State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (57)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB565
Act 936
· 8 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…DS IN RECOGNITION AND HONOR OF MAURICE LEE “FOOTSIE” BRITT. SB565 Flippo TO ALLOW PROCUREMENT CERTIFICATIONS TO BE COMBINED;…”
|
TO ALLOW PROCUREMENT CERTIFICATIONS TO BE COMBINED; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE REPRESENTATION IN … | Flippo | Notification that SB565 is now Act 936 |
|
HB1694
Act 996
· 6 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…AWS CONCERNING ACTIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN FOREIGN ENTITIES. HB1694 Hawk TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES TO ELECTRONIC…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES TO ELECTRONIC FILING FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS. | Hawk | Notification that HB1694 is now Act 996 |
|
HB1843
Act 954
· 6 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1843 Tosh CONCERNING RECORDS AND PHOTOGRAPHS KEPT BY THE STATE C…”
|
CONCERNING RECORDS AND PHOTOGRAPHS KEPT BY THE STATE CRIME LABORATORY. | Tosh | Notification that HB1843 is now Act 954 |
|
HB1740
Act 585
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO PROHIBIT RANKED CHOICE VOTING. HB1740 K. Moore TO EXEMPT CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION FROM TH…”
|
TO EXEMPT CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION FROM THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967. | K. Moore | Notification that HB1740 is now Act 585 |
|
HB1803
Act 657
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…END THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE ARKANSAS FAIR HOUSING COMMISSION. HB1803 Joey Carr TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE PLACEMENT OF A MO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE PLACEMENT OF A MONUMENT ON THE STATE CAPITOL GROUNDS … | Joey Carr | Notification that HB1803 is now Act 657 |
|
HB1243
Act 994
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1243 Underwood TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTR…”
|
TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES; TO AMEND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTING AND PROTECT … | Underwood | Notification that HB1243 is now Act 994 |
|
HB1470
Act 582
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MEMBERSHIP DUES FROM THE COMPENSATION OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE. HB1470 Beaty Jr. TO REPEAL THE LAW CONCERNING THE REVIEW OF INFORM…”
|
TO REPEAL THE LAW CONCERNING THE REVIEW OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PLANS. | Beaty Jr. | Notification that HB1470 is now Act 582 |
|
HB1519
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1519 Cavenaugh TO ALLOW THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMME…”
|
TO ALLOW THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HIRING AND … | Cavenaugh | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1604
Act 943
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1604 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED CONTRACTS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED CONTRACTS BY STATE AGENCIES; AND TO PROHIBIT THE USE … | McAlindon | Notification that HB1604 is now Act 943 |
|
HB1707
Act 524
· 2 mentions in transcript
Matched: “week. House Bill 1707, and all it does currently in state government, there are 5…”
|
TO REQUIRE CERTAIN CANDIDATES TO FILE REPORTS WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE; TO AMEND PORTIONS … | Hawk | Notification that HB1707 is now Act 524 |
|
HB1713
Act 602
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…O DESIGNATE A RESTROOM FOR CAMPAIGN WORKERS AND VOLUNTEERS. HB1713 Rose TO REQUIRE BALLOT TITLES FOR INITIATED MEASURES TO BE…”
|
TO REQUIRE BALLOT TITLES FOR INITIATED MEASURES TO BE AT OR UNDER A CERTAIN READING … | Rose | Notification that HB1713 is now Act 602 |
|
HB1842
Act 953
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 2000; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1842 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE OFFICE OF CRIMINAL DETE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE OFFICE OF CRIMINAL DETENTION FACILITIES REVIEW COORDINATOR; AND TO … | Tosh | Notification that HB1842 is now Act 953 |
|
HB1873
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1873 B. McKenzie CONCERNING NOTIFICATION TO PERSONS ELECTED TO S…”
|
CONCERNING NOTIFICATION TO PERSONS ELECTED TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF … | B. McKenzie | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB439
Act 737
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB439 Irvin TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMEN…”
|
TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND LICENSING; AND … | Irvin | Notification that SB439 is now Act 737 |
|
SB468
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. SB468 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING FLUORIDATION OF A PUBL…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING FLUORIDATION OF A PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM; AND TO ALLOWS VOTERS … | C. Penzo | Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB516
Act 761
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…STATE AGENCIES TO PURCHASE PROMOTIONAL ITEMS MADE IN CHINA. SB516 Gilmore TO ALLOW A PERSON FILING AS A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFF…”
|
TO ALLOW A PERSON FILING AS A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE OF THE … | Gilmore | Notification that SB516 is now Act 761 |
|
SB578
Act 766
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E AUTHORITY OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 5, SECTION 1. SB578 Hester TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EARLY VOTING; AND TO ALL…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EARLY VOTING; AND TO ALLOW A COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION … | Hester | Notification that SB578 is now Act 766 |
|
SB613
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS FOR COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL OFFICERS. SB613 C. Penzo TO CREATE AN ELECTION PROCEDURE TO DETERMINE FLUOR…”
|
TO CREATE AN ELECTION PROCEDURE TO DETERMINE FLUORIDATION OF A PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM. | C. Penzo | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB614
Act 992
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OCEDURE TO DETERMINE FLUORIDATION OF A PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM. SB614 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967;…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | C. Tucker | Notification that SB614 is now Act 992 |
|
HB1352
Act 937
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…E ENFORCEMENT LICENSING BOARD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1352 Beaty Jr. TO AMEND VARIOUS LAWS CONCERNING ACTIONS RELATED…”
|
TO AMEND VARIOUS LAWS CONCERNING ACTIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN FOREIGN ENTITIES. | Beaty Jr. | Notification that HB1352 is now Act 937 |
|
HB1524
Act 939
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…S; AND TO ALLOW A CURE PERIOD FOR INSUFFICIENT SUBMISSIONS. HB1524 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BIDDING PROCEDUR…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BIDDING PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES. | Wooldridge | Notification that HB1524 is now Act 939 |
|
HB1706
Act 829
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…LAW CONCERNING THE REVIEW OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PLANS. HB1706 McCollum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO PROH…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO PROHIBIT RANKED CHOICE VOTING. | McCollum | Notification that HB1706 is now Act 829 |
|
HB1714
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RNATIVES TO ELECTRONIC FILING FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS. HB1714 Rose TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF PAID CANVASSER. HB1604 McAl…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF PAID CANVASSER. | Rose | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1739
Act 814
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 4/2/2025 @ 8:30 PM) Added HB1739 Senate Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs…”
|
TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIALS ACT. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1739 is now Act 814 |
|
HB1774
Act 562
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NT, STATE BANK DEPARTMENT, AND STATE SECURITIES DEPARTMENT. HB1774 Beaty Jr. TO AMEND THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE ARKANSAS FAIR HOUS…”
|
TO AMEND THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE ARKANSAS FAIR HOUSING COMMISSION. | Beaty Jr. | Notification that HB1774 is now Act 562 |
|
HB1797
Act 944
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AL INFORMATION FROM THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967. HB1797 Beaty Jr. TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS DEVELOPM…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | Beaty Jr. | Notification that HB1797 is now Act 944 |
|
HB1886
Act 823
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THE LIMITATION ON SERVICE UNDER THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION. HB1886 Pearce TO DESIGNATE THE LABRADOR RETRIEVER AS THE OFFICIAL…”
|
TO DESIGNATE THE LABRADOR RETRIEVER AS THE OFFICIAL CANINE OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. | Pearce | Notification that HB1886 is now Act 823 |
|
SB141
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EN INTERIM COMMITTEES MAY MEET DURING A LEGISLATIVE RECESS. SB141 B. King TO ELIMINATE FUNDING TO THE ARKANSAS CENTER FOR HEA…”
|
TO ELIMINATE FUNDING TO THE ARKANSAS CENTER FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB212
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967 CONCERNING PERSONNEL RECORDS. SB212 K. Hammer TO CREATE THE DOCUMENT VALIDITY DIVISION; AND TO…”
|
TO CREATE THE DOCUMENT VALIDITY DIVISION; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | K. Hammer | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB247
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NATE FUNDING TO THE ARKANSAS CENTER FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT. SB247 C. Tucker TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ABSENTEE VOTER INTEGRITY A…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ABSENTEE VOTER INTEGRITY ACT OF 2025; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB248
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE. SB248 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967;…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB395
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…IATED ACT 1 OF 1914. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB395 Hickey TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING STATEMENTS OF FINAN…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTEREST; AND AMENDING A PORTION OF ARKANSAS … | Hickey | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB398
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…HE DOCUMENT VALIDITY DIVISION; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB398 C. Tucker TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE PETIT…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE PETITIONS AND REFERENDUM PETITIONS; AND TO ALLOW A CURE … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB4
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…LEGAL MATERIALS ACT. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB4 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS; AND TO ALLOW VOTERS TO ELECT "FOR" … | C. Penzo | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB434
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES. SB434 J. Dotson TO CREATE THE "PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION ACT"; TO…”
|
TO CREATE THE "PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION ACT"; TO AMEND A PORTION OF THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION … | J. Dotson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB44
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…LLOW VOTERS TO ELECT "FOR" OR "AGAINST" WATER FLUORIDATION. SB44 Hester TO CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN INTERIM COMMITTEE…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN INTERIM COMMITTEES MAY MEET DURING A LEGISLATIVE RECESS. | Hester | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB453
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ION OF ARKANSAS LAW RESULTING FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1988. SB453 B. King TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRIC…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB476
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ELECT "FOR" OR "AGAINST" WATER FLUORIDATION IN THE COUNTY. SB476 J. Scott TO ALLOW LEAVE FOR ORGAN DONATION FOR CERTAIN STAT…”
|
TO ALLOW LEAVE FOR ORGAN DONATION FOR CERTAIN STATE EMPLOYEES; AND TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST … | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB493
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…DIVIDUALS APPLYING FOR LIFE INSURANCE WHO ARE ORGAN DONORS. SB493 J. Bryant TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE THE DUTIES OF TRADE-R…”
|
TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE THE DUTIES OF TRADE-RELATED BOARDS TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT LICENSING BOARD; … | J. Bryant | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB517
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…embers and Staff Only'. PREFIX WHEN FILING AS A CANDIDATE. SB517 J. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS; AND TO ALLOW A COUNTY BOARD OF … | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB538
Act 782
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…UNDER A CERTAIN READING LEVEL; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB538 Gilmore TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PROCUREMENT LAW. HB1243 Under…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PROCUREMENT LAW. | Gilmore | Notification that SB538 is now Act 782 |
|
SB569
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AND TO AMEND THE COOPERATIVE PURCHASING REPORTING DEADLINE. SB569 M. Johnson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCER…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING BALLOT TITLES OF PROPOSED MEASURES; AND AMENDING THE … | M. Johnson | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB579
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SE CERTAIN EARLY VOTING LOCATIONS DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER. SB579 M. McKee TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EM…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; AND TO PROHIBIT A PUBLIC EMPLOYER … | M. McKee | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB608
Act 991
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RETRIEVER AS THE OFFICIAL CANINE OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. SB608 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS FOR…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS FOR COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL OFFICERS. | M. Johnson | Notification that SB608 is now Act 991 |
|
SJR11
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ORCE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OR AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. SJR11 J. Payton A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONS…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 2, § 5, TO PROTECT THE RIGHT … | J. Payton | Approved by the Governor. |
|
SJR12
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ARTICLE 2, § 5, TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. SJR12 C. Tucker AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION REQUIRI…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION REQUIRING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ESTABLISH BY LAW A … | C. Tucker | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR13
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AL ASSEMBLY TO ESTABLISH BY LAW A REVISED ELECTION PROCESS. SJR13 J. Dotson A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A CANDIDATE F…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A CANDIDATE FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE, … | J. Dotson | Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR14
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ION OR INDEPENDENT STATUS WHEN RUNNING FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE. SJR14 J. Dotson A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE DETERMI…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE DETERMINATION OF THE TRUE VALUE IN MONEY OF REAL PROPERTY … | J. Dotson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR15
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…UE VALUE IN MONEY OF REAL PROPERTY FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES. SJR15 J. Dismang A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC D…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL … | J. Dismang | Approved by the Governor. |
|
SJR17
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. SJR17 J. Dotson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREA…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS. | J. Dotson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR18
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS. SJR18 J. Payton THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. SJR22 G. Ledi…”
|
THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. | J. Payton | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR2
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…MERGENCY. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Number Sponsor Subtitle SJR2 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS A…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS APPORTIONMENT COMMISSION TO APPORTION DISTRICTS FOR THE HOUSE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR22
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RIGHTS. SJR18 J. Payton THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. SJR22 G. Leding A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE QUALIFI…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE QUALIFICATIONS TO VOTE IN AN ELECTION. | G. Leding | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR24
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…DMENT CONCERNING THE QUALIFICATIONS TO VOTE IN AN ELECTION. SJR24 M. Johnson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCER…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING INITIATIVES, REFERENDA, AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS REFERRED TO VOTERS. | M. Johnson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR3
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THE SENATE, AND THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. SJR3 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHI…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR6
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION. SJR6 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SJR9
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…GRAMS AND ASSISTANCE FOR POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION SERVICES. SJR9 B. King A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PERMITTING THE STATE OF…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PERMITTING THE STATE OF ARKANSAS TO BE SUED AS A DEFENDANT IN … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 7, 2026
Bill 1803? Yes, sir. All right, you are
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
0:03
recognized to present in House Bill 1803. Joey Carr, District 34. House Bill 1803 is to add a shoulder and head bust, just like we have with Lieutenant Governor Winn Rockefeller. I have gone through with the Secretary of State's office. This was initiated by Congressman French Hill's office. Maurice Footsie Britt, he, born in Lone Oak, He drafted by the Detroit Lions, went into the military through the ROTC program at the U of A.
He was awarded the Medal of Honor, the Distinguished Service, the Bronze Star and the Silver Star. He was the first American to receive the top four Army awards. He came back to Arkansas, was elected as the first Republican Lieutenant Governor in 1966-1968. He was the honorary designee for the dedication of War Memorial Stadium, and so Secretary of State's office has helped me on this with the language, and like I said, with Congressman French Hill, it is totally donations, and Secretary of State's office has agreed that they will put it inside the Capitol in relation to the location of Lieutenant Governor Wynne Rockefeller,
And so it will be similar to that and placed in the adjacent quarter.
And I would entertain any questions at this time. All right, members, you've heard an explanation of the bill.
Chair
Unverified
1:28
Are there any questions from members of the committee? Motion to the proper
time. All right, seeing no questions, do we have anybody sign up? We don't have anybody sign up to speak forward against this.
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:38
Representative, you're going to have a closed free bill? I'm closed, and I appreciate the motion due passed and
appreciate a good vote. Thank you, sir. All right, we've got a motion due passed from Senator Payton, a second from Senator Sullivan. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations.
Speaker 9
1:50
Your bill passes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. Representative
Hawk, do you want to come up here? Which bill are you running? 1694. All right, members. House Bill 1694. Just make sure you make sure your colleagues on that or into the building know that we're taking House bills before Senate bills over here in the Senate. That's the kind of courtesy
Speaker 17
2:14
and respect we show. I would make sure I say it. She's on the other end. We'll do the same. House Bill 1694, by the way, I'm Representative Barkey. Yeah. Oh,
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:24
I'm sorry. I thought that was on. There you go. House Bill 1694, Representative R.J. Hawk,
District 81. Committee, this is a pretty easy bill.
I think it passed unanimously out of the House. So it's a companion bill to a bill that we passed earlier in this committee this week, House Bill 1707. And all it does, currently in state government, there are five people that filed their election reports via paper. Of those five, one of them was a House freshman that didn't know he could file online, and so that's why he filed his election report via paper. And so all we're doing is saying that all election reports need to be online, so it makes it a little bit
easier for the Secretary of State. This was brought to me by the Secretary of State, and it's a manpower thing at the end of the day. They've got girls down there because when they get those paper election filing reports, they then have to go and upload onto the system when the person running for office could have just done it themselves. And it just makes it a little bit easier for them. And that's all the bill does.
All right, members, you've heard an explanation. Senator Payton, you were recognized for a question. I don't know if
you can answer this or not, but we already voted down a bill like this earlier this session. How's this one different? So Senator Kroll ran
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:35
this bill and he said that he didn't have all the facts and asked me to bring it back. And And since I was a House sponsor on it and kind of just detail it for you guys, he said that he felt like there were some committee members that didn't understand what was into the bill. And
so he asked me to come back and do this. So has the fact
changed that this limits us to only electronic filing regardless of any circumstances? No, sir, it doesn't. And what I was talking about
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
4:04
was 1707 that we passed earlier. So what that did was it allows for every elected official in the state of Arkansas to file with the SOS.
So if we then allow for more paper to come in that way, it's going to be a burden on the Secretary of State to be taking those paper election reports. And so right now we only have five in state government, and it's not that big of an issue. But now that 1707 was passed by this committee and onto the Senate
Speaker 30
4:29
floor, if we start having elected officials across the state that do paper, it will really be
a burden on the SOS. Well, and so here's my situation. I got elected and sworn in in 2013.
I have filed all my reports electronically with the exception of two or three. And that was where the system wouldn't work. And I got on the phone and they said, well, can you fax it? And I said, yeah. It was just the statement of financial interest that was due end of December and January this year. And I'm sitting in Jonesboro on the last day because I always procrastinate. And I can't get it to go through, and I had to call here, and they said, fax it.
And I said, well, I've been trying to fax it. Your fax machine has not received it, so they gave me another number. I mean, it's not like people are filing paper all the time, but paper is a backup for whenever the electronic system is down. And if there's no provisions in this bill to be able to, I mean, you're sitting somewhere at midnight on the day of the deadline. Maybe it's a Saturday, maybe it's a Sunday, and you can't get the system to work.
You need to be able to fax that in. So it's time marked and date stamped and you didn't miss the deadline. So is there any provisions in this bill
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
5:58
to allow for that? Would you mind if I bring somebody from the Secretary of State's office up here to help
answer that? All right, Gil, recognize yourself or introduce yourself, who you're with, and be recognized and received your testimony.
Speaker 38
6:23
Thank you, committee. Josh Bridges, Assistant Director
Speaker 39
6:25
of Elections for Secretary of State. Senator Payton, to address your concern, I know you mentioned statement of financial interest. This bill does not involve statement of financial interest. It only changes how the campaign contribution and expenditure reports are filed. Correct. Well,
I mean, the same thing can happen with the financial report, with the campaign finance reports. I mean, I run computers at all my businesses. You know, we have two auto auctions that are on a computer.
They fail. And sometimes you have to continue doing business when the computer has failed, whether that be for an hour or a day or a weekend. And so, you know, if we're going to make it a law that we have a deadline, which is already the law, and then we're going to make it a law that has to be filed electronically, then we've got to have some sort of procedure for when the deadline is here and the electronic isn't working.
Speaker 42
7:27
Yes, sir, and I don't know that there is necessarily an exception in the bill for any kind of a backup. I can say that we do have a fairly newer system, and I understand computers fail. We do have a fairly newer filing system than what we did back in
Speaker 39
7:44
the mid to late 2010s. It's much better, more robust, and way more dependable than what we had previous. Okay, thank you. All right,
Senator Sullivan, you're good with your question. Any other questions from members of the committee?
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
8:00
More of a comment. I would suggest, because it did go down last time, that was the reason, and I've had that happen. There has to be a provision, an exception, when you can't file electronically. If there's not, I don't think it's going to make
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
8:18
it past that door. Thank you. Can I make an, and I want to get collaboration
from the committee. Could we make an amendment to promulgate a rule for Secretary of State to be able to have that provision in there,
or would you want it specifically outlined on some type of outline in the bill? Would a promulgation of rules, would that suffice in this? I'm kind of getting some feedback from you guys on what that might look like. Well, just
for me personally, I'm going to want to see
what the provision is. Okay. Okay. Senator Dodson, you're organized. Thank
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
8:55
you, Mr. Chair. I think I agree with him that we probably need it outlined in the actual bill,
and I would suggest if you're wanting to just ensure that they're using the system, which is completely fine, doing something along the lines of saying that there can be a temporary, you know, if they email or fax, so many people don't have fax machines, but as long as they can email it in to the Secretary of State's office before that midnight deadline, then they can go back and basically ratify it within the electronic system,
you know, when the system comes back up in the next three, seven days or whatever it is that you want to put in the bill, but within a time frame. So it's still going into the electronic reporting system, but there is an alternative there for people who get caught by that down system, which happens.
Chair
Unverified
9:55
I completely understand. If you don't mind, Mr. Chair, I'll pull the bill down. That'd be great. Yep,
Senator Payton. So, I mean, it's not always the Secretary of State's system that is the problem. It may be the candidate's system that's the problem.
Yes, sir. So as you make allowance for this, you need to be considering that. Thank you. Okay. Well, if you don't mind, I'll pull the bill down. We'll amend it real fast and bring it
Speaker 20
10:13
back to you guys. Thank you, Representative. - Thank you, committee. - All right. Senator Sullivan, do you have a Senate bill? Okay, Senator Kroll, what bill are you gonna run? Get a House bill.
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
10:46
Senator Steve Kroll, District 3, we're on House Bill 1740. House Bill 1740, members. And if y'all
introduce yourself and who you're with for
Speaker 71
10:59
the record. Patrick Fisk, Department of Agriculture, Director of Livestock
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
11:04
and Pulture. Great. All right, I'm going to keep this as simple as possible. Right
now, animals get an ear tag in them with the CVI. It has electronic information of the owners, their addresses, everything about it.
And what we want to do is make that so it's not FOIA-able because, you know, they take these show animals across the states and everything. And if you FOIA that, you know this information of these children, you know these, I mean, $100,000 animals. It's just simply a protection for them. All right, members, you've heard
Speaker 74
11:39
an explanation of the bill. Any questions from the committee? All
right. Seeing none. Is there anybody tonight to speak for against this?
All right. Don't have anybody at this. Got a motion due passed by Senator, or excuse me, Senator Kroll, you're recognized to close your bill. Close, thank you. All right. Got a motion due passed by Senator Payton, second by Senator Dodson. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations. Thank you. Your bill passes. All right. I'm going to run. Senator Payton, if
you're going to take the chair real fast, I'm going to run. Senate Bill 565. I'm going to ask Rebecca Haley to come up.
What was that number, 5? Mr. Chair, you are recognized to present Senate Bill 565. Introduce yourself,
of course. Yep. Senator Scott Flippo, District 23.
Speaker 80
12:50
Rebecca Haley, University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. All right,
members, I'm going to let Rebecca do most of the talking, but Senate Bill 565,
what that does is there are several different things, you know, requirements in our state procurement laws that require state agencies, higher ed institutions that, you know, have certain contracts that are kicking at certain
dollar amounts that require certifications that they're in compliance with state law, like they're not boycotting Israel for something. So this would just streamline that, allow them to compile that into one report. And Rebecca, I will let
Speaker 83
13:20
you kind of give them more. That actually was perfect. It explains that there's seven different certifications.
Speaker 80
13:26
What this would do would be one universal certification for all seven. And then it also changes the co-op report date from July to October, just to give us time to close our books, be able to send that report to council.
We're always having to ask for an extension because those are a lengthy report that takes a lot
of time. - Any questions from the committee? Senator Dotson, you're recognized
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
13:50
for a question. - Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is a great idea. The only question I have is the very last line of the bill that says $75,000.
That's a threshold, so does that change any of the underlying thresholds for the reporting requirement? No, sir, it's already in statute.
For all of those seven. All of those seven, okay, thank you. Thank you, sir. Any other questions from the committee? Senator Filippo, you want to close for your bill? I'm close for my bill. I'll make a motion to do pass. I have a motion and a second. Senator Sullivan, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations. your pastor bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. I skipped over this this morning.
I want to recognize our Senate pages. Y'all stand up when I call your name. Aaron Bradford of Hope, Senator Kroll's constituent. Aaron, welcome. Koa Rockwell, Pulaski Academy, Senator Tucker. And then we got Kayson Smith,
PA, Senator Tucker. Welcome. We're happy to have you all here. All right. Senator Johnson, Representative
Rose. We're going to wait until we get one more member over here. In the meantime, Senator Sullivan, you got a few non-controversial
or not opposed. Go ahead. I'll
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
15:39
you're going to start. Thank you, committee. Senator Dan Sullivan, District 20. Representative Tosh has a couple of bills on your second page. I think it's 1480.
Speaker 103
15:52
1842. 1842. 1842. And 1843. 1842 first. and then we'll run 1843. Yeah, 1842 and 1843. So if you
want to start off with House Bill 1843, and then Director Hager, if you want to recognize yourself or introduce yourself for the record, then you guys will be recognized and proceed. Yes, sir, I'm Mike Hager. I'm Secretary of Department
Speaker 109
16:13
of Public Safety and Director of State Police. Great. All right. Senator, you're recognized and proceeded with House
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
16:18
Bill 1842. I'm going to let the gentleman present for me if that's all right.
Mike Hager
Unverified
16:23
That is just fine. I think I can address both bills, but we do have someone here from the Commission on Law Enforcement Standards if you have any specific questions. Okay. So the Commission on Law Enforcement Standards Bill is basically taking the jail inspection officer, the jail standards officer. Right now, he's kind of generically assigned to the Department of Public Safety, and it's moving him under the Commission on Law Enforcement Standards. It's just more of a procedural thing for us to clarify his supervision
and who will do his performance evaluations and things like that. He's already under DPS. It's just assigning him to a division. All right. Members, you've heard an
Chair
Unverified
17:03
explanation of the bill. Senator Payton, you were recognized for a question. Thank you. So this affects one person. Is
Speaker 109
17:08
it affecting their pay grade? No, sir. There's no impact on any of that. It's one person, and I believe his staff, that he has with him. Thank you. Any other questions from the committee?
All right. Seeing no for the questions, I don't see anybody sign up to speak for or against this. Senator, you're recognized to close. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
17:26
I'm closed. I make a motion due pass. All right. Got a motion
due pass by Senator Sullivan, second by Senator Payton. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
17:38
Congratulations, Senator. You both passes. Now we'll take House Bill 1843. Senator Dan Sullivan, Jonesboro District
Speaker 109
17:46
20. Go ahead. I'll introduce yourself. Yes, sir. Mike Hager, Secretary of Department of Public Safety and Director of State Police. Mr. Hager,
Mike Hager
Unverified
17:52
go ahead and you can present that. Okay, on this, it's giving the crime lab the ability to provide the drug director with toxicology reports.
Right now, by statute, it's defined that it can only provide reports to law enforcement, prosecuting attorneys, office defense attorneys. I may have missed one or two in there, but the drug director is not included. The reason that's important for us, our drug director has built a database, and he's trying to isolate cases of overdose deaths that will cross jurisdictional lines. A lot of times within law enforcement, we have trouble if it moves from one area covered by DTF or a city, county department, state police, whatever the case may be.
There's the notifications and the communication sometimes is lacking. When we introduced the Death by Delivery Act, one thing that we realized a loophole there that was key is that you may have one drug dealer that's servicing multiple jurisdictional areas. The drug director has formed a map that is taking these overdose cases and he's plotting them on that map. and it's kind of allowing us to zero in on where these dealers may be servicing.
So far, there's a breakdown in the communication, and it's just inefficient for the drug directors having to go through either law enforcement, prosecutor's office, and once again, if that communication is lacking, it's hurting our effort to do that in a real-time way, which obviously is very critical. So this bill would simply just add the drug director to the list of people that are allowed to receive these toxicology reports from the crime lab. All right. Senator Payton, you're recognized for a question.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So you named the four pretty quickly, but the other four people or entities that
can get the information, can you name those again? I'm sorry,
Mike Hager
Unverified
19:53
just off of memory, I know there's prosecutors, law enforcement, defense attorneys, I believe family can receive that information, but off the top of my head, I do not know. So is this information foiable or is it protected? To be honest with you,
I don't know the answer to that. I would have to check and see. I don't believe it's, well, no, in fact, I'm certain it's not foiable or we could go through those means. Right now, we're relying on the people that are listed in that statute to provide that information to the - The drug director. - Okay,
thank you. - Yes, sir. - Senator Dodson, you're organized
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
20:40
for question. - Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the drug director, are they certified law enforcement
or like why weren't they included previously to this? -
Mike Hager
Unverified
20:53
It's, so the drug director is, that's kind of a, they are technically assigned to the Department of Human Services. There's been a MOU signed by myself and Secretary Putman where the current drug director is working under the supervision of the Department of Public Safety. Typically, I can only speak to the last few that we've had,
but they are prior law enforcement. The one that we have now is a prior DEA agent. A lot of the, I think when the transformation process happened. They were put under Department of Human Services because there's different funding that comes from the federal government and also state that supports that office. A lot of it is for treatment and prevention, and then some of it is for towards enforcement. This one is kind of tackling both because it allows us, again, to isolate where these areas are coming from.
So if we have one dealer, say in rural Arkansas, that's targeting multiple jurisdictions that's like on the corner of a county, if those counties are not talking and providing that information to the drug director, then there's a lag in the time that we can plot those on the map to kind of circle in on where that substance is coming from. So I don't know that it was just an oversight. To be completely honest with you, we've got so many bills and so many committees today that I apologize for not having a lot of the information that you're asking for.
I don't know why the drug director was not included in that original statute. I don't know that it's ever been an issue before, but because of the current director and what we've asked him to do to plot these maps so we can target that enforcement, it's causing a communication problem for him to
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
22:47
get real-time data. So is he still required under this statute to keep the records confidential and privileged so he can't share them with anybody within DHS even?
Mike Hager
Unverified
22:57
On the treatment and prevention side, I don't want to say that he absolutely could not, but because, again, there's— I mean,
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
23:09
he's an employee that's not underneath. Oh, no, no, no. No, absolutely not. No, sir. that it would still remain
Speaker 124
23:14
confidential within, I guess, maybe within his working group or whatever it is within that department. But it's not. Yes. I mean, to protect the integrity of
Mike Hager
Unverified
23:21
the investigation, that information has to be held very closely. And once the investigation, you know, reaches a point of adjudication, then, you know, there may be a treatment and prevention side that
would utilize that data, but it would certainly not be until the
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
23:33
prosecution is complete. I think I found the statute
here that's referenced for Senator Payton's question. The four says, A, the defendant, B, the public defender and other attorney of record for
the defendant, C, the prosecuting attorney or deputy prosecuting attorney having jurisdiction over the criminal case, and D, the attorney general or his or her designee. This would include, this is adding an E to that list. Yes, sir, that's correct. Thank you for doing that.
- Thank you. - Thank you, Senator Dotson. - All right, members, any other questions from the committee? All right,
Senator Dotson, or excuse me, Senator Payton, recognize for a follow-up. - So I guess my concern about whether or not we cover all the bases that don't accidentally make something for you that wasn't. The fact that the drug director is in DHS or a different agency, is it possible we need to ask somebody whether or not there needs to be language about how DHS would treat this data or not.
But I mean, I'm fine with passing the
bill and adding the drug director. I just have concerns about whether or not we may
Speaker 124
24:46
expose it to FOIA. - I can tell you that there's a,
Mike Hager
Unverified
24:53
one of the exceptions to FOIA is active investigation. And that would go through our legal department and our communications department, and that information would not be released under that exception. - Okay, thank you.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
25:07
- Senator Dalton, you have no question? You're recognized. - Thank you, Mr. Chair, to answer your question. Right above that, in that section, it says the records, files, and information obtained or retained by the State Crime Lab under this subchapter are privileged
and confidential. - But it said State Crime Lab, So now this information will be going outside
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
25:34
the state crime lab. - That's AI, then A2 is however the laboratory
shall grant access to records pertaining to a defendant's criminal case to the following persons
and that's where the list comes in. - Okay, thank you. - Thank you, sir. - All right. Any other questions for the committee? All right, seeing none. I don't
want to see anybody sign up to speak for against this. Senator Sullivan, you're organized closed. - Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are closed and make a motion do pass. All right, got a motion due
pass. Senator Sullivan, I see a second from Senator Dotson. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations, Senator. You'll believe it passes.
Speaker 45
26:14
Senator Johnson, or let me tell you what, Representative Underwood, you got a quick non-controversial? Okay, Senator Johnson, you've got a couple,
Speaker 74
26:24
don't you? here for uh 17th okay hold on on that
Speaker 149
26:34
one yeah oh no i gotta take any hang on you say 1713
yep we're gonna hold on that one
Speaker 152
27:02
somebody in here that's got anything without opposition All
right, members, we're going to be running House Bill 1713.
Speaker 155
27:18
Ready, Mr. Chairman? You're recognized. Thank you,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
27:25
Mr. Chairman. Senate District 17 and I'm here with representative Rose to run House Bill 1713. This is a bill that I consider it probably one of the most meaningful pieces of legislation I've ever been involved with. In the last general election when I was campaigning I heard complaints from many people, my constituents, that I was
of knocking doors and talking to. And of course they might have had a lot of things and that's what we want 'em to do, help us do our job. But they complained about the fact they couldn't understand some of the initiatives that were put forth. And these are not, you know, uneducated people, but it was just, there was so confusing language. And frankly, there was one on the ballot last time at the issue two, which it took me a long time completely understand it and of course we read this kind of thing for a living. But House Bill
1713 addresses this by setting a standard of readability, an objective standard that will has been determined. It was not developed by the General Assembly or anybody else. It's called the Flesch-Kincaid grade level formula. It was actually designed by the military, I think the Navy to make sure they designed their manuals where the normal people that are being recruited into the Navy could understand it and not all those are college graduates or whatever.
So that was the whole purpose of it is that it would, this makes it clear in the ballot title that people can read it and the best expert on explaining this is Representative Rose and I would be pleased to let him take over now and do a better description than I have but we would hopefully be able to close on it with my closeout but I'll be happy to answer questions but I think he'll even
do a better job so if you'd recognize Representative Rose now we'll move
Speaker 158
29:39
forward. All right. All right, members, you've heard an explanation.
Speaker 160
29:42
Are there any questions from members of the committee? Yeah, excuse me, representative,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
29:48
go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, senators. Thank you, Senator
Johnson did an excellent job explaining the concept. A couple of quick highlights I'd like to review. You've heard the name Flesch-Kincaid. We are
utilizing in this bill the Flesch-Kincaid grade level formula for a readability test. As Senator Johnson mentioned, this was
developed in 1975 by J. Peter Kincaid, and it was done under contract with the U.S. Navy. It was used to assess
readability for technical manuals for the military, and it has also been used across many federal agencies and corporate entities as well. It is the most
widely used reading level test in the United States for the past 50 years. It is our belief that for far too long that ballot measures have been drafted with complex language that have made it more difficult, not easier, for people to engage in the democratic process. Additionally, this bill ensures that ballot titles and summaries are written at or below the eighth grade reading level. And the reason for this, the primary reason for this, is that the average reading level
for Americans is the eighth grade level. Furthermore, this is not a new or radical idea. More than 22 states have already adopted or are utilizing similar laws that ensure ballot clarity and accessibility. Additionally, no court has struck down a readability requirement like this. And the primary reason is it protects the voters' rights to make an informed choice. And it is our belief that Arkansas has an opportunity to join these states in strengthening election integrity
and ensuring that every voter has a fair chance to understand what they're being asked to sign and then later what they're being asked to vote on. Most recently, Rhode Island and New York have unanimously passed readability standards in their legislature. North Dakota, Texas, Maine are among others that have passed these in recent years. In Buckley v. American Constitutional Law, SCOTUS stated that states have considerable
leeway to protect the integrity and reliability of the initiative process as long as the regulations do not significantly inhibit communications with voters about proposed political changes. This committee, along with the Senate, full of many bright legal minds and obviously legislative minds, which is why we work with expert legal minds, drafting this, working with agencies across our state and composing the bill, making sure that we consulted examples across our nation.
In doing that, we brought you what we believe is to be the best possible version of this bill, and I think we look forward
to any questions. All right, members, for an explanation of the bill, any questions
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
33:02
from the committee? Senator Sullivan, you were recognized for a question. Are we kind of, are we teeing up more lawsuits
by people claiming this bill was not written at that level? I don't believe so, but you're saying this bill,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
33:16
that this bill wasn't written at that level?
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
33:20
Was that what your question was? My question is, will people
contest? So the Attorney General certifies this. And we're seeing a lot of people contesting the Attorney General's opinion in these election laws. So when the Attorney General certifies this meets the criteria, somebody says, no, it doesn't. Are we teeing up more lawsuits based because of the Attorney General having one more criteria that he has to meet?
Have you talked with them or spoken to them on
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
33:56
this bill? Yes, thank you. I follow your question now and I defer to Senator Johnson. I didn't ask at the 8th grade the reading level. I'm sorry. Thank you, Senator. The Attorney General's office believes that this is perfectly defensible at the 8th grade reading level. Okay, so
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
34:14
they're okay with this? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. And if I might add, Senator Sullivan, that as we have seen in recent years, litigation may not be inevitable, but it's likely in many cases.
And it's not always on anything other than just that this is the one tool that,
and again, it's both sides and things, having their toolbox to oppose something. It seems to be part of this initiative process now, and I think that's okay. People have a right to challenge things like that, but that's part of the whole reason is when initiatives become so complex that people have points to argue if they're clear, even if you're on one side or the other, but if they're clear that if you believe this way, you're for it, and if you believe the opposite, then you're against it.
and that's the way the process is supposed to work. We're not trying to confuse people. Well, maybe some have in the past tried to confuse people, but our goal is to present these and to make sure that someone who initiates a measure presents it in a manner that is clear to the average voter that goes in and reads it and tries to make a decision. We're sharing. Amendment 7 shares the legislative process with the general public, and that is deemed in Amendment 7 to be a reserved right of the people.
But as legislators, it's incumbent upon us to see that to the extent possible that they have access to the information in an understandable manner that they, like us, can make an informed
Speaker 178
36:01
decision when they cast a vote. So I hope that answers your question. Thank you. Mr.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
36:08
Chairman, can I add to that? The other component of this is
that the Flesch-Kincaid grade level formula is absolutely 100% content neutral.
It is not subjective. It is objective. It doesn't see party
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
36:22
affiliation. It doesn't see Republicans or Democrats. Yeah, my question was pretty simple. I said it wrong. I just wanted
to make sure the AG's office was up to speed. Yes, sir. If they are, thank
you. - We are, yes sir, thank you. - Thank you, Senator Sullivan. All right, Senator Tuckner, you have
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
36:41
a question, Senator? - I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for recognizing me. So this, I know Senator Johnson,
you and I have a difference of opinion about whether the General Assembly can amend a constitutional amendment that was enacted by the people and that's okay. But this bill does not amend article five section one of the state
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
37:03
constitution, does it? No, sir, it does not. Now, to be in interest of transparency, since we like to talk about transparency, Senator, I have a bill that will... Right, okay, that's fine. It will be an edge bond challenge, ultimately, if it passes, and it does make reference to the fact
that the General Assembly may, either this bill or a different one, set readability standards. Yeah,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
37:27
okay, I just wanted to make sure this bill
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
37:30
is not that bill. different, but I consider them from my viewpoint complimentary. You would
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
37:35
not probably agree with me. So it's been the Supreme Court of Arkansas over the years that has required ballot titles to be longer. It's not a legislative
thing or an attorney general thing. And the reason why they've made those rulings is because they don't want the ballot title to be misleading.
And I mean, I understand it in their rationale, which is that they don't want it to be misleading by omission. And so if a constitutional amendment or a ballot measure initiated act does a number of things, then they want the ballot title to include everything that the ballot measure does. And that's what lengthens the ballot title ultimately. And so it's really a two-part question. Is this bill not in conflict with,
I know we can overrule as a legislative body a Supreme Court opinion, I understand that, but is it not in conflict with the rationale of the Supreme Court opinion that we're going to
Speaker 188
38:36
be making ballot titles misleading by omission if we simplify them? I'd ask
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
38:44
Representative Rose to respond. Thank you, Senator. I would say that this does not require for more words or less
words. Just that strategically, this is a mathematical formula, and I could read you the formula if you'd like me to.
The only reason I know what the formula is is because I have it in my notes, so it's not off the top of my head. But what this does is it just simply impacts readability. And the formula
is .39 times total words divided by total sentences plus 11.8 times total syllables divided by total words minus 15.59. it's a mathematical formula. Okay. And it wouldn't dictate that the ballot title
necessarily has to have more or less words. Right. The ballot
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
39:26
title is all one sentence now, which is one of the
reasons why it scores so bad. So, I mean, does this bill account for
the fact that you can have a multi-sentence ballot title? Because I hear that the number of sentences is in the formula. And run-on sentences are complicated, right? I get lost when I'm reading them. And so our ballot titles are run-on sentences, but it's because they have to be one sentence. So does the bill account for that? I couldn't speak to, I'm not exactly
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
39:52
sure what you mean if it, if it accounts for. I mean, does it authorize ballot titles
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
39:56
to be multiple sentences? I don't have anything to
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
40:02
my knowledge in the bill that authorizes multiple sentences. Okay. It simply is grading the readability of
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
40:07
the language. Okay. And is there a particular score for an eighth grade reading level that you are aware of? Like,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
40:14
I don't. So there, there are two different tests. The grade level specific test, it is simply that it identifies it as either eighth grade or not. It would be ninth grade or 10th grade or 11th grade. To give you an example, maybe this would answer it a little more specifically. There are past ballot titles in the scores that those graded in
at. The 2018 casino amendment came in at a grade level score of 23, which is post-grad. The 2024 abortion amendment was 11.2. The casino amendment's 14.5. The marijuana amendment was 21.7. Right. And so those are graded. And the way
Speaker 202
40:52
that is, is anything from, I believe, 8.0 to 8.99 is considered eighth grade. Okay.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
41:00
Fair enough. Yeah. So I didn't understand exactly how that worked, but like the single parent adoption amendment in 2008 scored 76.6. Right. And
And marriage between a man and a woman in 2004 was 41.5. So, I mean, these are some others that really, really scored off the charts. But, okay. All right, thank you, Mr. Chair. All right,
Chair
Unverified
41:23
thank you, Senator. All right, members, are there any questions from the committee? Senator Payton, you're recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So obviously those historic ballot titles that you scored, they had no interest in trying
to meet this standard. They probably could have been reworded in a way to maybe score better.
Would you say that the reason the ballot title is supposed to be one sentence is because we don't want an initiative to cover 15 different issues? I mean, by narrowing it down to one sentence, it limits the number of issues that you could cover in one item on the ballot. Would you agree with that? I would not disagree with you, sir. I would absolutely agree, sir. So here's the thing.
You get an initiative on the ballot, immediately two advertising campaigns strike up. One side says it's going to end life on planet Earth, and the other says it's going to be euphoria. We need to be able to read these for ourselves. Our constituents need to be able to read it for their self. We can't depend on advertising campaigns to tell us what it does. Do you believe that this will achieve that goal of making it understandable
so we don't have to rely on the advertising campaigns
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
42:56
to tell us what it does? Well, to say it's a binary choice,
Senator, I'm not sure, but as far as the direction we're heading, making it more understandable, it will. I think it's a tremendous improvement in the direction that you were referring to. I don't know about whether it's euphoria or end of life on earth, but between those two extremes,
I think it's a great improvement. And again, we just want people that don't read this kind of stuff for a living like we do to have a chance to cast their vote on an issue based on understandable information. Thank you. I
Chair
Unverified
43:39
would agree. Thank you, Senator Payton. Any other questions for the
committee? All right. We do have somebody signed up to speak against.
Speaker 211
43:52
Let's see here. Dr. Choate, do you want to come on up? Senator, Representative, if
you all want to step over to the side, we're going to let them. Thank you.
And then, Dr. Choate, if you just introduce yourself, tell us
Speaker 215
44:27
here whether you'd be recognized to proceed
Gail Choate
Unverified
44:29
with your remarks. Thank you so much. I'm Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Dr. Gail Choate. As I believe you are aware, I am a educator who specializes in civic education and attempting to make sure that the everyday Arkansan is informed and aware and able to fully participate. I am deeply concerned about House Bill 1713,
which mandates that the ballot initiative titles be written at or below an eighth grade level, specifically because of the measurement of the Flesch-Kincaid readability test. While the intention to make that ballot measure more accessible is commendable, it certainly comes with some concerns. For an example, one of my major concerns about this bill is that it applies only to citizen-created
initiatives, ballot measures, and constitutional amendments. If an eighth grade reading test is important for us to make sure that the everyday Arkansans can have the information to evaluate, read, and understand whether or not they are approving an amendment placed on the ballot, then this measure should apply to both legislatively initiated actions as well as citizen actions. The fact that it is only available in the one dimension, I believe, creates animus
and creates issues for the general public. I think one
of the things that I have also been concerned about throughout this session, as you well know, is that we are attempting to pass laws that create constraints and regulations on citizen-led initiatives that don't actually get to the heart of the problem or acknowledge that there are other ways that we could be addressing this issue. For an example, one of the measures that exist today is the requirement that ballot
initiatives are posted in the polling place to include not just the title and the subtitle of the ballot measure, but also an abstract. As someone who does academic writing and research, an abstract is designed. Point of order. I don't think she's speaking on the bill. I think she's speaking about what she
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
46:56
would like to see in the bill, not what's in the bill. Continue. Go ahead. I may continue that thought or do I need
Gail Choate
Unverified
47:03
to stop? I'll let you continue that
thought. Okay. So I just wanted to point out that there's another way to do that and an abstract may be a preferable way
because that could be written at a different reading level without impacting the legality or the ability of the bill to represent what is legally necessary in order for an amendment to be made. Rather than simplifying the ballot language to potentially misleading levels, a more effective approach also would be civic education. There are things that are in place and that could certainly be expanded upon that would not affect the legal language necessary.
As been testified earlier, part of the reason why these languages oftentimes exceed the eighth grade level is because of the legalese within them. For an example, the Flesch-Kincaid test penalizes those longer sentences. For instance, terms like constitutional and amendment are fundamental to legal discourse, but they are flagged as too advanced for this metric. This constant constraint, excuse me,
forces drafters to oversimplify, which I believe leads to the potential for misunderstanding on a much greater level than what we face right now. So I would ask that you vote do not pass on this bill, and instead you consider ways that use education and the tools we have available to make our ballot initiatives and the things that our voters vote on more accessible and understandable to them. This does not do that and so I request a do not pass.
- Great. Members, any questions for Dr. Choate? All right, Senator Clark, you
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
48:54
recognize for a question. - Doctor, thank you for being here. I do not disagree with you on it applying to everything. I think, after having said that, let me go back to the biggest problem is that no matter how educated, People are not reading the amendments and ballot initiatives. That has caused me great consternation
decades before I was in the legislature. And I have many people come to me now as a senator and say, what does this mean and which way should I vote? It seems to me that, and also, you know, teaching an adult Sunday school class for many years, I often, and my dad was an English teacher, So I inherited a little bit of his teaching and I'll take a verse and say, tell me what you can draw from this verse. And with educated adults, they'll tell me everything that they know about doctrine, everything, but nothing that's in that verse, which is a reading comprehension.
And so it seems to me the simpler that it is, the more likely people are to read it. the less legalese and the more likely they are to understand it, where
am I wrong? - Well, I can't disagree with the statement that the simpler something is, the more likely
Gail Choate
Unverified
50:26
is someone to read it. I think you and I are both educators and so we know that that's real. I would argue, though, that we are making a trade-off
in putting this at an eighth grade level. And we're trading, right, the legal and the clarity that comes with that. I believe that we need more civic education. I've testified to that previously. I think also sources such as the Center for Public Policy at the University of Arkansas Extension publishes a voter guide specifically on ballot measures that are statewide. And I think that if we make that accessible to more people and we make it more widely
known that there are sources and we take advantage of the abstract as a way to explain it in more simple terms. I think we could make people more confident that they know what they're reading. I think it's also, yeah, that's where I'd like to stop. Okay. Well, I think
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
51:22
that your points are valid and I think this is a 51-49 thing. I still support the bill, but I appreciate hearing your input. Thank you Senator. Members, are there any questions? All right, say none.
Doctor, thank you. Thank you. Excuse me,
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
51:43
I'm sorry, Senator Dodson. Thank you Mr. Chair and you may know the answer to this question, you may not, I
don't know. I was completely unfamiliar with Fletcher Kincaid, so just upon basic Google search, it says it was developed in 1975 and I'm not sure if it's changed throughout that time or not. So obviously throughout the last 50 years, the grade levels
have, I guess our populous education levels have fluctuated over time, just in general, not necessarily the last 50 years, but the last 250 years. And so I'm wondering if some type of calculator like this is set at a specific point in time, as the grading, as you said, you want to advocate for more civic education, and I too want to do that as well. I think we have lost a lot
over the last couple hundred years that we, if you go back to the time of the founding of our nation, I don't think that any of the writings of the founding fathers could fit within this model. In fact, the first grade primer that was used in education for the first, you know, hundred plus years of our nation's history, most college students couldn't read it or understand it today. And so I guess I'm just wondering, do you know if the Flesch-Kincaid
model has adjusted or changed over the last 50 years to accommodate different grading levels depending on the education of the populace? So it's my understanding that
Gail Choate
Unverified
53:32
this particular test has not been updated, that it remains constant. That's part of why it is considered, as Representative Rose said, to be objective is because it has state standard. I think the other thing is to point out is that this particular guide was not developed specifically to deal with legal language.
And when we're talking about an amendment or an initiative, referendum on a ballot that is very much legalese. So we're using a test that may not be appropriate in order to determine a readability score that may or may not be valid. That's why I'm saying that this is not the best way to go about ensuring that people understand what it is that they're voting for. So I think you bring up very valid, very valid
points and I thank you for those questions. Thank you. Thank
Chair
Unverified
54:24
you. All right. Any other questions from Doctor? All right. Thank you
so much for being here. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Kristen Stewart.
Kristen, you want to come up? She's going to be speaking
Kristen Stewart
Unverified
54:49
against? Ms. Stewart, you know the process. Just introduce yourself. You'd be recognized. Proceed. Perfect. Thank you so much. My name is Kristen Stewart. I am here representing myself here to speak against House Bill 1713. I'm not going to read everything that I wanted to say simply
because Dr. Choate said a lot of it. I think we can all agree that it sounds good to be on an eighth grade reading level, but even just the title of the bill, an act to amend the law concerning ballot titles and initiated acts constitutional amendments and referenda and for other purposes i put that through the um fleishman kincaid um readability and it came out as college level so even the title of this bill does not pass muster um and so that is just very very
concerning to me and again I'm very concerned that it is only for citizen-led initiatives not for things put for referred to by the state legislature. I know that abortion has been talked about a lot as people saying they were confused which I don't think they were when they signed it. But I know I'm not supposed to ask you guys questions, but let me pose a question.
Would you be okay with a ballot title that said simply six words to make abortion legal in Arkansas? Does that sound pretty cut and dry, pretty clear? Yeah. So according to the readability scale, that is a college graduate level, someone who already graduated college. Those six words, according to the calculator, are even a higher level than the ballot title that I just read.
So, I don't think this is clear. I will echo Dr. Choate's calls for more civic education, The Cooperative Extension Office that does those voter guides are wonderful. I think maybe having those nonpartisan explanations attached somehow, because I do agree, they can be hard to understand. I also have to read several times and investigate, and I love this stuff.
And my graduate degree is in public administration, so this is a lot of my background. I do agree that they can be hard to read, but that is part of the process for making laws. So, again, I would just really urge you all to vote no, because, again, to make abortion legal in Arkansas, six simple words, which I think you would all agree would be very
a good explanation of a bill and what the intent is. That itself does not pass the muster put forward by 1713. So I urge you all to vote no. Thank you. Thank
you. All right. Senator Johnson, Representative Rose,
welcome to close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
58:27
committee. First thing I'd like to do, and I could read
the entire thing, but in the interest of time, I don't think you would appreciate that. But what I did was I took the abortion amendment from 2024 and scaled it down and was able to have it meet the guidelines of the eighth grade reading level according to the Flesch-Kincaid grade level formula that is built into
processors like Microsoft Word. And this is a very easy to approve version. This
amendment would change Arkansas's abortion laws. Currently, abortion
is not legal except when needed to save a pregnant woman's life. Even then, only in a medical emergency. The Arkansas Constitution, our state's founding document, does not limit the state's power to regulate abortion. If passed, this would prevent the state and local governments from banning, punishing, delaying, or restricting abortion in these cases. Now, this goes on for several more lines, and it is roughly the same length as the original amendment was. I say all that to say that this passes the eighth grade limit that this bill would suggest.
Also, I want to make sure that it is understood that this bill more or less is just governing the ballot title only. The Flesch-Kincaid grade level reading formula test is well established, as we've said, for 50-plus years. It is content neutral. It is not subjective. It is entirely objective. Now, to some of the comments that were made, I'm perfectly in favor of establishing this same guideline for legislatively referred constitutional amendments.
It's not in this bill because that's not what this bill was about. I would be perfectly fine to support, sit with, encourage, et cetera, and I hope the witnesses that suggested it would come and testify to that should that bill run one day. Again, I want to reference the SCOTUS decision that no courts nationwide have struck this down, and the Supreme Court says that the states have considerable leeway to protect the integrity and the reliability of these processes. The merits of readability are far-reaching.
As somebody who has worked at the college and high school level educating students with diversified learning needs, readability standards is not about intelligence. There are many people smarter than us in this room who may not be able to read above an eighth grade reading level for various reasons. Making the ballot measures easy to digest for as many Arkansans as possible is one of the best things that we can do to make this process more favorable for voters. It is my belief you go home to your districts and when they discover that you have made the ballot measures more easy for them to understand, they'll be grateful for that.
I believe that there is a simple truth at the heart of this bill, and that is that every Arkansan, not just those who have experience with legal language or have legal minds or policy experts, but everybody should be able to understand the choices they're being asked to make when it comes to signing petitions, and should those make it to the voting booth that they can understand what they read before they vote. This bill ensures that when we ask people to side on a law, that it's presented to them in a way that respects their time and their intelligence and their right to be an informed
voter or signer. By passing this bill, Arkansas becomes another member of a long line of states that have taken a stand for clearer, more transparent ballot initiative processes. What this does will literally remove barriers from voters understanding what they're being asked to sign and what they're being asked to vote on. Voters deserve clear language. This bill brings transparency and clarity, and I believe it is the opposite of suppression. My vote is that this committee and our legislature continue to protect Arkansas voters and ensure that ballots remain
fair, honest, and understandable for all.
I appreciate the latitude, Mr. Chairman, and we'd appreciate a good vote. Mr. Chairman,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:02:43
I'll just add that I appreciate the great work that Representative Rose has done. 22 states do this, red states and blue states, so this is not a partisan issue, this is a pro-voter issue.
So with that, we're closed, and we appreciate a good vote. -
All right, members, got a motion due passed.
Okay, I have a motion for you to
have a discussion. So what's the will of the committee? Okay, we got a motion due passed from Senator Clark, a second from Senator Payton. There is discussion on
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:03:20
the motion. Senator Sullivan, you're recognized for discussion on the motion. - Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just in regard to the testimony that was made, The testimony was more about what the bill didn't include to what it included. As the closing argument was made, this bill is not meant to solve every problem. And if those who need one additional language
or reach further, they're certainly well able to help work with someone to get that legislation written. I think this is a good bill and I'll be voting for it. - Excellent,
seeing no further discussion on the motion. Oh, of course there's always going to be discussion. Senator Dotson, you're recognized for discussion. Thank you,
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:04:00
Mr. Chair. I'll be honest. I'm struggling with this one. This one is, it's about a 50-50 for me.
Going to kind of hold to a Jeffersonian philosophy, and I was looking up a quote by him, And this was from a letter that he had later in life after he was president. You know, obviously, he was very formative in starting our country, held many different positions. And later on in life, as he was reflecting, he basically said something about the true correctives of abuses of constitutional power.
And by informing people's judgment and discretion through education was kind of the gist of it. Like, not to take away their authority, but to educate and inform them. And I can argue this bill both ways. That this is, one, potentially taking something away, but also by making it clearer, it's also educating and informing them. So, it could go either way as far as the, I don't know, we're going to vote here in just a second, but that's kind of the crux of what I'm teetering on here, is that philosophy, is this educating the populace, or is it taking away their discretion?
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:05:36
And it's 50-50 for me. Thank you. Senator Clark, you're recognized for discussion. Thank you. I love this bill. The only thing I think is lacking is that it does not cover those same things coming out of the legislature. I hope somebody brings that back. And having, you know, Senator Elliott and I really were at foundation bills that we had to fight unbelievably hard on reading.
And I have had so many dyslexic people come to me. We do not realize, if you don't work with kids, if you don't work with adults, with reading, etc., we don't realize the challenges that people have when it comes to reading. I want our bills to be college level. But when we're going out to the populace, you know, it's easy to vote in the rest of the election. This is Jim Dodson. This is Dan Sullivan. But when it comes to something that they actually have to read, a big part of our population has struggled with it.
And I hate to dumb it down, but at the same time, it's the right thing to do. We're not creating a new requirement. We're removing a barrier. And
Speaker 260
1:07:02
I think it's definitely the right thing to do.
Hugh Mcdonald
Unverified
1:07:07
Senator Clark, discussion. Senator Tucker, I'm sorry. Thank you, Senator Scott. Thank you for that moment of brevity.
Speaker 263
1:07:15
You're recognized, Senator Tucker. I'll be very brief.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:07:20
I mean, I think there's a lot of discussion. I'm not going to repeat any of that. I have a very practical concern, which is that right now, I don't know what the rule is. I don't know if it's in code, I don't know if it's a practice or a rule, but something compels ballot titles to be one sentence. If it's a law, then the only way this bill can work is if it amends that law. The way the bill is written is the attorney general has to reject, or it says shall not certify something above the eighth grade reading level. Well, if there's also another law that requires ballot titles to be one sentence, then that means no ballot title will ever be certified, because it can't both be one sentence and
be at an eighth grade reading level at the Flesch-Kincaid grade level formula. So without making that adjustment, I don't see how we can pass this law and ever have a ballot title approved by the Attorney General. So that's it, Mr. Chair. Carly,
Christie, is there any discussion on y'all's end
on the motion? Y'all good? Okay. All right. All right. Anybody, any other discussion on the motion? Don't want to leave my eye
out. All right. All right. Got a motion due passed by Senator Clark. Got a second by Senator Payton. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed?
All right. Congratulations. Your bill passes. All right. Senator Irvin, come on up. You've been patiently waiting. Do you think your bill is going to require any discussion on the motion, Senator Irvin, before we start? All right. What
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:08:46
bill are you running? The one at the top of your agenda.
Speaker 270
1:08:51
Senate Bill 369. 439. All right. Senate Bill 439, members. 439. Senate Bill 439.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:08:56
This was re-referred, Senator Missy Irvin, District 24. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. This bill is part of the agency. They are here. Mr. Gunthrop's here to answer any questions you may have. There was some discussion on the floor about ensuring that there was language that any transfers that were made, you know, would go through peer and ALC or personnel. And so, those changes have been made and engrossed into the bill.
Okay, excuse me. It's Senate Bill 439, right? Let's
re-refer to the committee. Yeah. Senate Bill 439. It's Labor and Licensing. Okay, so we need to, first of all, we've got to expunge the vote by which Senate Bill 439 passed. So, with that, I will take
a motion by Senator Tucker, not Senator Clark. Senator Tucker, I see a second, second by Senator Sullivan. All in favor, say aye. Opposed? All
right. Both have been expunged. Senator Irvin, you are recognized to proceed
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:10:06
with Senate Bill 439. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions. This is the labor and licensing bill
that you've already heard. There was a concern on the Senate floor. We referred the bill back to the committee, made the changes, engrossed the bill, and I believe it's all good to go now. All right, Senator Payton, you got a quick question? Yeah, so it's
75 pages. I can't find it real quick, but the title says to amend the duties of the Secretary of the Department of
Labor and then to amend portions of Arkansas code which resulted from initiated act one of 1914. What are we amending
in the initiated act of 1914? I'll have Steve Gunthrop. Is he here to
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:10:52
come up? Where's Steve? He's supposed to be here. I
think Steve left. Well, I may have just
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:11:05
found it. Section 62 seems to be. Well, I mean, we had presented the bill, and I apologize.
I'll pull it back up. But again. Oh, you're okay. It's just changing the name. Yeah, thank you. Designation. All
Speaker 284
1:11:17
right, I think Senator Payton's good now. All right, are there any other questions for the
Chair
Unverified
1:11:25
committee? Oh, Senator Tucker? So your amendment's been engrossed. We don't need to adopt an amendment. I just want
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:11:30
to make sure that we'll just... It's been engrossed. Okay, all right, that's it. All right, any other questions for the committee? All right, saying no questions,
we'll have anybody signed up to speak for or against this. Senator Irvin,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:11:45
you were recognized to close. Yes. Amendment has been engrossed. The new language is on page 74 and 75 of the bill and also reflective in the title. Okay. All right. Yes, for that, I am closed. Okay. All right.
Senator is closed. What's the will of the committee? Got a motion due passed by Senator Tucker, second by Senator
Sullivan. Any discussion on the motion? You're hearing none. All in favor, say aye. Opposed? Congratulations, Senator. Your bill passes. Thank you. Hmm.
Speaker 269
1:12:11
Discussion. Did you have discussion? Discussion? All right. Senator Hill. You're running a House bill?
Hugh Mcdonald
Unverified
1:12:15
Yes. Where are you running? House bill 1470. I'm sure
it's just a little old bill that don't do much and nothing, does it, Senator? Senator Ricky Hill, District 11.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:12:43
Senator, you're recognized to proceed with
your bill. Is that House Bill 1470? House Bill 1470. All this bill does is eliminate an existing section that's a legacy statue that is outdated. The Division of the Information Systems is already tasked with reviewing this Department of IT and Plans and ensuring IT projects are included in their budgeted for those plans.
Repealing this section increases the efficiency by eliminating an extra unnecessary step in the process of reviewing departmental IT projects and there is no known oppositions to this bill. All right. We're eliminating paperwork. All right, members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Any
questions for the committee? Senator Tucker? So this is repealing something. Is there another process in
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:13:32
place that provides oversight for... Yes, it's already in there. They're already doing it in another area. - Is
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:13:36
it in code or is it a rule? - That's a very good question, Senator Tucker.
Speaker 301
1:13:45
I'm gonna have to go to someone a little smarter than me for
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:13:50
that. - Not smarter, just with more information. - A little more information. I would like
to ask her to come up for us. - Oh, yes, please. - That was a very
Speaker 306
1:14:09
good question though, Senator Tucker. - Thank you, Senator. - Deserves an answer. - Hi, Jennifer Davis, I'm with TSS. Yes, there is another process. DIS has already tasked in their own enabling legislation
to review IT plans. And this body has recently approved House Bill 1549 that's gone to the governor's office for a signature that actually consolidates and centralizes and even further expands our IT responsibility for looking at IT planning, statewide IT planning, procedures for procurement to ensure that there's duplicative services removed and things of that nature. - Okay, so code is the answer
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:14:37
to the question? - That is correct, yes. - And we still have sufficient oversight for, and
vetting for contracts and purchases and that sort of? - That is correct.
- Okay, all right, thank you. - All right, thank you, Senator Tucker. All right, members, any other questions? - She
said exactly what I was gonna say. - No, no, she did, Senator. All right, not seeing any further questions. Don't have anybody to sign up to speak for against this. Senator Hill, you are recognized to wisely close for your bill. - I'm closed. - Senator is closed. What's the motion of the committee? got a motion due passed by Senator Clark, second by Senator Tucker. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say yes. Opposed? Congratulations, Senator. Your bill passes. Senator Clark, I'm just a little deaf in this here. Let's speak up. All right,
Speaker 308
1:15:23
Representative McKenzie. You got an amendment? All
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:15:35
right. What's your bill number? All right,
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:15:38
1873, members, there is an amendment. Britt McKenzie, District 7, State Representative Rogers, Arkansas. Amendment simply adds Senator Bryant. Okay, all right. Adding
a co-sponsor of the bill. Got a motion to adopt. Second by Senator Dodson. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, amendment's been adopted.
Representative, you were recognized and perceived with your
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:15:57
bill as amended. Thank you. In brief, this bill simply requires the Secretary of State, within 30 days of certifying our election, to send a secondary
document that, or actually within the same document or secondary document that confirms the amount of years left on our term limits. This came out of not from any, this isn't an agency bill or a secretary bill, this was something I was thinking of and had experienced in the past where being a qualified candidate for office has nothing to do with term limits.
Term limits are imposed on us in the Constitution now, but they did not affect the qualifications for someone to stand election. So if Senator Payton gets to the end of his term and decides that he'd like to still run, there is nothing that bars the Secretary of State or in theory or practice either party from accepting his paperwork and standing for election in that party primary. Senator Payton's likely opponent in that primary would take umbrage and then would have to file a lawsuit in order to challenge his position as a candidate on the ballot.
But we have to also take now the practice of it. Once you go and file, you are a candidate on that ballot with an opponent, you have exhausted your term limits, the primary has begun. And within short order, the campaign will start to an end date, which is the primary date. Senator Payton's opponent would have to file a lawsuit, either in district or circuit court. And oftentimes, not every time, but oftentimes, those judges will just say, this is a political question. It's not for us to decide. It's for the voters. Because clearly, as the statute or the Constitution says, for the qualification of a candidate, as well as they are conflicting.
Or not necessarily conflicting. They don't work in concert with one another. This would allow for Senator Payton's opponent to take that document to the court and say, he is no longer qualified because he has zero years remaining left on his term limit. Beyond that, it's just, in my opinion, good practice. It's the honor system currently. The Secretary of State is the constitutional officer responsible for our elections. Coordinated with them on the bill, they have no issues, this would go through their election division. So happy to take any questions. All right, members, Senator Clark here.
to ask for a question? I think I like the bill, but has this been a problem? Not
as of yet, but that's not to say it couldn't be. We're also, and one of the senators of this committee, ran the constitutional amendment to change our term limits from the previously changed 16 years. It's been 20
years since we've changed. We will have three different term limits, that the last of which creates a cool-off period. There's no ambiguity in that constitutional amendment, but who's to call the ball? We don't have the answer for that because as we file our
paperwork, it's a set amount of criteria in order to be that. So this would help with the same constitutional officer through our courts to decide. It won't defray someone like Senator Payton from filing inappropriately, but it would give recourse there.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:18:44
It allows me to pick on Senator Bryant because there's no problem
easier to fix than one we haven't had, but
Chair
Unverified
1:18:53
thank you. Thank you, Senator Clark. Senator Payton, you're recognized for a
question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this notification of service time remaining, does it just go to the candidate?
Correct. It's a public document, though. And this is at the beginning of a four-year Senate term? Say again, I'm sorry? So like senators are elected for four years. It would be at the beginning of that
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:19:17
term? Correct. Yeah, it would be at the beginning of when your election is certified. So again, our legislative sessions are in two-year terms. You don't stand for election. Your election's not certified in that second. In that third year of your four-year term, it would be if you run again. Okay. So if something changed in that four years, would there be a second letter?
Yeah. Let's just say term limits get modified again. That would probably need to be another opportunity to address this
as a law on our books. But I also believe it would give the discretion to the Secretary of State
if there has been a change to notify candidates. Well, you may have sounded like that notification was going to be legal evidence,
you know, to kick somebody off the ballot. So if something changes, I would hope that there
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:20:06
would be another notification go out correcting the first one. Absolutely. The bill doesn't incorporate anything in terms of a change of term limits.
I'd be happy to address that in the bill or leave that to the Secretary of State because it does give them deference in the issuance of this notice.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:20:27
Okay, thank you. Senator Clark? Yes, you're aware that if somebody has one day left of eligibility, they can serve a two-year term, four-year term, whatever it may be, right? Correct. It seems, though, that that could create some confusion. I know a number of us who have, not me, that have been elected in a special election,
And so their term limits are not even years. And if somebody had a year left, say, and they're running for a four-year term, it seems like a voyable document that it's easy then to confuse the public that, well, they're not really eligible to serve four years, which, of
course, they are. Have you thought of this problem? In talking with the Secretary of State's office,
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:21:13
I made it clear that, you know, as I send this, Again, it's a small bill, and it's not necessarily broad,
but it's not specific as to read title, you know, title, line, subline. It's to interpret the law and to interpret our Constitution and say based on the term limits that are in the ethics reform constitution limit that came through as well as any of the underlying statutes and then advise that elected official to how much time they have left. So it does place a lot of onus on the Secretary of State
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:21:44
to read and interpret the law. What if it, in addition to what's there, and therefore eligible to run? I mean, if you're going to put the, this is how much time is left, if it's less than the
two years or less than the four years, it seems to
me like those words, you have this much time and therefore
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:22:07
eligible. Because, and we thought about that, because eligibility isn't tied to term limits
currently. So to say in the bill, notify and if eligible. Eligibility is 18 years old, member of the
district that you're coming from, and then I think some of the underlying stuff in good standing. Has nothing to do with term limits. So to say if eligible would be redundant to the obvious fact that almost everybody is already eligible.
The eligibility is in our constitutional amendment and doesn't incorporate anything we've done over the last 100 years in terms of statute to eligibility. i agree but to say that would just go back to the original problem which is our term limits aren't incorporated in that eligibility okay yeah all
right sir payton thank you so
now i'm getting confused yes sir so if if you are term limited out you're not eligible and you're saying that
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:23:04
you are eligible uh that's the problem sir is that our term limits don't affect the eligibility of a candidate for nomination to
an elected position. In our Constitution, like I just stated, it's 18 years old. So our term limits are not constitutional? They are in a different, term limits are constitutional. They're just in a different portion, which set a limit on the amount of time we have length, not eligibility to stand for election. Okay, so
when we register for an election, we come down here, we go through the cattle
shoot upstairs and we're signing documents and there's one that says I certify that I'm eligible to serve if elected,
why wouldn't the Secretary of State just have the opportunity to verify whether or not you are at that
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:23:56
point? Because as the Constitution has written for eligibility to stand for election, there are two different things that attack almost the
same underlying problem that how you stand for election and then once you've entered into that, if you are still
in good standing are two different things. So let me just get to the point. When I thought about this problem, I thought, well, let's just change the eligibility within the constitutional amendment for standing for election. That's a much higher and tougher bar to clear to add a line to because it would either need to be a joint resolution. We pass out two-thirds of either of our chambers or refer out to the citizens, this is a Band-Aid on a flesh wound, in my opinion, and a flesh wound that could happen in theory, where we get conflict or a party willing to seat someone, even though they've extended beyond, or Secretary of State reading
the strict adherence of the interpretation of the first constitutional amendment. I forget the number off the top of my head or the title of our constitution. This just helps create some small recourse for those that could potentially have damage. Well, this is the problem with
term limits. While they sound good, they deprive the public of their choice of representation. Yeah, it's a messy puzzle.
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:25:06
I'm just trying to make sure we have a piece that follows the long tail of the good work. And, you
know, we reasonably disagree on term limits that just make sure that we can codify those term limits.
Well, I think Senator Clark pointed up a very real concern. House terms are two years, Senate terms are four. if you have two years left you can run for a four-year senate term and so we may be creating confusion when an opponent would claim that somebody running for a senate seat who only has two years of eligibility left shouldn't be there shouldn't be on the top ballot but i understand and i'd
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:25:44
be happy to amend it if you think that adding uh not
as a 30 minutes 30 days following
the certification of election and then every two years if that person is still elected? Well, I think if we currently
had a problem or had seen a problem in this regard, I'd be concerned about amending it and trying to get something done, but at this point, as Senator Clark pointed out, we haven't seen a problem, so.
I understand. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
All right. Thank you, Senator Payton. Senator Dodson, you have a question? Thank you Mr. Chair. So I
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:26:19
got a couple of questions but so what if the Secretary of State
is incorrect or wrong in their certification? They've put a notice out there and now there's a there's a form or a document that then future candidate might have to fight to say no I am eligible but now they're fighting an official document from the Secretary of State or some government uh
mistake that was made you know maybe not intentionally but still mistakes happen
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:26:53
yeah so the question is what would happen yeah um it's great i mean anytime there's a some constitutional officer or a member of our elected official to the state level does something that misinterprets the law it would you know cause damage and then someone would have to find recourse
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:27:08
for that damage so um so are we creating another
hoop that candidates might have to jump through if someone makes a mistake that they don't
have to now. Yes, if you're asking it that narrowly, yes, it would kind of.
And then in your earlier example, you were talking about the process now if somebody is in a race and they say, hey, you're not eligible and it goes to a court and all that kind of stuff. But what if no one else files? Can someone, I was under the same understanding as Senator Payton that, you know, when we go up there and we're signing in to get, hey, I'm eligible to run, and that affidavit is, hey, I'm eligible to run.
I got another term left or a time left or whatever to be able to file. That in and of itself, I think, is enough to say, hey, you're not eligible if somebody brings that up. But if nobody else files for that seat, maybe, I don't know if you know the answer to that, the Secretary of State's office might know, can they still be on the ballot and go forward and continue to serve beyond the term limits right now? Based
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:28:25
on my understanding, unless someone challenges their position on the ballot, then yes.
That's my understanding. So we would be in a, to your point and to Senator Payton's point and Senator Clark's point, an actually much worse place if there isn't that candidate challenge. I also understand, and this is not based on case law in the state of Arkansas, if someone is ineligible to stand and somehow does get placement on a ballot, the only agreed party
would be the elected body or the populace. It would be members of the registered party in a primary or potentially just a registered voter in the district. So those challenges would have to come from them, which I think that's why we have term limits,
is in order to challenge those that shouldn't be eligible or no longer eligible to be in those seats. - Thank you. - Senator
Payton. - Thank you, Mr. Chair. So why is it just the General Assembly and not the constitutional offices? I mean, they are
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:29:18
term limited also, right? - They are, correct. This was just something I thought of for our, as a member of the body, I thought it
would be a, member of one of the two chambers, I thought it would be a good housekeeping measure.
- Well, you made the statement a couple of times that Secretary of State's office was fine with it. I wonder if their position might have changed if it applied to them, but I guess we'll never know. Thank you. We're happy to
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:29:42
have him come down to the table if you'd like, so we do know.
Speaker 349
1:29:53
Is the Secretary of State here? Yeah, I think he left. Yeah.
Thank you. Okay. Are there any questions? All right. Say none. I'm close for the bill. Thank you.
Speaker 95
1:30:02
All right. Representative is close to the bill. What's the will
Speaker 350
1:30:13
of committee? All right. Sorry, Representative. appreciate it guys for lack of emotion
all right um sir tucker or excuse me sir clark well i want a non-controversial bill huh i said like
Speaker 351
1:30:27
a non-controversial bills do you have any of those for
Speaker 350
1:30:35
senator gilmore let's start those senator gilmore bills real quickly
Well, we'll let this committee decide that. Go ahead with yours.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:30:44
What's your bill number? 614. All right. Senator, you're recognized to proceed with Senate Bill 614. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members.
This bill, if this had been brought to my attention
earlier in the session, this would have been an amendment to Senate Bill 227, but Senate Bill 227 was too far along in the legislative process. At the time, this was brought to my attention, so follow the standalone bill. If y'all remember, at the end of the Senate Bill 227, it says that a court may invalidate an action taken as a result of a violation of section 106 of the FOIA subchapter. In a way, Senate Bill 227 is already doing the work
that I hoped it would do because it was clarifying the law for members of the bond community in Arkansas because the ability of a court to invalidate an action that violated FOIA has been the law in Arkansas for 39 years and I think the bond community was blissfully unaware of that law. And now they know that's the law because of Senate Bill 227 and it will be in code. So their concern, which I think is understandable, is if you invalidate a bond issue more than 30 days after the decision was made
and the bond issue is for 10, or pick your number, 15, $20 million, then you're damaging everyone who purchased the bonds. So they brought that issue to my attention. This bill resolves that concern. It says that for the issuance of bonds only, you can only invalidate that decision by the governing body for the first 30 days after that decision was made. After that, one of two things,
if a court finds that the governing body violated FOIA, then one of two things has to happen. Either the governing body cures the violation by having a public meeting, acknowledging the violation, and having a discussion and vote properly at a public meeting of the decision that was made, or they pay the person who brought the lawsuit $10,000. One of those two things will happen. So, you know, the bond folks in the Municipal League first brought this to my attention. I worked with them on this language.
They're good with it. And again, essentially, it's really just an amendment of Senate Bill 227 functionally to accommodate the concern of
the bond community in Arkansas. - All right, members, you've got an explanation of
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:33:30
the bill. Any questions to the committee? Senator Clark. understand it, I
think, understand the need for it. On the other hand, the whole, the complaint I hear time after time about violating open meetings
always involves spending bunches of money. And so it seems like it negates the whole premise of that part of 227, because it's—I know I had a constituent call me and shoot me up one side and down the other because of the other bill, and it was over because he had seen in Nebraska, where he just came from, they came in and voted for a large amount
bonds with no discussion of, which we would all just say that's a problem. And I understand what you're trying to do. Again, if you move forward, which you would, you've gotta do something to keep these people being damaged. But it seems like the two ideas conflict quite a bit. Am I wrong? - No, I don't think you are.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:34:58
I think there are other circumstances where a governing body can make a decision to spend a lot of money other than the issuance
of bonds when there aren't third parties involved like there are with bonds. And 227 would still apply to all of those situations. The other thing, if we wanna get a little philosophical about it, is that if a decision is made in a way that violates FOIA,
the issue is not that a decision wasn't reached. The issue is that a decision was reached outside the public view. And so if I set this section up in a way that would incentivize governing bodies to cure the violation rather than pay a $10,000 fine, they would have to do one of those two things, right? And so if they cure the violation, then hopefully that harm is mitigated
if not removed entirely, because at that point, they are having the full public
discussion about the decision that that governing body had reached, so. - But, you know, Senator Tucker, Some people, when
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:36:16
I talk about two people not being in a meeting, roll their eyes, and
I get it. I understand why they roll their eyes. I'm skeptical myself. And part of the reason I'm skeptical is having been in those meetings, one of the things that I learned before I even knew what FOIA was,
I was elected, didn't know what FOIA was, was I was in a committee meeting in the quorum court, and they called a smoke break, And I'm actually allergic to cigarette smoke. I don't just not smoke. I'm allergic to cigarette smoke. But I went with them anyway, where the rest of the meeting was conducted in that five minutes without the reporter and came back, and I learned to never miss a smoke break again.
So now I'm rolling my eyes, because for a huge bond issue, yeah, we're willing to take a $10,000 hit. I respect that you're trying to put some kind of penalty in there, but I also know how people who are trying to get their way think. I think we all do. So I respect what you're trying to do. I just, in conjunction with the other, I have problems.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:37:42
Okay. Now that's fair. And we've had this discussion on other bills as well. I'm actually meeting with the, it's just because of the nature of where we are in session, right? And so I'm trying to be helpful to the bond community. The only way for this to pass is through the process is if it passes out of committee here today. I haven't had an opportunity yet to meet with the FOIA task force on this because of the time crunch that we're in. I'm set to meet with them at 10 a.m. tomorrow. If it turns out that this is a huge problem for FOIA and I've misread the situation,
then I'll go back to the Municipal League and the bond folks and I'll say,
hey guys, this has not been a problem for you for 39 years. I don't think it'll be
a problem for you moving forward and maybe
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:38:28
I'll pull the bill down at that point. Just let me say that if it's not a problem for the FOIA task
Speaker 357
1:38:35
force, I will be amused. Duly noted. Senator
Payton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do appreciate the fact that we have created a concern within the bonding community.
I'm far too familiar with lending and lending institutions and borrowing money. But usually the lender has reasons to scrutinize the validity of what they're lending money for. So the bonding community could help us police and be oversight here as they protect their interest. They might want to see the meeting's recording and say, before we issue these bonds, or before we buy your bonds,
we want to see the tape of the meeting where it was passed. So they can protect themselves if they are concerned, and I'm glad they're aware, and I'm glad they're concerned for that reason. The problem we have with the $10,000 fine is this is why we have sovereign immunity. The bad actors are not the ones being punished when you enforce a $10,000 fine. The taxpayers are being punished. And so just like Senator Clark said, I mean, you're going to have a $10 million bond issue
and you're going to pay more than $10,000 in fees. So you just say, well, that's $10,000 we're probably just going to have to eat anyway. We're talking about people that want to have backroom secret meetings to get something done because they can't justify what they're doing in public. And that's what we're trying to stop with FOIA and with the meetings, bills that we're passing, stuff like that. If they're willing to do all that, they're willing to pay this $10,000 fine out of somebody else's pocket, the taxpayer.
So I would encourage the bonding community to, if they
need legislation, let's give them the ability to protect themselves, But in doing so, force the entities to meet our standard on their public meeting. Point well taken, Senator Payton. Thank you. Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:40:52
just trying to keep up with all the moving parts here.
So I'm not opposed to what you're doing. but so if the body meets, the quorum court meets, they pass a bond issue or pass the right, and then afterwards find out that there was a secret meeting that went on. And so that vote that was taken is now invalid. Am I right so far? -
Yes, sir. - Okay, and so then there has to be a re-vote?
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:41:25
- So if the violation was discovered less than 30 days after the violation, it could be invalidated. - Okay, so
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:41:31
they invalid, let's assume they invalidate it. - Yeah. - So the quorum court's gonna come back and vote again? - They
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:41:38
could, if they want to, it'd be up to
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:41:41
the quorum court at that point. - So would that not violate the whole idea of having secret meetings? I mean, if you're gonna protect the secret meeting or punish the secret meeting and you have one And it passes, it's no longer secret.
And so if people go ahead and vote the same way, we've really negated the secret meeting penalty. Right, that's
right. But that's the only thing you
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:42:09
can do as a practical matter. And that's, again, as I was saying, when we litigated 227 in here the first time, that's no different than the current law. I mean, the cases that where a court, whether it's a circuit court or the Supreme Court of Arkansas, has invalidated something. It doesn't preclude the governing body from going back and doing the exact same thing again.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:42:29
I understand. I'm just trying to understand. Yes, sir. I just wanted to make sure I understood correctly that chain of events that occurs, that is what it is.
Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Sir Payton. Well, I was just wondering. I would request that
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:42:47
you pull it down or that we table it. You know, I think it would be good to take a vote, just a vote of
the committee. I would move that we do not pass for immediate consideration.
All right, we've got a motion for immediate consideration from Senator Payton. I see a second. A second from Senator Sullivan. Any discussion? Seeing none. All in favor, say aye. Aye.
For immediate consideration. For the bill. Okay. No, no, no. Just for
immediate consideration. The motion is for immediate consideration. and then we'll take the vote on the bill. All right, so I got a motion
Speaker 346
1:43:22
from Senator Payton. I got a second from Senator Sullivan. All in favor
on the motion for... You can't have immediate consideration
until you have a motion on the floor. Thank you. All right, and
Speaker 378
1:43:57
I'll take the main motion for, you know. I will make the motion due pass just for the benefit of Senator Tucker having a vote.
Okay. You're a good senator and even better friend, Senator Clark. All right, we've got a motion due pass by Senator Clark. Do you want to see a second? I'll see a second. I'll see a second by Senator Tucker. Any discussions? See, no discussion. All in favor, say aye. Opposed? No. Sorry, Senator, your bill fails for
Speaker 317
1:44:25
lack of five votes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:44:29
now move to the Gilmore agenda, if you please. The first one is easy. It's a Senate bill, so it needs to get out.
Well, we'll be judged if it's easy or not. Fair enough. This is 516. Is
this Senator Gilmore's bill? Yes, sir. Senate Bill 516. So earlier this session, we passed a bill saying that if you're an appellate court judge, rather than the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals,
then you can put a judge on the ballot if you've been appointed. That change needed to be made in multiple places in the code. It was missed in one place. So this is cleaning up that previous bill to catch the final place where if you've been appointed judge, either to the Supreme Court
or the Court of Appeals, then you can put judge on the ballot when you're running. All right. Members, your
print explanation. Any questions for the committee? I don't know how to answer that. Senator Clark, you're recognized for a question.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:45:36
And I don't realize this is Senator Gilmore's bill, but you're presenting it.
You're aware that there's a bill in House Committee right now? Yes, sir. that says that it doesn't matter what position, because I hate this stuff. Right. And I realize this is just a fix. Yes, sir. Well, we're going to allow this one to do it and so on. And the
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:45:59
other one says carte blanche. I remember your bill. With your indulgence, Mr. Chair, may I ask you, does that
have a distinction between whether you were elected or appointed or is it if you ever served as a judge?
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:46:09
It says if you were ever judged. And it's going to be amended to close
it down a little bit, but it won't be by position. Right. Any judgeship is the same as any other judgeship. Well, belt and suspenders, Senator Clark, and
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:46:27
we'll be giving myself a bit more work to do in code revision to reconcile all of them. Okay. All right. Thank you, Senator Clark.
All right. Any other questions for the committee? All right, see no questions. Don't have anybody in the Senate speak for or against this. Senator Tucker, you're recognized to close. I'm close. I appreciate a good vote. Move, do pass. Got a motion to pass by Senator Tucker. Seconded by Senator Clark. Seeing any discussion on the motion, seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations. Your bill passes.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:47:01
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I see there's other members here. I have two other House bills for Senator Gilmore. One is a Department of Commerce bill, and we have a secretary here. Let's roll. Okay.
I'll invite you up, Mr. Secretary. - This is House Bill 1519. - 1519? -
Yes, sir. - And then we're gonna jump into Senator Penzo, who's
Speaker 343
1:47:24
got some Senate bills. We're gonna let him do this, and I'll get
Hugh Mcdonald
Unverified
1:47:35
to you. I'll get you next. - Mr. McDonald, introduce yourself, who you're with for the record. - Good morning. My name is Hugh McDonald, Secretary of Commerce.
All right, Senator Tucker, you're recognized, proceed
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:47:46
with, what is it, House Bill? 1519, thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'm gonna turn the mic
Hugh Mcdonald
Unverified
1:47:51
over to Secretary McDonald. Thank you, Senator Tucker. This is really a pretty simple bill. It's all about trying to be more efficient within the Department of Commerce, consistent with the Arkansas Forward effort that the governor is working on, but it's effectively enabling or clarifying the fact that the three departments, Securities, banking, and insurance
are able to participate in organizations, shared services organizations, and to the extent allowed by state and federal law. And that's what this bill attempts to do. We've actually had opportunities and implemented some shared services within banking, insurance, and securities since I've been here. So this just clarifies the fact that we can do that.
- All right, members, you've heard an explanation of the bill, question from
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:48:50
the committee, Senator Dotson. - Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'm trying to get to this code section, but you might know the answer. You've added a line on page, what is this, page two? Yeah, page two, line 14, where it
says, except as provided under subdivision,
Speaker 386
1:49:09
F1. What is that exception? - Yes, F1 is...
Hugh Mcdonald
Unverified
1:49:16
Looking for F1 right here. Yeah, here it is. F1 is if the secretary meets all the statutory
requirements for the respective position, the secretary may serve as the interim or acting insurance commissioner, bank commissioner, or securities commissioner. So, and F, yeah, that's F1. It's really
Speaker 389
1:49:39
more of a clarification. - Okay, so, it's redundant.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:49:52
Sorry, I didn't have that code section pulled up. All right, I guess it's
okay. Thank you. All right, thank you, Senator Dodson. Any other questions from
the committee? All right, seeing there are further questions. Do we have anybody sign up to speak for or against this? All right, Senator Tucker, you're recognized to close.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:50:25
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Agency bill to let the Secretary do his job better. No, no, no position. Appreciate a good vote, and I move to pass. All right, got a motion
to pass, Senator Tucker. Seeing a second for Senator Sullivan. Any discussion? Seeing none. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations. Your bill passes. All right. Thank you. If you want to step aside, I want Senator Penzo to come here. Yes, sir. Senator Penzo, you've been patiently waiting. If you'll
introduce yourself and tell us what bill you're going to run.
Patiently is a relative term. Clint
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:50:58
Penzo, Senate District 31. With a little bit of latitude from the chair, can I talk about both these at the same time? It might expedite things. Yeah, go ahead. Okay, both are fluoride bills. What's the bill numbers? Senate Bill 468 and Senate Bill 613. We'll talk about them, then we can obviously separate them back out. So, Senate Bill 468 is pretty much the same language that this committee already passed out.
I ran on the floor, got feedback. If you remember, I think I had 16 votes. There was a lot of feedback coming around the room. I went in and amended a lot of that language to improve it. One thing, if I remember correctly, we had it to where two counties, like if there were three counties, the majority of the counties could vote. And this makes it to where all three counties, if they're supplied by a water system, have to vote in favor of removing fluoride from the water system.
There were some little other tweaks that were made by feedback from county clerks around the state that were emailing me and I just went in and cleaned up the language a little bit. County clerks are still opposed. Delta Dental is still opposed. I think this is a better bill than the other. It's only three pages. It's cleaner, simpler. Like I said, the best bill we had, the cleanest went through public health SB2. That's the cleanest of all. But anyway, then we've got a bill that was
giving to me. I don't have any fingerprints on this one, but Delta Dental is neutral. The county clerks are neutral. That would be 613. That would be the one that I don't like, but everybody else does and it's 14 pages of of so let's stick to like 468 first and okay so so 468 is the one that still has uh objections to it um i think it's better than the other one but it still allows for county votes um and it's a county as the whole not separate separating out
water districts because that gets complicated so if if a water district touches three counties all three counties even if it's just a few water users in that county would have to vote all three counties would have to vote a majority of the population of the county and the argument is not everybody served but if I live in a county and I go to McDonald's or and get a water or a a tea or a coffee in my county it's going to have fluoride in the water so it's it's covering your
county so that's how i look at it so it provides a local control at the county level the other one actually isolates it down to the actual water district users so i just wanted to bring options to you i told them last week at the table i
wasn't going to run it until i had both of them that i I could present both to you. I would like for both of them to be passed to bring them to the floor and let the
body decide. We can, we can, if you, if you want to. Let's try to stick to one bill at
a time. Okay. Yep. So Senate bill 468 is the one you already passed and I cleaned it up, made it
better. Okay. So 468 is the one that's simply ballot access for the voters to sign a petition and get it on
a ballot? That's correct. Okay. Any questions from the committee? Question.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:54:47
Senator Sullivan. How does it affect these people whose water districts cross over to other states?
Many may be getting their water from Texas
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:54:55
or they got brought up on the floor. I forgot about
that. I remember Senator Hickey brought that up. There's already like an agreement like there is for everything in Texarkana. I believe they get their water from Texas, and it's the way their little agreement is written, I believe it says that the lesser of the restrictions is what they go by between Texarkana, Texas, and Texarkana, Arkansas. Texas does not fluoridate the water in that water system, so Texarkana
is exempt from fluoridated water.
They don't have fluoridated water in Texarkana. Everybody else is mandated except Texarkana. Hickey will be okay. Hickey should
be okay. This will not affect Texarka's prediction. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Southerman. Senator Tucker?
You're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm just a
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:55:48
bit confused. Is this a different bill number than the one you ran on the floor?
Speaker 404
1:55:53
It is because I'm kind of the person that likes to leave options open. That bill is still sitting on the Senate floor waiting just in case.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:56:01
Okay. The reason I was confused is because I don't see any italicized language in this bill and so when you when you cleaned it up you just cleaned it up
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:56:11
before you filed this the first time instead of filing an amendment i just filed a new bill that way i still had an option sitting in the senate okay so you
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:56:20
you said this i just want to make sure i've got it crystal clear under the version that was on the floor like you take sebastian county for i'm just going to make up a hypothetical but senator boyd asked you about this on the floor so you got sebastian
County, which is a highly populated county, and then take two neighboring counties, say Franklin County and Crawford County, Sebastian County votes 90% in favor of fluoridation. Okay. And the version of the bill on the floor. And then two smaller population counties, both vote 51% against fluoridation, right? Under that version of the bill, fluoridation would be out for Sebastian County, even though overall a minority of the population voted for because it was two out of three counties. correct but under this version of the bill and that same hypothetical all three counties in the
that the water system serves will have to approve no fluoridation by 50.1 percent or a majority
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:57:16
that that's right yeah so we didn't want two two counties dictating the policy of another county and that's actually something i probably should have cleaned up before i brought it to you last time uh somebody brought it up to me and i forgot
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:57:29
to make that amendment okay so even so looking at it a different way. If in that same three county region, obviously Sebastian and Crawford
are higher population than Franklin County. If they both vote against fluoridation by 90%, if Franklin votes for fluoridation by 50.1%, the water's still
fluoridated. - Water's still fluoridated because the mandate's still the controlling.
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:57:51
- Yeah, all right, thank you. - Senator Dotson, did you have a question? - Okay, any
other questions? Does anybody here speak for or against it?
All right, we have a couple signed up to speak against it. So Laura Wiles, if you
would introduce yourself, stay to your width and you'll be recognized. Laura Wiles, Faulkner
Speaker 414
1:58:36
County Election Coordinator. Please pull that microphone close to you.
Is that better? Thank you. The clerks have worked with Senator Penzo on drafting language that would address the concerns with this bill, SB 468. And we are neutral on SB 613, which addresses the concerns I'm about to present. The bill states an election can be called by petition with 5% of the total numbers of votes cast for county clerk. The office of county clerk is not required to be on the ballot if unopposed, so we do not count votes cast for an unopposed county clerk.
5% is also lower than any other threshold for petitions that I could find in current law. On page 1, lines 33 to 34 states we would look at the votes cast in the last election. This should be changed to the last preceding general election. Adding this wording would make it consistent with other sections of law and is necessary because we would not have votes cast for an unopposed candidate in a primary election. It is unclear how a quorum court would call an election, whether by ordinance or resolution.
The petition would be filed with the county clerk where the sponsor of the petition resides. I'm unaware of any other petitions filed based on the petitioner's residence. the petition should be filed in the county where the water system is domiciled. The bill would also allow any registered voter in the county to vote in the election, even if they are not members of the water system. In any other elections we hold, the voter must reside in the specific district, zone, city, etc. to be eligible to vote. So, for example, if the city of Conway has an election for a sales tax,
voters in the county cannot vote in that election even though they shop and do their business in Conway. Only voters who reside in the city limits of Conway can vote in that election. The bill does not specify who will be responsible for paying for the election. Even when held with a general election, there is a cost to each question that is placed on the ballot. We bill schools and cities for their part of an election, even when it is held with the general or the primary. Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions from the committee?
Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. thank you Lindsey French
signed up speak against if you'll come take a seat introduce yourself state who
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
2:01:14
you're with and you'll be recognized Lindsey French Association of Arkansas counties I could not put any of that more eloquently than Miss Wiles just did so I will second all of that and I I will thank Senator Penzo for bringing SB 613, which the clerks are neutral on.
Thank you. Anybody have a question for
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:01:36
Ms. French? I think so. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, yes. So Section 2 of
the bill, it authorizes the board of the public water system to prohibit fluoridation. So even if the public hasn't voted, if the board says, hey, we ain't
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:01:57
fluoridating this water anymore, then it's out. Yeah, I allowed another mechanism for fluoride removal.
All right. Yeah. I'm sorry. Could you move that microphone closer and restate your question? I think I might be interested
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:02:16
in hearing that. The bill in Section 2, the way I read it, authorizes the board of a public. Right now it's state law for all water to be fluoridated, correct? That is correct. So this would be a significant change in state law because it would authorize just the board of any individual water system out there
to remove the fluoride from the water in their system without input from the public. So actually we would
not have to have a petition and spend the money on the election? If the board
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:02:46
made that decision on their own, then yes. Thank
you. Sorry, I just couldn't hear you the first time.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:02:51
My follow-up question for you, Senator Penzo, is let's say a board made that decision to remove the fluoride from the water. Do the members of the public that that water system serves then have the ability to petition to put it back in?
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:03:07
Yes. Yeah, there's language. I'll have to find it, but it said that the voice of the people supersedes the
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:03:15
board. - Well, that's in the lines right below, the results of an election supersede. - Yeah. - And that's fine. - Yeah, so they
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:03:24
can petition to keep fluoride and water if they choose. I wanted the people's voice to supersede the board if the board wasn't doing what the people wanted.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:03:40
- Okay, so the petition process to put that question on the ballot functions the same, whether it's to remove fluoride from the water
or to put fluoride back in the water. - That's correct. - Okay, all right, thank you. -
Thank you. - Thank you, any other questions? Senator Penzo, that was all we had signed up, right? - Yeah.
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:04:04
- Would you like to close for your bill? - I would and I will point out a typo. It was mentioned about the county clerk that that was originally county judge.
was supposed to be changed to circuit clerk and it it was you know just one word was changed instead of both so it says county clerk there on page 2 line 20 so I don't know if if
y'all would accept a verbal amendment to change that to do I have a motion to suspend the rules and
consider a verbal amendment Motion by Senator Clark. Yes, we are on 468.
What's the page and line number?
Page two. Right now we need to make a motion to suspend the rules then we can consider an amendment. I need to
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:04:55
know what the amendments gonna be before I know whether I vote. Page
two, line 20. Last three words would say circuit clerk instead of county clerk. Okay, I'll second the motion. Okay, so I have a motion and a second to suspend the rules, to amend this verbally. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion
carries. Okay, you want to state the amendment that you all get
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:05:23
agreed to here on the amendment? Yeah, just changing the word county in front of clerk to circuit. No. County to circuit. - I'll move for
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:05:36
Senator Penzo for a verbal amendment of the bill to delete, so page two, line 20, delete the word county and replace it with word
circuit. - Okay, so we have a motion to verbally amend
Senate Bill 468, page two, line 20, to
say circuit clerk instead of county clerk. I have a motion and a second
by Dotson. All in favor say aye. - Aye. - Any opposed? Okay, so we have adopted the amendment. You can now close for your bill as amended. - I
Speaker 430
2:06:10
have one more question, Senator Payton. - Okay, Senator Tucker would like to ask you a question. - So I was
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:06:16
quickly trying to read through, I'm following up on my last question
about the election process being the same, either to remove fluoride from the water or put it back in. If on page two at the bottom line 33, subsection E, it says if the majority of the qualified electors in each of the counties supplied by the public water system elect to prohibit fluoridation of water. The public water system shall cease fluoridation of the water within 30 days, but there's not a corresponding subsection that says if the majority of the qualified electors in each of the counties supplied by the public water system elect to fluoridate the water,
the public water system shall fluoridate the water within 30 days of the certification
of the election results. And if we're doing it the same for both ways, then that subsection ought
to be in there. - I don't think we can do that amendment in here. Plus, I would have concerns as to whether 30 days would be enough to put equipment in and up-fit a system that's never been fluoridated to become fluoridated. -
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:07:18
I agree. - Yeah, there are water districts
that are currently not complying, so they don't have fluoridation systems, but anyway. So I don't think we can consider another amendment
of that type. I'm not proposing it. I'm
Speaker 430
2:07:30
just, that's a problem I have with the bill. Okay, well, if you're closed, we'll move to discussion. Yep,
I'm closed. Okay, do I have a, what's the will of the committee?
I have a motion do pass as amended. Senator Dodson, second by Senator Clark. Now discussion. Senator Tucker.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:07:51
I'll just, I know this has been litigated. I'm just going to make two points. One
is the point I was just making. It's a significant change to Arkansas law to authorize the board of a public water system to prohibit fluoride in the water. I mean, you could really be invalidating the will of the people with that decision by people who are not elected. I don't even know how those people get appointed to those boards. So, I mean, we're giving those people the authority to make a huge decision for the people they serve. And that decision should be made
by either themselves in a direct election or by the people that are elected to represent them. So that's one thing. The other thing I'll say, this is something that has not been brought up, but I'm just gonna mention it. I'll be quick, but it's a little philosophical. And that is, we live in a polarized society. And I think that's bad for us. I think it's good for me to be down here with Senator Sullivan and Senator Clark. I learned from them. I won't speak for them, but I think it's good for me to be down here with people who have different opinions than I do.
And if we have one place in Arkansas that votes to remove fluoride from their water, then a certain kind of people are going to move there and another certain kind of people are going to move away from there. And I just think it will lead to greater polarization of our society. And I just think that's bad for us as a country. So that's another
concern I have with this whole proposal. So anyway,
I'll be voting no. Thank you. And I'm going to join in the discussion. I really appreciate your perspective on nearly everything.
And I do not know how every water board is elected or appointed in the state, but I do know that they sit on a board that controls the water system for community, and it's a high responsibility. And they're already making those decisions that may not be pertaining to fluoride. But what I really want to point out is that we have water districts in the state where the boards have decided not to floridate and they are paying the fine.
So those members have already made that decision contrary to Arkansas law and paying the fine. So we're not creating a new landscape if a board has the authority, if that makes any sense. Senator
Clark, you're recognized for discussion. I also do not
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:10:16
know, I know some are elected. I don't know that all are elected. I do know that all, because of a law I passed, that they all have to have training, or I should say a majority have to have training,
but that's really leading to all having training, and, of course, fluoridization could be adapted if it's not already in there, and I think it is. But I would
ask, when you say, don't know if these people should be making the decision,
who's making the decision now? It's not them, it's not the people, and something that allows somebody else other than top-down, I think is good.
Anybody else want to join in? Senator Tucker, you're recognized again for discussion. I'll
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:11:10
be brief, and I also want to say for Senator Penzo, 468, I'm still opposed, but it's in a lot better shape than that bill that was on the floor a couple weeks ago. So thank you for that. But I hear what y'all are saying. Senator Payton and Senator Clark, I hear what y'all are saying, but the way the bill is structured, as I was pointing out, is all slanted in one way. So in the water districts where they've made the decision to not fluoridate the water and pay the fine,
if the purpose of this bill is really to empower the vote of the people, then those people ought to be able to elect to put fluoride back in their water as much as another water systems people ought to be able to elect to remove the fluoride from their water. And the bill's not structured in that way. So I think that's another reason not to vote for
Speaker 260
2:12:01
it. Thank you. Senator Clark. Senator Tucker, I
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:12:05
think the main reason that's not there is because there is no move anywhere in the state to fluoridate.
I mean, technically, philosophically, yes. But I don't think it's a barrier that this bill should have to pass because there's nobody wanting to do that. If there was, I'd be right there with you. But I haven't found those people yet. All right, what's the will of the committee? Oh, we already have the motion, say
it. That was discussion, correct? All right, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations. Your bill carries. Thank you, committee.
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:12:42
And we'll make 613 real quick here. it's going to be real quick yeah I do I do want to say though I will have a bill on the floor today that increases Medicaid coverage for children that will
include topical fluoridation so if we remove fluoride from our water system it'll save the ratepayers in Arkansas over ten million dollars a year that's a very conservative estimate on what we're spending on fluoride so removing
fluoride will will save our constituents a significant amount of money and then but
it like said I also wanted to make topical fluoridation available to the Medicaid population that
did whose parents do want to fluoridate their children's teeth. 99.5% of the water does not go over somebody's teeth it goes to water grass it goes to agriculture industry there's a lot of waste in this And most of that $10 million literally goes down the drain.
613, I'm not a fan. I would like to ask you all to still vote for it. I told them I would try to get both bills to the floor so I could give the full body an option to vote. We don't know what's going to happen in the House. I just want to make sure one of these bills gets across the finish line. So with that, I'll close on the neutral. Thank you. - I have
a motion. Hold it, Senator King, do you have a question? - I
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
2:14:12
just have a question, wouldn't it be easier for everybody instead of this convoluted,
complicated way to try to address this, just to let everybody vote on the SB2? And that wouldn't be the,
Speaker 439
2:14:23
that would be the easiest. - That would be the cleanest way to do it,
but yeah. - I have a motion from Senator Clark, do pass. I have a second, Senator Dotson. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Ayes have it. Congratulations. 613, is that the number? Yes. Yeah, 613. Thank you, committee.
All right, Senator Hester. I think he's got a used car sales tax relief
Chair
Unverified
2:15:07
bill. Senate Bill 578. I continue to receive feedback
on that. Senator Hester, you recognize to present Set Bill 578.
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
2:15:15
Members, this is a simple bill. It's agreed on between me and the Association of Counties.
And just like an example of what happened last night, I mean, if there's an emergency, a tornado, inclement weather of some sort, Well, this is specifically about inclement weather, the election commission can vote unanimously to restrict early voting sites to the county seat that day. We know that they're all over the place, but there's a massive ice storm or something. And we know that these election commissions, they're bipartisan. And if they vote unanimously for that day to restrict early voting sites, they can't shut them all down.
You always got to keep the county seat open. but that's as simple as it is. It gives them the authority to do that under unanimous decision. Thank you. Any questions from the committee? I don't see anybody signed
up to speak for or against. You want to close? I'm closed. Okay.
I have a motion from Senator Dotson do pass. I have a second. Senator Clark. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor say aye.
Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations. You passed Senate Bill 578. Members, we're going to have to call it quits for today. How long is your bill going to take? - I hope it doesn't take long. -
What number is it? - House Bill 1243. - House Bill 1243. Come on up, you'll be recognized.
Speaker 348
2:17:00
I'm Ken Underwood, State Representative, District 16. Go ahead, present your bill. And I had
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:17:19
an amendment on the bill that was signed earlier. I don't know if you guys need to make a motion to adopt that. I can explain the amendment if you'd like. Do we have an amendment for this bill?
Unknown speaker
2:17:30
House Bill 1243. That's all right. She'll be passing out the amendment. Somebody else is going to have to chair. Yeah.
Okay, has everybody got the amendment now? You want to explain
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:18:11
the amendment, please? Absolutely. So initially, what the bill does essentially is it increases, it's a transparency bill that increases filing reports, campaign finance reports for county and municipal races. The reason for the amendment is there was some changes in legislation as I was running this bill. So Representative Collins had a bill that changed the last reporting date, and that bill has already became law,
so I've changed this bill to also be consistent with that. Representative Hawks had a bill that I think you guys recently passed, or at least is on the floor over here, that changed the reporting to the Secretary of State's office from county clerks. So that's another change that's being made in this amendment. And then the last amendment was just an error that I missed. I had missed a section. Initially, my bill required that county and municipal races file on the same reporting schedule that we have to file on. I have now changed
this bill to where it does not do that, which I'll explain what this bill does in a moment, but I missed a section and so
I'm removing that section to make it consistent. Thank You Representative Underwood. Any questions for Representative Underwood?
this is only amendment do I have a motion to I have a motion to adopt the amendment there's have a motion Senator Clark second by Senator Sullivan to adopt the amendment any discussion all in favor say aye any opposed okay the amendment is adopted so let's consider House Bill 1243 as amended if you could present the bill
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:19:58
thank you committee I'll try to keep this brief so last election cycle, I realized that if you're running for a city race, if you're running
for mayor of a first class city and the job could pay over $150,000, you don't have to file any campaign finance reports until like a week before the election. And then you have to file a campaign finance report after the election. So literally nobody knows how much money you have, what you're spending money on, who's funding your campaign. And so, you know, obviously we have to file reports during an election cycle. We have to file a report monthly, and then when we're not in an election cycle, we're filing them quarterly. So initially
what my bill did was put them on the same reporting schedule that we were on. After talking to other members and association counties, municipal league, and I agreed, I think it was kind of overburdensome to make them do that when a lot of these city races are not raising that much money. So what this basically does is says, if you don't raise over $500, then you don't have to file a report, which is what they already do. If you do raise over $500, then you have to file a report before the election, and then you have to file a report after the election, which is what they already do.
But the initial, the new element is, if you raise or spend over $5,000, then you now move to a monthly reporting system in election years. And then when you're in non-election years, you just have to file an annual report. So that way we know if you've been raising money for your next campaign. I think this just increases the reporting either way. It's, I think, good transparency. And, you know, finally, again, I think Municipal League and Association of Counties, they were good with the bill after I made those changes.
I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you, Representative. Any questions from the
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
2:21:51
committee? Senator Sullivan? Do we know how many people this affects? How big was the problem before? I mean, my
point is we've been changing these election laws, and my accountant's going crazy trying to keep up with what he files and what he files and how often he has to file, and now we're changing it again. So is this a big issue, a small issue? Or is it just we're trying to get more transparent without knowing?
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:22:14
Well, I guess to answer your question, and this is only affecting the municipal and county races, I don't know how big of a problem it is. You know, I couldn't give you a direct answer, I guess, on that. But what I would say is I've seen a direct problem because there was a race in Northwest Arkansas and there was a little bit of dispute about who was funding the campaign and nobody knew how much, who had been funding anything. In fact, there was mailers that went out that was making allegations about who was funding the campaign that were totally inaccurate, but nobody knew. It was just shots in the dark because there was no campaign finance report until a week before the election.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
2:22:45
Okay, so we don't know. And you're asking somebody from northeast Arkansas to solve your problems in northwest Arkansas? No. Well, I think
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:22:51
this would solve a problem across the state if you hit that $5,000 trigger. So, you know, obviously, I think if you're raising or spending $5,000 or more, you should be running a pretty professional campaign, and so you should have the ability to file campaign financial reports. If you fall under that threshold, you're not going to have very much reporting requirements. Thank you.
Members of the committee could help me. I don't know if I dreamed it or what, but didn't we just consider a bill in the last few days that changed this reporting for local candidates to the Secretary of State's office?
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:23:26
May I address that question, Senator? Yeah. Yes, you're right. So that was what my amendment did. So Representative Hock had a bill that changed this from county clerks to the Secretary of State's office. I intentionally held, because I knew he was running that bill, I intentionally held this bill back because I didn't know what the resolution was going to be on his bill. And his bill, I think, passed your guys' committee maybe just a few
days ago. Maybe it's on the Senate floor. So your amendment cleaned that up? Yes, sir. Okay, that's what I wanted. Senator Tucker?
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:23:57
Election Commission have any thought or comment on this? I don't think I've heard from them, to be honest with you. I see Mr. Sloan sitting there. You
got any thoughts on this, Mr. Sloan? Okay, just checking. Thanks. Any other questions? We don't have anybody signed up to speak for or against it. You want to close for your bill? I appreciate your time and I'm closing my bill. Okay. What's will the committee? I have a motion do pass as amended.
Senator Dotson, a second by Senator Tucker. Discussion on the motion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Congratulations. You've passed your bill as amended. Thank you, committee, and thank you for your patience. All right, members, we've got to clean up something on Penzo's fluoride bill. That first one where we did the verbal amendment, there were two places where it said county clerk instead of circuit clerk. So I think we have an amendment now,
a formal amendment that's prepared, but we first have to expunge a couple of votes.
Speaker 406
2:24:59
Move to expunge the vote by which the bill passed. Exactly. Do what? Right. So
we're expunging the vote by which the bill passed or got to do pass recommendation as amended. All in favor say aye. - Aye. - Any opposed? Okay, now we're probably going to need to... - Move to expunge the vote. - The verbal amendment was adopted. -
Speaker 462
2:25:20
Move to expunge the vote by which the amendment
was adopted. - Okay, so we have a motion and a second that we expunge the vote by which the verbal amendment was adopted.
All in favor say aye. - Aye. - Any opposed? Motion carries. So now we need to adopt the formal amendment. If we don't have formal, it'll have
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:25:39
to be a new verbal, but it'll be an
altered verbal. Oh, I thought they were sending it over. Well, it's coming, so I'll sign it when it gets here, but we probably
Speaker 468
2:25:52
need to do a verbal right now so we can... We'll just motion to adopt the amendment that's coming in
terms of this county circuit two places. I have a motion to adopt the amendment when it gets here that changes it in two places, from county clerk to circuit clerk.
Speaker 288
2:26:08
Do you know the other page in line number? Clint, do you know the other page in line number? Okay, so it is
Speaker 17
2:26:17
here or is it here? I pulled my motion. Motion to withdraw
the verbal amendment. Is withdrawn. So you're changing your motion? Yes. Okay. So we have a new verbal, well,
Speaker 152
2:26:29
we have to suspend the rules. We don't have to
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:26:35
suspend the rule to do that? Is it page 1, line 33?
I'll have to ask her. Okay, so we're going to consider this a technical amendment to change county clerk to circuit
clerk. I've got the page and line numbers. Page 2, line 20, what's the other one? Page
Speaker 351
2:26:56
1, line 33. Page 1, line 33. That's my motion. Okay, I have
a motion. Senator Clark second. Senator Dotson. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor, say aye. Aye.
Any opposed? Okay, the amendment's adopted. So now we need to, are you closed for your bill? I'm closed.
Speaker 260
2:27:18
What's the will of the committee on Senate? I move do pass on the bill as amended. So I have
a motion do pass as amended. I have a second. Senator Dotson, any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations. You've passed it as amended. the third time, second time, 10th time.
What was the other one we had to
do? Dotson, hurry. Senator Dotson, you're recognized for Senate Bill 6.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:27:54
House Bill 1604. House Bill 1604. This is by Senator Hester. No, Representative McClendon. Senator Hester,
hand it to me. Senator Johnson is the Senate sponsor. Yep, Senator Johnson is the Senate sponsor, Senator Blake Johnson.
This is promotional, prohibiting the use of public funds by state agencies to purchase promotional items, things like bumper stickers, closing keychains, mugs, pen, or papers from China. It's a prohibition on promotional items made in China. No public funds.
Okay, we've run out of time. We're going to have to take
this up at the next meeting. I think they informed me we're having a meeting this
afternoon. 15 minutes upon adjournment this afternoon. We're adjourned.
Agenda
CALL TO ORDER - Senator Scott Flippo
SB439 Irvin TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND LICENSING; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF ARKANSAS CODE WHICH RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1914.
SB468 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING FLUORIDATION OF A PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM; AND TO ALLOWS VOTERS TO ELECT "FOR" OR "AGAINST" WATER FLUORIDATION IN THE COUNTY.
HB1694 Hawk TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES TO ELECTRONIC FILING FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS.
HB1604 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED CONTRACTS BY STATE AGENCIES; AND TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS BY STATE AGENCIES TO PURCHASE PROMOTIONAL ITEMS MADE IN CHINA.
SB516 Gilmore TO ALLOW A PERSON FILING AS A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OR JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS WHO IS AN APPOINTEE IN THAT POSITION TO USE PREFIX WHEN FILING AS A CANDIDATE. THE TITLE OF THAT POSITION AS A PREFIX WHEN FILING AS A CANDIDATE.
HB1713 Rose TO REQUIRE BALLOT TITLES FOR INITIATED MEASURES TO BE AT OR UNDER A CERTAIN READING LEVEL; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1243 Underwood TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES; TO AMEND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTING AND PROTECT ELECTION INTEGRITY; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996.
RECESS
HB1519 Cavenaugh TO ALLOW THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HIRING AND CONTRACTING OF EMPLOYEES FOR THE STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, STATE BANK DEPARTMENT, AND STATE SECURITIES DEPARTMENT.
HB1803 Joey Carr TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE PLACEMENT OF A MONUMENT ON THE STATE CAPITOL GROUNDS IN RECOGNITION AND HONOR OF MAURICE LEE “FOOTSIE” BRITT.
SB565 Flippo TO ALLOW PROCUREMENT CERTIFICATIONS TO BE COMBINED; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE REPRESENTATION IN STATE CONTRACTS REGARDING CONTINGENT FEES; AND TO AMEND THE COOPERATIVE PURCHASING REPORTING DEADLINE.
SB578 Hester TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EARLY VOTING; AND TO ALLOW A COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS TO CLOSE CERTAIN EARLY VOTING LOCATIONS DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER.
HB1470 Beaty Jr. TO REPEAL THE LAW CONCERNING THE REVIEW OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PLANS.
HB1740 K. Moore TO EXEMPT CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION FROM THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967.
HB1842 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE OFFICE OF CRIMINAL DETENTION FACILITIES REVIEW COORDINATOR; AND TO PLACE THE OFFICE WITHIN THE ARKANSAS COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT STANDARDS AND TRAINING WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY.
HB1843 Tosh CONCERNING RECORDS AND PHOTOGRAPHS KEPT BY THE STATE CRIME LABORATORY.
HB1873 B. McKenzie CONCERNING NOTIFICATION TO PERSONS ELECTED TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE YEARS OF SERVICE REMAINING BEFORE REACHING THE LIMITATION ON SERVICE UNDER THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION.
SB613 C. Penzo TO CREATE AN ELECTION PROCEDURE TO DETERMINE FLUORIDATION OF A PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM.
SB614 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS-SENATE, Apr 3, 2025 | Agenda | 4 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Scott Flippo Chair
Unverified
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 9
Speaker 17
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Senator John Payton Chair
Unverified
Speaker 30
Speaker 38
Speaker 39
Speaker 42
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
Speaker 20
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
Speaker 71
Speaker 74
Speaker 80
Speaker 83
Speaker 97
Speaker 103
Speaker 109
Mike Hager
Unverified
Speaker 124
Speaker 45
Speaker 149
Speaker 152
Speaker 155
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 158
Speaker 160
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
Speaker 178
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 188
Speaker 202
Speaker 211
Speaker 215
Gail Choate
Unverified
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Kristen Stewart
Unverified
Speaker 260
Hugh Mcdonald
Unverified
Speaker 263
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 270
Speaker 284
Speaker 269
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
Speaker 301
Speaker 306
Speaker 308
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
Speaker 349
Speaker 95
Speaker 350
Speaker 351
Speaker 357
Speaker 346
Speaker 378
Speaker 317
Speaker 343
Speaker 386
Speaker 389
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
Speaker 404
Speaker 414
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
Speaker 430
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
Speaker 439
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
Speaker 348
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
Speaker 406
Speaker 462
Speaker 468
Speaker 288