Judiciary Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (56)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB623
· 10 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB623 J. Scott CONCERNING THE TREATMENT OF FEMALE INMATES AND DET…”
|
CONCERNING THE TREATMENT OF FEMALE INMATES AND DETAINEES IN CORRECTIONAL OR DETENTION FACILITIES; AND TO … | J. Scott | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB612
Act 901
· 9 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “SB612 Dees TO CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST A SOCIAL M…”
|
TO CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM THAT CAUSES HARM; … | Dees | Notification that SB612 is now Act 901 |
|
SB590
Act 769
· 6 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…Matt McKee RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE Number Sponsor Subtitle SB590 Gilmore TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN TH…”
|
TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN … | Gilmore | Notification that SB590 is now Act 769 |
|
SB509
· 5 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…E TO A TENANT WHEN A COURT HAS ISSUED A WRIT OF POSSESSION. SB509 G. TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVI…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. | G. Stubblefield | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB5
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB5 B. King TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HA…”
|
TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1148
Act 597
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1148 Vaught TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PRIVACY ACT; AND TO ADDRESS C…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PRIVACY ACT; AND TO ADDRESS CERTAIN IMAGES CAPTURED BY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT … | Vaught | Notification that HB1148 is now Act 597 |
|
HB1611
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AL IMPROVEMENT FUND OR ITS SUCCESSOR FUND OR FUND ACCOUNTS. HB1611 Gonzales TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING WITH RE…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ANIMAL … | Gonzales | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1615
Act 677
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…DETAINEE WHO IS PREGNANT OR HAS RECENTLY DELIVERED A CHILD. HB1615 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMINATION. | Lundstrum | Notification that HB1615 is now Act 677 |
|
HB1624
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1624 Gazaway TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF COUNTY LAW LIBRARY BOARDS. | Gazaway | Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1692
Act 678
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. Stubblefield HB1692 M. Brown TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS AND VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS EXAMINERS; AND TO AMEND … | M. Brown | Notification that HB1692 is now Act 678 |
|
HB1717
Act 952
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TEAMS. Page 3 of 4 DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1717 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CHILDREN AND TEENS' ONLINE…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CHILDREN AND TEENS' ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT. | Gramlich | Notification that HB1717 is now Act 952 |
|
HB1729
Act 679
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY. HB1729 R. Burkes TO AMEND THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ACT; AND TO PROV…”
|
TO AMEND THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ACT; AND TO PROVIDE THAT A HOMESTEAD OWNED BY A … | R. Burkes | Notification that HB1729 is now Act 679 |
|
HB1749
Act 680
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…GIBLE FOR THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. HB1749 M. Brown TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM TRUST DECANTING ACT. HB1777 G…”
|
TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM TRUST DECANTING ACT. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1749 is now Act 680 |
|
HB1752
Act 681
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1752 Maddox TO EXEMPT CERTAIN SAVINGS PLANS FROM THE EXECUTION O…”
|
TO EXEMPT CERTAIN SAVINGS PLANS FROM THE EXECUTION OF A JUDGMENT. | Maddox | Notification that HB1752 is now Act 681 |
|
HB1763
Act 682
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MPT CERTAIN SAVINGS PLANS FROM THE EXECUTION OF A JUDGMENT. HB1763 Underwood TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; AND T…”
|
TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL … | Underwood | Notification that HB1763 is now Act 682 |
|
HB1764
Act 831
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…um TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMINATION. HB1764 Underwood AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF…”
|
AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION. | Underwood | Notification that HB1764 is now Act 831 |
|
HB1778
Act 832
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…BRIBE A CHILD IN THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD. HB1778 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF STALKING TO INCLUDE PLACING A PERSON … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1778 is now Act 832 |
|
HB1779
Act 833
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E DEFINITION OF COURSE OF CONDUCT WITH RESPECT TO STALKING. HB1779 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO THEFT OF PROPERTY; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO THEFT OF PROPERTY; AND ENHANCE THE OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION FOR … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1779 is now Act 833 |
|
HB1780
Act 684
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1780 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RETENTION OF PROPER…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RETENTION OF PROPERTY RELATED TO A FELONY INVESTIGATION. | Gazaway | Notification that HB1780 is now Act 684 |
|
HB1799
Act 685
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…S RESIDENCE AND LEFT WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF THE RESIDENCE. HB1799 Vaught TO AMEND THE PERMISSIBLE METHODS OF REPORTING UNDER…”
|
TO AMEND THE PERMISSIBLE METHODS OF REPORTING UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT. | Vaught | Notification that HB1799 is now Act 685 |
|
HB1815
Act 687
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EVICE DURING THE COMMISSION OF A HUMAN TRAFFICKING OFFENSE. HB1815 Perry TO AMEND THE STATE'S JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL LANDS;…”
|
TO AMEND THE STATE'S JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL LANDS; AND TO RETAIN JUVENILE JUSTICE JURISDICTION BY … | Perry | Notification that HB1815 is now Act 687 |
|
HB1824
Act 688
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…; AND TO RETAIN JUVENILE JUSTICE JURISDICTION BY THE STATE. HB1824 Duffield TO CREATE THE DOG AND CAT RESCUE ACT: DAISY'S LAW.…”
|
TO CREATE THE DOG AND CAT RESCUE ACT: DAISY'S LAW. | Duffield | Notification that HB1824 is now Act 688 |
|
HB1829
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1829 Dalby TO AMEND THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; TO PROVIDE F…”
|
TO AMEND THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; TO PROVIDE FOR REMOTE TESTIMONY IN CERTAIN … | Dalby | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1831
Act 690
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EMENT OF CONTINGENCY FEE CONTRACTS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. HB1831 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF SETTLEME…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. | M. Shepherd | Notification that HB1831 is now Act 690 |
|
HB1835
Act 691
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1835 Dalby CONCERNING SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS; AND TO UPDATE AN…”
|
CONCERNING SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS; AND TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING DRUG COURT, MENTAL … | Dalby | Notification that HB1835 is now Act 691 |
|
HB1838
Act 713
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1838 Dalby TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROBATE ACTIONS; AND TO A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROBATE ACTIONS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ADOPTION AND … | Dalby | Notification that HB1838 is now Act 713 |
|
HB1839
Act 692
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ADOPTION AND GUARDIANSHIP. HB1839 Dalby TO AMEND THE PROCEDURES FOR THE DECLARATION OF LEGAL…”
|
TO AMEND THE PROCEDURES FOR THE DECLARATION OF LEGAL DEATH OF A MISSING PERSON. | Dalby | Notification that HB1839 is now Act 692 |
|
HB1844
Act 822
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RES FOR THE DECLARATION OF LEGAL DEATH OF A MISSING PERSON. HB1844 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF FLEEING BY…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF FLEEING BY MEANS OF A VEHICLE OR … | Tosh | Notification that HB1844 is now Act 822 |
|
HB1848
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1848 Hudson TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN AWARD OF JOINT CUSTODY BETWEEN PARENTS … | Hudson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1865
Act 976
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Duffield TO CREATE THE DOG AND CAT RESCUE ACT: DAISY'S LAW. HB1865 Vaught TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES A…”
|
TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES AGAINST A CHILD. | Vaught | Notification that HB1865 is now Act 976 |
|
HB1875
Act 841
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1875 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF AN IGNITION INT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE; AND TO PROVIDE … | Tosh | Notification that HB1875 is now Act 841 |
|
HB1887
Act 658
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1887 Pearce TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING STATEWIDE CHILD ABDUCTIO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING STATEWIDE CHILD ABDUCTION RESPONSE TEAMS. | Pearce | Notification that HB1887 is now Act 658 |
|
SB143
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB143 B. King TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE TO COORDINATE WITH LOCAL SHERIFFS AND THE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB144
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TY CORRECTION IN CRIME REDUCTION AND PREVENTION ACTIVITIES. SB144 B. King CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER…”
|
CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER TO THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION; TO PROVIDE FOR … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB145
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…JAIL-STATE INMATE CLOSE-TO- HOME PARTNERSHIPS. Page 2 of 4 SB145 B. King TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS RESULTING FROM LITIGATION INVOLVING THE USE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB441
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NG; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ROOSTER FIGHTING. SB441 Hester TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025. S…”
|
TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025. | Hester | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB452
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. SB452 B. King CONCERNING CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE OR REC…”
|
CONCERNING CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE OR RECYCLING OF WIND TURBINES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB461
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF COUNTY LAW LIBRARY BOARDS. SB461 J. Scott TO COLLECT DATA REGARDING THE USE OF SOLITARY CONF…”
|
TO COLLECT DATA REGARDING THE USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN ARKANSAS PRISONS AND JAILS. | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB472
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB472 J. Bryant TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION…”
|
TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION OF AN E-LIQUID PRODUCT OR VAPOR PRODUCT … | Underwood | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB477
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AND CIRCUIT COURTS TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF EMPLOYABILITY. SB477 G. TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVI…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. | G. Stubblefield | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB501
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SESSION OF AN E-LIQUID PRODUCT OR VAPOR PRODUCT BY A MINOR. SB501 J. Scott TO CREATE THE TENANT POSSESSIONS RECOVERY ACT; AND…”
|
TO CREATE THE TENANT POSSESSIONS RECOVERY ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A LANDLORD TO PROVIDE CERTAIN … | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB548
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. Stubblefield SB548 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WARRANTS OF ARREST; A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WARRANTS OF ARREST; AND TO REQUIRE THAT NOTICE OF A … | G. Leding | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB549
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…WARRANT BE SENT TO THE PERSON NAMED IN THE ARREST WARRANT. SB549 G. Leding TO ENSURE THAT MANDATED COSTS AND FEES PAID BY A…”
|
TO ENSURE THAT MANDATED COSTS AND FEES PAID BY A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE … | G. Leding | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB566
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. SB566 B. King PROVIDE FOR FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION, IMPROVEMENT,…”
|
PROVIDE FOR FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION, IMPROVEMENT, OR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE AND COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES; … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB581
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB581 B. King TO CREATE THE POULTRY INTEGRATORS DECEPTIVE TRADE P…”
|
TO CREATE THE POULTRY INTEGRATORS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES AND TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB595
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…1 Hester TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025. SB595 G. Leding TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HI…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN … | G. Leding | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB6
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM.”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB609
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB609 J. Scott TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN … | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB620
Act 1003
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES AGAINST A CHILD. SB620 Irvin TO PROVIDE A SAFETY VALVE AND APPEAL RIGHT FOR A MINO…”
|
TO PROVIDE A SAFETY VALVE AND APPEAL RIGHT FOR A MINOR DEFENDANT WHO IS ALSO … | Irvin | Notification that SB620 is now Act 1003 |
|
HB1662
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1662 B. McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTI…”
|
TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY. | B. McKenzie | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1726
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1726 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT.”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT. | Gramlich | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1777
Act 683
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1777 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD; AND TO INCLUDE … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1777 is now Act 683 |
|
HB1830
Act 689
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1830 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE … | M. Shepherd | Notification that HB1830 is now Act 689 |
|
SB356
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB356 J. Bryant TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBT…”
|
TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE ARKANSAS CRIME INFORMATION CENTER … | J. Bryant | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB462
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN ARKANSAS PRISONS AND JAILS. SB462 J. Scott TO CREATE A CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYABILITY FOR A PER…”
|
TO CREATE A CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYABILITY FOR A PERSON WITH A FELONY CONVICTION; AND TO … | J. Scott | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB6623
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…23 as amended. OK, thank you for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 6623, a bill that speaks not only to the letter of the law, but…”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
He's Let's get started. I see Senator Scott here. Senator Scott, you're
Speaker 2
0:14
up to. OK, you have an amendment you need
to sign. What Go. Yeah yeah uh
OK. for Yes. side. OK. While we're waiting on Cent Scott, Senator Gilmore, you
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:01
want to do SB 590? Yes sir, I think I'll be very quick. Actually,
not really sure why it was referred back to committee. I think I must have misspoke on my motion on the floor, uh, but the motion was to have it engrossed, um, I, I gave a, um, Basically an analysis of what that amendment did. It changed basically two words. So if you're ready, I can present that really quick
Speaker 15
1:28
and move on. Please do. It's already been engrossed. All right
What's the discussion? OK. So are are you making a motion
do pass Motion do pass with a 2nd there's not anybody to speak on SB 5 number. OK. Yeah Technical, I think I misspoken by motion before. Oh
OK, SB 590, we have a motion and a second to pass. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying aye I post. Congratulations. Senator Gilmore, you have passed your bill again. Senator Scott. What bill number? 623 SB 623. Has an amendment.
I Senator Scott, would you like to explain
Speaker 27
3:00
your amendment? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
3:02
Colleagues, the amendment you have before you is the language I received from the governor's office last week via the
Department of Corrections to make sure that they were OK with this bill, so this is the amendment
that I made for them to be got a motion to adopt. Who was
the second? Centra Tucker 2nd. Uh, any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying ah. Senator Scott, your bill is amended. You, you are recognized to present, I'm sorry, identify yourself for
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
3:36
the record. Senator Jamie Scott, District 12.
OK, you are a recognized present Senate Bill 623 as amended. OK, thank you for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 6623, a bill that speaks not only to the letter of the law, but a shared humanity and includes our values for all our Kansans, um, Senate Bill 623 addresses the treatment of incarcerated women, particularly those who are pregnant or who have recently given birth while in prison or any of our facilities across the state. This bill seeks to amend the law to ensure that everyone under the care and custody of
our correctional and detention facilities is treated with dignity, compassion, and receives the medical attention, her conditions require every year women in Arkansas Correctional Facilities go through pregnancy, labor, and postpartum recovery, one without adequate and often without adequate prenatal care without consistent monitoring and without basic safeguards. So basically Senate Bill 623 does four critical things. It limits the use of restraints on. women inmates during labor,
delivery and postpartum recovery, except in an extraordinary circumstance where safety is at risk. It requires access to appropriate prenatal and postpartum care consistent with medical standards. It provides trauma informed training for correctional officers, staff, um, and those who are in need of pregnant and postpartum in the in the presence of the pregnant and postpartum women and it establishes reporting standards to ensure transparency and oversight restraints are used during pregnancies.
Um, colleagues, how we treat those amongst us, how we treat these women in this process is very important and I think this also plays in fact with um us having the highest maternal mortality rate in the state of Arkansas, so if we can better take care of the women who are in our custody, I think that helps with that rate. Senate bill. Um, 623 is not a partisan bill, um, it is the principal one and is supported by the Department of Corrections in the governor's
office, and I would be happy to ask, answer any
questions that you might have questions from committee. Hearing none, uh, no, uh, Senator Ross and Senator
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
5:57
Stolenfield. Thank you, uh, Senator Scott, can you tell me how many, uh, female inmates, we currently have or average what we have in incarcerated that are pregnant. I do not, but
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
6:09
can I ask if someone from the Department of Corrections is here and might
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
6:15
have that information. Just a minute, if you're running a bill for this, but you don't know if this is
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
6:22
a widespread problem or well, I've worked on legislation in the past to where we didn't put pregnant and solitary and women in solitary confinement. It has been
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
6:30
an issue that how many women do we have in solitary confinement. From your previous bills.
Speaker 40
6:36
I don't, I don't want to misspeak. That's why I
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
6:39
wanted I'm trying to get at is what, what size problem is this? Is it, is it a problem?
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
6:49
I'm, I'm not, I'm just asking, no, no, I believe it is how many does this affect? I would prefer for Department of
Corrections to give us the exact number. I'm, I'm sorry that I don't
Speaker 46
7:08
have it. Is there someone from the Department of Corrections
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
7:12
here? Don't hurt that. Do you have an answer, Senator Gilmore? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so 2 years ago when we were running
the ProTECT Act, the ProTECT Act included some substantial reforms related to pregnant inmates, and at that time, I believe the number was about 26. I know it was just under 30, um, so I think that number varies quite a bit, but again
that was 2 years ago. Uh, that 26 to 30 pregnant inmates. Was that your
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
7:46
question sent to us? And, and just for some education, one,
we were talking about 26, 30 people, uh, Is there something In the sentencing, and I'd welcome an agency the department or judicial come up. Is there something, I mean, we're dealing with a
9 month. Pregnancy period here. And I realized there's things after that, but I'm, I'm wondering, do we incarcerate Uh, evidently we do, uh, pregnant females, is there not,
do they have any consideration? To not have them incarcerated during that time. Something not just when I saw
this bill, I I didn't know. Anyone here from AOC or any uh place that, uh, can answer those questions. Nobody's jumping up today. Center Stubblefield.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
8:54
Well, my question was along the same lines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question was
along the same lines, uh, Uh, does anybody, there's no one from the Department of Corrections here.
To tell us what their policy is regarding uh pregnant females and And the DOC system. Can we get someone here? I
think we need someone here to answer these questions. I'm happy to pull it down and
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
9:25
try to get in touch with someone and come back this afternoon if that was the will of the committee to try to get
the questions answered you can get them here, you can come back this morning. OK, and a total amount of female prisoners also.
OK. Do you like to do that? OK, so, uh, Senator Scott's going to pull her bill down and bring somebody back from the Department of Corrections. OK, thank you. Thank you. Any senators here to run Senate bills.
Senators here to run Senate bills saying none representative. OK, uh, you're going to
get it out. It's time to get it out. Center D
Speaker 70
10:14
is considering running a bill. I don't see it on our agenda. I'll make sure. 612 on here, OK. OK. Yes, you have a copy of that. 6
Is Center is going to run SB 612. State
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
10:48
Senator Tyler Dees, District 35. Center
Chair
Unverified
10:52
these are recognized on SB 612. Thank you, Mr. Chair,
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
10:58
and thank you members. So Senate Bill 612 is a building a framework, a private right of action, related to social media and it gives a framework for if there is harm being done and pro provable harm to the to the users, then this creates a framework where parents can can hold accountable that the social media and big tech companies. So
Speaker 82
11:21
you'll see that's, that's the the attempt today. Happy to answer any questions.
Questions from committee. Saying no questions from committee, Senator Tucker. So I'm
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
11:39
just looking at this on page 2. On 13 and 14. How are
they going to know that 123, and 4 are pretty clear cut. I mean, excuse me, 12, and 3 are pretty clear cut to me. 4 is a little
more vague, so I'm just, I'm just curious about that. Will you
describe that more how is who going to know what, I mean, 12 and 3. Social media platforms shall not knowingly essentially cause a person to purchase a controlled substance. That's a verifiable thing. Develop an eating disorder also verifiable commit or attempt to commit suicide, also verifiable. Developer sustain an addiction to the social media platform, a
little tougher to a little tougher to prove, uh, or know whether that's the case or not without, you know, getting inside someone's head. So anyway, that's just, that's the one piece of that that I have. Just question about it. You know, whose burden is that to prove
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
12:49
and that sort of thing. Well, I think my initial response would be that that's this is the framework to have that discussion and so we can have a process where where a case
can be caught, can be brought for the courts to help decide, you know, if there's
damaging aspects that have taken place as a result of an interaction with big tech, um, this framework helps that, and I would also say that this models after other states that have forged ahead. I think in this whole conversation, Arkansas led the way. in the social
media Safety Act in 2023, and there's things that we have moved and adapt since then. We've learned from other states. States have learned from us, and I think we're moving into a better policy direction. OK.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
13:39
Any other, any other questions from committee? So all of the damages, sorry, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. You're Senator Tucker. So all of
the all of the liability is outlined in the new proposed section, could you speak more into your mind?
My apologies, Mr. Sher. All the damages. All the liability for the social media platform as outlined in the new proposed section 1503.
Correct. Yes sir. So there's civil penalty. under subsection A, the civil
penalty and the attorneys' fees and costs under subsection B. That's only for For miners who either commit or attempt to commit suicide. I believe that's correct. Um, OK. So Other than The attempt To commit or actually committing
suicide, the only liability for the social media company is for the other three harms purchasing a controlled substance, developing an eating disorder or developing or sustaining an addiction addiction to the social media platform. The only liability for those for the social media platform is the $10,000 civil penalty. There's no harm. There's no damage that the plaintiff can prove and recover for. I believe that's how I read that
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
15:16
as well. OK. All right, thank you. And I
think um maybe before um, uh, even before closing, just, just know, we have received some requests for amendments from from different companies. We are reviewing those. I wanted to make sure we had a chance this trip to be heard. I have full intentions to continue those conversations. I'm not sure if we will mend those or not, but those conversations are ongoing. This is with companies that want to be excluded or or definitions change. from the
tech companies and so those conversations will continue to be had, but I can tell you
this framework is the direction that we're pursuing. Other
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
15:59
questions from committee, Senator Stubblefield. Senator, don't misunderstand me. I certainly agree with the intent of the bill. It's just that
along the lines, it seems to Clark. To us since Tucker asked. How do we know and how do you, I mean, do you do an investigation of the algorithm or how do you
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
16:19
know that a company causes someone to commit suicide. Sure, and I think this, this, I believe this framework helps us know that, you know, if if a parent, as an example, has a case where a child was actively engaged and and being arguably preyed upon from a from a from a big tech company. I believe that there would be ample proof that the courts could be able to review. And this this framework creates that private right of action for a parent to be able
to bring that case against these.
Speaker 82
16:52
against these companies. Do you believe these
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
16:57
companies? At the present time we gathering data on each one
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
17:01
of these individuals? Absolutely. The data is actually the currency and being used for this purpose I believe that I believe it's an argument can be made that it's there's negligence in that the the pursuit of more users and more time on on their platforms and
devices outweighs their concerns for the safety and well-being,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
17:27
especially of our minors. OK. Arthur's I. Other questions from committee.
There's no one to testify for or against Senator Des. Would you
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
17:38
like to close for your bill, members, thank you for the chance to bring these two. We have a social media safety act, kind of a revamp from last session that has already passed through insurance and Commerce last week. This is the private right of action framework
with I would say similar intent that we just want to make sure that especially kids are protected online. The statistics that we have continued to see are very damning and I I don't want as a father of 3 young kids, I don't want um to our to allow our kids to continue to be the guinea pigs of, of social media without us at least creating a framework for protection, so that's why this bill is being presented today that I would be closed and would make a motion of do pass. Ocean Du Pass from Center D, 2
from Senator Gilmore. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying aye, all opposed. Ocean Carey, congratulations, Senator Dez, you have passed SB 612. Any other
senators here to present Senate bills. Yes, Center Stubblefield. I, I do have one. OK.
Speaker 6
19:04
I I would say. It Are there any other senators here to Senate
bills at the moment, including the committee.
Unless someone walks in after
Speaker 127
19:42
Censor stubble field, we'll be going to house bills. I think it's just OK. Senator Stubblefield, what
bill are you running?
This is Senate Bill 509, uh, Senate Bill 509, uh, center,
would you and your guest identify yourselves?
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
20:11
For the record, yes, I'm Senator Gary
Speaker 131
20:14
Sublefield, Senate District 26. I may Andrew Anteloni. All
right. Uh, so I still feel you are recognized as present
SP 509. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
20:29
If the committee will remember, we presented this bill a couple of weeks ago, and Mr. Angelini was
not here and he knows more about the specifics of this, uh, this issue then than I did. So I asked him to come down this morning, hoping that he would get to testify and tell you exactly what's going on with the, these rental services and uh And the other things to deal, deal with
this bill. So. I'll let him answer any questions. You're recognized. What's going on? Tell him what's going on. So
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
21:10
right now, if somebody rents a piece of equipment from me on a equipment rental place and Greenwood, Arkansas, and they don't pay their bill. It's a civil offense, and I can sue them civilly. And I've done this several times and nobody ever makes them pay me. And you have to file liens on their properties and Star I would like to make it where it's where it's a criminal offense where I could get help from the courts.
To help me recoup my money and my damages to the to the equipment. I have like I have a guy right now who's I'm, I've just sued for $30,000. For rental for damages that he's done for his equipment to the equipment and money that he's owed me. I've got a lawyer. He's They went up, he lived in Northwest Arkansas. They finally got him served. He never got a lawyer and never even challenged it. So The people that are doing this
know the law and they know it's going to be a criminal offense or a civil offense and that there's no way you're going to get your money. And it happens quite regular. And I tried using credit card authorization forms to get a card on file. So they, you know, that I could charge their card, but they dispute it and most of the time the credit card company, uh, rules in their favor so that they get their money back. It's just It seems like
Rental companies, people steal from them and there's nothing
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
22:58
we can do about it. Questions from committee. Senator Ross Thank
you for being here today. I don't know anything about the rental business. I sympathize with you from being a retailer,
um, things that people don't see or have any clue that we we put up with, but, uh, when this was presented the other day, one of
the questions I had, uh, how do you know, I'm sorry guys, I can't, I can't. Senator Tucker, Center Gilmore my hearing aids pick up everything. I'm sorry it causes
problems, uh, What I want to know is, If I come in and rent a piece of equipment, let's say a backhoe and The last guy is the one that actually abused it. I come it looks fine. But it breaks with me.
You follow me where I'm going. How do you determine? That the last user is the one that needs to step up and pay $10,000 or
Speaker 147
23:56
whatever. So most of the damage is cosmetic. And the machine is, I have
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
24:02
a mechanic, so the machine, it gets washed when it gets to the yard, my mechanic inspects it and then he puts it ready tag on it where it's ready to win and you know, he goes through everything and checks everything on it. Then before it leaves the yard, we take pictures of the
whole machine. So if they're Just to make sure that there's no damage to cosmetically or any damage to the machine. Mostly that's the damage that we're trying to get back is cosmetic because they, they run it into stuff, run it into a tree or anything, or such as that, but uh as far as the motor and The hydraulics and hoses, I mean, All of that is checked and so it's
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
24:49
The equipment's in good condition when it leaves. Well again, but the engine. There's things all
I know is small equipment and we don't do that anymore, but I know small equipment is finally going to wear and it's and, and something will eventually break. So I'm, what I'm needing to hear is, is there's a fair process to start with. I understand you've got a problem of collective damage, but I want to know it's a fair process. It
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
25:21
It's fair because I mean like the All my equipment's new for one thing, so I mean it's the motors are not, but I mean the motors are maintained. All the equipment's maintained. I've never went after anybody for, you know, if they did any,
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
25:37
if the motor went out because we had never had that issue but probably thinking about this, if you can get a civil Judge, but Evidently the judge was, uh, didn't, didn't expect it was
abuse or did expect it was abuse and didn't expect it was something that just happened or you couldn't
get civil judgment. Would that be fair assumption? Yes, that's
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
26:10
correct. OK, thank you. Other questions from committee. Senator Tucker, Thank you, Mr. Chair. So when, when you ran this before Senator Selefield, we talked about how this was already covered by another crime in the code now, and Mr. Rosensweig was here and he cited
me the statute. I don't see Mr. Rosenwa here now, so I, I don't think we have that code section to cite, but how this and maybe it was theft of services, I don't remember which code section it was,
but how this was already covered by another crime, the situation that you're describing, have you all been able
Speaker 157
26:42
to clarify by that I, I've talked with The only people that I know that I talked to is the
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
26:48
prosecuting attorneys in Fort Smith, Arkansas, and every time I go to them with anything, they say it's a civil offense and not a
criminal offense and therefore I have to sue them civilly. They Never told me that it was
Speaker 123
27:04
a criminal offense. Are we prosecutors available. We're at the
end of the session. No, there we go. Hey. If you will
identify yourself for the record, please. Yes, Chairman, Tom Tatum, prosecuting attorney, 15th Judicial District. But Taylor the answer the question you want Senator Tucker to repeat it. Uh, no, I think I can respond. uh I, I do believe
Speaker 168
27:45
this is covered by theft of services. Uh, the, the issue kind of the broader. The issue is, is, um, Uh
A lot of times for something to be a crime. You know, the person needs to have uh criminal intent. Uh, you know, all our crimes are set up, set up that way where you've got to have criminal intent and a criminal act. And just, I just glanced over this act and I think what's what's happening to our merchant here is His property is being damaged, but maybe not with criminal intent to damage it or deprive
him of a monetary interest, but it's still A civil liability or a civil obligation. And, and so those are two different things, so, so the prosecutor, and I'm just guessing, I haven't seen the files or anything. The prosecutors telling him, hey, this is more civil, not a criminal issue, and you should pursue your civil remedy, whatever that is, you know, now if he gets a judgment and can't collect the money, that that
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
29:01
doesn't just because he can't do that doesn't make it criminal. I don't know if that helps at all. Yes, so that answers my question. I appreciate you. Can I say something? Serra McKee, you recognize? Would it, would it not be criminal if they don't pay you? I mean, if they, if they take your equipment, rent it. And then Then then they won't pay you. I mean,
Speaker 173
29:27
is that not criminal? I would, I would think that would be criminal because that happens all the time. They'll
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
29:34
rent your equipment, say, and in the rental world. Or like with me with a small rental company, I have, I just, it's you coming to rent something and you're gonna rent it on a long term rental, say you're going to rent it for 3 or 4 months. We charge you for a month at a time and then you use the equipment for a whole month and then we send you a bill, and then you use equipment for another month and then we send you a bill. So you're always a month behind. So a lot of times you, you will be behind and they'll owe you several $1000 and then when they
bring the equipment back, they just don't pay you. And even though you have a credit card on file that you can charge. They, they dispute it. And 9 times out of 10, the credit card company is gonna Rule in their favor because
it's their credit card. Senator McKee. Thank Mr. Chair. Senator Schofield, I, I apologize for not being in the room
when you presented, but I remember having some conversations about this bill. I think last time you presented.
And my concerns basically just fall around. What I perceive is a little bit of vagueness with respect to Why you're immediately guilty of a felony if you don't return the equipment or fail to pay for it. It just seems like there should be some times for you to be able to cure or or resolve some of these issues before. You're charged with a felony. Can you address that for me, please? Well, I'm not in the
rental business, McGee, but Andy is. Maybe he can address it for us. He could, I think I understand what you're trying to do, and I sympathize with you. I
just want to make sure we do the right thing, right? Yeah, and we give, I mean, I, I, I give people a lot of time. I mean, there's 30, 90 days out before they pay me before I even try to do anything and they have more than enough time to come past us, but Mm They know the laws. Um
Everything is civil and I don't know if you've anybody in here has ever sued anybody civilly and then try to get your
money. It's, it's next to impossible. Yes, said McKee, so like I said, I, I sympathize with the situation
and I want to find a way to fix it, but this doesn't have any time frames. This doesn't have any cure period. This doesn't have any of that language in it. Is that already existing in statute and maybe the Prosecutors can answer that
question, or is that something that should be in here just to make sure that folks are trying to, you know, whether it's arbitration or whatever, trying to figure out their situation to get
Speaker 174
32:19
them worked out before we're charging people. Uh, that, that structure is not currently in the statute, OK. civilly it is, it is,
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
32:28
but we're talking about criminal right here. So Senator Suenfield, do you, do you see my concerns? Yeah. Yeah, I, I
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
32:35
see you're concerned. Let me give a little, let me
give a little example that's a little off topic here. We're not talking about rental equipment, and Mr. Tatum is well aware of this, uh, probably a year ago, had a, had a man that stole 9 horses. Within 1 mile and half of my house. He took those horses. He has paid how much restitution time? Very little, very little. He took approximately $9000 worth of horses, and he's, it's
not a bulldozer or uh Any kind of machine, but it still has value and but it's the same thing he's doing as they are doing with these rental products. Disappointment. They're just not paying And this man has been trying to get his money for over, well over a year. I
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
33:37
have, I have several people that I've just written off. I mean, just
because I know I'm never going to get paid for them and it's just And I don't, I don't want
you to have to do that, right? I mean, nobody wants to put you in that situation. I guess my concerns around basically it's line 26 on page 1 after the expiration of a lease or rental period. So that's any time and while you may be a good actor, There's others out there who might take advantage of that, so I don't know how that works with respect to the prosecutors, but this prosecutor, would they come
to you and say this person has violated the terms of this rental agreement. And you would investigate
Speaker 168
34:20
and decide whether or not to charge or how does that work? Uh, you know, close, uh, law enforcement would, would have to, they'd go to law enforcement, file a complaint, it would be investigated and then brought to us, but you know, I, I, I think that the danger here, you're, you're, you're looking at is, um, you know, if someone misses, you know, there's all types of reasons why people miss payments.
And normally we're not involved in the back and forth of whether the equipment was working properly, just like he's talking about, uh, the, the debtor's challenging, you know, maybe. Things in the contract. And, you know, those normally, normally a disagreement about the contract or the condition of the equipment, it doesn't result in a criminal penalty, you know, it's more of a, you're looking for a a scheme where someone is going around trying, trying and
has the intent when he rents the equipment to do a crime, and that's really, that's really not what's going on here. Uh, it's, it's, it sounds like there's Other dispute happening after the after the property was rented an initial payment made, which makes me, you know, I think that it's quite possibly a civil matter, which is just a disagreement amongst the buyer and a seller or or a renter or a leaser and a lesser, uh, that type of thing.
Speaker 147
35:47
Yeah, it's, it's not a disagreement. It's the fact that they won't pay you. I
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
35:53
mean, it's real simple. And I understand, but with, with all the issues that we deal with
and Senator Stubblefield can speak to this. There's two sides to every story. And while we trust you as a witness in our committee, there's always two sides to every story. And so Senator Sofield, I, I, like I said, I agree with what you're trying to do, but I can't vote for this one. Because, because the vagueness, is this something you'd be
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
36:18
willing to work with me on so that we can get it right. If it's something that we can get out before this uh session adjourns and, and if we,
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
36:31
if you've got a an amendment you would like to. I don't, but
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
36:39
we had this conversation last time you presented the. Right. Senator Tucker, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. The prosecutor
for Fort Smith, Mr. Dan Shu, is watching online. Hello, Mr. Xu. Hope you're doing well. He, he texted in the
statute. That I, that I, I think he's saying does cover this. It's 536-115, um, which is the theft of leased or rented property. And so that's a, that's a criminal statute that is on the books that I believe, uh, you know, cover, covers the situation. So just adding that for the discussion. He said that All he sent was the statue, so I don't have him saying this covers what you're describing, so I'm not, I don't want to
speak for him, but just using my deductive reasoning, I think he sent that because he believes this statute covers your situation. That's, that's, that's what I, that
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
37:26
would be great if it did, but I've never, I mean, it's everyone in that I've ever brought to
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
37:35
them, they say it's civil. OK, I'm just, I'm just adding that because I, based on what you've described in my reading of this code section on the books, I think it would be covered, so. Just my opinion. Thank you, Senator Johnson.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
37:50
Senator, uh, Thanks for bringing this. This is similar, real similar probably is not as detailed as what we've handling the criminal eviction, and there is, you know, There's been a hang up with that. They want the eviction process to be handled civilly and the judicial system will not handle that prosecutorially. For criminal eviction.
And with these dollar amounts, uh, It's, I mean, it's, it's criminal whenever you're talking about the dollar amounts that this man is in this bill, and uh, and I understand the situation with contracts and wanting it to be civil, but at some point in the dollar amount, whether we've got it right in this bill or not, this action is criminal, and there's intent whenever you don't want to pay,
uh, a dollar amounts. I don't know if it's if it's right in this bill, but But I get, I get where both of y'all are coming from. Was it
Mr. Angelo? Yes, Mr. Angelo, uh, You know, as I sum up this bill, and I like the fact that it's short. But Page 1 line 24, we have the.
Offensive theft of equipment rental services, uh, and it says after the expiration of a lease, we have a time period and then it's basically in 26, 27, 81 if they don't return it, uh, Elis 29 to 31 if they cause damage. And then lines 32 to 34. If they fail to pay. Now it's a defense on line 35 to prosecution under this section of the person compensated the lesser. I see a number of problems and
I'm very sympathetic, empathetic. I have been to court many times and like you say, once you get to court, once you get a judgment, then you have to uh Make good on that judgment, which is often almost impossible. That being said, Assuming you're an honest man, and I think we can safely assume that. Uh, Senator Rice brought up The damages and you said
cosmetic, not mechanical, but that's not in. That's not in lines 26, 27, 8. It doesn't say that it's only cosmetic, not mechanical. Ah, although I'm not sure that that matters. Uh, you've brought out that people dispute. Uh, and what you're saying is they're not legitimate disputes that that somebody has criminal intent, and that may be the case,
but there are legitimate disputes with rental companies.
Every rental company is not you. There's people who renting certain items that make their living more on the damages that they the little dent in the sea do that they never fix, then they they do on the actual rental of the. and this makes the person renting
automatically a criminal if they don't pay even though they may be being ripped off, uh. The uh we can't make law for
just one case for one business that's doing a good job. You can. Uh, and I'm not saying you can't. I'm a businessman. I'm not saying that you really can. I'm saying you technically can, uh, Do credit checks, even though it's my credit card, uh, because people written equipment normally. Or have credit accounts at companies like mine that sell building materials, etc. so you can check those people out to see if they pay, uh, it appears
to me that you can Make your contract. Uh stricter about What happens and even that it's that it is the if they don't return it after so many days after, I would think that you could put that in the contract. Prosecutors would have to tell me whether that held water or not. The Uh, and you could require payment instead of at the end of every month, you could require payment upfront. I'm not saying
you really can. I'm just saying as I look at my credit policies and these things are happening to me. I have to make a decision because especially on the payment part, it's hard to make it criminal. There are those people who go around doing this to business after business, uh, but it's partly our job. To check them out and make sure that's not the type of person we're doing business with, uh, because there's other people who just stump their toe and can't
pay. Job went bad, uh, and we've made them criminals if we pass this bill. So while I'm extremely sympathetic in what you want to do and like which things favored me more as an honest man, you also have to protect the innocent customer. Does that make sense? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And for those reasons why I'm extremely sympathetic. Uh, I don't know how
we could implement any of this, uh,
So any other questions from committee? Harry none. There's no one to speak for or against Senator Stubblefield, do you recognize close for your bill? I'm close. You have a motion. I'm sorry about that time. I got a motion from Senator Ross to pass.
We have a motion to pass from Central right, yes, I'll seconds it, uh, any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying aye, all opposed? No. I'm sorry, Senator Stubblefield, you're SB 509 did not pass. Have any other senators come into the room to run a Senate bill. Say nonrepresents of Dalby you're recognized.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
44:41
OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. With the chair's permission, may I have Judge Hertzfeld
at the table with me, OK. Please have a seat. What
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
44:55
bill are we running, Representative Dalby? House Bill 1835, I believe that's the
first one on the list. House Bill 1835. If you and your guests will identify yourselves for
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
45:07
the record. Yes, Representative Carol Dalby, District 100. Um,
Chair
Unverified
45:14
Judge Robert Hurstfield Saline County. Judge, good to have you
here. Thank you. Good to be here. Represents are recognized to present House Bill
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
45:25
1835. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, this is the specialty court legislation comes from the specialty court
advisory board. This has several sections in it, but most of it's technical, just to point out the highlights to you, section one is repealing the statute that's in there and
placing the standalone statute for record sealing for all specialty courts over into section 7, so there's still the ceiling part. that it's just moving to Section 7, section 2 is allowing the addition of 3 district judges to the specialty court program advisory Committee. Then the rest of it is technical corrections. It's clarifying some things in regard that attorneys serving him part-time basis, uh, that are on behalf can still enter it into
contracts to be defense counsel in specialty court programs. Uh I think that that is it because everything else is going to be technical corrections, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Any
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
46:36
questions from committee, Senator Ross. Representative Day there for whatever changes there are, they have funding to
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
46:42
do any changes, yes, none of these changes
require any funding. Thank you. Other questions from committee. Hearing none, uh, there is no one to testify for or against
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
46:59
Representative W or recognize the clothes for your bill. Members, I'm closed for House Bill 1835 when
we would request a motion to pass. Motion from center, 2 from center D's. Any discussion, hearing none,
all for the motion signify by saying aye, all pose. Congratulations Representative
Dalby who have passed House
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
47:18
Bill 1835. What's next? House
Bill 1838. How 1838. For the
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
47:30
record, I'm Carol Dolby, State Representative District 100. I
Speaker 227
47:35
am a circuit Judge Robert Hirstfeld. From
Sla County. OK. Representative Dalby, you
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
47:46
are recognized House Bill 1838. Thank you, Mr. Chair. House Bill 1838 is a cleanup of our probate and guardianship law, doing things like instead of using the word institution for treatment of mental or nervous diseases, changing that to what we commonly refer to a mental health facility. Uh, also, it's doing things uh in certain, in a section of it where there's references to incompetent individuals, um, then those are being changed to
proposed ward. This is actually uh bringing the code up into current practice. It's also making the code a little more easier to follow for those who practicing in that area and also for the judges such as Churchville who has uh a heavy probate docket. This is giving those courts guidance as to as to how this should work in all those areas and Judge Hershfield can opine as to anything additional. I,
Speaker 229
48:52
it's, it is just as Representative Dalby said, it's making the it's an attempt and I think to make the code in probate, which is generally complicated anyway to make it simpler, more modern, and consistent internally, and I, I could, I could talk about it for 4 or 5 hours. You don't probably want to hear me more than a few minutes, but I'm happy to answer any questions. We would not pass it if I'd be happy to answer any questions. Questions from the committee.
Hearing none. No one here to no one here to
testify for or against Dalby, you are recognized to close for House Bill 1838. Thank you,
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
49:35
Mr. Chair. I'm closed and we request a motion to pass. A
motion to pass from Senator Johnson, 2 from Senator Gilmore. Any discussion, hearing none, all for the motion signified
by saying, I, I opposed. Congratulations, Representative Dalby. You have passed House Bill 1838. Thank you, members.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
49:55
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And the last bill I'll be presenting today is House Bill 1839. Once again, Carol Dolby, state representative,
Speaker 227
50:04
District 100. And Circuit Judge Robert Hirstfeld from Saline County.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
50:07
Members, this one's actually maybe a little more interesting than than the last two because um this is amending the procedures for the declaration of a death of a person who's missing, so this is taking out we don't have a really great procedure, quite frankly, and this is going to take out the requirement that we send a
certified letter to somebody who's dead to find out whether or not they're dead. Um, so we're streamlining, uh, old. State law. It's what it does.
Speaker 233
50:43
committee. Ha. Not a serious question. I, I understand it
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
50:48
does always people find this one interesting. No one here to
testify for or against represent Dalby, you are recognized to close for
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
51:01
House Bill 1839. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, I am closed and would
request a motion to pass. Motion to pass from Senator Johnson, 2 from Centra McKee. Any discussion, hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying a motion. Those against the
same sign, auction carried, congratulations, Representative Dalby, you have passed House Bill 1839. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
51:27
Thank you, members of the committee, Mr. Chair, with that, I am, if I may be excused, that's all I have
before the committee today. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for being here. Thank you Senator Scott is back. Are you ready? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, can I
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
51:52
call up the chief of staff and chief legal counsel for the Department of
Corrections. They're here to help me answer some of the questions that ma'am, if you come to the table. Uh 623. We are hearing SB 623. If you would both identify yourselves for the record, Senator Scott,
Speaker 27
52:17
District 12. Tony Rowe, chief legal counsel for the Department of Corrections. Thank you. Senator Scott, you are
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
52:29
recognized to present SB 623. Mr. Chair, would you like for me to or would you like for me to just
address the questions to answer the questions. Let's just, unless you have something you want
Speaker 239
52:46
to add, let's just go straight to the question. OK, thank you.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
52:51
So Ross Thank you. Previously was asking one how many Uh, females, uh, That this bill deals with or incarcerated.
I asked about the Pregnancy time. Li, do we not
have in the judicial process. Uh Where they can allow for Birth outside of prison deal and as we all know, there are pregnancies happen within the prison deal. I want to know. How many of those there are, and I want to know there's ways to find out. Whose child that is, I want to
Speaker 240
53:30
know if that's being done. All of that's got costs. And can you give
Speaker 238
53:36
me some background on this. Absolutely. So procedurally, um, every female who comes into one of our units is given a pregnancy test. Um, I'm going to defer on the extent to which we determine paternity. A lot of times that is done judicially, as you know, if the pregnancy were to occur inside of the prison, that would be a criminal offense, and we would address that it'd be sexual assault at the very
least. Um, so we have inmates between both divisions right now who are pregnant. I think the number 7 was floating, but we had one delivered last Thursday and we got that up to date number while we were on the way over here. So we do perform the pregnancy test and Um, there is certainly the option for the courts, if they're aware that the inmate is pregnant to provide some sort of diversion, but, you know, we are tasked with the responsibility of housing them, whether they're
pregnant or not, um, and I think that addressed all your questions, but
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
54:35
if you have follow-ups, I can do my best and I understand that you, you don't want that to, to be
something that will keep somebody from being incarcerated, we'd have additional pregnancies maybe to put off incarceration, but you've answered 6. people currently sir. OK. Uh, so you don't have Statistics you just said on the screening coming in, they know if somebody's pregnant or not
within a Pretty assure deal. Can you tell me how many in recent history that we've had that have been impregnated after incarceration.
Speaker 238
55:16
I don't have any information that can answer that for me, let me look and peek around. I, I don't know of any. Um, I can tell you that we've not had any become pregnant, um, since I became chief legal last year
because I would have personally seen that termination. Um, but I don't know historically, um, I can send a text and get that information. I'm sorry, that was not a question
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
55:42
I was prepared to answer. I'm just trying to get, get some factual information on one, how much is this going to cost? And uh, you know, how, how
badly needed is it, so. I don't think you've got all that information. Thank you.
OK. Other questions from committee? Hearing none, we have no one to testify for or against Senator Scott, you are recognized to
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
56:19
close for your bill. Thank you, um, colleagues, this bill does not compromise safety. I think it just allows us to one of, one of the issues that I talked through earlier to use restraints only when there is an immediate and serious threat to these women who are incarcerated, but it ensures
that the correctional policies reflect um medical practices and a respect for life, and I would ask for a due
pass. I motion to pass from Senator Gilmore, a second from Senator Tucker. Any discussion? Senator Gilmore Thank you, Mr. Chair. And
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
56:52
so just to expound on this, Senator Scott, I think again your, your bill is a good bill. I think there's always concerns as Senator Rice brought up things that we need to be aware of that happen in incarceration that are
unfortunate circumstances and should be addressed with that, you know, I think this is great work that builds on what we've previously passed in previous sessions with ProtE Act in particular, and some of the work that we did with pregnant inmates in that. So this is, I think, further increasing That work and and doing a great job of accounting for the humanity and dignity of these women, and I appreciate it. Thank you. Other discussion.
Harry Nunn, all 4 the motion to pass as amended. 5 all against by the same sign. No motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Scott, you have passed SB 6. 23. They see no other senators here to present bills for Senate bill, Senator Boyd is been waiting since Wednesday to present a House bill.
Yeah. Take a seat and identify yourself. And let us tell us what bill it is.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
58:18
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. Justin Boy, state senator Fort Smith. I'm here to present House Bill 1624, and I'll begin when you're OK with that. OK, hold on just a moment.
The uh sorry, that number was again 24 1624. Uh, whoever might want to, should get the word out to House members or senators who are going to be presenting House bills. I don't see a bunch of people lined up right now. OK. All right, so we've got some here at the table, because I know many people have contacted me and they're assuming we're gonna meet this afternoon and if we the condition on that would be that we ran out of time this
morning. If we run out of time, if we don't run out of time, there's nobody here, then we most likely will not meet this afternoon. So if you know somebody's wanting to run a bill,
Speaker 256
59:18
need to let them know. And and I, I do have another one if
you choose to let me present it as well OK, you're at the end of the table, so we probably are going. To, uh, Senator Boyd, you're recognized to present House Bill
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
59:32
1624. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is an update to the county law library Board bill, our law, it
clarifies the term and of attorney member of a county law library board. She'll be for a term of 5 years. It clarifies how a vacancy of an attorney member on a county law library board board shall be filled. It requires the appointment of a circuit judge and a district judge on a county law library board. It establishes members for judge members of a county law library board in It establishes how a vacancy of a judge member on a county li library board shall be filled.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:00:14
Questions from committee. Senator Gilmore Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. Um, did we do some work in the previous session related to Law libraries are you aware? I
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:00:29
understand that maybe this bill was filed last session and made it out of the house and came down to the Senate without a Senate sponsor and just died because the senator picked it up and and chose not to run it. OK, so this is the same bill.
That, that is my understanding. OK. Other questions from committee? Senator Boyd, why are we adding two judges to the library board? Um,
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:00:59
just to make sure there's a diversity and the different, different perspectives. How many people are currently on the library board.
You know, Senator, that's a very good question. I'm just
Sure. Seems like if we wanted to burst in a law library board, we'd be looking
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:01:46
for farmers, but Yeah So I'd say judges are uniquely qualified to help identify those needs on the library, such as technology upgrades in
courtrooms and legal research for self-represented litigants, judges are frequent users of legal reference materials, their input can help ensure that county law library acquires the right legal databases, treatises, and rulebooks, disposes of outdated materials appropriately and keeps up with changes in law that affect practice and procedure. So I just think that judges are uniquely qualified to hold a position on this law library board. All right. Other questions from committee?
Hearing none, we have no one to testify for or against Central Boyd, you are recognized to close for
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:02:32
House Bill 1624. Uh, thank you, Senator, for letting me present this bill today. I would appreciate someone give me a due pass in a second
and a positive vote. Thank you. Will of the
committee motion from Senator Tucker DuPass. Seemed like he almost had to do that, so.
2nd from Senator Johnson. Any discussion, hearing none, all for the motion signified
by saying ah. All opposed by the same son. He motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Boyd, you have passed House Bill 1624. You've got
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:03:17
another one? Yes, sir, with your permission, House Bill 1752 by Representative Maddox. I'm the Senate sponsor on that
one. House Bill 1752. Yes, sir.
Senator Boyd, you are recognized to
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:03:38
present House Bill 1752. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill is pretty much as
simple as its title. It really just updates the code, and it's an act to exempt certain savings plans from execution of a judgment and for other purposes. And so when it looks like when the original code passed these types of federally qualified savings accounts were not done. And so what it does is it adds an inherited
an inherited IRA, a health savings account, and 529 plans and Coverdale education savings plans to uh the code that says you can't attach have an attachment, execution or seizure for satisfaction of debts. So these are all types of accounts where holders are in partnership with the federal government, and
we don't really know ultimately what the tax burden is going to be.
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:04:37
Questions from committee. Center. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Boyd, will you,
will you just kind of give a real life example of how, how this might look and just want to
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:04:54
make sure I'm following what this, what, what this would do is like putting a lien on somebody's inherited IRA. So or putting a lien on someone's educational savings account, right, or health savings account or or 529 account.
So current law, we, you can. Well, I don't interpret it that way. I interpreted this makes it clear because the code is, you know, old, old before really these accounts were named in federal law. OK, thank you. Other questions from committee. There's
Speaker 282
1:05:28
Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:05:42
So excess contributions to IRAs are are not exempt under the bill, is that right? You can't
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:05:51
have excess if you do, you you're in a I mean, my understanding is if you have an excess contribution, you got to work that out with the federal government. OK, so up, up to the, so the point is, is things that you haven't paid your taxes on like they're, they're exempt for federal taxation. If you've already paid taxes, then it's exempt.
Well, so like if you notice a Roth IRA is not on here. So this is, these are ones where you have not paid federal taxes. You've been exempted from federal
taxes and you're in a partnership with the government on these things. The federal government, not state government.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:06:28
OK. And I, I, I know you've explained this, Senator, so my apologies, but what, why are we
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:06:35
doing this? We're updating the code to make it clear that these types of accounts are are are there. It's just an update that hadn't been
updated in a long time, but it's, it's a change to the law, right? It is. It's an, I would call it an update, but again, What I would say is that it's not changing
Speaker 290
1:06:58
things, it's making it clear, like, so how was that already
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:07:02
the law but in an unclear way. Because these were when this code was originally passed, these specific things were not named in
Speaker 291
1:07:08
there. It says like and other, and I would call these the other.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:07:18
OK, thank you. Other questions from committee. Center Gilmore. Just, just so I understand, you, you just made the statement that it says and other, where, where does it say that in the bill, Senator? Just so I can see it. President code elsewhere. I'm just trusting that Representative
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:07:36
Maddox told me correctly and he explained it to me. I got you. OK, I just didn't know if I was overlooking it. No, because I looked for it specifically, but he was pretty
clear that he felt like this is just updating and making clear that these that are listed were already covered, but this just makes
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:07:59
it crystal clear that they're covered. I think it's the very end, the 2nd page line 3. Say however the limitations subdivision B one this section do not apply to an individual retirement account established, you know, it's 1986, and there's been changes since that time, and I think that's where you're getting the other. I would agree with that. Thank you, Senator Johnson.
Other questions from committee. Hearing none, there is no one to testify for against this bill. Senator Boyd, you
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:08:37
are recognized to close. Thank you, Judiciary Committee for hearing me on this important update to the state code regarding retirement plans and educational savings accounts and such. I would very much appreciate a due pass
in a second and a good vote. I'm closed. Thank you.
motion to pass from Senator Johnson, 2nd from Senator Gilmore. Any discussion, hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying aye, all opposed. Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Boyd, you have passed House Bill 1752. Representative Lindstrom. I'm sorry.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:09:28
You, you can. Representative Wallstrom. Yes, sir. And What's the bill number?
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:09:52
1615. House Bill 1615. State Representative Robin Lundstrom, District 18. Good morning. Gary Stubblefield. Uh, Senate District 26.
Representative Senator, you are recognized to present House
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:10:04
Bill 1615. Thank you, colleagues. This law simply clarifies current Religious Freedom Act. It refines it and defines it for religious organizations and protects those organizations from discriminatory hiring practices. Basically if you're a Silent Springs Baptist Youth Assembly camp and you want to hire Baptists to work for you that summer, the kids to be of the same faith. This allows you to do that. Um Basically this law comes down to
preventing government from taking away an individual's religious freedoms, and it keeps him from putting the finger on the scale. Government should never do that. Governments should protect religious
Speaker 305
1:10:47
freedoms. Yeah, you, you know, when we ran, when
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:10:50
we run bills like this, I can't keep from thinking about the uh the man in Colorado who was hauled into court and arrested. For several years because uh any
his spirit, he could not honestly participate in a ceremony that was directly opposed to a sincerely helped religious beliefs, and under this bill, He could do that by filing a recuse ahead of time, a recusal ahead of time. And so this is uh this is something that uh we've needed to do a long time, you say, well, why are there examples of something like this happening, or you have to just look back during the COVID when
the court had to intervene against California's COVID-19 restrictions, and they place harsher limits on religious gatherings in homes than they did on secular businesses. Uh This this bill simply clarifies Arkansas religious freedom. Act is someone who carried the RFer bill back in 2015, I remember very well what happened because it was the only bill
that was ever hijacked by the Senate from a state senator in the history of the state of Arkansas. Uh, and it was used and there were people thinking, you know, that the world was going to fall apart if we passed this bill. Well, that was 10 years ago. Nothing has happened. Um, this bill applies to religious discrimination. By the government only. The law is designed to restrict the government's ability to burden anyone's freedom of religion. It does not prevent the government
from burdening the free exercise of religion in the rare case that the government has a compelling interest at stake. It protects all religion, freedom equally. There are good people. Everywhere who disagree on marriage and and other things, but we still have the same protection under the government. And that's what, that's the way it should be. That's, that is the thing that made America great was the fact that we have
religious freedom here and we we shouldn't be discriminating against someone who doesn't agree with us, even though our, our country was founded on Christian principles and found it on the Bible. So
Speaker 308
1:13:16
we'll be, we'd be glad to take any questions. Senator Gilmore,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:13:28
you're recognized. Thank you. And, and so just so we're clear, I appreciate what you're trying to do here, um. And
I agree. I think with a lot of it, so I just, I, I do have a question because I think these these things matter in the course of the bill. So when you, when you say on page I'm looking to see where it starts exactly. think it's on Maybe Page 3. At the top and we talk about compelling governmental interests. Is that, is that defined anywhere? is that term defined anywhere? What, what would be
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:14:03
an example of that? No, I believe that's a standard lawyer industry term. And
basically what that means is, for example, there's a compelling government interest to pay your taxes. You can't just say because of deeply held religious beliefs, I'm not going to pay my taxes. So there's a, that's what that's referring to. You can't use it to get out of drug use if you use illegal drugs. and say, I have a compelling government interest to Whatever have a meth lab in my house. That one's not going to fly. So that's what they're talking about there,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:14:32
OK, so, so in that sense, if I may, Mr. Chair, so in that sense we're not, we're not letting this
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:14:40
supersede a unlawful act. No, there are gutters, and those are those gutters that are
compelling government interest. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Other questions from
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:14:54
committee, Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, My question, my, my primary question is going to be on in section 3 of the bill.
What page number, sir? That's page 2 starting on Starting Section 3 starts on line 10. Yes.
So my question really is about The new subsection 6 that's been adding that is being added to 16123-602 That puts a specific religious belief into the law, does it not? No, sir. When you're you're referring to
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:15:29
male or female, woman or man, that's based on science, that's not my opinion or I mean it's genetics, it is what it is. OK, well, let's just, let's talk
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:15:44
about that for a second. Tucker, could you tell us the page and line number again? Yes sir, right, my next question is going to be on page 2 on 13, lines 13 and 14. You may proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I understand
your testimony, Representative Lindstrom, but on page 2 lines 13 and 14, it explicitly says a belief based on religious or philosophical premises, correct? Yes, it does. So that is putting a belief
based on religious or philosophical premises into the Arkansas
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:16:17
code, is it not? Yes, we're talking about marriage if someone believes that too male or too female should be married. That is their religious beliefs, but you cannot change the genetics. an individual OK. I
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:16:29
don't believe that's at issue. I think what's at issue is the religious belief that we're putting into the code. This defends their religious beliefs no matter which side of
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:16:36
the blanket they're on, a specific religious belief. Which one? I mean, there
It doesn't call out any specific religious belief you're entitled to believe what you What's your faith compels you to believe, but the gender of a person or the sex of the person doesn't
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:17:07
change. So You know, the state, for one thing, we did pass a religious freedom bill 10 years ago in 2015, correct? Yes, sir. And then
4 years ago, the General Assembly referred out to the people of Arkansas constitutional amendment to put a good portion of that language in the state constitution, the people of Arkansas rejected that at the ballot in 2022, did they
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:17:31
not? You know, off the top of my head, I've been so marinating on this that I
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:17:36
couldn't tell you exactly. OK, well, I know for certain that that happened. People of Arkansas rejected a constitutional amendment referred out by the General Assembly to put into our Constitution this not this specific religious freedom language, but, but generally the religious freedom language that we had in the bill in 2015.
But in the Arkansas Constitution as it is now, not amended by that referral and in 2021 on to 2022. In Article 2 Section 18, it says the General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens. So,
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:18:14
when you think of religious beliefs and freedom of speech, those should be almost to me they're sacred freedom of speech
and religious beliefs. This is protecting those. This just says the government can't come in and put their finger on the
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:18:33
scale, protecting your right and protecting
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:18:36
mine. Right, but it is creating a preference. Only for those specifically church-related organizations. If a Muslim church or wants to have a camp, they probably want to hire those of their own faith to run that camp, and that's already covered
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:18:51
under the current religious Freedom Law.
Speaker 102
1:18:55
It is not clear, and this only clarifies
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:19:00
that. Have we had any issues of no, but why do you lock your front door, not because you've
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:19:05
been broken into, because you don't want to get broken into. Let me add something to you also, uh, Senator Tucker, RFA is just a general standard of review. It does not tell you exactly what your rights are. It's, it's only a general standard of review. We passed it back in 2015. We knew that then.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:19:28
So this clarifies a lot of that as well. Well, when it comes to constitutional law and religious freedom. There's two sides of the same coin, and I think we including myself, I'm not leaving myself out of this. It we sometimes conflate what those two provisions are in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. One is that people can establish religion as they see fit, and I believe wholeheartedly in that. But the other is the government shall not establish religion, and that's that's the other. side of that coin, and I think
that this bill Starts to tread into that territory. Uh Going back to the state constitution. In Article 2 Section 24, it says no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishment denomination or mode of worship above any other. And when we start getting into specifics like we do in Section 3 of the bill. I think we're starting to establish that preference which violates Article 2 Section 24 of the state constitution and the establishment Clause of the
First Amendment to the US Constitution. Well, I would respectfully disagree. The distinction is Once again, As an individual, You operate and worship as you see fit, but once it starts inflicting on the rights of others. And then the government prevents that from happening. That's when you start establishing a
religion, so anyway, that's, that's my, that's my concern. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Other questions from committee. He none we have anyone to testify for or against. No one to
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:21:19
testify for or against Representative Lustrom, Senator Stubblefield, you're recognized too close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, America's implementation of Christian teaching or toleration and noncoercion and protecting
the rights of conscience are demonstrated in many ways even today. We don't, we don't require Quakers to fighting wars because it's against their religion. We don't allow or we don't require Jews and Muslims to shave their beards off. If it's Because that's the religion. We don't do a lot of things because we are a nation that is based on freedom of religion. That's the reason the very people that came here came here. They left a
country where they did not have that freedom. The Bible was read to them from a chain um to a pulpit. And they were given only the scriptures that the government felt they should have. The last time I checked, We have a constitution where the people tell the government what to do. Not a government that tells the people what to do. As most other countries. So with that, with that being said, I am closed, Mr. Chairman,
I would ask for a good vote a motion or they'll have a motion from Centra D's second from
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:22:42
Senator McKee. Discussion, Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be brief.
I don't want to repeat what I've said already, but there's a difference between saying, because of my religious belief, the government cannot discriminate against me. I'm 100% in support of that. Whether no matter what your religious belief might be, but there's a difference between that and saying my religious
belief authorizes me to discriminate against other people. And that's what this bill explicitly authorizes people to do, and that's, that's bad policy, but I also believe it violates the the US Constitution and the state Constitution. We shouldn't be authorizing attempting to authorize through the force of law legal discrimination against Arkansans, and we definitely should not be passing laws that might be violative of the US and state constitutions, so I'll be voting no.
Chair
Unverified
1:23:37
Senator Johnson, you recognize us. I appreciate your concerns and
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:23:40
you're a very good safeguard for those things, but I think this bill protects both. All religions and don't don't doesn't establish one that says you can't do this or can't do that. uh, within your religion, but it just, it protects
Speaker 329
1:23:54
all but appreciate your. You Senator Tucker, I
We agree on a lot of things along these lines, but I think
you brought out why the bill's needed. Uh, the First Amendment rather than going against the First Amendment. I think this actually spells out. The rights
within the within the amendment when it comes to freedom of religion and is not, there's not an establishment here. I appreciate your reading of it, but I read it completely different and we probably will have that discussion on the floor. But uh any other discussion?
Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying aye all opposed. Motion carried. Congratulations, Representative Lundstrom, Senator Stubble
Hill, do you have passed your bill? Thank you, colleagues.
Thank you for your time. Senator Johnson, Thank you, Chairman. Uh all right. Most of this 1662 House Bill 1662. Senator Blake Johnson, District
Speaker 332
1:25:12
21. Britt McKenzie, State Representative
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:25:17
District 7. Members this this bill, we pretty much heard that we deferred to wait until until others were here, uh, but it does not allow. Lobbying for the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation and other circumstances and it gives the penalties for doing so.
You're through. Center Ross. You're recognized the amendment that was made,
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:25:55
could you explain that? It, it My understanding is gives an out for the
world's largest retailer. Can you, can you expound on why that and not Uh Tapping For everybody.
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:26:17
I believe it was so that was done in concert with the governor's
office, the term affiliate was removed. There is a good case to be made for organizations that incorporate in the United States that are under a licensing agreement and the People's Republic of China, we can create that direct correlation from that company that's licensed out of China to their corporation in the United States to them in turn lobbying affiliate the governor believed in the governor's office and Senator Johnson, I agree, would
create a much longer tail of chasing down. These incorporated entities that may or may not have a direct tie to the People's Republic of China
Speaker 44
1:27:00
or the Russian Federation. Does this Does this affect Others that you
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:27:07
know of right now besides TikTok, Alibaba, there's another one, but again, we, we would be writing code that affects the future. The Alibabas today where the Kmarts or the Zmarts have passed every
5 years the People's Republic of China in their infinite wisdom decided to reinvent a new either retail software as a platform, technology entity that takes the world by storm. So if we were to affect this law or put it into code. have a long standing opposition to those entities trying to influence our legislative process.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:27:43
OK, and in reference to the TikTok DI I saw where President
Trump had just given, was it a 60 day Extension for them to change. They're holdings. I believe so, yeah, uh, and evidently he changed his mindset on that over a period of months.
Is that done anything to make you question this. I'm not in the business,
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:28:11
nor am I in the predicting President Trump's actions business. What I do understand is that by by by very
large bipartisan support, the divestment Act passed both the House and Senate in Washington DC It is the will of the people that them before the election and after the election to make some kind of measured response to the fact that TikTok, which is owned by ByteDance, has the golden share, which I don't know if everyone's familiar, but the golden share is ultimately the CCP and the PRC's tight-fisted control over the market dynamics of any company that's licensed out of Beijing, so the sad fact is that ByteDance still hasn't
made the divestment. TikTok has suitors lined up left and right, even some of those affiliates in the United States. states are willing to purchase it, but Beijing does not want to relinquish control over what I believe what Senators was talking about, their ultimate um their ultimate cash grab, which is the data of all of our children. OK, thank you. Mr.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:29:15
Tucker, you recognized? Know what Arkansas businesses this bill affects. Pardon, do you know what Arkansas businesses this bill affects?
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:29:22
Not offhand, no. Well, ultimately there's businesses and then there's individual lobbyists. That's what I'm really
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:29:26
asking. I mean, because it really ultimately only affects the people doing the lobbying, correct? Or yeah, future lobbyists that wish to it's not the actual businesses operation in Arkansas. It's just the lobbying on their behalf. Well, one
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:29:38
could make the opportunity cost argument that they don't have the effect over our legislature if we change this ultimately affecting their pocketbooks, but yes. Fair enough. OK, so
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:29:53
then just restate it after that clarification. Do you know which, which Arkansas lobbying businesses this might
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:30:00
say an open record, OK. And did the amendment exclude any any business Arkansas businesses in particular that you're aware
of? Not to my knowledge. OK, thank you, Mr. Chair. Other questions
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:30:12
from committee Senator Stubblefield would this bill dictate by law, the subjects,
uh, about which lobbyists can speak. Sorry, say that again, Senator. Would this would this bill
dictate by law the subject on which lobbyists
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:30:31
can speak. The subjects know the the affiliations or the individuals they represent, yes. This seems like a real
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:30:38
slippery slope to me. You know, in a lot of regards. When
Speaker 203
1:30:45
you start, we're not, we're, this is not uh I'm
Speaker 117
1:30:48
talking to. Yeah, it's on my bill too. Hold on just a moment, Senator Stoville has the floor.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:30:58
I apologize. I forgot you had the bill. But it, it seems like a slippery slope to me. Because when you start telling lobbyists the subjects they can and cannot talk about. That that just doesn't seem right.
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:31:17
And free society. I understand, sir. I would say that again they don't, it won't affect the subjects that they can
speak about. The individuals, the companies or entities, their affiliations are what it's a question. If a
lobbyist would like to, you know, speak on behalf of the CCP and whatever whatever other interests they want, they can do so still who they registered to lobby, the individual or entity that they take money from to represent is that question. Um, and this doesn't stop any of those entities from other forms of political speech. This regulates similar in line to our our restrictions on campaign finance, you or I or Senator Gilmore or Senator Tucker cannot take money from a foreign entity at all, period,
full stop. This is even narrower than that in saying that just specifically the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation are unable to take undue influence over our
Speaker 354
1:32:10
legislative process. So you don't think this affects free speech in any shape, form
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:32:14
or fashion. I think it regulates speech. I think it's, it's a very similar regulatory regulatory framework to what we have on our political speech for campaigns and candidates for initiatives,
and also how we've, and I believe all of us have voted for, that's exactly the reason I
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:32:32
said this goes down to slippery slope. Because when you have initiatives where you regulate the speech. Then you, you're basically letting the real truth get out to everyone. And that's what I have a problem with. This is the regulation of free speech. I mean, It's in the First Amendment, but political speeches, one of the most important. Things we have in this country
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:33:02
is the ability to speak freely. I totally agree like you or I can't walk into a movie theater and you fire.
There are reasonable limits on speech. I agree with the People's Republic of China stands as the emergent and exigent threat, there was a
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:33:14
duty, you know, there's a duty, there's a difference in a duty and
a right. And that's a duty that, you know, where just because you've got a gun doesn't mean you go out and shoot people. You have a duty to be responsible with that firearm. Just like you have a duty to
responsible what you say if you go into a movie
theater, you can't yell fire. And I'm not seeing a duty here. Senator,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:33:43
uh, lobbying, they get paid. Right, this is limiting, this is limiting who, who can pay them to do their speech. The these folks are not, it's just not free speech like going out in front of this Capitol are coming in here and speaking for
yourself. These individuals are getting paid by people from the People's Republic of China to help enrich the companies that they're representing. It's not just free speech. This is a paid speech that that is being regulated through through this act lobbying is paid speech. And, and you're, you're trying to stop the enrichment from the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation through
Speaker 354
1:34:33
this bill. Well, the way this bill entangles itself with our First Amendment right is what bothers me
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:34:43
because by getting to the Chinese and slowing stopping some of that, you're also affecting our own constitutional rights. And that, that bothers me. And I, and I,
I would say, you know, there has to be, maybe there's another way. To take care of this issue without
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:35:05
You know, encroaching on our own First Amendment rights to, I would disagree, but anybody, even if this bill passes, can come and lobby on behalf of those Russian and Chinese companies, but they can't get paid to do so and be a paid lobbyist to do that. Don't mind so understand me.
Speaker 135
1:35:26
I'm not a big fan of, I understand. Senator Stubenville, can
we come back to you? No, I'm done. Senator Rice.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:35:38
Yeah, and that's, that's my deal is. We're tied up. In global economy and we're going to, we do. Business with, with these companies, but we're going to say somebody can't. Speak for him and get paid as a lobbyists and I do think it is a slippery
slope, and I'll, I'll remind I questioned the last executive branch before the current one was elected, if you remember, I asked because they had
chairman was their titles from the CCP. from companies. Dominated by the CCP. And we passed legislation. Uh In the I asked the governor's family, which he had said he'd associated himself with his law firm was an advocate for that. This is just, you know, we're, we're, we're saying a lobbyists can't do that, but
But the inner circle that was here before was doing it, and that was OK. I didn't have anybody jump up and support me
when I questioned it and uh I think it's fine to question. I think it's fine to point it out. I just think this is
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:36:57
a slippery slope. And I would agree just in response that as a background I worked for the organization that changed the campaign finance rules for the entire country. Citizens
United versus FEC. I was there when they decided the Supreme Court decided that money was speech. I am as close to,
and this bill may not represent it to you, Senator Stubblefield. It's close to a free speech absolutist as you're going to find here. The China is the enemy. And if we can't agree on those terms, and I don't think we'll ever agree on this bill. They are the enemy. They're within the enemy within as of right now. The Department of Commerce, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, all federal agencies that have the closest tie have placed them on the entity list insofar as the Department of Commerce Department of Defense will not
contract with any military or subcontract military organizations that have bases in China. This isn't, and I appreciate the pushback because it's fair and it's, it's hard for me to even be here to talk about some curtailment of any type of speech. They are the enemy, and it's not. up for debate anymore. They are the enemy. The national National Review, the long standing conservative bellwether in this country for over 100 years, just came out in support of tariffs on China. An organization that, you know, William F. Buckley may be rolling over in his grave
because they support a tariff, agrees that the intellectual property theft, as well as what the disservice they're doing to our people is beyond reproach. It is here, so and I understand that this may be a little too far afield or just on the edge of that slippery. slope. China is the enemy, and if we hopefully pass this bill through committee today, we'll be taking one step to protecting Arkansans from any of their business or military or pseudo-governmental interests taking hold in our state. Senator Tucker.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:38:44
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with Senator Sufield's concerns about the First Amendment, but I won't repeat those. Um, continuing with the First Amendment, a different point of concern is on page 2 lines 11 and 12. The way that's written. A person who receives a monetary benefit for a lobbying shall not lobby on behalf of a covered foreign entity. The way that reads is,
The monetary benefit for lobbying doesn't have to be the lobbying on behalf of the covered foreign entity. So if they receive a monetary benefit for anybody, including an Arkansas-based company. Then they may not do unpaid lobbying on behalf of a covered foreign entity, and I think that I think that creates an additional First Amendment concern. If it read a person who receives a monetary benefit for lobbying on behalf of a of a covered foreign entity shall not lobby on behalf of a covered foreign
entity, then that would make clear that there are only prohibited from lobbying for the payments they receive for the prohibited foreign entities. But the way that it reads, it just says you can't receive a monetary benefit for any lobbying. And in that case you can't even do unpaid lobbying on behalf of a covered foreign entity, and unpaid lobbying, you know. has even more protection under the First Amendment than paid lobbying, although I do believe paid lobbying does have First
Amendment protection, so I think that's a concern. Um, The fact that the bill explicitly includes subsidiaries, US-based subsidiaries, I think, subjects it to potential violations of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution and also the Equal Protection Clause. And then you know the other equal protection potential potential violation is that it specifies which countries Uh
You know, of origin present problems, so anyway, you feel free to respond, but I got First Amendment concerns, but I also have 14th Amendment concerns and
Commerce Clause concerns. Appreciate it. Representative. I believe I have supported every China bill that has come along in the last few years. The but, uh Among other things, Uh, my family retails flooring and building materials.
And we've had things from our industry come before the legislature before I was here. Uh, I could come personally. And lobby. I could
come personally and testify. But I also had the ability to hire a lobbyist or for our organization to hire lobbyists. The now why would I do that? What would a hire a lobbyist rather than come myself one.
Hard to get here. 2, I've got a business to run. Uh, but how would I get a lobbyist any
Speaker 363
1:41:59
other way but hire them. Was that in the form I'm sorry, is
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:42:03
that yes, that was a form of a question. Uh
How can you restate it just one more time, sorry. How would, how would I get somebody to come lobby for me
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:42:13
any other way but hire them. To lobby the act of lobbying grassroots organizations is just the first thing that comes to my mind. You can, you could establish a nonprofit
organization that advocates for the political causes that you
wish. That's just one, we spent years here on lien law on what, what our rights are in filing liens on somebody who's building a house and isn't paying uh spent many years on that and it's become very complicated law. Don't have a grassroots organization for that. We have a You know, we have the Mid-Ame Lumberman's Association, but And each of us can come testify, but how do we,
but each of us have businesses to run and places to be how do we get somebody to come lobby for
Speaker 277
1:42:59
us other than hire them. You, you, I mean, you would hire a lobbyists. That's how you would do it, OK, so, so we would project
our speech by hiring someone to speak for us. Correct. You are
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:43:09
a US citizen. The protections of the First Amendment are on you as being a natural natural
born citizen. You aren't working in the interests of any other entity other than yourself or your company or your family's company. Yeah, I'm just talking
about how speech amplifies itself because, you know, I can, if I'm out campaigning, I can go knock on every door, assuming that I have time. That's having done that in a couple of smaller races, that's not as easily done in a Senate race. The having said that, I can get volunteers to go, etc. But there's a reason I put up signs. There's a reason I send out postcards. There's a reason I do newspaper ads. There's a reason I do radio ads, and that is to amplify
my voice. So, uh, so all of that comes
back to speech. The Um Japan, you said China was the enemy and there's no doubt about that.
OK. That's why I've supported every China bill up till now. Uh, I just driving back from Florida a couple of weeks ago, I came through, I think it was Duma maybe McGee, but I think it's Duma, uh, where we have a a Japanese internment camp from World War II. Japan was the enemy, were they not?
Yes, absolutely, positively after Pearl Harbor. There's no doubt about it. Uh, so we could spell that out more clearly, but did we do the
right thing? Uh, the Jews and Nazi Germany were the enemy to them, uh. Uh So
I think we definitely have First Amendment problems. It's one thing to say they can't own land. It's one thing to say
you can't have a certain business this close to a military
installation to electrical utility, etc. It's another to say, and I think dangerous to say that you can't speak. Because I don't know when I'm going to become the enemy. Uh, and as you pointed out, I am an American citizen, but but there are those I watched in the last administration who would take who very much wanted to stop me from speaking and before Twitter was taken over and and before Trump was voted in,
both those I watched them. shutting down my voice every direction I went. And so, This, this is not a concern at all. I mean, because I understand China's enemy and I understand why you're trying to do what you're trying to do, but do you the other side of this argument is that anybody can become the enemy, and the ability when we muzzle somebody, Maybe, I mean, as has the government ever pointed us toward an enemy and they were
wrong? I mean, the American Indians were our enemy. You know, we wiped
out the buffalo to do away with their food source. Uh Has the government
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:46:14
ever been wrong? Well, this body, I mean this, this is a bill bill built for this time and it also expands beyond this time, but the government has been wrong, but it also has the ability to make
it right under another if these, if these nations are no longer our enemy if they become our allies, we have the ability to do to rescind that this and and there'll be other enemies at that time because the United States. has always had, so I don't disagree at all, but whenever, whenever we allow the uh These companies that are our enemies to have a voice that is influences this body.
It makes a difference in that action can enrich those countries. I don't want to enrich those countries even though I share some of your concerns about the voice. I, I don't mind muzzling my enemy
Speaker 329
1:47:19
because, because they are our I was chairman, so would you say the
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:47:28
real question is Does the state have the
authority and should we exercise that authority to ensure that countries who do not want what is best for the people of
Arkansas to influence the political decisions that we make. Yes, absolutely. Other questions from committee.
He none no one is here to testify for or against Representative Senator to like to close for a house bill. Thank you
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:48:04
all for the discussion. It is very
I mean, heartfelt and understood by me and Representative McKinley, and, but, uh, also, I don't want to give the voice to my enemy and the ability to enrich themselves through through that and I would, I'd appreciate new pass and I make that motion. Excursion. Uh,
we have a motion from Senator Johnson, to second, a second from Senator Gilmore. We have
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:48:40
discussion beginning with Center Stubblefield. I understand what you're, what this bill is about. I really do, but I also understand And I've watched it during my lifetime. Uh, I've seen other people killed. Murder in their country. For the right to speak freely. Just for speaking freely. What was in their heart. They were executed. And that is the one
sacred freedom we have here that should never, ever be jeopardized to fight another. There's other ways to, to shut China. To China without going this route. And that that's the way I believe, so I'm finished,
Chair
Unverified
1:49:30
Mr. Chairman. Sent days you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:49:35
for the the discussion, um. I don't, I don't see any concern
with First Amendment issues. I appreciate us going down that path
to discuss it and to explore to make sure we're not, um, the way I read this bill is that any person Whether they're from a foreign entity or not, uh, has always has the ability to come speak for and and to even under the definition potentially lobby for a cause or a belief or an
initiative, but all this does is Make sure that it's clear when money is being being transferred for a lobbying effort that it can't be from. A foreign entity of our enemies and I, I think I disagree with the premise that what if I become an enemy, because I think it's analogous to say that we under that tone that we shouldn't pass any criminal code because what if I what if I break the law someday?
You know, I don't, I don't think that that fits because these, if you're a foreign entity that is an adversarial Um An enemy to the to the to the to the country, we do need to protect our citizens from. I mean, that's almost by definition, and so because of that thought, because of that process, I want to do everything I can to make sure that our country is protected from our enemies, so I'll be voting yes. Senator McKee, you're next. I
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:51:16
appreciate the discussion. This is not a free speech. Argument We tell folks outside of the United States, you can't do stuff all the time. If we're going to start applying constitutional amendments to foreign countries or the people who advocate for them. I think that's a whole separate discussion. This is about Your ability to the ability of a foreign nation to contract and try and influence the decisions that we make here in Arkansas.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:51:46
So that's why I'll be voting yes. Senator Gilmore, you're next. Thank you and I'll be very brief. I'm gonna echo what's already been said. In that case, I will be brief. There's no question we are in a war, we're in a war financially. We are in a war of ideas. We're in a war that Practically all, I think the whole delegation, federal, federal delegation in the state has spoken to with very, very clear rhetoric of where we're at this this bill moves us in the right direction. I appreciate
the sponsors for bringing it again, I don't think it's anyone's goal here to limit free speech. I think there is a goal here to limit the activities and the expression and the speech of a foreign entity that is an enemy of our state and of our nation, and for that I'll be
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:52:33
voting yes. Anyone else Centra Tucker and then Senator Stubblefield. Thank you. I'll be brief. I just want to say we're not regulating the conduct of China. With this bill, regulating the conduct of Americans and,
and so that's why I think it infringes
on their on their speech, not to mention the fact that we know, for example, there are 10s of thousands of Arkansas businesses. Arkansas businesses that advertise on TikTok to pick one company as an example, and those Arkansas businesses again, Arkansans deserve to have a voice here at the Arkansas legislature, so I think there are legitimate constitutional concerns, but those constitutional concerns are founded on legitimate policy concerns, which is to make sure that Arkansans, you know, have, have a voice here at their state capitol, so I'll be voting no.
Central Stubblefield. Well, I have one question. I have one question left before it's time for discussion, but we'll go
Speaker 198
1:53:34
with it and we'll see. We'll see where it goes. Juan was one before this bill was amended. Was
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:53:40
this bill amended to alleviate one affiliate. So this bill was amended to alleviate one affiliate. OK.
Then why is one affiliate alleviated from this.
Speaker 123
1:53:58
Senator Rice has am I allowed this, I'm sorry,
Representative, I want like we're playing favorites here is what I'm saying, but let me just explain very quickly as much as I have already said in talking about this bill, I want to be fair to everybody in discussion, it's prohibited that anybody but committee speak. We would have to suspend the
rules for that to happen. Senator Johnson, you can
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:54:24
respond. It is not alleviation. I, I allowed him because it was on his end whenever it was amended to do that. He has stated it is not for one affiliate. OK. I'm good with your speaking.
Speaker 379
1:54:36
one If somebody wants to make that motion, you
can. I, I think we're in discussion. I think the committee's ready
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:54:44
to vote. I don't know that we're changing any minds, so with that, I say we move on. I've already expressed my
concerns anyone else. And the discussion is over. Everyone for the motion signified by saying aye,
all opposed? No. my count's 4 to 4. Caro. stop. Senator Stopplefield, no.
Speaker 381
1:55:28
Senator Rice, Senator Rice, no. Senator Johnson Senator, Senator Johnson, I Senator Tucker, Senator Tucker, no. Senator Gilmore, Senator Gilmore, I, Senator McKee. Senator McKee, I, Senator Dees, Senator Dees, I. I will vote it is 4 to 4. Thank you.
But I do. OK, uh, any senator here to present a Senate bill? OK, I have
representative Dion Volt and then you, Central Petty. OK. Depending on how long hers take
because we will have to Dismiss at some point. We do go into the Senate at 1 today, correct? OK. Thank you,
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:56:30
Mr. Chair. I'll try to go fast. What are we starting with? Can we start with
House Bill 1799. House Bill 1799. Yeah Uh. Representative, would you identify yourself for the record? Dean
bought District 87. You are recognized to present House Bill 1799. So in 199, all
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:57:01
we're doing is taking away the fax machine, they no longer have the fax machine for reporting.
OK, I guess we should take it out of law then if they
don't have one. Yes sir. The, uh, any questions from committee? Hearing none, there's no
one to speak for or against. Representative, you're recognized to close for House Bill 1799. I'm closed and I
appreciate a good vote. Motion from Senator D, 2 from Senator Tucker. Uh Any discussion, hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying aye, all opposed. Motion carried. Congratulations. Represents what you have passed your bill. Thank you. Would you like me to
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:57:47
re-identify myself for the record again, sir. The main thing I want
to know is what bill? House Bill 1148 House Bill 1148. No, I think identifying yourself one time is
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:57:58
good. Thank you, sir. So this bill I had lots and lots of help
with that when we first started, it was a bad bill, but everybody coming into the room. I'm not disrupting anything the state police do, highway, uh, game and fish, nothing that they already do, um, but what we are doing is we're saying I had a friend that worked cattle last week and they had a drone flying over their head the entire time they were working their cattle and they had no idea who was there or what they were capturing or what they were doing with the um with that drone and this bill would just
say that you would have to contact that property owner before you could actually fly there. drawn over. Um, we also had a, uh, Some girls that were sunbathing and we had a man that was a pedophile, um, didn't live near the girls but was flying the drone over the girls, watching them while they sunbathe, um, and then the other instances that we had and the reason this bill, another reason this bill came about was we had some elderly women who were um widowed that somebody was flying
over their house and they were capturing pictures and then they were going and telling them that they needed new roofs. They would pay for the roof, but there was never a new roof put on. So we're just saying before the drone's flown over, just ask for permission. And with that, I'll take any questions and I'm closed.
Any questions from committee? Say none. There's no one to testify for or against and Representative Val is closed. Will the committee do pass from Senator Stubblefield.
Second from uh Cen Tucker. All for the any discussion. All for the motion signified by saying a all posed. Motion carried. Congratulations, Representative, you have passed House Bill
1148. What's next? A House Bill 1865. And if
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:59:50
it's OK, can I have um Miss Alex
from the AG's office joined me. You may. If you will identify yourself for the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Alex Benton, Attorney General's office. Representative Volt, you
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
2:00:15
are recognized to present House Bill 1865. Thank you, sir. I'm gonna tell you how uh This bill came about and and what's The reasoning behind the bill, um, I wanna thank, uh, Senator Clark Tucker for helping me with an amendment that he felt
like um made the, made the bill better. And I want to thank the Attorney
General's office because they've been so helpful. Um. I went to
Speaker 403
2:00:41
Miss Alex and I told her what had happened in my district. I had a young girl that was raped. Viciously by her stepfather. And he only got 15 years. He, uh, serves in the army and he's an army snapper and now she's scared for her life. Um, Two weeks later, I had a child
beat to death by his stepdad with his hands just beat to death. When he got through beating a child. He took that child and laid it at the door of the doctor's office. He didn't take it to the emergency room. Two weeks after that. Uh Which seems Absolutely crazy, but another child was beat to death by the hands. Of young lady's boyfriend, she
had gone to work and left the children with him. The baby had, the stomach bug, threw up in the floor and the man beat him to death. He survived
Speaker 405
2:01:58
30 minutes of beating. As someone, uh, Who has survived sexual abuse. It's hard for me not
Speaker 403
2:02:05
to put myself in there. In their place and try to imagine what's going through
their mind at that time. So I went to Miss Alex and I asked her about doing minimums. For very
Speaker 393
2:02:19
heinous crimes. I'm sorry, I don't mean to cry. Take your time. Mr. Chair,
Speaker 408
2:02:36
if you don't mind, I'm take over for a little bit. That'll be
Speaker 401
2:02:43
so Representative Vaut was was kind enough to to reach out and get, like she said, give us some of the scenarios that she wanted to to address in this bill and to prevent um Really the heart behind this is to attempt to prevent these criminals from, from reoffending or giving them the opportunity to reoffend us when there are certain specific heinous crimes in the discussion when drafting this bill, it was very important for for us to talk about how the
offender be in that position of authority or trust over the child, so this is a legal term that would encapsulate, you know, your teachers, your guardians, parents, stepparents. Grandparents, babysitters, um things of that nature, and then to limit the list of 14 specific offenses which would be caught up in the in these enhanced penalties, and you'll see from that list that it is you're more serious offense is homicide, kidnapping, assault and battery,
sexual offenses, voyeurism, human trafficking, domestic battery, permitting the abuse of a minor, exposing them to chemical substances exposing them to meth. Um, the use of children in sexual performances, computer crimes against minors, stalking, and then starting on page 2, line 12 you see subsection C talks about that minimum term of imprisonment for these enhanced penalties, and then subsection D talks about information in the indictment that must include so
that when people are accused of of these of these crimes and subject to these enhanced penalties that they are put on notice. Um. So that concludes kind of the structure of the bill. Subject to your questions. Questions from
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:04:36
committee. Center Stubblefield Representative Volt, how long? Was it after he had killed the
Speaker 404
2:04:47
first child to the 2nd incident happened. They're 2
Speaker 62
2:04:53
weeks apart and they're both in Sevier County. He did
Speaker 403
2:04:55
this 2 weeks apart. Oh, not the same person. It's not the same person. It's two different. Yes sir, it's 3 different men that did this, and it's all within a month and a half of each other. I mean, it's all 2 weeks, 2 weeks, 2 weeks. With this down in
Speaker 411
2:05:08
your area. Yes, sir. Well, I, I will tell you this,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:05:19
Idaho just passed a bill on pedophiles. That they passed a bill that they would be put in front of a firing squad, so if you, if you decide to run that bill the next session, I'll be glad to be your co-sponsor. After hearing this. This just makes me
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:05:44
sick. Thank you, sir. Other questions from committee. 100 days. Just for clarity, so the, the
current penalty is what versus what we're going
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
2:05:52
to, we just make sure that's really clear. The first, the first penalty was 10 years to 40 years. This says it will be a minimum of 30
Speaker 401
2:06:04
years. Um, I can't remember the other ones. I'm sorry. So it depends on the offense. Um, and so you'll see on subsection C, page 2 lines 12, that if it's a classy penalty or class Y felony, it would be an enhancement. So each of these
types of felonies hold their own uh sentencing kind of thresholds um and this would expand upon that and enhance those for these specific crimes when committed against somebody where the victim was or excuse me, the perpetrator was in a position of trust or authority over the victim, so each of, you know, class C felonies in Arkansas have their specific sentencing thresholds, and this would be in in addition to whatever the underlying
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:06:51
offense is. Sorry, I didn't understand. I'm sorry, that's helpful to see. I see it on page 2, line 14 down. Thank
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:07:02
you. So Senator Tucker. So I'm sorry, I just caught the last thing of what you said, Alex. So my understanding is that it would just raise the
minimum sentence, but is it So it's not, it's not an
Speaker 408
2:07:13
addition to the underlying. Yes, Senator, I, I'm, I fell into old habit of, of using a phrase that has a legal meaning
Speaker 401
2:07:22
versus uh yeah, it's not an enhanced penalty. It is raising the minimum penalties for these offenses in these circumstances. It's not an additional enhancement. Thank
you. Other questions from committee? Hearing none, there's no one
here to testify for against this bill. Representative, you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you,
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
2:07:45
Mr. Chair. I do apologize for getting so emotional, um, I can't do anything to bring these kids back.
Speaker 403
2:07:55
There's nothing I can do, even for the young lady who suffered being raped by her
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
2:08:01
stepfather. There's nothing I can do to make it better. She will always have that, uh, in her mind, um, but what we can do is try to make it so stiff that no one else wants to do this to another child, and with that, I would appreciate a good vote. Motion
to pass from Cen D. 2nd from Ross.
Any discussion Harry Nunn all for the motion signified by saying aye, all opposed motion carried. Congratulations, Reps, you have passed your bill. The OK. Any senators here to present Senate bills. The Central Petty, you're next.
Speaker 425
2:09:05
Uh, Senator, what bill are you presenting HP 1887. And would you identify
Speaker 426
2:09:10
yourself for the record? Yes sir, Mr. Chair, thank you. Jim Petty, state senator, District 29. You are recognized to present House Bill 1829. Thank you, Mr.
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
2:09:36
Chair. This is a relatively straightforward bill. All we're doing is amending the law around the statewide child abduction response teams. These teams work along with the Amber Alert and what this is essentially doing is amending, moving it out of the criminal justice Institute back to the ASP. These teams are
they work across the state. This will allow this
to be more fluid across the state, uh, I'm looking at 1829 and that's representative Dalby and me. So what number is it?
Speaker 426
2:10:22
188787. Did I say 1829? I don't. Don't know how
we got that in our mind. Hypnotism maybe. OK, OK, we are hearing House Bill 1887, my
Speaker 426
2:10:40
apologies, Senator Petty. Yes, sir. No, no problem.
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
2:10:42
So these are the statewide child abjection response teams currently in the criminal justice Institute doing the education and awareness and training, we're going to move it back to the Arkansas State Police. Because they can, they have better access to resources across the state. They can take it across the state with the education and the awareness rather than an officer from a specific region coming in for
training and taking time away from their work. They'll continue to collaborate with many, many agencies and organizations, for example, the Attorney General's office, the, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, the Criminal Justice Institute will continue working with them. sheriff's offices Officer for emergency management, etc. no no known opposition at all. It's simply moving what is existing in the criminal justice Institute to the ASP to make it
more statewide and more efficient statewide education and response. Questions from committee. Carry none.
There's no one here to speak for or against. Senator, you close for your bill? I am closed, and I would appreciate a good vote. Motion to pass
from Senator Des. 2 from Censor Stubblefield. Any discussion, hearing none, all for the motion signified by
saying aye, all opposed motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Petty,
Speaker 426
2:12:13
you have passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. Representative Burke's What bill number
Representative Berks
Unverified
2:12:31
representative? House Bill 1729. House Bill 1729. And Mr. Chair, may
I have permission to be joined by a witness? You have, if you would
Speaker 431
2:12:37
both identify yourself for the record. State Representative Rebecca Burke's, House District 11.
Hannah Van Horn. I'm sorry, I didn't catch your name. Hannah Vanhorn. OK,
thank you, Ms. Van Hoorn. What was the bill number again? House Bill 17291729. Representative Berkshire to present House
Representative Berks
Unverified
2:13:01
Bill 1729. Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you, committee. I'm pleased to be joined by Hannah Van Horn. She is an attorney with Reese Moore Pendergraph and JD and a Master of Laws and taxation in the event that you have additional questions. This
bill is designed to extend the homestead exemption to a home owned in a limited liability. company. Under current law, certain types of property, including a homestead, are exempt from bankruptcy and other certain judgments. The purpose behind this policy is, of course, to allow individuals who are struggling financially to maintain their home and other assets while they work to get a fresh start. Because of easy access to online property records, though some people might prefer to own their home in an LLC for privacy reasons in Arkansas, if you own
your home in your own name or in the name of a trust where you are the trustee, then it's very easy to look up where you live in property and property records, domestic abuse victims, judges, prosecutors, and other individuals might have a desire to have privacy from these online records and so owning their home in an LLC would afford them this privacy. You might also recall that last session we passed a law allowing individuals who own their home in an LLC to take advantage of the homestead tax
credit. So in essence we're encouraging some Arkansans, go ahead, put your home in an LLC, take advantage of the tax credit, but under current law, when you do that, you no longer get the homestead exemption in the event of a bankruptcy. So with this bill we're trying to clear up that conflict and also allow a little bit of online records privacy for individuals who choose to do that. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.
Questions from committee. Senator Tucker, you recognize. Representative Marks, is this
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:14:47
your first time testifying to Senate Judiciary. It is. I want to
commend you on doing an excellent job. Thank you. Was there a question there, Senator Tucker? Do you right, I did,
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:15:07
I did hear that question. Other en Ross you recognize. And on the LLC, um, I understand the reasons for doing it, LLC just
has to give a PO box. Or something.
Representative Berks
Unverified
2:15:19
You're saying we needed to protect. So when you register your LLC with the Secretary of State, I believe you are required to give a physical address, but that could be the address of your CPA or your attorney or an institutional registered agent, so it wouldn't necessarily identify your personal
Speaker 440
2:15:35
residence. Can you give just a A mailing box. I don't believe
Representative Berks
Unverified
2:15:39
that you can when you register the LLC with the Secretary of State that there needs to be a physical address. Do you know the
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:15:47
answer to that would make sense, but I'm
thinking of an LLC. I think that's got to be
Speaker 443
2:15:56
maybe they perhaps Ms. Van Horn could shed some light on that. Whenever you register an LLC with the Secretary of State's office, you are required to give the physical business location and if that is somewhere that doesn't have an actual brick and mortar building people will often give home addresses or some other dress, but it does have to be a physical
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:16:14
address. Is that the address that's revealed, or can you have The two addresses PO box for a
Speaker 431
2:16:21
primary and a physical address for uh Information. You can't
Speaker 445
2:16:28
have a PO box for mailing purposes, but I'm wanting to
Representative Berks
Unverified
2:16:31
know what's reveal to the public. Well, for the information relating to the Secretary of State, the mailing address and the physical address that you used to identify that LLC would be revealed to the public both addresses would be, yes, and that would be in the Secretary of State's records. Now when we talk about the online privacy from from records generally and we're talking about the assessors' records
that are the records for that particular property. That's where a lot, it's very easy for somebody to go and look, look up somebody's home address that way and, and so at least it would be a lot more clicks to figure out, oh, it's owned by an LLC. I have to go to the Secretary of State and dig deeper. OK, thank you. Other questions from committee?
Haring none, no one to testify for or against.
Representative Birch, would you like to close for your bill? Yes, I'm closed for the bill. Thank you for your
time. Ocean do pass from Central McKee. Second
from Center stubblefield discussion. Carrying none, all for the motion signified by saying a Carrying none, all for the
motion signified by saying I posed. Congratulations, Representative Burke. She passed your bill. Thank you very much. So
Speaker 127
2:17:49
Center Tucker. this time I can do. OK.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:17:56
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is House
Bill 1815. Senator Tucker if you'll identify yourself for the record, then we'll hear House Bill 1815. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of Clark
Tucker State Senator District 14. 18151815. I stated it wrong. You are recognized to present House Bill 1815. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's a gap in the law right now when there are crimes
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:18:27
committed involving juveniles on exclusive federal property, for example, the Little Rock Air Force Base. There needs to be concurrent jurisdiction between the state and federal governments on this matter. There are 4 crimes involving adults, but there's a gap in the law when it comes to juveniles, so As you see in the bill, the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services resolved for state legislatures to ensure that they're extending concurrent jurisdiction on juvenile justice between the states and the federal property in those states.
The Department of Defense has worked with the Attorney General, the DOD liaison in particular to Arkansas has worked with the Attorney General's office to craft this language to extend that concurrent concurrent jurisdiction on juvenile matters in Arkansas for a couple of years. My understanding and so this just closes that gap to make sure that if the federal government refers a case to the state because of the commission of a state crime involving
a juvenile and federal property grounds, then the state can handle that case. So that's, that's what the spill does.
Happy to take any questions. Questions from committee. There are no questions
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:19:40
from committee. There's no one to speak for or against, and closed with Senator Tucker would close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairmembers. I'm closed. I appreciate
a good vote and I move to pass. I would do pass from Center Tucker, a second from Senator McKee. Any discussion Hearing none all for the motion to signify by saying aye, all opposed. Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Tucker.
You have passed your bill. Sand. Committee what he's going to the end of the table or wherever he's going down there. The, uh, I had assumed that we would probably meet this meeting, meet this evening, but I told everybody it would depend on what happened this morning.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:20:32
Uh, do you see a need to meet this evening? Senator Tucker. The only, I, I, I don't wanna, uh, test the patience of the committee, but my only, my only issue is there's a Senate bill that I
got out of here last Wednesday about contracts and where where an Arkansas resident could be sued if they purchase a home or a mobile home at a value of less than $100,000. Uh, as Senator Rice knows someone brought a concern to me. I've got an agreed upon
amendment just adds two words to the bill to add to that bill. If we were going to meet this evening, my plan was on the floor this afternoon to re-refer to judiciary to add that amendment and get it back out. If we're not going to meet this evening, then I would need to put that amendment on a House committee, and I'm concerned I may run out of time, so that's, that's my only issue, but again, I don't want to test the patience of the entire committee and have us meet just for that sole purpose, so that's just throwing that out. Is it possible for you to amend it on the floor?
Mr. Treat told me that it was, but If that's if the
committee members are good with that, I think we
Speaker 425
2:21:49
are. OK, then I will, I will ask Mr. Treat for us to amend it on the floor, OK, OK. Thank you, members. Center these what bill number? This is 1777. 1780. Let's begin with House Bill 17471777, 17771777. And so these if you'll identify
yourself for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The state Senator Tyler Dees District 35. You are. Good nice to present the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'd love to bring up some members from the prosecuting attorney
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:22:17
as well. These are bills we've worked
with them. Love to have them as long as they're not very verbose. Recognize yourselves. You will both
identify yourself for the record. Tom Tatum, prosecuting attorney, 15th Judicial District. And, um, Laurie Camperis, the
Speaker 425
2:22:36
deputy prosecutor coordinator. Thank you, Mr. Chair. present the bill. Thank you.
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:22:45
House Bill 1777, this is related to concerning offenses of sexual grooming of a child to include bribery, and or attempted bribery and allow the prosecuting attorney to add any more commentary. Uh, Mr.
Speaker 461
2:23:01
Chairman, members of the committee, this is a prosecuting attorneys association bill, um,
and synergies is correct that what it does is add uh bribing a child to the offense of sexual grooming of a child. Uh, we did not have any issues on the other end. With this bill and I did run the language past Mr. Rosenwagen. No, he's not here today, and he was OK with the bill, but basically it's just bribe is defined now as offering to bestow a gift or something, a goods or some kind of service or withholding it sometimes in these cases of sexual grooming,
that is the activity that prosecutors are beginning to see and how they entice children into sexual activity against their will.
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:23:49
And Mr. Chair, I did notice that um uh 3 of these bills don't have a
Senate sponsor on them and so if if the committee would be willing to uh suspend the rules to amend for Senate sponsor that may be a
smart move. Uh, you don't need a suspension of the rules. So
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:24:17
then, can I make a motion to add Senator Gilmore as the Senate sponsor for House Bill 1777.
Sure he's not here. It seems like
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:24:26
a good idea. I have been in collaboration with him. OK, so we
have a motion in a second to add Censer Gilmore as the Senate sponsor. Any discussion, hearing none, all for the motion to signify by
saying aye. I opposed motion carried the bill is
amended to have Senator Gilmore as the Senate sponsor. So you've,
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:24:47
you've heard the, the amendment and now presented the bill as
amended HB 71777, and we're open to any questions. Senator Tucker. The only question is, And uh I'm just reading this, so I'm
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:25:05
sure there's a, oh, I see it, never mind. So the language we're striking on page one is
added back in on lines 5 and 60 page. OK, I'm good. Thank you, Mr. OK, I have no problem with what you're doing, and I guess if we say that bribe means what it says here on lines 2729 on page one. That's what bribe will mean. Uh, but Seems like we should have bribed means to offer or bestow. And get or service withhold doesn't seem like that's a bribe, although if we said it
is, it would be. Uh It seems like maybe another word. to go along with rib would be Uh More correct.
Speaker 456
2:25:58
I understand what you're saying, Senator Clark, I'm not sure
Speaker 461
2:26:00
why I'm not sure why the bureau drafted it the way they drafted it because there's kind of two situations we're trying to get at. One is where they actually offer to give the child something and the
other is where they withhold like punishment or privileges coercion, yes, and so, but for whatever reason, the bureau drafted it. It seemed easier, I think, to put it into all into one definition, and that's the way they drafted it, and I'm not
sure. So, so we're including coercion in the definition of bro for purposes of this statute for the purposes of this statute only because you know these things seem to run wild. That is
Speaker 456
2:26:39
my understanding. It would be since it's in this particular code
section that would be only applied to this particular statute. Thank you
for the answer. Other questions from committee? Hearing none, there's no one to testify for or against Senator Des. Would you like
to close for your bill? Yes, sir, and I'll make a motion to pass. Motion to pass as amended by Centra D2 by
Senator McKee. Any discussion? I guess there'll be none even
though it's a flawed bill. Uh, all for the motion signified by saying a all opposed. Motion carried. Congratulations,
Senator Des. You have passed your bill. Have we got senators to present a Senate bill. I apologize, Senator,
but we have senators in here now to present a Senate bill Central Urban has a Senate bill.
Senator Irvin, what Bill? Senate Bill 620 SB 620. If you will
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:27:57
identify yourself for the record, Senator
Missy Irvin. District 24. Dr. Irvin, you are recognized to
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:28:05
present SB 620. Thank you, members. Senate Bill 620 was developed in collaboration with the Center for Combating Human Trafficking at CPAC. Mr. Frank Russo would have been here but could not get
here to testify for the bill and human rights for kids organization also worked on this legislation with me, and they would be here this afternoon, but hasn't been able to make it in yet, but Um, what this bill would do is make it illegal to traffic children for the purpose of coercing them to engage in crime or recruiting them into gangs. Uh, just as importantly, it provides critical legal protections for children who are compelled to commit crimes as a direct result of being trafficked, including
protections for victims who commit acts of violence against a rapists or and traffickers. Um, and so I, I think we've worked through issues. the bill, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Questions from committee. Senator Irvin, do
you think there's anything on trafficking we haven't covered? I
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:29:12
don't know, but I know, but honestly, it's such a complex crime. That it just things just keep popping out that we have to
address. But, but for me specifically, This is the very first piece of legislation that really tries to go after gangs and gang recruitment and the violence that is occurring with minors when they're coerced into gangs. And so really appreciate CPAC for their efforts and their, their, uh, on the, on the bill. Other questions
from committee. There's hearing none. There's no
one here to testify for or against Senator Irvin, would you
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:29:54
like to close for your bill? I'm closed, and I appreciate
a good vote from the committee. OK Motion to pass from such a stovefield second from Sensor Tucker, any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion to signify by saying aye, all opposed. Motion carries. Congratulations, Senator Irvin. You have passed maybe the last Senate bill of the session for this committee, and maybe not. I appreciate
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:30:16
y'all so much. Thank you. There I got
OK, Central Wallace. Central Wallace, what bill are
we looking at? House Bill 1844 sir and I will be joined by Colonel Kennedy of the Arkansas State Police. Senator of you and the colonel would identify yourselves for the record. Center Dave Wallace, District 19. Lieutenant Colonel Jason Aaron. I'm sorry, Senator Wallace, you
are a red to present House Bill 184 this was brought
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
2:30:57
to us by the Arkansas State Police. It increases the penalties for Individuals that are Jumping out of a car and the car's still moving in an attempt to evade pursuit, and with that I'll allow the colonel to expand on it. Second
We have a motion to add Senator Wallace his Senate sponsor.
Gotta have a when we had a second, but any discussion, hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. Central Wallace, you are
recognized to continue to present House Bill 1844 as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
2:31:41
and thank you committee members. And members once again I allow the colonel to expand on what I talked
Speaker 478
2:31:49
about. You're for the past 6 to 7 years we've seen an increase in
pursuits across the state and this trend continues to go upward. A new trend that we are starting to see or People that are fleeing from law enforcement are exiting the car, is the car still moving and so the law enforcement officers got to deal with a moving car, and they know that. And so they're unable to pursue after them on foot. And so we're seeking to increase the penalty by one classification for those that exit a moving vehicle at the end of a pursuit and continue to flee.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:32:26
All right, Senator Tucker, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm trying to pull up this code section. But we're amending Code Section 5-54-125, and the rest of that section is not in the bill, and that's fine, but The entire bill references other subdivisions of that code section D2, D3, and D4. Like I said, I'm trying to,
I'm trying to pull it up quickly, but can you tell me what the
Speaker 478
2:32:57
differences are between the 23 and D4. Uh, I believe it was the last legislative session, we increased it anytime someone is fleeing and they and they exceed the speed limit, it moves it to a felony. I believe it's a Class D felony. And so what we're asking, what we're seeking to do is increase that penalty one classification for which for which classification that they violate fleeing in a vehicle. So, if it's, if it's fleeing, and they don't exceed the speed limit and it's a misdemeanor if it's the fleeing, they exceed
the speed limit, and that's the only part of it. Each statute. Element changes the level of if it's a second offense, felony fleeing. It increases the penalty by one. So
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:33:52
it's increasing the penalty by one if you, if you flew. If you leave a moving vehicle,
Speaker 478
2:33:58
yes, only if you're moving, only if you exit the vehicle while it's still moving, OK? And why are we punishing that more? Because they know it's a way for them to get away from law
Speaker 76
2:34:12
enforcement because law enforcement is stuck with
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:34:16
dealing with a 3500 pound vehicle rolling down the road. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Other questions from committee, Senator
Stoplefield, Colonel, do you think this increase in this type of crime is related to the removal of a
lot of illegal immigrants. who are fleeing. I don't have data to you just be speculating
Speaker 191
2:34:34
on it. Yeah, I don't have data to back that
up. OK, thank you. Other questions from committee. Hearing none, there's no one to testify for or against Central Wallace, would you like to close for your bill? Sure, I am closed. Motion to pass such for McKee. As amended 2 by Senator Dez. Any discussion, hearing none, all for the motion signified by
saying ah. OK, without objection, do y'all have another bill?
Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Uh the without objection committee. Uh, we have 3 things before us. Uh, one is getting as many of these bills out as we can. 2 is not meeting this evening, and 3 is lunch.
And as usual, they're all coming together, but without objection we're going to have en Ds go to the end of the table and continue presenting. Because I'm assuming we would rather not meet this evening more than we care about lunch.
Oh Yeah. Uh, no, it's, that's why I'm
saying it's my intention that we that we get whatever
Speaker 70
2:36:07
we've got and uh meet again Wednesday morning. I, I from the prosecutor AG's
office and we've got a representative
Speaker 2
2:36:15
who just walked in. I had, uh, help out state
Speaker 297
2:36:20
police bill. direction to do as well.
OK, so you're here to present Representative Delfield's bill.
OK. I didn't say you represented Duff Hill, uh, I'm going to recognize these two center Ds, will
Speaker 495
2:36:48
these bills wait till Wednesday? Yeah, but y'all wouldn't work
with me on that uh on that bill that tracks The other parent, so.
I. Let's hear Uh, uh. Represented Duffield and. What Bill 182 OK. House Bill 1824. If you
gentlemen would identify yourselves for the record. Mr. Chair, Matt Brown, House District 55 and rep MacDuffffield District 53. OK
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
2:37:50
you are recognized House Bill 1824. All right, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, members of the committee. April marks the prevention of the cruelty to Animals Month, a nationwide observer is dedicated to raising awareness about the mistreatment of animals and finding ways to combat animal cruelty.
Regrettably, animal cruelty remains pervasive and manifest in various forms. Furthermore, it frequently serves as a precursor to other violent offenses, including domestic abuse, elder abuse, child abuse, and homicide. This legislation will save dogs and cats from unfortunate situations and save lives. This bill amends the Animal cruelty subchapter to give law enforcement the ability to temporarily secure a dog or cat if the dog or cat is being neglected. Under current law, technically
an animal can only be secured by law enforcement if the owner is being arrested or a warrant to secure the animal has been obtained. This bill would allow law enforcement to temporarily secure a dog or cat in emergency circumstances while preserving the owner's due process rights. And we'd be glad to answer any questions the
Speaker 503
2:38:54
committee may have, Mr. Chair. Questions from committee. So Ross
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:39:08
I'm sorry, I hadn't read the bill till now. I'd heard about it. In fact, you told me about it. This does not give law enforcement
the Uh, any more authority in what they already have as far as taking any action to get owners.
Speaker 507
2:39:24
Uh, Senator Rice, um, no, except that under this bill a law enforcement officer, like, let's say I think the most common scenario I can see this bill kicking in is let's say law enforcement is called to a house for welfare check, and it's an
elderly person, maybe a little bit of dementia, and she's got an animal that's near death under current law, their options would pretty much be arrest the woman and then they can impound her animal or go get a warrant to impound the animal. This would allow them in those emergency situations like on Saturday night to be able to get the animal to go go ahead and get it saved right then while making it clear this is just
Speaker 508
2:39:58
a temporary thing. The owner still has rights and still has the owner's not losing the animal, so it's just
Speaker 509
2:40:04
kind of a preservation. That's my point. It's it's Doesn't give them more authority
Speaker 506
2:40:08
over The human what current law is not over the human nose sir. This is just for securing the animal. That's right,
Speaker 508
2:40:20
Senator. It's, it's more of a, like I said, those situations where it's not an arrestable level type offense or situation and the current animal cruelty prevention code, I think
Speaker 507
2:40:28
this is implied, but it actually doesn't say that in there, and so this is really just putting it in there, so law enforcement knows. Tucker.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:40:39
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to reemphasize that, it's, it's not the human, it's animal only, and the animal is only on a temporary basis as well, right? That's
Speaker 507
2:40:46
right, Senator Tucker. So this, this amendment or this statute that goes in, it just amends, adds another subsection or another section to that animal cruelty subchapter, and there's already another provision referenced in the statute that actually governs the ability, the owner's rights in terms of it's actually a very accelerated court procedure. I think it's 15 days that they, if they decide to keep the annual notice has to be given, they're entitled to a hearing within 15 days, things of that nature.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
2:41:10
Other questions from committee. Mr McGee. I guess something I feel like this committee's kind of good at is Looking to see the other places that this law might be applied, uh, that we're not thinking about, right? So is this, this is statutorily specific to those welfare cases, those welfare checks, or are there other instances when this might be applied. No, that was just an example, Sarah McKee, so it could be
Speaker 507
2:41:42
applied. That was just the best example I could come up with where this may kick in, because under the animal cruelty subchapter, the way things are written right now, like I said, there's been some changes over the years, some things have been amended and revoked, and the way the code is written right now, it's essentially if the owner's being arrested or if an animal is running loose, law enforcement can get it, or if they go and get a court to seize the court order to seize the animal, this would be situations that don't meet that, but the animal's about to die and there's not time
Speaker 508
2:42:07
to get that warrant. This gives them The ability to temporarily get that animal to get it taken care
Speaker 354
2:42:12
of in order to preserve its life. OK. Other questions from committee double
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:42:26
pill? Yeah. He's in, he was in a statute that you can only move these animals 2 miles from
Speaker 508
2:42:33
the owner. I don't think it's under the subchapter now, Senator. I don't recall reading
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:42:39
that in the subchapter. Well, I, I remember, uh, passing
that back in 2000. 12. That they could not remove these animals within 2 miles of the owner. I mean, I, I, I like
Speaker 115
2:42:53
this bill. I arguing against the bill, and Senator, I don't know, would that have been maybe
Speaker 507
2:42:59
when it deals with like large farm animals, things of that nature. Yeah, I deal mostly with large farming. OK, that may be why Senator, I didn't take a look at the farm animals since this is limited to just cats and dogs was mostly horses and cattle.
This would just be cats and dogs. Other questions from committee? See none. There's no one to testify for or against. Representative Duff Hill, would you
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
2:43:27
like to close for your bill? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm closed and I appreciate a good
vote from the committee. Motion to pass from Central Stuffville, uh, 2 from Senator Tucker. Any discussion? He no offer for the motion signified by saying ah.
All post. Motion carried. Congratulations, Representative Duffield. You have passed your bill. Thank you, sir. OK, committee, you have expressed your will to meet this evening 15 minutes upon adjournment of the Senate unless you want to meet immediately upon the 15 minutes upon adjournment, so you have 12 minutes to find sustenance and get to the Senate
floor. We are recessed until this evening 15 minutes upon adjournment. really Right. Trump.
Agenda
RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
CALL TO ORDER
SB590 Gilmore TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
REGULAR AGENDA
HB1624 Gazaway TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF COUNTY LAW LIBRARY BOARDS.
SB461 J. Scott TO COLLECT DATA REGARDING THE USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN ARKANSAS PRISONS AND JAILS.
SB477 G. TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. Stubblefield
HB1692 M. Brown TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS AND VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS EXAMINERS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING
PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS AND PRIVATE SECURITY AGENCIES.
SB472 J. Bryant TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION OF AN E-LIQUID PRODUCT OR VAPOR PRODUCT BY A MINOR.
SB501 J. Scott TO CREATE THE TENANT POSSESSIONS RECOVERY ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A LANDLORD TO PROVIDE CERTAIN NOTICE TO A TENANT WHEN A COURT HAS ISSUED A WRIT OF POSSESSION.
SB509 G. Stubblefield TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. Stubblefield
SB548 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WARRANTS OF ARREST; AND TO REQUIRE THAT NOTICE OF A WARRANT BE SENT TO THE PERSON NAMED IN THE
ARREST WARRANT.
SB549 G. Leding TO ENSURE THAT MANDATED COSTS AND FEES PAID BY A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE SHALL BE REFUNDED UPON AN ACQUITTAL, A DISMISSAL, OR
AN ORDER OF NOLLE PROSEQUI.
SB566 B. King PROVIDE FOR FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION, IMPROVEMENT, OR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE AND COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES; AND TO
ADDRESS PRISON OVERCROWDING.
SB581 B. King TO CREATE THE POULTRY INTEGRATORS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES AND TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT.
HB1662 B. McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY.
HB1729 R. Burkes TO AMEND THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ACT; AND TO PROVIDE THAT A HOMESTEAD OWNED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
HB1749 M. Brown TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM TRUST DECANTING ACT.
HB1777 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD; AND TO INCLUDE BRIBING OR ATTEMPTING TO BRIBE A CHILD IN THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD. D
HB1778 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF STALKING TO INCLUDE PLACING A PERSON IN FEAR OF SEXUAL ACTS; AND TO AMEND THE
DEFINITION OF COURSE OF CONDUCT WITH RESPECT TO STALKING.
HB1779 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO THEFT OF PROPERTY; AND ENHANCE THE OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE THEFT OF A POSTAL PACKAGE
DELIVERED TO A PERSON'S RESIDENCE AND LEFT WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF
THE RESIDENCE.
HB1799 Vaught TO AMEND THE PERMISSIBLE METHODS OF REPORTING UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT.
HB1830 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE PROCUREMENT OF CONTINGENCY FEE
CONTRACTS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
HB1831 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
HB1835 Dalby CONCERNING SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS; AND TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING DRUG COURT, MENTAL HEALTH COURT, VETERANS COURT, AND DWI/BWI SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS
HB1838 Dalby TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROBATE ACTIONS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ADOPTION AND GUARDIANSHIP.
HB1839 Dalby TO AMEND THE PROCEDURES FOR THE DECLARATION OF LEGAL DEATH OF A MISSING PERSON.
HB1844 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF FLEEING BY MEANS OF A VEHICLE OR CONVEYANCE; AND TO INCREASE THE PENALTY FOR A PERSON WHO JUMPS FROM A MOVING VEHICLE OR CONVEYANCE WHILE FLEEING.
HB1848 Hudson TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN AWARD OF JOINT CUSTODY BETWEEN PARENTS IS IN A CHILD'S BEST INTEREST WHEN
THERE IS DOMESTIC ABUSE.
SB143 B. King TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE TO COORDINATE WITH LOCAL SHERIFFS AND THE DIVISION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION IN
CRIME REDUCTION AND PREVENTION ACTIVITIES.
SB144 B. King CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER TO THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION; TO PROVIDE FOR A DESIGNATED DIAGNOSTIC
INTAKE FACILITY; AND TO CREATE COUNTY JAIL-STATE INMATE CLOSE-TO-
HOME PARTNERSHIPS.
SB145 B. King TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS RESULTING FROM LITIGATION INVOLVING THE USE OF FUNDS FROM THE
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT FUND OR ITS SUCCESSOR FUND OR FUND
ACCOUNTS.
HB1611 Gonzales TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ANIMAL FIGHTING; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF
UNLAWFUL ROOSTER FIGHTING.
SB441 Hester TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025.
SB595 G. Leding TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN BEFORE A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION.
SB609 J. Scott TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN BEFORE A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION.
SB612 Dees TO CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM THAT CAUSES HARM; AND TO IMPOSE A CIVIL PENALTY ON A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM THAT KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY CONTRIBUTES TO A MINOR'S SUICIDE OR SUICIDE ATTEMPT.
HB1148 Vaught TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PRIVACY ACT; AND TO ADDRESS CERTAIN IMAGES CAPTURED BY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.
HB1752 Maddox TO EXEMPT CERTAIN SAVINGS PLANS FROM THE EXECUTION OF A JUDGMENT.
HB1763 Underwood TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL USE OF A COMMUNICATION DEVICE DURING THE
COMMISSION OF A HUMAN TRAFFICKING OFFENSE.
HB1815 Perry TO AMEND THE STATE'S JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL LANDS; AND TO RETAIN JUVENILE JUSTICE JURISDICTION BY THE STATE.
HB1824 Duffield TO CREATE THE DOG AND CAT RESCUE ACT: DAISY'S LAW.
HB1865 Vaught TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES AGAINST A CHILD.
SB620 Irvin TO PROVIDE A SAFETY VALVE AND APPEAL RIGHT FOR A MINOR DEFENDANT WHO IS ALSO A VICTIM OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013.
SB623 J. Scott CONCERNING THE TREATMENT OF FEMALE INMATES AND DETAINEES IN CORRECTIONAL OR DETENTION FACILITIES; AND TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE TREATMENT OF AN INMATE OR DETAINEE WHO IS PREGNANT OR HAS RECENTLY DELIVERED A CHILD.
HB1615 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMINATION.
HB1764 Underwood AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION.
HB1780 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RETENTION OF PROPERTY RELATED TO A FELONY INVESTIGATION.
HB1829 Dalby TO AMEND THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; TO PROVIDE FOR REMOTE TESTIMONY IN CERTAIN INSTANCES IN A HEARING UNDER THE DOMESTIC
ABUSE ACT OF 1991; AND TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT FOR A DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAM.
HB1875 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE MANDATORY PERIOD
FOR THE USE OF AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE.
HB1887 Pearce TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING STATEWIDE CHILD ABDUCTION RESPONSE TEAMS.
DEFERRED BILLS
HB1717 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CHILDREN AND TEENS' ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT.
HB1726 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT.
SB356 J. Bryant TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE ARKANSAS CRIME INFORMATION CENTER BY THE OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT OR CRIME VICTIMS REPARATIONS BOARD.
SB5 B. King TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE.
SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM.
SB452 B. King CONCERNING CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE OR RECYCLING OF
WIND TURBINES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Apr 7, 2025 | Agenda | 4 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Alan Clark Chair
Unverified
Speaker 2
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Speaker 15
Speaker 27
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 40
Speaker 46
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Speaker 70
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 82
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 6
Speaker 127
Speaker 131
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
Speaker 147
Speaker 157
Speaker 123
Speaker 168
Speaker 173
Speaker 174
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Speaker 227
Speaker 229
Speaker 231
Speaker 233
Speaker 239
Speaker 240
Speaker 238
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
Speaker 256
Speaker 282
Speaker 290
Speaker 291
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Speaker 305
Speaker 308
Speaker 102
Speaker 329
Speaker 332
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
Speaker 44
Speaker 349
Speaker 203
Speaker 117
Speaker 354
Speaker 135
Speaker 363
Speaker 277
Speaker 198
Speaker 379
Speaker 381
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
Speaker 403
Speaker 405
Speaker 393
Speaker 408
Speaker 401
Speaker 404
Speaker 62
Speaker 411
Speaker 425
Speaker 426
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
Representative Berks
Unverified
Speaker 431
Speaker 440
Speaker 443
Speaker 445
Speaker 461
Speaker 456
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
Speaker 478
Speaker 76
Speaker 191
Speaker 297
Speaker 495
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
Speaker 503
Speaker 507
Speaker 508
Speaker 509
Speaker 506
Speaker 115