO CONTINUE ITS MISSION TO PROMOTE A ROBUST, HEALTHY, AND SAFE COMBATIVE SPORTS INDUSTRY.
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.
HB1974 Long TO PROHIBIT STATE ENTITIES FROM EMPLOYING UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS; TO ESTABLISH THE E-VERIFY REQUIREMENT ACT; AND TO REQUIRE STATE ENTITIES TO USE E-VERIFY TO CONFIRM EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY.
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.
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.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS- HOUSE, Apr 7, 2025 | Agenda | 4 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 2
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Chair
Unverified
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
Speaker 21
Representative David Ray
Unverified
Speaker 43
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
Speaker 46
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Speaker 90
Speaker 93
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Speaker 119
Speaker 120
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Speaker 140
Representative Rick Beck Chair
Unverified
Speaker 175
Speaker 184
Speaker 210
Speaker 216
Speaker 209
Speaker 218
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 23
Speaker 247
Jay Robertson
Unverified