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
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
0:12
For, uh, House Bill 1803 is to add a shoulder and head bust just like we have with Lieutenant Governor Wynn Rockefeller. I have gone through with the Secretary of State's office. This was initiated by Congressman French Hill's office. Maurice Futsi Britt. He, uh, born in Lone Oak. He drafted by the Detroit Lions, went into the military through the ROTC program at the UFA. 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 4 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 a 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 Wynn Rockefeller, and so it will be, it will be similar to that in place in the adjacent quarter. And I would entertain any questions at this time you've heard
an explanation of the bill already questions from members of the committee. Motion at the proper time.
Chair
Unverified
1:33
All right, see, no questions. Do we have anybody? We don't
have to sign up for or against this. Representative of you has closed prebuild. I'm closed, and I
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:44
appreciate the motion to pass and appreciate a good vote. Thank you, sir. All right, I
got a motion to pass from Senator Payton, a second from Senator Sullivan in discussion, say none. All in favor say aye, aye opposed. Congratulations. Your bill passes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. Representative Hawk, you want to
Speaker 9
1:55
come up here and Hm Which bill are you running? Alright,
members, House Bill 1694. I just make sure you make sure your colleagues on the end of the building know that we're taking House bills before Senate
bills over here in the Senate. That's the kind of courtesy and respect we
Speaker 17
2:19
show we'll do the same, uh, how I'm. varsity oh yeah. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought that was on House
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:29
Bill 1694 Representative RJ Hawk, District 81, um, committee, this is a pretty easy bill. I think it, it
passed unanimously out of the house. Um, 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 5 people that, that file their election reports via paper. Um, of those 51 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, uh, and it's a manpower thing at the end of the day. They've got girls down there because when they get
those those paper um 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 explanations, Senator Peyton, you
were recognized for a question. Um, 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, so, um, Senator Kroll ran this, he ran this bill, and he said that he didn't have all the facts and
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:42
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 what I was talking about was 1707 that we
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
4:09
passed earlier. Uh, 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 5 in state government, and it's not that big of an issue, but now that 1707 was was passed by this committee and onto the Senate floor. If we start having elected
Speaker 30
4:34
officials across the state that do paper, it will really be a burden on the SOS. Well, and
and so here's my situation. I, I got elected in sworn in in 2013. I have filed all my reports
electronically with the exception of 2 or 3. 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. December, 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, they said fax it, and I said, well, I've been trying to fax it, your fax machine's 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 to allow for that? There's not,
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
6:03
would you mind if I bring somebody from the Secretary of State's office up here to help answer that. All right, Phil.
Recognize yourself and or introduce yourself right here you're with and recognized procedure testimony. Thank you
Speaker 38
6:28
committee Josh Bridges, Assistant Director of elections for
Speaker 39
6:30
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 interests. It only changes how the campaign contribution and expenditure reports are filed. Correct, but I mean the,
the same thing can happen with the financial report with the campaign finance reports. I mean,
I, I run computers at all my businesses, you know, we have 2 auto auctions that are on the 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, 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. Yes, sir, and I don't
Speaker 42
7:34
know that there is necessarily an exception in the bill, um, for any kind of a backup. Um, 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 the mid
Speaker 39
7:49
to late 2010s, uh, it's much better, more robust, and way more dependable than what we had previous. OK, thank you.
Alright, Senator Sullivan, you're good with your question. Do you have one, OK. Um, any questions from more of a comment, I
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
8:06
would suggest because it did go down last time. That was the reason, and I've had that happen and 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 it. Pass that door. Thank you. Can I, can
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
8:23
I make, uh, and I, I want to get collaboration from the committee. Could we put
something, make an amendment to like probably get a rule for Secretary of State to be able to have that provision in there, or would you want it specifically outlined, um, on, on some type of like outlining the bill with a promulgation of rules, would that suffice in this, or I just, I'm kind of getting some feedback from you guys on what that might look like. Well, just for me personally, I, I'm gonna
want to see. What the provision is. OK, Sarah Dodson, organized.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
9:00
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I agree with them that we probably need it outlined in the, in the actual bill,
um. And I would suggest if you're wanting to just ensure that they're using the system, which is completely fine. Um, doing something along the lines of saying that there can be a temporary, you know, if it's, if it, if they email or fax, so many people don't have fax machines, but as long as they can email it in to uh 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. OK, 37 days or whatever it is that you want to put in the bill, but within a time frame, so it's still going into their electronic reporting system, but there is an alternative there for people who get caught by that. Down system which happens. I completely understand if you don't mind, Mr. Chair, I'll pull
Chair
Unverified
10:01
the bill down and oh yep, Senator Payton. So I mean, it's not always
the Secretary of State system that is the problem. It may be the candidates. System. That's the problem. So as you as you make allowance for this, you need to be considering that. Thank you. OK. Well, if you don't mind, I'll pull the bill down, we'll we'll amend it real fast
Speaker 20
10:18
and bring it back to you guys. Thank you. Alright. So your cell phone, you get a Senate bill. OK. Sarah Crow.
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
10:32
What are you going to run? Get a house bill. 17. OK 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 the record.
Speaker 71
11:04
Patrick Fisk, Department of Agriculture, director of livestock and poultry. All
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
11:09
right, I'm going to keep this as simple as possible. Uh, right now, animals get ear tag in
them, uh, 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 for foable because you know they take these show animals across the states and everything. And if you foy that, you know this information of
these children, you know, these, I mean, the $100,000 animals. Um, it's just simply a protection. For them All right, members, you've heard an explanation of the bill.
Speaker 74
11:44
Any questions from the committee. All right. See none, 3 by 4
against this. All right, don't have 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 to be passed by Senator Payton,
seconded by Senator Dodson. Any discussion on the motion, say none. All in favor say aye. proposed. Congratulations your bill passes. And then. All right, I'm gonna run. Senator Peyton, if you're gonna take the chair real fast,
I'm gonna run Senate Bill 565, and I 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, Senator Scott Flippo, District 23. Rebecca Haley, University
Speaker 80
12:55
of Arkansas at Fayetteville. Alright, 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 for criminal laws that require state agencies, higher ed institutions that, you know,
have certain contracts that kick in a 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, compile that into one report, and Rebecca, I will let you kind
Speaker 83
13:25
of give them more. That actually was perfect. It explains that there's 7 different certifications. What this would do
Speaker 80
13:31
would be one universal certification for all 7, 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 counsel. 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 Dodson, you're recognized for a question.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
13:55
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is a great idea. The only question I have is the very last line in the bill that says $75,000. That's a threshold, um, so.
Does that change any of the underlying thresholds for the
reporting requirement. No, sir, it's already in statute. Those are for all of those all of those 7. OK, thank you. Thank you sir. Any other questions from the committee? Senator Flippo, you want clothes for your bill? I push my bill and make a motion to pass. I have a motion and a second, Senator Sullivan, all in favor say aye. Any opposed? Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. OK.
I want to I skipped over this this morning. I want to recognize our Senate pages, um, y'all 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 Cason Smith, PA, Senator Tucker, welcome. We're happy to have you all here. All right, um.
Senator Johnson, Representative Rose, we're gonna 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 let
Speaker 97
15:31
you, uh, you just tell us where you're going
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
15:44
to start. Thank you committee. Senator Dan Sullivan, District 20, Representative Taj has a couple
of bills on your second page. I think it's 14. 80 1842184242 in 1843 1842 1st
Speaker 103
15:58
and then we'll run 1843, 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, and then you guys will be recognized proceed. Yes, sir, I'm Mike Hager. I'm Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Director of
Speaker 109
16:20
State Police. All right, Senator, you recognize to proceed with the House
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
16:23
bill the gentleman farm rent. That's all right. That is just fine. I think I can
Mike Hager
Unverified
16:29
address both bills, but we do have someone here from the commission on Law Enforcement standards. If you have any specific questions? OK, do this. So the commission on law enforcement standards bill is basically taking the the jail inspection officer of the jail standards officer. Right now he's kind of generic. ically 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 EPS. It's just assigning him to a division. Alright, members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Senator Payton, you were recognized
Chair
Unverified
17:08
for a question. Thank you. So this affects one person. Is it affecting their pay grade? No, sir.
Speaker 109
17:13
There's no impact on you that it's one person and I believe it's staff that he has with him. Thank you.
You know questions for the committee. All right, so you know for the questions, I don't see anybody sign up to speak for or against
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
17:30
this. So I sure you recognize close. Thank you, Chair. I'm closed. I make a motion to pass. All right, got a
motion to pass and by Senator Sullivan, seconded by Senator Payton. The discussion on the motion saying none. All in favor say aye, aye. Congratulations, Senator. You
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
17:43
both passes. Now we'll take House Bill 1843. Senator Dan Sullivan Jonesboro District 20. I have to introduce yourself.
Speaker 109
17:52
Yes, sir. Mike Hager, Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Director of State Police. Mr.
Mike Hager
Unverified
17:57
Hager, go ahead, and you can present that, OK, 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 attorney's 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 communications sometimes is lacking. Um, when we introduced the death by Delivery Act, one thing that
we realize 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 it's taking these 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 at that communication is lacking. It's, it's, it's hurting our effort to do that in a real-time. Uh, 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. Alright. Senator Peyton, you're I ask for a question. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. So you named the four pretty quickly, but the other 4 people or entities that can get the information. Can you name
Mike Hager
Unverified
19:57
those again? I'm, I'm sorry, I just off of memory, um. I know there's prosecutors, law enforcement, defense attorneys, I believe family. Um, can receive that information, but off the top of my head, I do not know. So is this information for you? 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 foible or
we could go through that those means. Right now we're relying on the people that are listed in that statute to provide that information to the drug director. OK.
Thank you. Yes, sir. Senator Dodson, you're organized for question.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
20:45
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the drug director, are they certified law enforcement or Like, why, why weren't they included previously to this? It's so the drug director.
Mike Hager
Unverified
21:01
is that's kind of a they are technically assigned to the Department of Human Services. There's been a MOU assigned or 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, um, a lot of the, I think And 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 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 the county. If those counties are not talking and providing that information to the drug director, then it's 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. I, 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 just, it's causing a communication problem for him to get real-time data. So Is
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
22:52
he still required under this statute to keep the records confidential and privileged, so you can't share them with anybody within DHS even. Uh On the treatment and prevention
Mike Hager
Unverified
23:04
side, I don't want to say that he absolutely could not, but Because again there's that's
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
23:14
not underneath. Oh no, no, no, no, absolutely not, no, sir, it would still remain confidential, I guess. Maybe within his
Speaker 124
23:19
working group or whatever it is within that department, but it's not, I mean to protect the integrity of the investigation, that information has to be held
Mike Hager
Unverified
23:26
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 prosecution is
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
23:38
complete. I think I found the statute here that's
referenced for Senator Peyton's question, the 4 says the defendant b. The public defender and other attorney of record for the defendants see. The prosecuting
attorney or deputy prosecuting attorney having jurisdiction over the criminal case and 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 Dodson. All
right, members, any other questions from the committee? All right, Senator Dodson, or excuse me, Senator Payton 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 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 I just have concerns about whether or not. Right, we may expose
Speaker 124
24:51
it to FOI. I can tell you that there's a One of the
Mike Hager
Unverified
24:58
exceptions to for you 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.
OK, thank you. turned out you have another
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
25:16
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 and retired, retained obtained or retained by the state crime lab under this subchapter are privileged and confidential. But it said state crime lab,
so now these, this information will be going outside the state crime
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
25:40
lab. That's a I, then a 2 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. OK, thank you.
Thank you, sir. Alright. Any other questions? All right, see none. I don't see anybody sign at week 4 against this. Censor Sullivan, your organ close. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We are closed and make a motion to pass. All right, got a motion to pass Senator Sullivan, see a second from Senator Dodson. Any discussion on the motion, saying none. All in favor say aye.
Po congratulations, Senator, you'll passes. All right. I did Senator Johnson. Or I just want to tell
Speaker 45
26:15
you what Representative Underwood, you got to quit noncontroversial. I think it would have been OK, OK, Senator Johnson, you've got a couple, don't you? Here for 173.
Speaker 74
26:29
OK, hold on on that one. Yeah, I know I gotta take any.
Hang on, you say 1713? Yes No, we're gonna hold on that one. Somebody in here that's got anything without opposition.
Go ahead. Alright members, we're gonna be running. House Bill 1713
Speaker 155
27:25
Yes Ready, Mr. Chairman. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
27:30
Chairman. Mark Johnson, Senate District. 17 and I'm here with Representative Rose to run House Bill 1713, uh, this is a bill that uh I, I, I consider it probably
One of the most meaningful pieces of legislation I've ever been involved with, uh, uh, in the last general election when I was campaigning, I heard complaints from Many people My constituents that I was knocking doors and talking to, uh, and of course like a lot of things and that's what we want them 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 Uh, and these are not, you know,
uneducated people, but it was just there was so confusing language, uh, I And frankly there was one on the ballot last time that they issued too, which it took me a long time to completely understand it and of course we read this kind of thing for a living, but, uh, House Bill 1713 addresses this by setting a standard of readability and objective standard that will has been determined, it was not developed by the General Assembly or anybody else. It's
uh it's called the flesh Kincaid grade level formula. It was actually designed signed by the military, I think the navy, to make sure they designed their manuals where the normal people, uh, that are being recruited into the Navy could could understand it, and not all those are are college graduates or whatever, so we're that was the whole purpose of it is that it would uh Uh Uh This makes it clear in the
ballot title that people can read it and the 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 clothes out, but I'll be happy to answer questions, but I think he'll even do a better job. So if you recognize Representative Rose now we'll move forward. Alright. All members, you've
Speaker 158
29:44
heard an explanation. Are there any questions from members of the
Speaker 160
29:49
committee? Excuse me, go ahead. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
29:53
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 Flesh Kincaid.
We are utilizing in this bill the flesh Kincaid grade level formula for readability test as Senator Johnson mentioned, this was
developed in 1975 by J Peter Kincaid, and it was done under contract with the US Navy, and it was used to assess readability
for uh 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. Um, 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. Um, additionally, this bill ensures that ballot titles and summaries are written at or below the 8th grade reading level, and the reason for this, the primary reason for this is that the average reading level for Americans is the grade level. Furthermore, this is not a new or radical idea.
More than 22 states have already adopted or 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 uh Buckley versus 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. members for an explanation of the bill, any questions the committee, Senator Sullivan, you were
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
33:07
recognized for a question. Are we kind of, are we teeing up more lawsuits? But people claiming this bill was not written at
that level. Uh, I don't believe so, but um you're saying, you say this bill that this bill wasn't written at that level.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
33:21
Was that what your question was? My question is,
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
33:27
are will people contest. I want 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 this bill? Yes, thank
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
34:01
you. I follow your question now and I defer to Senator Johnson the 8th grade reading level. I'm sorry. Thank you, Senator. Uh, the Attorney General's office believes that this is perfectly defensible at the 8th grade reading level. OK, so they're OK with this. Yes, sir. OK, thank you.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
34:19
And if I might add, Senator Sullivan, that As we have seen in recent years, uh, litigation, uh, may not be inevitable, but it's likely in
many cases, and it's not always on anything other than just this is the one tool that
and again it's both sides in things, having their toolbox to to oppose something. It seems to be part of this initiative process now and and I and I think it's OK people have a right to challenge things like that, but That's part of the whole reason complex That
You know, 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, this you're for it, and if you believe the opposite, then you're against it. And that's, that's why the process is supposed to work. We're not trying to confuse people. Well, maybe some have been in the past tried to confuse people, but, but, 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, you know, we're, 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 a Understandable manner that they,
Speaker 178
36:06
like us, can make an informed decision when they cast a vote. So I hope that that answers your question thank you Mr.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
36:13
Chairman, can I add to that, uh, the other component of this is that the flesh
Kincaid grade level formula is absolutely 100% content neutral. It is not subjective. It is objective. It doesn't see party affiliation. It doesn't see Republicans or Democrats. Yeah,
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
36:27
my question was pretty simple. I I said it wrong. I just want to make sure the AG's office was up
to speed. they are. Thank you, yes
sir. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. All right. Senator Tucker, you're you have a question, Senator? I do, I
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
36:46
do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for, thank you for recognizing me. So this I know Senator Johnson, you have a difference
of opinion about whether the General Assembly can amend a constitutional amendment that was enacted by the people and you know that's OK, but this, this bill does not amend Article 5 Section 1 of the state Constitution does it.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
37:09
No, sir, it does not now to be in the interest of transparency as we like to talk about transparency, Senator. I have a bill that will, that's fine, it will be an edge 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, OK. I just wanted to make sure this bill
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
37:32
is not that bill. It's, it's different, but I
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
37:35
consider them from my viewpoint. ary you would probably agree
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
37:41
with 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, 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, if a, 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, that's what lengthens the ballot title ultimately, and so, um, It's really a two-part question. Is this bill not in conflict with I, I know we can overrule as a legislative body a Supreme Court opinion. I understand that, but, but is it not in conflict with the rationale of the Supreme Court opinion that we're going to be making ballot titles misleading by omission if we simplify them.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
38:46
I, I'd ask 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. Um, the only reason I know what the formula is because I have it in my notes, so it's, it's not off the top of my head, but what this does is it just simply impacts readability. And the formula is 0.39 times
total words divided by total sentences plus 11.8 times total syllables divided by total words minus 15.59. So it's a mathematical formula. OK, and it wouldn't dictate that the ballot title necessarily
has to have more or less words, right. The ballot title is all
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
39:31
one sentence now, which is one of the reasons why it score is so bad. Uh, so I mean, does this bill account for the fact that
you can have a multi-sentence ballot title, because I, I, I hear that the number of sentences is in the formula and I 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 there's a bill a
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
39:57
account for that? I couldn't speak to, I'm not exactly sure what you mean if it if
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
40:01
it accounts for titles to multiple sentences. I don't
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
40:06
have anything to my knowledge in the bill that authorizes multiple sentences. It simply is grading the readability of the language and is there
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
40:12
a particular score for an 8th grade reading level that you are aware of?
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
40:18
Like I don't, so there are two different tests, the grade level specific test it is simply that it identifies it as either 8th grade or not. It would be 9th grade or 10th grade or 11th grade. To give you an example, maybe this would answered a little more specifically. There are past ballot titles and the scores that those graded in at, um, 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 amendments 14.5, the marijuana amendment was 21.7 and so those, those are graded and the
Speaker 202
40:57
way that is is anything from, I believe, 8.0 to 8.99 is considered eighth grade. OK, fair
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
41:05
enough. Yeah, so I didn't understand exactly how that worked, but like the single parent adoption amendment in 2008 scored 76.6. And uh marriage between a man and a
woman in 2004 was 41.5, so I mean, these are some others that really, really scored off
Chair
Unverified
41:28
the charts, but OK. All right, thank you for sure. Thank you, Centra. Alright, 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've scored. They had no interest in trying to meet this standard. They probably could have been reworded in a way to maybe score
better, uh. Would you say that The reason the battle 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. A on the ballot. Would you agree with that? I would not disagree with you, sir. I would absolutely agree. Here's the thing, you get the initiative on the ballot immediately to advertising campaigns strike up. One side says it's going to end
life on planet Earth and others 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 Of making it understandable so
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
42:57
we don't have to rely on the advertising campaigns to tell us what it
does. What to say it's, it's, it's a binary choice, Senator, I'm not sure, but as far as the direction we're heading, making it more uh uh. Understandable. It will. I think it's a tremendous improvement in the direction that you're referring to as this, I don't know about whether it's euphoria or or uh in life on Earth, but, but
it between those two extremes, I think it's a great improvement. And again, it's We just want people that don't read this kind of stuff for a living like we do. To have a chance to to cast their vote on issue based on Understandable
Chair
Unverified
43:44
information. Thank you. I would agree. Thank you, Senator Payton. Any other questions for
the committee? All right, we do have somebody signed up to speak against. See here.
Speaker 211
44:00
So The Well, come on up, turn to representative if y'all want to step over to the side, we're
gonna let them. Thank you. And the doctor told me to just introduce yourself, tell us here whether you'd be recognized for
Gail Choate
Unverified
44:34
Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Dr. Gail Choate, as I believe you are aware, I am a um 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 8th grade level, specifically because of the measurement of the flesh 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 8th 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 um 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 would like to
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
47:01
see in the bill, not what's in the bill.
Gail Choate
Unverified
47:06
continue our joke, go ahead. I may continue
that thought, or do I need to stop? I'll do that, OK, so I just wanted to point out that there are, there's another way to do that in 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. has been testified earlier as part of the reason why this, uh, these language is oftentimes exceed the 8th grade level is because of the legalese within them. For an example, the flesh Kincaid test penalizes those longer sentences. For instance, terms like constitutional and
amendment are leak 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 members, any questions for Dr. Cho? All
right, Senator Clark, you recognize for a question. Doctor, thank you for being here. I
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
48:59
do not disagree with you on it applying to everything. The, uh, I think. Uh, it will let me, after having said that, let me go back to the biggest problem is that no matter how educated.
People are not reading The amendments in ballot initiatives, uh, that has caused me great consternation. Decades before I was in the legislature, uh, and I have many people come to me now as a center and say what does this mean and which, which way should I vote? Uh, it seems to me that uh and also you know, teaching adult Sunday school class for many years. I often, and my dad was an English teacher, so I
inherited a little bit of his, uh, 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 doctor and everything, but nothing that's in that verse, uh, 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 the last legally and the more likely they are to
understand it, uh, where am I wrong? Well, I, I, I can't disagree with the statement that the simpler something is, the
Gail Choate
Unverified
50:31
more likely is someone to read it. I think you and I are both educators, and so we know that that's that's real. I would argue though that we are making a trade-off in putting this at an 8th grade level and we're trading the legal and the clarity that comes with that. I believe that we need more civic education. I testified to that previously. I think also sources
such as the Center for Public Policy at the University of Arkansas extension publishes a um 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
So yeah, that's where I'd like to stop. Well,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
51:27
I think that your points are valid, and I think this is a 5 5149 thing. I, I still support the bill, but I appreciate hearing your input. Thank you, Senator. members, are there any questions? All right, see you then, doctor. Thank you
for excuse me, I'm sorry, Senator Dodson. Thank you, Mr. Chair and You may
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
51:48
know the answer to this question. You may not. I don't know.
I, I was completely unfamiliar with Fleshch and
Cade, so just upon basic Google search and it says it was developed in 1975, and I, I'm not sure if it's changed throughout that time or not, so. Obviously throughout the The last 50 years, the The grade levels have, I guess the the populist 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 degrading, as you said, you want to avigate for more civic education and I too want to do that as well, um. I think we have lost a lot over the last couple 100 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, 100+ 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 flesh 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 this
Gail Choate
Unverified
53:37
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 or 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.
Chair
Unverified
54:28
Thank you. All right. Any other questions from doctor? All right. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you. All
right, Kristen Stewart, Kristine would come up. She was going to be speaking against. Mr
Stewart, you know, the process, just introduce yourself. You'd be recognized to proceed.
Kristen Stewart
Unverified
54:54
Thank you so much. Um, my name is Kristen Stewart. I am here representing myself here to
speak against House Bill 1713. Um, I'm not going to read everything that I wanted to say simply because Doctor Choate said a lot of it, um, I think we can all agree that it sounds good to be on an 8th grade reading level, but even just the title of the bill, and 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 Fleischman Kincaid, 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 but for referred to by the state legislature. Um, I
know that abortion has been talked about a lot, um, as people saying they were confused, which I don't think they were when they signed it. Um, But I know I'm not supposed to ask you guys questions, but let me pose a question, would you be OK with a ballot title that said simply 6 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. Those 6 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, um, I will echo Dr. Choate's calls for more civic education, um, 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, um, I, I also have to read several times and investigate and I love this stuff. Um, and my graduate degree is in public administration, so this is a lot of my background. Um, I do agree
that they can be hard to read. That is part of the process, um, for making laws. So, again, I would just really urge you all to vote no because, again, to make abortion legal in Arkansas, 6 simple words, which I think you would all agree, would be Very no 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. All right.
Senator Johnson, Representative Rose, No, you're fine. Yeah, walking
to close Fi bill. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. Uh, first thing I'd like
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
58:32
to do, uh, and I could read the entire thing, but in the interest of time that I, I don't think. Uh, 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 8th grade reading level, according to the flesh Kincaid grade level formula that is built in to processors like Microsoft Word, um. And this is
a very uh 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. Say all that to say that this
passes the 8th grade uh 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 Flesh Kincaid grade level reading formula test as 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 the same
guideline for legislatively referred constitutional amendments. It's not in this bill because that's not what this bill was about. I'd be perfectly fine to support, sit with, encourage, etc. and I hope the witnesses that suggested it would come and testify to that should that bill run one day. Uh, 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, uh, are far reaching as somebody who's 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 8th 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 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 decide 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 committee, Mr. Chairman, I'll just add that I appreciate the great work that
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:02:51
Representative Rose has done, uh, 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. In a motion due passed. We're gonna have a
motion for you and have a discussion, so, uh, what's the will of the committee? OK, we got a
motion to pass from Sarah Clarke, a second from Sarah Payton. There is discussion on the motion. Senator Sullivan, you were
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:03:22
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 deep further reach further, there's certainly will able to help work with someone to get that legislation written. I think this is a good bill. I'll
be voting for it. Excellent. So you know further discussion on the motion. Oh, of course there's always going to be discussion. Dotson, you're recognized for discussion.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:04:05
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be honest, I'm struggling with this one. This one is It's about a 50/50 for me, um. 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, he was very formative in in starting our our country held many different positions and and uh later on in life as he was reflecting, basically said something about the true correctives of abuses of constitutional power and by informing people's judgment and discretion through education, um, was kind of the
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 um It, it could go either way as far as the Uh, and I, I don't know. We're going to vote here in just a second, but um
That's, that's kind of the, the, the crux of what I'm. Teetering on here is that philosophy is this educating the populace. Uh, or is it taking away their, their discretion, um. It's 50/50 for me. Thank you, Senator Clark, you're recognized for discussion. Thank you. I love
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:05:47
this bill. The only thing I think is lacking is the uh that it does
not cover uh those uh same things coming out of the legislature. I hope somebody brings that back, uh. The and having You know, Central Elliott and I really We foundation bills that we had to Fought unbelievably hard on reading. And I have had so many dyslexic people come to me. Uh, we don't, 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, uh, when it comes to reading. I, I, I like our bills to be college level, uh, but when we're going out to the populace, uh you know, it's easy to vote in the rest of the election. This is Jim Dodson. This is Dan Sullivan. When it comes to something that they actually have to read. A big part of our population. has struggle with it and the, 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 I think it's definitely the right thing to do. Clark, discussion. Senator Tucker, I'm
Speaker 260
1:07:07
sorry. Thank you, Senator Scott. Not the first time. Thank
Hugh Mcdonald
Unverified
1:07:12
you for that moment of brevity. You're red Senator Tucker. I'll, I'll be very brief. I mean, I think there's a lot of
Speaker 263
1:07:20
discussion. I'm not going to repeat any of that.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:07:24
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 8th grade reading level. Well, if there's also another law that requires a 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 8th grade reading level at the Flesh
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. Carle Christie,
is there any discussion on y'all's anonymous motion?
Y'all good? OK, alright, alright. Anybody, any other discussion on the motion? Don't want to leave my eye out. All right. All
right, got a motion to passed by Senator Clark. Got a second by Senator Payton. All in favor say aye, opposed. All right, congratulations, your
bill passes. All right, Senator Ervin, come on up. You've been patiently waiting. Do you think your bill is going to require any discussion on the motion, Senator Irving, before we start.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:08:51
Alright, what are you running? The one at the top of
Speaker 270
1:08:56
your agenda. Senate Bill 36 Senate Bill 439 members 439. This was re-refered Senator
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:09:03
Missy Irvin, District 24. Thank you so much, uh, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, this bill is part of the agency. They are here. Mr. Gunthorp's here to answer any questions you may have. Uh, there was some discussion on the floor about ensuring that there was language that any transfers that were made, you know, we'd go through Pier and ALC or personnel, um, and so those changes have been made and engrossed into the bill.
Excuse me, it's Senate Bill 439, right? was re-referred to
the committee. Yeah. 439 labor and licensing. OK so we need to first of all, we got to expunge the vote by which Senate Bill 439 passed. So with that I will take a got a motion by Senator Tucker. Not Senator Clark, Senator
Tucker. See a second, seconded by Senator Sullivan. All in favor say aye.
Pod. All right, Bo's been expunged. Senator Ervin, you are recognized to proceed with Senate Bill 439. Thank you.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:10:13
I'm happy to answer any questions. This is the Labor and licensing bill that um 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, Sarah Payton, you've 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 Secretary of the Department of Labor, and then To amend portions of Arkansas code which resulted from initiated act. One of 1914. What, what are we amending in the In
the initiated Act of 1914. I'll have Steve Gunthrop. Is he here to come up?
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:10:57
We're seeing. It's supposed to be here. I think Steve left. I
OK, I may have just found it. Section 62 seems to be
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:11:10
well, just, I mean we we had presented that bill, the bill, and I apologize. I'll pull it back up. But again, you're OK. It's, it's just changing the name. Yeah, thank you designation. Yeah, I think Sarah Payton's good now. All right, are
Speaker 284
1:11:22
there any other questions for the committee? Oh, Senator Tucker. So your amendment's
Chair
Unverified
1:11:30
been in. We don't need to adopt an amendment. I just want to make
sure that we're just gross. Right. In our questions to the committee. All right, say no questions we'll have you sign up to speak
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:11:50
for or against this. Senator Ervin, you are 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. OK. All right. Yes, for that, I'm closed. OK, right, there's closed. What's the
will of the committee? I got a motion to be passed by Senator Tucker, seconded by Senator Sullivan. Any discussion on the motion.
You're hearing none. All in favor say aye. Post. Congratulations, Senator, your bill passes. Thank you. Hm
Speaker 269
1:12:16
discussion discussion it's called. Senator Hill. You're running a house bill?
Hugh Mcdonald
Unverified
1:12:20
Where are you running House Bill 1470.
I searched just a little old bill that don't do much of nothing,
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:12:46
does it, Senator Senator Ricky Hill, District 11. Senator, you're recognized to proceed
with your bill. Ah Colleagues the House Bill 1470 1470. All this bill does is eliminate. Uh, an existing existing section that's a legacy statue that is outdated. The division of the information systems is already task of reviewing this department of IT
and plans and ensuring IT projects are included in their budgeted for those plans. Repealing this section increases efficiency by eliminating an extra unnessary step in the process of reviewing departmental IT projects, and there are no known oppositions to this bill. Alright. 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
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:13:37
process in place that provides oversight for, yes, it's already in there. They're already doing it
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:13:43
in another area. Is it in code or is it a rule? That's
a very good question, Senator Tucker. I'm going to have to go to someone a little smarter than me for that, not
Speaker 301
1:13:52
smarter, just with more information, a little more information I would like to ask her to come
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:13:55
up for us Oh, yes please. That was a very good question though, Senator Tucker. Thank you, Senator deserves an answer.
Speaker 306
1:14:14
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, you know, services removed and things of that nature, so code is the answer.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:14:46
To and we still have sufficient oversight for
and and vetting for contracts and purchases and that. OK, alright, thank you. Thank you, Senator Tucker. All
right, members, any other questions? She said exactly what I was going to say. I know she did, Senator. All right,
not see any further questions, don't have anybody 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 passed by Senator Clark, seconded by Senator Tucker, all any discussion on the motion
scene? None on favor say yes opposed. Congratulations, your bill passes, Senator Clark, I just a little deaf in this here, speak up. All right, Represent McKenzie. You got to mimic. All right. What's your bill? What's your bill number? OK
Speaker 308
1:15:31
18, 1873 members, there is an amendment.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:15:40
Uh, Britt McKenzie, District 7, State Representative Rogers, Arkansas
amendment simply as Senator Bryant co-spoor of the bill got a motion to adopt, second by Senator adoptions all the papers say a post. right, then it's been adopted you recognize, proceed with your bill as amended. Thank
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:16:02
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. Um, that confirms the amount of years left on our term limits. This came out of not for many, this isn't an agency bill or a
secretary bill. This was something I was thinking of and had experience 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 Peyton gets to the end of his term and decides that he'd like to still run. There's nothing that bars the Secretary of State or in 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 out the practice of it. Once you go and file you 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 Peyton'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. Um, or not necessarily conflicting, they aren't, they don't work in concert with one another, um. This would allow for Senator Payton's opponent to take that document to the court and say he has no he is no longer qualified because he has 0 years turning 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 work. This would go through their election division, so happy to take any questions. Alright, members Senator
Chair
Unverified
1:18:03
Clark here, we're going for a question. I think I
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:18:06
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 in one of the senators of this committee ran the constitutional amendment to change our term limits from the previously changed 16 years where it's been 20 years since we've changed. We will have 3
different term limits that the last of which creates a cool-off period, um. 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 um 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 allows me to pick on Central B
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:18:49
because there's no problem easier to fix someone
one we haven't had, but thank you. Thank you, Sandra Clark. Senator
Chair
Unverified
1:18:58
Payton, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this notification of
service time remaining. Who does it just go to the candidate. So it's a public document though. OK, and this is at the beginning of a four-year Senate term. Say
again. I'm sorry. So like senators are elected for 4 years. It would be at the beginning of that term. Uh, correct, yeah, it would be at the beginning of when your
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:19:24
election is certified. So again, you know, we have our legislative sessions are in two-year terms. You don't stand for election. Your your election's not certified in that second. In that 3rd year of your 4-year term, it would be if you run again. So something changed in that 4 years. Would there be
a second letter, yeah, let's just say term limits get modified again. Uh, that would probably
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:19:45
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 to if there has been a change to notify candidates.
Well, you made it sound like that notification was going to be. Legal evidence, you know, to kick somebody off the
ballot, so If, if If something changes, I would hope that there'd be another notification go
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:20:11
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. OK, thank you.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:20:27
Sarah Clarke. Yes, you're aware. That if somebody has one day left. Uh Eligibility they can serve a two-year term, 4-year term, whatever it may be, right? 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 they term limits don't.
Or not even years, uh, and if somebody had a year left, say, and running for a four-year term, it seems like voidable document that it's easy then to confuse the public. Uh That well they're not really eligible to serve 4 years, which of course
they are, uh, have you thought of this problem? In, in talking with Secretary of State's office, I made it
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:21:18
clear that, you know, as I send this again it's small bill and it's, 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 interpret our constitution and say based on the term limits that are in the ethics ethics reform constitutional movement 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 to read and interpret the law.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:21:49
What if it had in addition to what's there and therefore eligible to run. I mean, if you're gonna, if you're gonna put the This is how much time is left.
If it's less than the 2 years or less than the 4 years. Uh, it seems to
me like those words. You have this much time and therefore eligible, um,
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:22:12
because 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, is in that is in our constitutional amendment and um doesn't incorporate anything we've done over the last 100 years in terms of statute eligibility. It's I, 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. OK. Yeah. Right, Sarah Payton. Thank you. So now I'm getting confused.
So if, if you are term limited out, you're not eligible and you're saying that you are eligible.
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:23:10
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 it's 18 years old so ours are not constitutional. They are in a different, they are, they 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. OK, 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 to Serve If elected, why
wouldn't the Secretary of State just have. The opportunity to to verify whether or not you are at that point. Because as the Constitution
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:24:01
is written for eligibility to stand for election, it's, there are two different things that attack
almost the same. 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. I want 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 they would either need to be a joint resolution we passed out 2/3 of either of our chambers or refer out to the citizens. This
would, this is a band-aid on a flesh wound in my opinion, in a flesh wound that could happen in theory where we get conflict or a party willing to seat someone even though they Extended beyond where 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 um damage and that this is the problem with term limits. While they sound good, they
deprive the public of their choice of representation. It's it's
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:25:11
a messy puzzle. I'm just trying to make sure we have a piece that that follows the long tail of the good
work and you know, reasonable people can disagree on term limits that just make sure that we can codify those
term limits. Well, I think Senator Clark pointed out a very real concern. House terms are 2 years. Senate terms are 4. If you have 2 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 2 years of eligibility left. Shouldn't be there, shouldn't be on the ballot, but I understand and I'd be happy to amend
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:25:49
it if you think that adding not as a 30, 30 days
following the certification election and then every 2 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
thank you, sir. Thank you, Sir
Peyton, Sir Dotson, your question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so I got a couple
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:26:24
of questions, but uh. So what if the Secretary of State is incorrect or wrong in their certification, they put in 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 Mistake that
was made, you know, maybe not intentionally, but still. Mistakes happen. Yeah. So the question is what
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:26:59
would happen? Yeah it's great. I mean, anytime there's 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
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:27:13
recourse for that damage, so um so we're creating. Another hoop
that candidates might have to jump through if, if someone makes a mistake. They don't have to
now yes, if you're asking it that narrowly, yes, it would, yeah, um, and then In your earlier example, you were talking about the process now of somebody is in. You know, in a race and they, they say, hey, you're not eligible and it goes to a court
and all that kind of stuff, but what if, what if no one else files? Can someone I was under the same, same understanding as Senator Payton that, you know, when we go up there and we we're signing in to get, hey, I'm eligible to run that that affidavit is. I, hey, I'm eligible to run. I got Another term left or time left or whatever to be able to file um. That in and of itself I think is is. Enough to to say, hey, you're
not eligible if somebody brings that up, um, but if nobody else files for that seat, maybe I don't know if you know the answer to that, 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 on my understanding, unless someone
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:28:30
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, Senator Clark's point, and actually much worse place if there isn't that candidate a challenge. I also understand and
this is not based on cases in the state of Arkansas. If someone isn't ineligible to stand and somehow does get ballot get placement on a ballot. The only aggrieved party would be the elected body. It were 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 That's why we have term limits is in order to You know, 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. They are term limited also,
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:29:23
right? They are correct. Uh, this was just something I thought of for our as a member of the body, I thought it would be a Um 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
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:29:43
know. Thank you. We're happy to have him come down on the table if you'd like. So we
Speaker 349
1:29:58
do know. Is the Secretary of State here? Yeah, I think they've left. Thank you. OK. Uh,
are there any questions? Alright, see you in 9. I'm close to the bill. Thank you. All right. Representatives close to the bill. What's the will of the committee? All right, sorry representative appreciate it lack of emotion.
Speaker 350
1:30:15
All right, um, sir Tucker. Excuse me, Senator Clark. Well, I
want a noncontroversial bill. Huh? I said like a noncontroversial bills. Do you have any of those.
Speaker 351
1:30:32
For Senator Gilmore, let's talk about Senator
Speaker 350
1:30:40
Gilmore bills real quickly. Well, we'll let this committee
decide that. Go ahead with yours. What's your bill number? 614.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:30:49
All right, Senator, you recognize proceed with Senate Bill 614. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 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 a standalone bill, um. 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 the of a violation of Section 106 of the FOIA subchapter, um. 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 they're concerned, which I think is understandable, is if you invalidate, if you invalidate 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, uh, you can only invalidate. That decision by the governing body for the 1st 30 days after that decision was made. After that, Um, one of two things if a court finds that the governing body, you know, 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 $10,000.01 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 should
have an explanation of the bill. Any questions the committee, Senator? Cork
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:33:35
I understand it, I think. I understand the need for it. On
the other hand, The whole lot. The complaint I hear time after time. About Violating open meetings always involves
Sending bunches of money. Uh, and so it seems like it negates the whole. The whole premise. Of that part of 227, uh, because it's you know, I know I had a constituent call me and chew me up one side and down the other because of the other bill and, and it was over because he had seen, you know, in Nebraska where he just came from, uh,
they came in and put voted for. Large amount of bonds with no discussion. No, uh, which we would all say that's a problem, uh, and I understand what you're trying to do again. If you move forward, which you would, uh, you've got to do something to keep these people from being damaged, but it, uh, it's, it seems like the two ideas conflict quite a bit. Am I wrong?
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:34:57
No, I don't think you are. Um, 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, and The other thing, if we want to 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 uh 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 you know, hopefully that harm is is is mitigated, if not removed entirely, because at that point, They are having the the full public discussion about the decision that that that governing body had
reached, so You know, Senator Tucker, some people, when you know, I talk about. Two people not being a
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:36:21
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 or even knew what oil I was elected, didn't know what FOIA was, uh, was I was in. Committee meeting uh 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 5 minutes without the reporter and came back and I learned to never miss a smoke break again, uh, so that's what, so now I'm rolling my eyes. Because for a huge bond issue, Yeah, we're willing to take a $10,000 hit the I, I respect that you're trying to put some kind of penalty in there, but uh I also know people who are trying to get their way. Think
Uh, I think we all do, so I, I respect what you're trying to do. I just, uh. In conjunction with the other I have problems. OK, now that's fair
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:37:47
and we've had this discussion on other bills as well. I'm actually meeting with the because it's just because of the nature of where we are in session, right? And, and so I'm trying to be helpful to the bond community. The only way for this to pass is the process through the processes 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. You know, 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, uh, 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 I'll pull the bill down
at that point. I just let me say that
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:38:33
if it's not a problem for the FOIA task force, I will be amused.
Speaker 357
1:38:40
Duly noted, Senator Payton. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. I, 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. Usually the lender has reasons to scrutinize. The validity of 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. And 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 were passed and 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
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:40:57
taken. Thank you Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just trying to keep up with all the moving parts here, so not opposed to what you're doing, but so if if the the body meets court meats, they pass bond issue passed 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? Uh, yes, sir. OK. And so
then there has to be a revote. Um, so if it, if, if the violation was discovered
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:41:30
less than 30 days after the violation, it could be invalidated. OK, so they invalid, let's assume they invalidate it, so the quorum core is
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:41:36
going to come back and vote again. They could if they want to. It'd be up to the quorum court at that point.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:41:43
So would that not violate the whole idea of having
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:41:47
secret meetings. I mean, if you're going to protect the secret meeting. are punished a secret meeting. And you have one and it passes. The fact 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. That's the only
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:42:14
thing you 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. I'm just trying to understand and I just
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:42:36
wanted to make sure I understood correctly that chain of events that occurs, that is what it is. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Peyton. Well, I just want, I, I would
request that you pull it down or that we table
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:42:52
it. Um, you know, uh, I think it would be good to take a vote, just, just a vote of the committee and
that. We do not pass for immediate consideration. All right, we've got a motion for
immediate consideration from Senator Payton. I'll see a 22 for Sullivan in the discussion all in favor say aye, aye for immediate consideration. OK. Yeah, no, no, no, for just for immediate consideration.
The the motion is for immediate consideration and then we'll take the vote on the bill. All right, so I got a motion from Senator Payton. I got a
Speaker 346
1:43:27
second from Senator Sullivan, all in favor on the motion for How? Immediate consideration you
All right, now I'll take the main
Speaker 378
1:44:02
motion for, you know just for the benefit of having a vote. OK good, a
good senator and even better friend, Senator Clark. All right, we've got a motion due passed by Senator Clark. Can I see you in a second. I see a second by Senator Tucker. Any discussions no discussion, all in favor, say I. Opposed
Speaker 317
1:44:29
sorry, Senator, your bill fails for lack of 5 votes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:44:34
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 it's or not. Fair enough. This is 5:16. Senator Gilmore's bill. Senate Bill 516.
So earlier this session we passed a bill. Saying
that if you're if you're an appellate court judge for either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, then you can judge on the ballot if you've been appointed. That 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 or the Court of
Appeals, then you can put judge on the ballot when you run. All right, there's your explanation. Any questions for
the committee? I don't know Senator Clark, you're recognized for a question, and I don't realize this is
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:45:41
Senator Gilmore's bill, but you're presenting it. You're aware that there's a bill in the House committee right
now. Yes, that says that doesn't matter what position because I hate this stuff. And I realized this is just a fix. Uh well, we're going to allow this one to do it and so on and the other one says. Carte blanche. I remember your
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:46:05
bill with your um 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
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:46:14
as a judge you were ever judged and it's going to be amended to to to Close
it down a little bit, but, but it won't be by position any any judgeship is Same as any other judgeship. Well, belt and suspenders Senator Clark, and we'll be
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:46:36
giving myself a little bit more work to do in code revision to reconcile all of them. All right. Thank
you, Sarah Clarke. All right, any other questions for the committee? All right, so no questions don't have anybody set up to speak for or against this. Senator Tucker, you're record's close. I'm closed. I appreciate a good vote. Move to pass. A motion to pass by Senator Tucker, seconded by Senator Clark, senior discussion on the motion, saying none on paper, say aye opposed. Congratulations, your bill passes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I see there's other members here,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:47:06
two other house bills for Senator Gilmore. One is a Department of Commerce bill and we have Secretary here, OK. I'll, I'll invite you up, Mr. Secretary. This is House Bill 1519. 1519 and we're gonna jump into Senator
Penzo's got some Senate bills. We're gonna have to do
Hugh Mcdonald
Unverified
1:47:39
Donald, 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 to proceed with. Was it House Bill
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:47:51
1519. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, I'm going to turn, turn the mic over to Secretary McDonald. Thank you,
Hugh Mcdonald
Unverified
1:47:56
Senator Tucker. This, 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 uh the three departments securities, banking and insurance. are able to participate in organizations, shared services organizations, um, and to the extent allowed by state and federal law, and that's, that's what this bill attempts to do, uh, we've actually had opportunities and implemented some shared services within banking, insurance, and securities
since 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. A question from the committee, Senator Dodson. Thank
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:48:55
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. Is this page 2? Yeah, page 2, Line 14 where it says accept. As provided under subdivision F1. What is that exception?
Hugh Mcdonald
Unverified
1:49:17
Yes, F1 is. Looking for F1 right here. All about 30 seconds or you've got the code section, yeah, here it is. F1 is uh
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, um, and if, yeah, that's, that's F1. It's really more of a
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:49:48
clarification. OK, so. It's redundant. I, I Sorry, I Didn't have that code section pulled up. All right. It's OK. Thank you. OK. Thank you, Senator Dodson in your
questions to the committee. All right, see no further questions. Do I have anybody sign up to speak for against this. Alright. Senator Tucker, you're
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:50:30
that close. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Agency bill to let the Secretary do his job better, no no opposition, appreciate a good vote and I move to pass.
All right, got a motion to pass Senator Tucker, secondator Sullivan, in discussion, see none. All in favor say aye. I post. Congratulations, your bill passed us. All right, you want to step aside, I want a pencil. Senator Penzo.
been patiently waiting. If you introduce yourself and tell us what you're gonna run patiently as
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:51:03
a relative term. Clipenzo District 31, uh, with a little bit of latitude from the chair. Can I talk about both of these at the same time. It might expedite things. OK, both are, both are fluoride bills I've got. What's the Senate Bill 468 and Senate Bill 613, um, we'll talk about them and then we can obviously
separate them back out, but so Senate Bill 468 is pretty much the same language that this committee already passed out, um, I ran on the floor, got feedback, if you remember, I think I had 16 votes. um, there was a lot of feedback coming around the room, uh, I went in and amended a lot of that language, uh, to, to improve it. One thing was if I remember correctly, we had it to where 2 counties, like if there are 3
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, um, 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, um, county clerks are still opposed. Um, Delta Dental is still opposed. I think this is a
better bill. um, then the other, it's only 3 pages, it's cleaner, simpler, um, like I said, the, the best bill we had, the cleanest went through public health SB2, that's the cleanest of all, um, but anyway, then we've got uh a bill that was Uh, giving to me, I don't have any fingerprints on this one, but Delta Dental is neutral. The county clerks are neutral, um, uh, that, 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 1st and. So, 468 is the one that still has uh objections to it, um, I think it's better than the other one, but It's still allows for county votes, and it's a county as the whole, not separating out the water districts because that gets complicated. Um, so if, if a
water district touches 3 counties, all 3 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 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. Um, so
it, it provides a local control at the county level. The other one. Actually isolates it down to the actual water district users, um. So I just wanted to bring options to you. I told them last
week at the table. I wasn't going to run it till I had both of them that I could present both to you. Um, I would like for both of them to be passed to bring them to the floor and let the body
decide. Um, we can, we can, if you, if you want to try to bill at a time, OK, Senate Bill 468 is the
When you already passed and I cleaned it up, made it better. And OK,
so 468 is the one that's simply valid access for the for the voters to sign a petition and get it on the ballot. That's correct. OK.
Any questions from the committee? Question. How does it affect these people
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:54:52
whose water districts cross over to other states, and they may be getting their water from.
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:55:00
Texas are OK, yeah, 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, um, I believe they get their water from Texas and it's uh the way their little agreement is written, I believe it says that the, the lesser of the restrictions is what they go by between Texarkana, Texas and Texarkana, Arkansas. Texas does not fluoridate. OK, the water in that water
system, so it takesarana is exempt from
Florida waters. They don't, they don't have fluoridated water in text everybody else it's becky will be OK. Hickey should be OK. This will not affect
Texarchy prediction, right, thank you. Thank you, Sullivan. Senator Tucker. recognize her question. Thank you, Mr. Cha. So I'm
just a bit confused. Is this a different bill number than the one
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:55:53
you ran on the floor? It is because I'm kind of the person that likes to
Speaker 404
1:56:01
leave options open so that bill is still sitting on the Senate floor waiting just in case. Uh, the reason I was confused is because I
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:56:07
don't see any Italicat's language in this bill. And so when you, when you cleaned it up, you just cleaned it up before you filed this the first time instead of filing
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:56:16
an amendment, I just filed a new bill that way I still had an option sitting in the Senate. OK, so you, you said this. I just want to Make sure I've
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:56:25
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, uh, say Franklin County and and Crawford County. Sebastian County votes 90% in favor of fluoridation in the version of the bill on the floor and then two smaller population counties both vote 51% against Floridation, 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 2 out of 3 counties. But under this version of the bill and that same hypothetical, all three counties in the that the water system serves. We have to approve
no fluoridation by 50.1% or a majority. That's right, yeah, so we didn't want. To two counties dictating the
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:57:21
policy of another county, and that's actually something I probably should have cleaned up before I brought it to you last time. Somebody brought it up to me and I forgot to make that
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:57:35
amendment, but so so looking at it a different way if in that same three county region, uh, obviously, Sebastian and Crawford are higher population than Franklin County. If they both vote against Floridation by 90%. If Franklin votes for Floridation by 50.1%,
the water's still fluoridated. Water's still fluoridated because the the
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:57:56
mandates still the controlling. Yeah, right, thank you. Uh, Senator Dotson, did you have a question?
OK, any other questions? Is there anybody here speak for or against it? Uh, we have a
couple signed up to speak against it. So, uh, Laura Was. If you would, uh, Introduce yourself. Stay who you're with, and you'll be recognized.
Speaker 414
1:58:40
Laura Wiles Faulkner County election coordinator. Please pull that microphone close to you. Is that better? Thank you. Um, 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 one, 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 this specific district zoned 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
built 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? Saying none, thank you for your testimony.
Thank you. Lindsey French. Signed up to speak against. If you'll
come take a seat, introduce yourself, state who you're with, and you'll be recognized.
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
2:01:18
Lindsey French Association of Arkansas Counties. I could not put any of that more eloquently than Ms. Wis just did, so I will second all of that, and I will thank Senator Penzo for bringing SB 613, which the clerks are neutral on. Thank you. Anybody have a question for Miss
French? I think so. Go ahead. Thank you,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:01:41
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 Florida, we ain't Floridating this water anymore. Then, then it's
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:02:02
out. But yeah, I, I allowed another mechanism for, uh, fluoride removal. Yeah. I'm sorry, could you move that microphone closer
and restate your question. I think I might be interested in hearing that. The bill in section 2, the way I
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:02:23
read it, authorizes the board of a public right now it's state law for all war to be water to be fluoridated, correct? That that is correct. So this will be a significant change in state law because they would authorize just the board of any individual water system out there to remove the fluoride from the water in their in their system without input from the public, so So actually we would not have to have a petition and
spend the money on the election. If the board made that decision on their own, then yes. Thank you.
Sorry, I just couldn't hear you the first time. My
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:02:56
follow-up question for you. Senator Pennzo is, let's say Borden made that decision to remove the fluoride from the water. Do the, do the members of the public that that water system serves then have the ability. To petition to put it back in. Yeah, there's
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:03:12
language, uh, I'll have to find it, but it said that uh that the, the voice of the people supersedes the board. Well, that's, that's,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:03:20
that's in the lines right below. The results of an election
supersede and that's, that's fine. Yeah, they can petition
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:03:29
to keep Fluoride in water if they choose. I want, I wanted the people's voice to supersede the board if the board wasn't doing what the people wanted. OK, so the, the
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:03:45
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.
OK. All right, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? and so that was all we had
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:04:09
signed up for. Would you like to close for your bill? I will, I will point out a typo, um, that it was mentioned about the county clerk that that was originally county judge. It was supposed to be changed to circuit clerk, um, and, uh, it, it was, you know, just one word was changed instead of both, so it says county clerk there on
page 2 line 20, um, so I don't know if uh if Uh, y'all would accept a verbal amendment, uh. To change that to Uh 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? Uh, page 2. Well, right now we need to make a motion to suspend the rules, then we can consider an
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:04:59
amendment. Well, I need to know what the amendment's going to be before I
know whether I 220. Last three words would say circuit clerk instead of county clerk. OK, I'll second the motion. OK, so I have a motion of a second to suspend the rules to amend this verbally. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. OK,
you wanna state the amendment y'all get agreed to here on the amendment. Um, yeah, just changing the
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:05:30
word uh uh county in front of clerk to circuit county to circuit. Sure, I'll, I'll, I'll move for Senator
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:05:41
Penzo to for a verbal amendment of the bill to delete page 2120 delete the word county and replace it with the word circuit.
OK, so we have a motion to verbally amend Senate bill. 468 page 2 line 20. To say
circuit clerk instead of county clerk.
I was motion in a second, by Dotson. All in favor, say ah. Any opposed? OK, so we have adopted the amendment. You can now close for your I have
Speaker 430
2:06:15
one more question, Senator, Senator Tucker would like to ask you a question. So I was quickly trying to read through,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:06:21
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 2 at the bottom on 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 and upfit a system that's never been fluoridated to become fluoridated. I, I
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:07:23
agree. Yeah, there are, 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
Speaker 430
2:07:33
of that. I'm not. I'm just that's a that's a problem I have with the bill. OK, well, 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. I'm not. I'm just that's a that's a problem I have with the bill.
OK to discussion, I'm closed. OK, do I have the will of the committee? Uh, I have a motion to pass as amended, Senator Dodson, second by Senator Clark. Now discussion. Senator
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:07:55
Tucker, I'll just, I know this has been litigated. I'm just gonna make two points. One is the point I was just making. You know, 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 uh 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 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, that's one thing. The
other thing I'll say, this is something that has not been brought up, but I'm just going to mention it. It's just, 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, Senator Clark, I learned from them. I can't, 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,
uh, people are 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 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 and I'm gonna join in the discussion. I really appreciate your perspective on nearly everything. And, 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 fluoridate. And they were 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 if a board has the authority. If that makes any sense. Senator Clark, you're recognized for discussion.
I also do not know. I know some are
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:10:21
elected. I don't know that all are elected. I do know that all because of the law I passed that they all have to have training, uh, or I should say a majority. Have to have training, but that's really leading to all having training and of course
organization could be adapted if it's not already in there, and I think it is, uh. But I would ask you,
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. Uh, and something that allows somebody else other than. Uh Top down, I think it's good, uh. Uh
Anybody else want to join in, Senator Tucker, you're recognized again for this. I'll be brief
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:11:15
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 of weeks ago, so, um, thank you for that. But I hear what y'all are saying, um Senator Peyton 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 flu fluoridate the water and The fun
If, if the purpose of this bill is really to empower the vote of the people, then those people ought to be able to elect 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 is not structured in that way, so I think that's another reason. Not to vote for it. Thank you. Senator Clark Senator Tucker, I think the main
Speaker 260
2:12:06
reason that's not there. It's because there is no move.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
2:12:14
Anywhere in the state to Florida. 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, uh, but I haven't found those people yet. All right, what's the will of the committee? Oh, we already have the motion to
say it. That was discussion, correct? All right, all in favor, say ah. Any opposed? Congratulations, your bill carries. Thank you,
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:12:46
and we'll make 6:13 real quick here. It's going to be real quick, yeah, I do, I do want to say though, I will have a, 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 $10 million 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 like I
said, I also wanted to make topical fluoridation available to the Medicaid population that did Uh, whose
parents do want to fluoridate their children's teeth. 99.5% of the water does not go over somebody's teeth. It, it goes to water grass. It goes to agriculture industry, there's a lot of waste in this and, and most of that $10 million. Literally goes down the drain,
uh, 6:13. I'm not a fan. I would
like to ask y'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. Um, I just want to make sure one of these bills. Gets cross the finish line. So, um, that, that's what that I'll close on the neutral. Thank you. I have a motion. Hold it, Senator King, do you
have a question? I just have't it be easier for everybody into this
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
2:14:20
convoluted, complicated way to try to address this just to. Let everybody vote on the SB 2 and that
Speaker 439
2:14:28
wouldn't be the that would be the easiest would be the cleanest way to do
it, yeah. I have a motion from Senator Clark DuP pass. I have a second, Senator Dotson. Any discussion on the motion. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Eyes have it. Congratulations, 6:13. Is that the number 613.
All right, Sandra Hester. I think he's got a used car sales tax Senate Bill 578.
Chair
Unverified
2:15:12
I, I continue to receive feedback on that. He, you recognize
to present Seville 578. Members is a simple bill. It's agreed on. Um
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
2:15:22
Between me and the association of Counties and uh It just like, like an example of what happened last night. I mean, if there's an emergency, a tornado, inclement weather of some sort, uh, the, uh, well, this is specifically about inclement weather the associate 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, um, 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 the uh the, the county seat open, um, but that's a simple, it'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. OK. I have a motion from Senator Dotson to pass.
I have a second senator, Clark. Any discussion on the motion. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Congratulations, you passed Senate Bill 578. Members were going to have to call it quits for today. Do what? How long is your bill gonna take? Oh, it doesn't take long at all. What number is it?
Speaker 348
2:17:02
House Bill 1243. Come on up, you'll be recognized. Kin Underwood State Representative District 16. Go ahead. Present your bill.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:17:24
And I had an amendment on the bill that There you go. I had a 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?
Speaker 32
2:17:34
I was 12:43. That's right. She'll be passing out the amendment. That But somebody else is going up the chair. Yeah. Yeah
OK, is everybody got the amendment now? You want to explain the
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:18:16
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 I've changed this bill to also be consistent with that. um
Representative Hacks 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 the 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 have a motion to adopt the amendment. There have a motion, Senator Clark, seconded by Senator Sullivan. To adopt the amendment and discussion. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? OK, the amendment is adopted, so let's consider House Bill 1243 as amended. If you could present the bill. Thank you,
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:20:03
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 you're 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 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 of 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 $5000 then you will now move to a monthly reporting system. In election years and then when you're a 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. Um, 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 associated 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 committee? Senator Sullivan. We know how many
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
2:21:56
People this affects how big was the problem before? I mean, we did, my point is we've been changing these election
laws, and my accountant's going crazy trying to keep up with when 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? What are we, or is it just we're trying to get more transparent without knowing. Well, I I guess to
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:22:19
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 violence report until a week before the election.
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
2:22:50
OK, so we don't know, and you're asking somebody from Northeast Arkansas that have solve your problems in Northwest Arkansas. No, well, I think this Solve
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:22:56
a problem across the state if you hit that $5000 trigger. So you know, obviously I think if you're running, if you're raising or spending $5000 or more, you're running, you should be running a pretty professional campaign and so you should have the ability to file campaign finance 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. the Secretary of State's office. May I address
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:23:31
that question, Senator? Yes, you're right. So that was what my amendment did. So, um, Representative Hack 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 that, on his bill, and his bill, I think passed your guys' this committee maybe just a few days ago or maybe maybe it's on the Senate floor. So
your amendment cleaned that up. OK, that's what I wanted. Thank you, Senator Tucker. Election commission have any thought of coming on this? I don't think I've heard from them, to be honest with you.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:24:07
I see Mr. Sloan sitting there. You got any thoughts on this, Mr. Sloan? Um OK, 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 close. OK, what's the. I have a motion due passed as amended. Senator Dodson, 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 and thank you for your patience. All 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, move to expunge the vote by
Speaker 406
2:25:04
which the bill passed. Exactly. Right. So we're expunging the vote by which
the bill passed or got a Du past recommendation. As a man did all in favor say
aye. Any opposed? OK, now we're probably going to need to. The verbal amendment expunge the vote by which
Speaker 462
2:25:25
the amendment was adopted. OK, 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. Ah. Any opposed? Motion carries. So now we need to adopt the formal amendment if we have formal, it'd have to be a new verbal, but it'll be an altered verbal. Oh,
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:25:44
I thought they were sending it, it's coming.
So I'll sign it when it gets here, but we probably need to do a verbal right now, so we
Speaker 468
2:25:57
can Motion to adopt the agreement that's coming I have a motion to adopt the amendment when it gets
here, it changes it in two places from county clerk to circuit clerk. Do you know the other page and line number? Clint, do you know the other
Speaker 288
2:26:14
page and line number? OK, so it is here or is it here?
Speaker 17
2:26:22
full motion motion to the doctor. I withdrawn. So you're
changing your motion, OK, so we have a new verbal, well, we have suspend the rules. I think I
Speaker 152
2:26:34
think So here. We don't have to suspend the
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:26:40
rule to do that. Is it page 1 line 33. Uh, I'll have to ask her. OK, so we're gonna
consider this a technical amendment to change county clerk to circuit clerk.
I've got the page and numbers. Page 2, 20. What's the other one? Page 1
Speaker 351
2:27:01
line 33. Page 1 line 33. OK, I have a motion.
Senator Clark, 2nd, Senator Dotson. A discussion on the motion. All in favor say aye. Any
opposed. OK, the amendments adopted. So now we need to, are you closed for your bill? I'm closed the
Speaker 260
2:27:24
do pass on the Bill as amended. So a motion to pass as amended. I have a
2nd Senator Dotson. Any discussion all in favor say aye. And the opposed. Congratulations, you passed it as amended the 3rd time, 2nd time, 10th time. Uh, what was the other one we had to do? Dots and hurry. Senator Dodson, you're
recognized for Senate Bill 6, House Bill 1604 House
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:27:59
Bill 1604. This is by Senator Hester, no, represented McAloon. Senator Hester handed
Senator Johnson is the Senate sponsor, Senator Johnson is the Senate sponsor Senator Blake Johnson. This
is This is promotional. Prohibiting the use of public funds by state agencies to purchase promotional items.
things like um bumper stickers closing, key chains, mugs, pin, or papers from China. So It's a prohibit prohibition on Promotional items made in China. No public funds. A lot of opposition There there's. OK, 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 Or adjourned. This Yeah.
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
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Senator Scott Flippo 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 155
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 158
Speaker 160
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
Speaker 178
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
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 350
Speaker 351
Speaker 357
Speaker 346
Speaker 378
Speaker 317
Speaker 343
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 32
Speaker 406
Speaker 462
Speaker 468
Speaker 288
Speaker 152