Judiciary Committee- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (69)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1433
Act 828
· 8 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “HB1433 K. Moore TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS EXECUT…”
|
TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS EXECUTING OR SERVING AN ORDER OF PROTECTION … | K. Moore | Notification that HB1433 is now Act 828 |
|
HB1861
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…LANDOWNERS, PRIVATE LEASEHOLDER, AND COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES. HB1861 Duffield TO MAKE OPERATION OF AN ILLEGAL ONLINE CASINO OR S…”
|
TO MAKE OPERATION OF AN ILLEGAL ONLINE CASINO OR SPORTS BETTING A FELONY; TO CREATE … | Duffield | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1057
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1057 R. Scott Richardson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POSSESSION…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY CERTAIN PERSONS; AND TO PERMIT … | R. Scott Richardson | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1178
Act 993
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…F ACTION FOR UNLAWFUL CREATION OF DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL. HB1178 R. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONTRACTING OF A M…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONTRACTING OF A MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY; TO AMEND THE LAW … | R. Scott Richardson | Notification that HB1178 is now Act 993 |
|
HB1306
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ON OF THE RIGHT TO POSSESS A FIREARM TO A NONVIOLENT FELON. HB1306 Furman CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLAC…”
|
CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP; AND TO PROVIDE CIVIL … | Furman | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1504
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Howard M. Beaty, Jr. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1504 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF MANUFACTURING, MODIFYING,…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF MANUFACTURING, MODIFYING, SELLING, TRANSFERRING, OR OPERATING A ROBOTIC DEVICE OR … | S. Meeks | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1529
Act 827
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…S UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1529 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL CREATIO…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL CREATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL; AND … | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1529 is now Act 827 |
|
HB1648
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…COMMITTED CRIMES WHEN THEY WERE UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN. HB1648 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTM…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENTS; TO ALLOW A MEMBER OF A MUNICIPAL … | S. Meeks | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1663
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NCREWED AIRCRAFT THAT IS EQUIPPED OR MOUNTED WITH A WEAPON. HB1663 K. Brown TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMO…”
|
TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMONY FOR A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN … | K. Brown | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1664
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1664 K. Brown TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS…”
|
TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS AND OTHER TESTING IN AN INVESTIGATION INVOLVING ALLEGED … | K. Brown | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1678
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1678 Long TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INC…”
|
TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INCREASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE … | Long | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1754
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE CIVIL PENALTIES. HB1754 Gonzales TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND…”
|
TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY … | Gonzales | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1765
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES. HB1765 Underwood TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DOMESTIC BATTERING IN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DOMESTIC BATTERING IN THE THIRD DEGREE; AND TO AMEND THE … | Underwood | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1832
Act 975
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1832 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND COU…”
|
TO AMEND THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE … | M. Shepherd | Notification that HB1832 is now Act 975 |
|
HB1871
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…FICIENCIES AND QUALITY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES. HB1871 Gazaway TO REQUIRE A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR DEFENDANTS…”
|
TO REQUIRE A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR DEFENDANTS WHO REPEATEDLY VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THEIR … | Gazaway | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1877
Act 977
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1877 S. Meeks CONCERNING CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO POSSESSION…”
|
CONCERNING CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO POSSESSION OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL THAT DEPICTS A CHILD; AND … | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1877 is now Act 977 |
|
HB1885
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1885 Barnett CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A LAW EN…”
|
CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER INVOLVED IN A DEADLY USE … | Barnett | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1895
Act 843
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IOLENCE OR OFFENSES INVOLVING THE PETITIONER AS THE VICTIM. HB1895 Dalby TO ALLOW A CORPORATION OR VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION TO EM…”
|
TO ALLOW A CORPORATION OR VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION TO EMPLOY IN-HOUSE ATTORNEYS TO REPRESENT AFFILIATES OF … | Dalby | Notification that HB1895 is now Act 843 |
|
HB1916
Act 979
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ENT AFFILIATES OF THE CORPORATION OR VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION. HB1916 Bentley TO AMEND THE PROTECTING MINORS FROM MEDICAL MALPRAC…”
|
TO AMEND THE PROTECTING MINORS FROM MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACT OF 2023; AND TO INCLUDE GENDER-AFFIRMING … | Bentley | Notification that HB1916 is now Act 979 |
|
HB1931
Act 694
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1931 Beaty Jr. TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN…”
|
TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN … | Beaty Jr. | Notification that HB1931 is now Act 694 |
|
HB1947
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MINIMUM AGE NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT. HB1947 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA. | Clowney | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1948
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1948 Joey Carr TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE OFFENSE O…”
|
TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE OFFENSE OF NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS COMMITTED; AND TO … | Joey Carr | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1953
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1953 Torres TO PROVIDE FOR A SURCHARGE TO BE ASSESSED ON INMATE…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR A SURCHARGE TO BE ASSESSED ON INMATE PHONE CALLS TO OFFSET THE … | Torres | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1959
Act 986
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1959 M. Brown TO ABOLISH THE WRIT OF SCIRE FACIAS AND SIMPLIFY T…”
|
TO ABOLISH THE USE OF A WRIT OF SCIRE FACIAS AS THE MEANS OF REVIVING … | M. Brown | Notification that HB1959 is now Act 986 |
|
HB1967
Act 981
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1967 K. Brown TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF SEXUAL IMAGES OR RECORDINGS. | K. Brown | Notification that HB1967 is now Act 981 |
|
SB277
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NCIDENT TO BE PLACED ON TEMPORARY LEAVE AND ATTEND THERAPY. SB277 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALIN…”
|
TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PERMIT THE FILING … | J. Bryant | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB314
Act 661
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AL OFFENSE OF GIFT CARD FRAUD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB314 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEXUAL SOLICITATION; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEXUAL SOLICITATION; AND TO AMEND THE PENALTIES FOR THE OFFENSE … | Irvin | Notification that SB314 is now Act 661 |
|
SB325
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB325 A. Clark TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989; TO AM…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989; TO AMEND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO … | A. Clark | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB326
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB326 A. Clark TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989 AND TH…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989 AND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO MODIFY … | A. Clark | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB342
Act 749
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB342 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN ANIMALS BY DOGS TO AUTHORIZE TREBLE DAMAGES. | A. Clark | Notification that SB342 is now Act 749 |
|
SB355
Act 1000
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB355 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVE…”
|
TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS. | J. Bryant | Notification that SB355 is now Act 1000 |
|
SB364
Act 750
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OR LIKENESS GAMES AND GAMING; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB364 Hester TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES RELATED TO CONTRACTORS. | Hester | Notification that SB364 is now Act 750 |
|
SB375
Act 662
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AMEND THE PENALTIES FOR THE OFFENSE OF SEXUAL SOLICITATION. SB375 Stone TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CAPITAL RAPE; AND TO AMEND A…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CAPITAL RAPE; AND TO AMEND A PORTION OF ARKANSAS CODE … | Stone | Notification that SB375 is now Act 662 |
|
SB426
Act 654
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB426 Hester TO CREATE THE DEFENSE AGAINST CRIMINAL ILLEGALS ACT;…”
|
TO CREATE THE DEFENSE AGAINST CRIMINAL ILLEGALS ACT; AND TO ESTABLISH ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR ILLEGAL … | Hester | Notification that SB426 is now Act 654 |
|
SB427
Act 663
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HO COMMIT SERIOUS FELONIES INVOLVING VIOLENCE. Page 3 of 5 SB427 J. Bryant TO AMEND PROMOTING PROSTITUTION OFFENSES; TO ENHA…”
|
TO AMEND PROMOTING PROSTITUTION OFFENSES; TO ENHANCE THE PENALTIES FOR PROMOTING PROSTITUTION IN THE FIRST, … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB427 is now Act 663 |
|
SB428
Act 664
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB428 J. Bryant CONCERNING A CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VICTIMS OF…”
|
CONCERNING A CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO PROVIDE A … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB428 is now Act 664 |
|
SB429
Act 665
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB429 J. Bryant TO EXPAND THE SEALING OF CRIMINAL RECORDS FOR VIC…”
|
TO EXPAND THE SEALING OF CRIMINAL RECORDS FOR VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO PROVIDE THAT … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB429 is now Act 665 |
|
SB430
Act 666
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB430 J. Bryant AN ACT TO REQUIRE MANDATORY RESTITUTION TO BE AWA…”
|
AN ACT TO REQUIRE MANDATORY RESTITUTION TO BE AWARDED TO A VICTIM OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB430 is now Act 666 |
|
SB435
Act 753
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB435 Irvin TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT UPON A HEALTHCARE WORKER; AND TO DEFINE … | Irvin | Notification that SB435 is now Act 753 |
|
SB442
Act 667
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…T CERTAIN SEXUALLY EXPLICIT PRODUCTS THAT RESEMBLE A CHILD. SB442 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO PROVIDE FOR FORFEITURE OF ASSETS USED TO … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB442 is now Act 667 |
|
SB446
Act 668
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…O DEFINE "HEALTHCARE WORKER" REGARDING ASSAULT AND BATTERY. SB446 Gilmore TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READER SYSTEM…”
|
TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READER SYSTEM ACT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE … | Gilmore | Notification that SB446 is now Act 668 |
|
SB449
Act 669
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…REATE THE OFFENSE OF HARBORING AN ENDANGERED RUNAWAY CHILD. SB449 Dees TO PROVIDE CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR CONFISCATION OF ALTERNAT…”
|
TO PROVIDE CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR CONFISCATION OF ALTERNATIVE NICOTINE PRODUCTS, VAPOR PRODUCTS, E-LIQUID PRODUCTS, TOBACCO … | Dees | Notification that SB449 is now Act 669 |
|
SB457
Act 1001
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB457 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RELEASE FROM PARO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RELEASE FROM PAROLE OR POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION OF CERTAIN PERSONS … | G. Leding | Notification that SB457 is now Act 1001 |
|
SB459
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB459 G. Leding TO AMEND THE MINIMUM AGE NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE…”
|
TO AMEND THE MINIMUM AGE NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT. | G. Leding | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB487
Act 754
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB487 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW ON THE DESTRUCTION OR EXPUNGEMENT OF…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW ON THE DESTRUCTION OR EXPUNGEMENT OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY RECORDS. | Irvin | Notification that SB487 is now Act 754 |
|
SB490
Act 972
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…DESTRUCTION OR EXPUNGEMENT OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY RECORDS. SB490 Irvin TO ALLOW A COURT TO WAIVE CERTAIN FEES WHEN A JUVENIL…”
|
TO ALLOW A COURT TO WAIVE CERTAIN FEES WHEN A JUVENILE IS ORDERED TO REGISTER … | Irvin | Notification that SB490 is now Act 972 |
|
SB511
Act 757
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB511 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AUTOMATED TELL…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE IMPAIRMENT. | B. Johnson | Notification that SB511 is now Act 757 |
|
SB512
Act 758
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB512 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ROBBERY AND AGGRAVAT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ROBBERY AND AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. | B. Johnson | Notification that SB512 is now Act 758 |
|
SB513
Act 759
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB513 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF MAIL THEFT; AN…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF MAIL THEFT; AND TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF … | B. Johnson | Notification that SB513 is now Act 759 |
|
SB514
Act 760
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB514 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNLAWFUL POSSESS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A SKIMMER; AND TO INCREASE PENALTIES … | B. Johnson | Notification that SB514 is now Act 760 |
|
SB537
Act 763
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A SKIMMER FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS. SB537 Gilmore TO CREATE THE EARNING SAFE REENTRY THROUGH WORK ACT…”
|
TO CREATE THE EARNING SAFE REENTRY THROUGH WORK ACT; AND TO CREATE A SENTENCE CREDIT … | Gilmore | Notification that SB537 is now Act 763 |
|
SB539
Act 723
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB539 Gilmore TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE LAW R…”
|
TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE LAW REGARDING THE DIVISION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION … | Gilmore | Notification that SB539 is now Act 723 |
|
HB1033
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ECLARE AN EMERGENCY. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1033 McCullough TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CR…”
|
TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CREATE AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER … | McCullough | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1136
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RIOUS Richardson MEDIA IN THE COURSE OF ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. HB1136 Achor TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING AC…”
|
TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PROHIBIT A COURT … | Achor | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1141
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AND TO CREATE AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND WARRANT. HB1141 R. Scott TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO DECEPTIVE A…”
|
TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO DECEPTIVE AND INJURIOUS MEDIA IN THE COURSE OF ELECTION … | R. Scott Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1430
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SON IS SUBJECT TO AN ACTIVE WARRANT OF ARREST. Page 4 of 5 HB1430 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991. | K. Moore | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1431
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991. HB1431 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; AND TO PROHIBIT THE … | K. Moore | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1473
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SE OF HARBORING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. HB1473 Pilkington TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH DISCOUNT CARDS. | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1481
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…GING IN COURSE OF CONTROL OR DISTURBING THE PEACE EX PARTE. HB1481 Long TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHI…”
|
TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT THE PROVISION OF MATERIAL AID AND … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1535
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…L AID AND SUPPORT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS. HB1535 Duffield TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED SENTENCE FOR PERSONS CONVIC…”
|
TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED SENTENCE FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF RAPE OF A CHILD TWELVE YEARS … | Duffield | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1553
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ROXYPROGESTERONE ACETATE TREATMENT FOR CHEMICAL CASTRATION. HB1553 Ray TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBU…”
|
TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS. | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1655
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS. HB1655 Long TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; TO CREATE TH…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HARBORING ILLEGAL … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1676
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…MEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH DISCOUNT CARDS. HB1676 Womack TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE STATE OR A SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE; … | Womack | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1823
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…HE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FUND. HB1823 Duffield TO ESTABLISH THE DISRUPT EXPLICIT FORGED IMAGES AN…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE DISRUPT EXPLICIT FORGED IMAGES AND NONCONSENSUAL EDITS ACT OF 2025; AND TO … | Duffield | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1926
Act 980
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1926 Unger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENSION, REVOCATIO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENSION, REVOCATION, OR NONRENEWAL OF A PERSON'S DRIVER'S LICENSE … | Unger | Notification that HB1926 is now Act 980 |
|
SB302
Act 659
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB302 Gilmore TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF GIFT CARD FRAUD;…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF GIFT CARD FRAUD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | Gilmore | Notification that SB302 is now Act 659 |
|
SB313
Act 733
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB313 Irvin CONCERNING FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND TRE…”
|
CONCERNING FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND TREATMENT; AND TO PROMOTE AND IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES AND QUALITY … | Irvin | Notification that SB313 is now Act 733 |
|
SB321
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…REFUNDS TO BE SUBJECT TO GARNISHMENT BY JUDGMENT CREDITORS. SB321 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRAT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FUND. | J. Bryant | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB431
Act 987
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB431 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; TO EL…”
|
TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; TO ELIMINATE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB431 is now Act 987 |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 7, 2026
I will be called by my vice chair, so he's going to take over while I run across the hall. The first
bill that we'll take up today is House Bill 1433. Representative Kendra Moore, are you ready to present your bill? If you'd sit at
the table. Representative Moore, do you have an amendment on this bill?
Unknown speaker
0:32
Have you signed an amendment yet? Members, we have an amendment on the bill.
I'll just give a couple minutes to get that
passed out to you all. Representative Moore, if you would identify yourself for the record, and then you're recognized to present your amendment to House Bill 1433.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:52
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Kendra Moore, District 23, and with your permission, I'd like to introduce Barb Mariani from the Domestic Violence Coalition. Absolutely, and when you're ready to speak, if you just
want to identify yourself and who you're representing. My name is Barbara Mariani. If you
Barbara Mariani
Unverified
2:15
wouldn't mind turning your mic on, thank you.
Speaker 15
2:18
My name is Barbara Mariani. I'm legal counsel for the Arkansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
2:24
Representative Moore, you're recognized to present your amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So House Bill 1433 was a bill that I brought before you all a few weeks ago. We had some great discussion on that. I pulled the bill down, worked with several members of the committee to make this bill better. So that's what this amendment does. It's pretty simple. It just, on page 2, deletes lines 1 through 23 and just substitutes the language that a warrants check for active warrants should be ran before serving the order of protection.
And that's all the amendment does.
We have a motion to adopt the amendment by Representative Eubanks. Any discussion on the
motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, the ayes have it.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
3:10
Congratulations, you've adopted your amendment. You're now recognized to present your bill. Thank you. So, again, this just addresses the concern that the members had earlier in the session that respondents would come to a hearing in custody. And this language is not mandating an arrest, just that that active warrant check would be delivered and leaving it to the officer's discretion with an arrest or not.
So that's all the bill does now. And, again, I appreciate the committee's leeway in working together and working on the amendment. So I would appreciate a good vote as
Speaker 17
3:41
amended. And does your guest have any remarks that
she would like to make? I'm just here in case there's
Speaker 15
3:50
any questions on the legalities or anything about the law. Okay, perfect. Is
there any questions from the committee? Seeing no questions, we don't have anybody to sign
up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Moore, you're recognized to close for your bill.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
4:05
I am closed for my bill and appreciate a good vote. What's
the wishes of the committee? Due passed. As amended? We have a motion to do pass as amended. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? The ayes have it. Congratulations. You passed your bill. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Committee.
Is Representative Bentley here? I don't see her. representative Duffield? Duffield, they are. Are you prepared to present House Bill 1861? Members, we have a fiscal
impact on this bill, so we'll get that passed out to you here momentarily.
And Representative Duffield, you just give us a minute to get that passed out. Thank you.
Representative Duffield, if you'd recognize yourself, or identify yourself, you'll recognize to present your
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
6:25
bill. Representative Matt Duffield, District 53, Russellville.
And Mr. Chair, with your permission, I'd like Carlton Saffa to join me at the table. Sure, that'd be fine. Thank you, sir. Mr.
Saffa, if you would, when you get to the end of the table, just identify yourself and you guys are recognized for
Carlton Saffa
Unverified
6:44
your remarks. Good morning and thank you. My name is Carlton Saffa. I'm here on behalf of the Saracen Casino Resort in
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
6:55
Pine Bluff. Members, I'm willing to bet that you've been lobbied on this bill.
I'm also willing to bet that your constituents, without realizing it, are playing illegal casino games like slots and tables on their phones, not realizing that they are enriching people in places that hate us and are giving away all their valuable data at the same time. I'd like to begin today with what this bill will not do. It is not some crazy, radical expansion of gambling.
In fact, this sort of activity was legalized over six years ago in West Virginia. Why do I mention West Virginia? It's because it's a state that's even more red and more conservative than Arkansas. This bill is not some crazy, unconstitutional effort. Those arguments are designed to get you to ignore the common sense of the legislation and are designed to solicit knee-jerk opposition without actually looking at the bill and what it addresses.
You also, as members, know that if this was as unconstitutional as some would lead you to believe, then BLR would have pointed that out in drafting, and that didn't happen. This bill will somehow harm the lottery. An exhaustive study on the effects of online gaming as it relates to the lottery was commissioned by the Maryland Lottery. The Innovation Group respected gaming consultants,
reviewed data, and determined there was no real impact on lotteries. To be specific, they found there was a 0.04% impact, but four-tenths of percent may not have been what you were told. It's a rounding error at best. This bill does not in any way take away local control regarding gaming, nor will it somehow be some massive change. Arkansans have had access to betting on their phones since about 2014,
first with horses, then later with approvals for cards for money with poker in 2019 and sports in 2022. Now I'll tell you what this bill actually will do. It recognizes that there are illegal casinos online, available today in the app stores. It says these are not okay and makes operation of one a felony. To do that, we are amending the historic rules about illegal gambling to include the Internet.
This is largely symbolic. The worst actors are offshore operating with the servers in places like the island of Malta and will ignore the criminal law, and we as a state lack jurisdiction or ability to stop them. But it is symbolic and perhaps might address some domestic illegal operators. Notably, at least one illegal sportsbook has already ignored a cease and desist from DF&A. This is a kick-em-out bill, even if symbolic.
I should mention that the American Gaming Association data shows that $500 million a year was bet illegally in our state just last year. The bill recognizes that we have slots and tables on our phones today. We are just getting all of the bad that comes from gaming and none of the good. The only folks who are in this space are doing so around our laws. They pay no taxes, have little regard for patron age, anti-money laundering practices, aren't serious about problem gaming, employ nor assist anyone in our state, and more.
We have the bad from online casinos without any of the good that the people decided on balance justified casinos here. In places like Michigan, we have seen, when there is a regulated and legitimate alternative, patrons choose to go where there is consumer protection, honestly ran games, and a local operator over some overseas app. In Michigan, the largest of the illegal casino operators, VGW, voluntarily left.
This bill tightens up the Wild West of online gaming by regulating it. Rather than an unregulated market, it limits this activity to only the three Arkansas casinos who will have to abide by strict regulations on age and identity and pay gaming taxes to the state. The bill allows, if a school so chooses, to ask that an NIL drawing be allowed on the a casino app, and I might add here that Saracen is offered free of charge, willing to share
this app technology with any school or any other casino in the state that may want it. This is far and away the least important part of the bill. Kicking China out and bringing this business into our economy is the priority, but I should mention there are parameters whereby NAL fundraising could occur if approved by the Arkansas Racing Commission. Speaking of the
commission, one thing you will find throughout this bill is the Racing Commission has control of this. This is not a pass it and it's done kind of thing. Everything in this bill is subject to commission approval. Games, themes, processes, internal controls, testing standards, all subject to regulation by the Racing Commission. And finally, this would generate millions in new tax revenue.
I've seen estimates that the market would generate as much as $68 million in general revenue a year, and once matured and the offshores are fully displaced, the taxes generated at the expense of the illegal operators exceeds $100 million in new general revenue a year. there's no good answer we have iGaming this morning regardless of what we do today we will have iGaming today I'm asking for a good vote to address head-on what we know is happening
so that we can get some of the good instead of just all the bad
Mr. Safa do you wish to make a or maybe you already made your statement and I got in here would
Speaker 32
14:03
you like to make a statement? I have not yet but I would love to
if that's possible. Yes we'll go ahead and take
Speaker 35
14:09
that and then we'll take up questions. Sure. I want to thank you all for this hearing this opportunity. You know credibility matters a lot at least in my world
and for over a year our organization has been consistent. We have said we believe this is an existential threat to our business. We've been on the record with our concerns with letters that you could FOIA to DF&A, to the Racing Commission, and to others. This is important.
Speaker 46
14:44
It's why, rather than send lawyers and lobbyists and proxies alone, I'm here myself. Now, I'm a nobody. I'm just a business guy down in Pine Bluff. But this is the single biggest issue facing gaming today.
And to put this in perspective, gaming is bigger than music and Hollywood combined. So this is the biggest issue in a business that's bigger than gaming, than television, movies, and music combined. Trust me, I would rather be down in Pine Bluff checking out what the wind did to our $250 million expansion than be here today.
Speaker 35
15:22
But it is important. Now, you have no doubt been lobbied, as Representative Duffield said.
Speaker 46
15:30
And those lobby tactics are generally scare tactics. The sky is going to fall if you pass this bill. The world will end. We'll have pocket gambling. Everything will go sideways. The state will somehow liberalize into some downward spiraling whatever you've been told. And I've heard some of it. But as Representative Duffield mentioned, West Virginia has had
Speaker 35
15:52
this for a long time. Y'all been told this is only in liberal states or northeastern states. One Arkansas company is actually already doing this in West Virginia, and it's working quite
well. You as elected officials are tasked with making tough choices for
Speaker 46
16:09
public policy, and you deserve to hear from those directly closest to the issue, not from their lawyers, not from their lobbyists, but from the folks who have their finger on the button. And that's why I'm here. Again, illegal offshore online casinos represent an existential threat to gaming in Arkansas. The bill is at its core about protecting Arkansas consumers and making sure that this money stays in our economy.
I believe that was a compelling point why the voters approved Amendment 100, which was to keep the money in Arkansas. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm here today to tell you that with online offshore illegal gaming, the money is not only leaving our state, it is leaving our country and our continent. This conversation is something we have sought, and in a weird way, even sitting here today is something of a moral victory, because there are those who do not want this discussed.
Opposition to this bill is easy to generate with a pass in the hallway or a text message that this is bad, but upon review, I think it makes sense on face. You'll note, by the way, that this is only six pages, really five, if you drop the boilerplate of the last page. We're doing something fairly simple here. But this discussion alone is what opponents of the bill did not want and have sought to prevent, again, for over a year. Just last week, a New York Times headline read this.
The online casinos that can operate as long as they say they aren't casinos. That pretty much sums it up. And that's what we have today in Arkansas, beamed straight to your constituents, whether they realize it or not. If you're concerned about TikTok, there's no way you shouldn't be concerned about illegal offshore gaming. Because everything that comes with TikTok is there but worse with gaming, including payment information, geolocation, and a whole host of other functions that could be a very real threat to your personal data.
Never mind the fact that if you lose on those sites, you're enriching countries who hate us. This topic at hand has been made overly controversial, and I have consistently said that. It has been intentionally posed in the most divisive of explanations to avoid a simple understanding of the problem and the equally simple proposed solution from Representative Duffield. There are those in the gaming industry that do not want us to talk about this. And bizarrely, despite being in mobile gaming for over a decade and currently operating at least two different mobile gaming apps now, one casino in Arkansas will tell you that they don't like this and they think mobile gaming is bad.
It's strange. Again, I would ask just for the next few minutes, as we hear testimony from a number of people, you make your decision based not on that hallway pass, that scare tactic you were hit with. that text you got, but
on the facts. And I would ask that anything that is presented to you without facts, you be asked what the source is. Now, the Problem Gambling
Speaker 46
19:20
Council is in the room today, and I'm honored that they're here to join us. They can speak to the facts. If you don't believe me, I began with credibility matters.
If you don't believe me about the impact of these illegal offshore casinos, the council is here to speak to it. And it's my understanding that they may have even emailed you all a statement last night. But I want you to understand everything we're talking about we can attribute, including the council, the watchdogs for problem gambling, to speak to just how real this problem and this threat is. Slots, tables, and the like are available on your phones now. I see some of you on your phones now. I will say this. If you go to the Apple App Store and you download Lucky Land or Chumba, you're playing an illegal
online casino, and in 60 seconds, you can be playing a jackpot slot machine or a blackjack game for real money in this building. It's real. It was real when we woke up, and it will be real when we go to bed, regardless of what we do. These apps are growing rapidly. Virtual gaming world is the largest in this space, and in a bad year, VGW grew 44%. In a good year, it grew 186% year over year.
Today, the size of the domestic illegal online market is at least $8 billion, according to gaming analysts. The American Gaming Association's conservative estimate puts the illegal gaming market in Arkansas at $500 million a year, And representatives from one casino in Arkansas tell me they believe it is three times that. And again, if you don't believe what I'm saying, the council is here to speak for it. The marketing tactics of these bad actors are getting more and more aggressive.
What was once just social media advertising with Ryan Seacrest as their pitch man has now turned into daytime television ads, which you've probably seen. And most disturbingly, in just the last week, Saracen's digital team has worked around the clock with Meta to take down over 100 different paid ads on Meta and other platforms. Essentially, Facebook and Instagram have been covered with fake Saracen ads saying, bet with Saracen online.
And when you click through, it takes you to a scam Chinese website. That's real. We've taken down over 100 in just the last 10 days with three folks working around the clock to argue trademarks with Meta. So not only do they propose their own products, they're now spoofing ours to steal your data and encourage you to gamble with them offshore, overseas, thinking you're with a reputable, regulated Arkansas company. That's real. That's what we're fighting. It's also my understanding that the two other casinos in Arkansas have been subjected to the same spoofing.
One entity was so bold, they actually used the state seal in their advertising. Now, Michigan is proof what we're proposing works. There are other states, too, but Michigan is the best. And I will tell you, those of you all in this room that know me know I'm a conservative person, I never thought I would say Michigan got the policy right. They're not very good with water policy in Flint, but on gaming policy, they're right. Kurt Steinkamp, chief of staff of the Michigan Gaming Control Board, said its licensing system helps ensure fairness and compliance with consumer protection regulations.
It ensures that when residents gamble online in Michigan, the state sees its share of revenue. "Companies that operate either in the black market or the gray market are directly competing for revenue with licensed, regulated entities, and that impacts our tax dollars." And if you doubt me for a moment, grab your phone and Google "VGW exits Michigan." Because what you'll find in Michigan is that they had staunch, tough regulations combined
with a legitimate alternative, and VGW left. It works. If you have a tough penalty and a legitimate alternative, the bad guys leave. If you just have a ban, nothing happens. But if you provide a regulated alternative, the bad guys leave. You have a choice before you, and it's a tough one. I understand that. People will pitch this as an expansion of gaming, but I would argue it's actually something of a contraction, a restriction, because today you are in the Wild West.
DFNA tells me as many as 20 sites have been identified as operating in our state offshore and overseas. After the passage of this bill, there will only be three who are allowed to do it. And if you are not one of those three, if you're one of these offshore shadowy groups, you're subject to a felony if we can get you. And if you're not somebody we can get, you're competing with three of the strongest brands in the state in terms of casino gaming. For the Republicans in the room, I want you to consider this, and I'm going to read to
you directly from what Donald Trump said about this issue about a decade ago. Trump speaking to the Associated Press said, "Online gaming should be approved here. An awful lot of money is leaving the United States that should and could stay in this country. You can look that one up too. I'm happy to share the link if you'd like. It was NewJersey.com, but was heavily picked up. Trump also testified in a congressional hearing
in 2011, essentially to the same, that absent some way to kick them out to keep the money in the country, we need to be involved in this space. So do we acknowledge that we are in the wild west of online gaming, playing whack-a-mole with shape-shifting, China-linked offshore online casinos? Because we are. We fight it every day. Experts tell us that these groups have links to criminal organizations and connections to things like money laundering, human trafficking, and even terrorism. That's who we're trying to beat, and more importantly,
displace from Arkansas. Because how do you pass a felony provision to get someone in the Pacific or the southeast with servers in Cyprus and Malta to stop. A felony provision alone will not scare them away. What does is having legitimate regulated alternative where all their customers flee to. Now, the proposal is simple, and I'm almost done, y'all. The licensed operators, the folks who have the constitutional permissions to provide a legitimate alternative,
one where games aren't rigged, where DF&A has confirmed things are operating according to the rules, where we prevent children from gambling using all of our technology just like we do with sports betting, where we acknowledge problem gambling, and we can generate massive sums in taxes. All at the expense, by the way, of the illegal offshores. In a world where we could make offshore casinos disappear, this conversation would look entirely different. We would come to you with a simple, non-controversial bill to simply ban the offshore casinos. But that's not possible.
And I'm not a defeatist person, but I am telling you the only way to stop these bad actors, the only way to kick China out, is to provide a reputable alternative that will cause them to leave the market. And as we saw in Michigan, if you Googled that, you see the bad guys do leave when there is an alternative. The bill creates an incredibly restrictive environment online where no rules exist today. This is a bill to regulate online gaming and make illegal operation a felony. It's why it's in y'all's committee.
Because of the felony provisions, the tough, staunch provisions that we are using for the bad actors. And it makes it extremely clear that only can online gaming occur with intense scrutiny and regulation, gaming taxes, and only by Arkansas's licensees. The question before you today is simple. Do you want to pretend that online gaming is not happening? And that's okay. If we just say it's not happening, there are people in this room that will tell you otherwise.
My understanding is as many as half of the phone calls to the Problem Gambling Council today are as a direct result of these apps. But if you want to believe it's not happening today, I understand that. I don't agree with you, and I believe you're wrong, but I understand that. Or you can take the proactive step and say no more. No more. So do we want to pretend it's not happening or do we want to take a responsible, proactive step to move forward? Let's stop this Wild West online.
Let's take the position that Trump himself took a decade ago. No more criminal operators feely-beaming their content into our state. There is no world where iGaming does not exist in our state. Yesterday, today, or tomorrow. My only question for you today is, do you want to have control in how it happens to make sure it's taxed and regulated, or pretend it's just not here? Members, are there any questions?
Representative Hudson, you're recognized for a question. Thank
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
28:42
you, Madam Chair. Representative Duffield, I have heard and been concerned that this bill is going to have some inadvertent effect on the lotto and the scholarships made available by the lottery. Could you explain to me
why it doesn't? We put the language in the bill about the lottery, didn't we?
Speaker 40
29:09
Yeah, do you want me to take care of you? We're
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
29:15
not together. Yeah, Representative Hudson, we added some language to the bill as an amendment that addressed that this does not have anything to do, will
not have anything to do with the lottery. Let's see, where is that at? If I
Speaker 35
29:28
may, if you don't mind, Representative, I can help with that question as well. In a prior life when I worked in this building for Governor Asa Hutchinson, my favorite agency to work with was actually the lottery.
That's when Bishop Woosley was the director, and I never in the world thought I would be in the gaming business. I thought working with the lottery would be the closest I'd ever come. There is an amendment to the bill. There's two responses to your question. There's an amendment to the bill that makes it very clear that none of the bans and prohibitions that we're talking about have any impact on the lottery. So anything we're talking about will not in any way do anything to lottery operations. If your question is about the overall impact of lottery revenue, there's an incredible report that was commissioned, and I'm happy to share it with you.
There was an incredible report that was commissioned by the Maryland Lottery from a company called the Innovation Group. I printed out the first page and the relevant part. It's right here. I'm happy to share it with you later if you'd like. But
Speaker 46
30:31
what it says simply, they did a review of the impact on iGaming in lottery sales. So what it says simply is net lottery growth. So how much did the lottery grow in states that have iGaming?
It grew 11.9% on average. In a non-iGaming state, it grew 12%. Now there's some rounding here because the actual impact of iGaming on lotteries is 0.04% of revenue. Now that's not speculative. That's not what we think will happen. That's a study that the Maryland
Speaker 35
31:08
Lottery requested. So this isn't something like a casino went out and had a report done to show, oh, there's no harm.
This was prepared for the Maryland Lottery. And I'm happy to share it with you if you'd like, but this is something that we were cognizant of from the beginning. And in part, because our organization has always been very lottery friendly. For a long time, we actually had a gas station down the road from our casino that we owned. And we aggressively sold lottery tickets. We've even given
Speaker 46
31:36
them away as promotions for our players. So I can't speak for the other casinos in Arkansas. There's generally been some tension between casino and lottery. We don't view them as a competitor. And one final thing, I think part of the reason that you don't see a lot of change between iGaming and non-iGaming is, as I said earlier, we sort of already have iGaming.
So when you see the non-iGaming states, there's already access to these products in those states anyway. But to specifically answer your question, twofold. We amended the bill at the
Speaker 35
32:05
request of a lottery vendor who is not bellyaching and screaming that this is going to be the end of the world. They make money as the lottery makes money. So at the specific request of a lottery vendor, we made an amendment. And I think that this report, which
Speaker 25
32:21
I'm happy to share with you, speaks directly to the fact that the impact is 0.04%, which is a rounding error.
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
32:27
You recognize for a follow-up. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I don't know if this is appropriate or not. Is there anyone from the Lotto here that we could call up to speak to their perspective on
this? I think so. Come on down and identify yourself and then right to the end of the
table there. Right over here on the, yes.
Mr. Staffo, if you'll move, please. Thank you. If
you'll identify yourself and then Representative Hudson has a question for you.
Speaker 72
33:02
Good morning. I'm Sharon Strong, Executive Director of the Arkansas
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
33:10
Scholarship Lottery. Thank you, Director, and thank you for coming to the end of the table. Sort of repeating the same question I had for Representative Duffield and Mr. Safa, my concern, especially given some of the additional obligations we've put on funding lottery scholarships as we expanded the students who are eligible to receive them, I'm worried about fiscal impact one, but I'm also worried about whether or not, just looking at some of
the language in here, if there's any unintended consequences to the lottery.
Could you kind of tell us what
Speaker 75
33:46
your assessment has been? So we do have a concern that any time any new channels are being introduced, that that would take up market share in the gaming industry. And this bill would, as you know, allow for a new channel that would be available to the casinos, but that would not be available to the lottery.
And so, you know, I think any time someone is choosing where to spend their discretionary income, you know, whether it's at the movies or any other area in the entertainment industry or gaming, it's, you know, this would certainly make it more convenient. for people to use that discretionary income wherever they're located versus walking into a convenience store or a grocery store to purchase their sort of analog, for lack of a better word, lottery ticket.
So that would be a concern. And at the forefront of my mind right now is, as you noticed, Representative Hudson, that, well, so the lottery is the only subsect of the gaming industry that has a public beneficiary. And as you all know, in Arkansas, that's students of higher education. In other states, it may be other things. But in Arkansas, the citizens voted to create a lottery for the benefit of students of higher education. So in this session, a bill was passed a couple of weeks ago
to increase the lottery's responsibility to those students, and the fiscal impact of that was $22.6 million. So we're going to be funding $22.6 million more annually in scholarships than we ever have before. And so for me as the executive director, that's my highest priority. And so I just want to, my priority is making sure that we are able to continue to be sustainable and viable and to fulfill our mission as we were created to do.
Representative Clowney, you recognize for a question. Do you have one for the
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
35:58
lottery director? Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually
Erin Hogan
Unverified
36:02
do. Oh, okay. We're lucky then. Do you have anything to say
Speaker 75
36:06
about the Maryland study? Can you expand on that at all? I haven't looked at that, and so I can't really comment on that data specifically. We do know that in states that have iGaming, that the casinos and the lotteries are direct competitors with each other.
But here, you know, this bill would allow for the casinos to have iGaming, but it wouldn't allow for the lottery to have anything digital. And so there wouldn't be a channel or a tool for the lottery to be able to compete or to match that effort, I guess. Do you need a follow-up, Representative? Okay. Members,
any other questions for the director? Thank you for coming to the end of the table.
Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we do have a
couple of people who have signed up. The first one to sign up against the bill is Walter Ebel.
Ebel. I always get that wrong. I apologize. That's all right. If you'll identify yourself, then you may make
Speaker 83
37:22
your statement. Walter Ebel. I am the general counsel for Oak Law, and I have been in that position for over 30 years.
And I'm here to respectfully oppose the bill, the portions of the bill merely, that would legalize iGaming. And interactive gaming is how it's referred to in the bill. But iGaming, as you may already know, is basically putting a mini casino on your telephone, on your computer, where you can bet on slot-like machines, craps, dice, roulette, other casino games from your mobile phone anywhere in Arkansas 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
And we think that's a significant expansion of gaming in Arkansas. We like the model of people coming to the physical casinos, enjoying the entertainment aspect of that. We had scores of thousands of people at Oak Lawn last weekend who come to the physical place, go to restaurants, stay in hotels. And we think that iGaming, if it's authorized in the manner throughout the state on every phone,
would have an adverse impact on the physical casinos themselves, the communities where people come to visit those casinos, and tourism that directly and indirectly benefits from that. If you look at the innovation group, it was mentioned earlier in what they did in Maryland. It's interesting that the innovation group just recently came out with a report on the negative impacts
that iGaming would have on physical casinos and the direct and indirect economic benefits that that entails. And so that is another aspect of it. When people don't come to the physical casinos, they're not spending money coming to the casinos. They're not spending money in restaurants and hotels and things of that nature. We believe that would have a negative impact ultimately on the communities in which the casinos operate.
It's important to note that if you allow mobile wagering on every phone in the state, When people spend money in Fayetteville on their mobile phone, if you legitimize this by making it legal, you will increase activity utilizing that aspect of it. If someone is in Fayetteville and they utilize their mobile phone to make an iGaming wager, they have less money to go out and spend in Fayetteville and Washington County.
Similar to every other county in the state other than the three counties where the casinos are located, they have less money to spend in those areas. There's less local sales tax revenues achieved for those local communities. And it's important to note that when I place a wager on iGaming from my phone in Fayetteville or Washington County or any of the other counties other than the three where the casinos are located, The local portion of the casino tax from that wager doesn't go to Fayetteville or Washington County.
The local portion of the casino tax from that wager, even though I'm sitting in Fayetteville making the bet, goes to the city and the county where the physical casino is located, Hot Springs or Garland County, Pine Bluff or Jefferson County or West Memphis or Crittenden County. We also believe, and I know that there's been conflicting testimony, but the innovation group, when it studies something going on in Maryland, that's not necessarily the same impact it would have in Arkansas.
I think it's common sense that if you, as the lottery director indicated, I think it's common sense when discretionary dollars are spent on one activity in gaming, there's less discretionary dollars to spend on it in another area of gaming. So we feel that iGaming, if it's legitimized, if it's made legal, it will definitely have an adverse impact on the Arkansas lottery, on scholarships, and including the vocational and technical school scholarships that were recently passed at the November election.
We also feel, as the lottery director indicated, that if we go down this path of allowing the casinos to operate iGaming on phones all throughout Arkansas, then the lottery is going to be here saying, well, we need the same thing. We need what's called iLottery, which is another form of basically a slot machine on your phone through the lottery. And the lottery is going to say, we need that. and it's going to further expand the gambling footprint throughout the state.
And so we don't think that's a good idea. We don't think that's good public policy. The other thing to take into account is when you authorize and legitimize this in every place in Arkansas, you're forcing many casinos in every community in Arkansas without that community's say-so. Recently in November, the people of Arkansas passed Issue 2. Issue 2 has a provision in it that any expansion of casinos in new localities has to be approved by a local option election.
The local communities have to end up having a say if there's any new casinos authorized. By doing this, you would be authorizing a mini casino every place in Arkansas. And I question whether that is totally contrary to the intent of the people when they passed Issue 2 just most recently in November, saying we don't want new casinos unless there's a local option election and a decision to do that.
We think that the advent of iGaming throughout Arkansas will also have a negative impact on your charitable bingo and raffle games, people who are raising money for charitable purposes, your churches and charitable organizations, they're going to come and say, well, we need an Internet raffle so that we can compete with the casinos as you legitimize this. So we think there's many negative impacts from this, and we would end up making money.
I'm saying, we just don't believe this is the right public policy, and we would end up making a very good deal of money on it. It's important to note that, yes, West Virginia, as Carlton pointed out, yes, West Virginia authorizes this. But if you look at the other states, which is just about six, they're all in the Northeast. They're Pennsylvania. They're New Jersey. There are states in the Northeast. No state around Arkansas or even in the South.
has authorized iGaming. And if you really follow it, you see that there's a lot of momentum shifting. There's less momentum to push iGaming as the negative impacts come out. And the negative impacts include the fact that, unfortunately, iGaming is one of the most addictive forms of gambling. And you've got probably enough addictive forms of activity on your phone as it is. And so we respectfully just are opposed to the portions of the bill, basically
Section 2, that would authorize iGaming throughout the state. And so we would just ask that this bill not be approved. The portions of Section 1 that deal with regulatory aspects are not something that we're opposed to, but we are opposed to the expansion and making it legitimate throughout the state. Mr. Ebel, we have a couple of
questions, if you'll entertain those. Will you entertain questions? Yes. Yes. Representing Moore,
you're recognized for a question.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
46:07
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Ebel, for your testimony. I just want to get this clear, because it sounds like you've talked a lot about being against online wagering from your phone, but are you
Speaker 86
46:20
telling me you're against people wagering or gambling from their mobile device? No, I
Speaker 83
46:26
think it's different. I mean, as you know, there has been wagering on horse racing on your phones for a long time. You have wagering on sporting events on your phone. That's an entirely different form of wagering.
Wagering on horse racing in sports, it's widely accepted. It's widely done throughout the United States. Many states have authorized that. Wagering on horse racing in sports is wagering on a specific event at a specific time. There's thought and judgment that goes into the process. When you wager on iGaming, it's instantaneous. It's fast-paced. You're just sitting there on your phone making wagers one right after the other.
The pace of play is
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
47:14
totally different. Follow-up, Madam Chair. You're recognized. You also mentioned that regarding local taxes and local communities need to have a say in whether their citizens can have that Internet casino or that online wagering device in their pocket. Where do the taxes go from sports betting
Speaker 86
47:36
and horse wagering? They go to the communities in which the casinos are located.
Thank you. You good, Representative Moore? Representative Eubanks, you're
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
47:52
recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sir, is there illegal online gambling available to
Speaker 83
47:59
the citizens of the state? I'm certain that there probably is. there probably are some illegal gambling going on on phones through certain outlets. And there is a portion of this bill that deals with that that we're not opposed to,
Speaker 86
48:14
but that could be going, that is going on. So it is going on currently. I think that's correct. All right, thank
you. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, thank you for coming today and thank
you for your testimony. Members, we have one other person who has signed up to speak against, Enid Valentine. Ms. Valentine, why don't you go ahead and go to the very end of the table. That way I think everybody will be able to see you a little easier. If you'll just identify yourself and you're recognized to give your testimony.
Enid Valentine
Unverified
48:47
Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Enid Valentine. I represent the Arkansas Problem Gambling Council. And I will be brief out of everyone's respect for your time. But I just want to share a story. As a mother, as a former educator, as someone on the board for the Advisory Council for the Problem Gambling, and someone who also is an advisor in digital marketing, I work in digital marketing, I just really want to urge you all to take decisive action.
There are a lot of dangers with these unregulated overseas markets. Because I do digital marketing, I understand the predatory nature of them as well. And they're not just available. They are purposefully pursuing those that have the money and the tendencies to become gambling addicts, and they're causing harm. You've already heard about effects on economy. But from the standpoint of the harm that it is causing to Arkansans because it is not regulated,
Like I said, thousands of calls in the last year specifically related to this issue. We get all kinds of calls, but this issue in particular, the numbers are rising dramatically as far as people reaching out because they have a problem. One such person was a young man. He was a first responder, and his father actually was the one that called, was concerned about him. He was spending thousands of dollars a month gambling online. Now, he had a high-stress position.
This was probably his stress relief, but it got out of control by thousands and thousands of dollars. And when more information was learned, five separate illegal offshore gambling platforms is where this money was going. And so, if it's regulated, it will protect Arkansans, and it will also keep offshore illegal apps from creating any harm, causing any harm.
So, I would just urge you all to take strong, decisive action to protect our people, to protect in our state from harm, from these
Speaker 98
51:14
harmful, illegal gambling apps. Thank you.
Ms. Valentine, I don't see anybody, any questions? Seeing no questions, and for the record, I want to let the committee know Ms. Valentine
has signed up for information, I
think, and I did not, she didn't put for or against, so I apologize for that. But thank you for appearing before the committee today and giving your testimony.
Speaker 97
51:38
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for
your time. You bet. Members, any other questions? We have no one else who has signed up to speak for or against. Ms. Valentine, you're welcome to go have a seat. With that, Representative Duffield, you're recognized to come to the end of the table and close for your bill.
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
52:12
Thank you, Madam Chair. Would it be appropriate if Mr. Saffa could join me for this close, please? Well, by rule, it's you. No problem. Sorry about that. No problem at all. Thank you so much, committee, for listening to all of this today. I know it's at the end of session, and things are moving at a fever pitch, and we see today that this is a loaded topic. I mean, there's a lot to discuss here.
We know there's a lot, a lot of money on the line here for not just casino operators, but the state of Arkansas. Just a few things before we go into the close, I'll address on just a few of the comments that were made. I think that to say that online sports, betting, and iGaming are different, at least in my view, that's not how I see it.
Anytime a citizen of the state of Arkansas picks up their phone and spends their hard-earned money to gamble on anything, whether it be a horse, slot machine, blackjack table. In my view, that's the same. Now, am I an online gambler? No. Do I go and gamble in casinos? No. Have I? Yes. About 10 years ago when I was in Las Vegas, I put a $20 bill in a slot machine. I lost it in five seconds, and I haven't done it since.
Everyone has their hobbies they enjoy. Everyone has things they like to do and things they don't like to do, and they have their opinions on that. In my view, this is the United States of America, and this is the state of Arkansas, and I think that as such, we should have the choices to make our own decisions, and we as government officials need to respect that. And whether it be moral in our view, moral, whichever the case,
I think that should be left up to the citizen to make that decision. So with that said, I think the picture has been painted essentially by the opposition of this bill that this is something that doesn't exist as such. And as Representative Eubanks asked earlier, and I think the point was made, this is something that's going on now. Any one of us can pick up our phone and gamble. We can go on there. We can play online slots.
We can play blackjack. We can play any game we want, and it's by deceptive means from the owners of these apps and these operations through false advertising, coercing. We spoke of that earlier. Am I a proponent of gambling? No. Am I a proponent of online gaming? No. But it's here. It's going to be here. It's happening now. As we said, we had the data that $500 million-plus is being spent on illegal gambling.
Now, that's not just online, but it's certainly a chunk of it. So in my view, if we're going to have something, we need to have it regulated. The brick-and-mortar operators of the state of Arkansas who have done things by the book, by the Racing Commission guidelines, need to be the ones that are afforded to do that under a strict scrutiny. that's my my viewpoint of it. What's happening now is anyone can pick up their phone and do it. The state of Arkansas is not seeing a single penny of that
revenue in taxes. I'm a second term state representative down here and since I've been here and this is not a criticism of anyone but the three words that I've constantly heard, at least in my mind, is spend, spend, spend. And this would be a revenue for us to make some serious tax dollars to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars for the state of Arkansas that could be put to very, very
good use in many, many different ways. With that said, I understand this is a a loaded topic. I appreciate everyone's patience with this bill, my colleagues. I certainly never like to add undue stress to my colleagues. I know we have enough stress as it is. This is a lot to discuss, and we are here at the end of the session. It's a mad dash. Do I like it? No, but again, it's a reality, kind of like this illegal online gaming is. It's
and that's the way it is. With that said, I like to be a problem solver, not a problem creator. And I think that all problems are solved through discussion. And this is a loaded topic. There's a lot here, a lot to discuss. And like I said, there's a lot of money on the line for Arkansas-based businesses, the casinos with the licenses, and there's a lot
of money on the line here that could potentially greatly help the state of Arkansas. In my view, I'm not certain that it's advantageous for me to ask members of this committee today for a hard yes or hard no approach to a topic that doesn't need to have a rushed answer. This has been going on for a long time. Gambling's going to be going on when we're all long gone, maybe with virtual reality headsets.
Who knows? So, Madam Chair, with your permission, if it were, I would like to ask for an interim study on this bill so we can have further discussion and come to a solid conclusion that we feel comfortable with and that we're not going to be rushed through the process here at the end of session.
Representative Duffield, from your request, I'm guessing your request is you're asking to pull the bill down and to put it in interim study.
Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. Without objection, the committee will allow him to pull his bill down and to put it in interim study. To finalize putting it into interim study, you'll need to go to the House and talk with Ms. J. Rowe. Okay. All right. Thank you
for your time. And thank you, everyone who came to testify today on this bill. We'll allow you to do that. Representative Torres, if you'll come to the end of the table.
Members, if you will turn to House Bill 1953. House Bill 1953. Good morning,
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
59:37
Madam Chair. Thank you, members. Randy Torres, State Representative, District 17, Siloam Springs. If I could, Madam Chair, could I have Ms. Tawny Rowell with Chief Counsel of
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
59:49
the Department of Corrections join me? Ms. Rowell?
Hang on just a moment, Mr. Representative Torres, until the door gets shut so we
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:00:07
can hear you. All right, you may proceed. Okay.
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
1:00:11
House Bill 1953 is a very simple bill, and this will be pretty quick. This bill proposes adding an extra fee, a surcharge, to phone and video calls made by inmates in Arkansas state prisons and county jails. The money collected from this fee would be used to cover security costs related to inmate communications, such as monitoring and equipment.
Here's a quick breakdown of what the bill does. Number one, it allows the Department of Corrections to charge an extra fee on inmate phone and video calls. Two, it allows county sheriffs to do the same for county jails. Three, it requires that the extra money goes into specific funds used only for security-related expenses. Four, it limits the phone call rates so that they can't exceed the maximum cost per minute set by the Federal Communications Commission as of 2021.
And finally, five, it gives state officials, including the chief fiscal officer and the governor, the authority to determine the surcharge amount. And with
that, I'll take any questions. Representative Tosh,
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:01:21
you recognize for a question? Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative, I understand the inmates. The inmates are already, most jails that I'm familiar with or the sheriffs I've talked to,
it was my understanding the inmates are already being charged to make those phone calls. So are we adding on with this bill? Is it going to be an additional charge? Because I understand it's already pretty expensive for some of them to even make a call now. Yes, Representative
Tasha, I'm going to have Raleigh join me in on this. If you'll identify yourself. Good morning. Tawny
Speaker 115
1:02:01
Rowell, Chief Counsel for the Department of Corrections. You are correct that inmates are paying a fee, and often it's their
Speaker 116
1:02:07
families who are paying the fees so that they can make telephone calls. There's a few things that have happened at the federal level that have necessitated this.
So in July of 2024, the FCC amended their rule on inmate communications, and the first thing they did was substantially cut the rate cap. It went from $0.14 a minute to $0.06 a minute. That's a public policy argument at the federal level, and that's not part of what we need help for in this bill. The other thing it did was completely eliminate site commissions, regardless of whether they're built into that new $0.06 a minute cap. And the big thing that this bill is looking to address is that it prohibits all of our
vendors from giving us what we kind of, they were free services that were provided to us by the vendor. And a lot of these were really important for security that goes along with the issues that come up within May Communications. These were things like search warrant processing, voice identification and verification, storage of those phone calls and monitoring, word detection, analysis of the recordings, and and then helping with reporting obligations. So prior to this FCC ruling,
our vendors rolled that service into what they gave us. The FCC ruling provided this used and useful standard and a lot of that got kicked out. So what that means is that now these services that we were getting as part of our contract at no cost to the department and no cost to taxpayers, we're gonna be looking at paying close to a million dollars a year for. So the purpose of this is to just allow the chief fiscal
Speaker 117
1:03:47
officer of the state to set a small surcharge that allows us to recoup that cost.
Do you need a follow-up, Representative? Yes, ma'am. I'm trying
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:04:01
to process a lot of stuff. I've got somebody else in line. If you want to process, then I can go to. Let me ask this question, then I'll do a little more process. But it was my understanding that vendors now, you said that it was free, that you had contracted with a vendor, and these phone calls were through that contract. Did I understand you say they were free?
Speaker 123
1:04:27
No, sir. The phone calls aren't free. I don't think so. Yes.
Speaker 116
1:04:32
So what was provided to the department at no cost to the department was all of those services that I just listed, which give us the opportunity to, you know, identify potential riots. All of those keyword searches we do genuinely use as an opportunity to help get contraband out of the prisons to the extent that we can. So it is a really important service for both our operations and the safety of our inmates.
I'll be honest, I was really disappointed to see that
Speaker 117
1:05:06
those services were considered not used and useful. This is not a bill I wanted to be down
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:05:13
here talking about. So you're saying the services and the safety of the officers. I'm trying to understand how a phone call, when an inmate goes and makes a phone call to their family, you're saying that's a safety issue for the officers? Is that what you just said? So,
Speaker 116
1:05:32
Representative, it's not always their families they're calling, right?
Sometimes it's people on the outside that they're coordinating contraband drops with. Sometimes it is, you know, girlfriends who they are working to, you know, subvert our genuine security interest with. And the services, the recordings, and the keyword monitoring and whatnot allows us the opportunity to try to get ahead of some of those issues as they occur. Okay, I think we're not
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:06:01
on the same page. I'm understanding, I understood that what you were asking here was
you wanted an increase or be able to charge for inmates that were making phone calls on top of the charge that's already labeled against them for making those calls. And somehow now we've got into a conversation about safety of the officers, about contraband. I mean, if they're making deals on the phone, would you agree they're going to make those deals whether they're charging them $5 a call or whether they're charging them $20 a call. I'm not really seeing how this bill is going to protect that.
Speaker 115
1:06:40
So I think the first thing to keep in mind is that
Speaker 116
1:06:44
even with this surcharge, it's not going to exceed the prior rate cap. So the rate cap has dropped from $0.14 a minute to $0.06 a minute, so we're not going to go above what they're currently paying. Their families aren't going to see an increase in cost with this, and it's going to be very narrowly tailored to offset the cost of these services that the FCC and the federal government now prohibit our vendors from giving the department at no cost.
Speaker 126
1:07:15
And like I said, you know, they might continue to broker
Speaker 116
1:07:20
these deals on the calls, but we won't have the opportunity to use the keyword searches and the monitoring to get ahead of that. And I hope that that makes sense.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:07:34
I know this is... Well, so if there's no increase to the families, but you're saying this bill proposes an increase,
so the increase then is being directed to from who to who? I'm just not understanding that. So I'm sorry if I
Speaker 116
1:07:56
misspoke or said that in a confusing way. There will certainly be a surcharge above the $0.06. The chief fiscal officer of the state would be responsible for setting that surcharge in a way that's narrowly tailored to offsetting this cost for these services. It would be more than the $0.06 overall, and it would be collected by the vendor.
It will not exceed the $0.14 that they are currently paying. Madam Chair, I'm going to get
out of the queue. I may get back in a minute. Thank you. Representative Collins, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:08:33
Thank you, Madam Chair. And just to be clear, though, there's nothing in these communication security things that you want to do that you can't do now. You're just looking for a new revenue source, which is the families of the inmates, to do it, right?
Speaker 116
1:08:50
Yes. It does look to offset the cost that the federal government now has placed on us. Right. And follow-up,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:08:57
please. You're recognized. But just to be clear, you don't have to do a surcharge on inmates and their families to pay for this. You could pay for it from other revenue sources. You just would prefer not to. Yes, we
Speaker 116
1:09:11
could seek an increase in general revenue, but it's not as tailored to what the need is. Thanks. Representative
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:09:19
Hudson, you're recognized for a question.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I think Representative Tosh's back and forth kind of raised some questions for me. I'm looking now at the FCC rule, and I don't see where you can get around the caps from the FCC rule and add these additional surcharges and still be compliant with the caps in the FCC rule. So how are you planning to get around the fact
Speaker 116
1:09:48
that there are these hard caps? So the FCC rule does not expressly address this. South Carolina has a similar law that is in effect right now, so we're hopeful that this would also be acceptable.
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:10:02
You need a follow-up? I do. On average, how much are inmates currently paying for phone calls? I believe we're right
Speaker 123
1:10:09
at the 14 cents a minute right now. Representative Gonzalez,
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
1:10:17
Chair. So you're at 14 cents a minute right now. the federal government says you can only charge six so you're wanting to get back to that 14 cents with the surcharge or around that but where where in the bill does it say that it's going to be
capped at that 14 cents because
Speaker 116
1:10:37
i don't see that um so the bill does not expressly say that it'll be capped at that 14 cents um however right now that 14 cents includes site
Speaker 123
1:10:46
commissions that we will not be able to get. I could very quickly do some math on, I could text and get information on how many minutes.
Speaker 116
1:10:56
I can just tell you that it's going to be nowhere near needing to get to 14 cents a minute to match that revenue stream. And like I said, the chief fiscal officer of the state is
going to be responsible for setting the amount of this surcharge, and it's going to
Speaker 123
1:11:13
be really narrowly tailored to the cost to cover those services that the federal government says that our vendor can no longer give
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
1:11:26
us at no cost. Do you need a follow-up? Yes, please. Thank you. So it says that the chief fiscal officer shall, after consultation with legislative audit and association of Arkansas counties, end up on approval by the governor. So he didn't just, the chief fiscal
officer doesn't just set the charges, right? So why did you put the Association of Arkansas Counties in law? So that portion is actually
Speaker 116
1:11:50
for them to allow the counties to collect. That has to be in a separate section of the code because
Speaker 123
1:11:57
county funding, there's actually one section for corrections and one section for counties. This is
Speaker 150
1:12:08
surcharge and how that's determined, how the surcharge is determined?
Speaker 151
1:12:13
Yes, so that one is in Section 4, and that one deals with assessing the surcharge for the
Speaker 116
1:12:19
counties so that they can deal with that at the county jail level. If you'll look in Section 3, which is on page 2, then that's the one that's specific to corrections. And that one, the Chief Fiscal Officer consults with the Division of Correction in our consult legislative audit. That allows us the opportunity to provide them the quotes that we've been given for these services that we use for safety and security, specifically related to these inmate communications,
and then they can set that surcharge appropriately based on what that funding mechanism needs to look like. Okay,
thank you. Rep. McCullough, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
1:12:55
Chair. I want to go back for a second to the conversation about inmates making calls to other people besides their families and contraband coming in and that type of stuff. Aren't these phone calls recorded? So
Speaker 116
1:13:07
they are currently recorded. As of April 17th, however, we won't be able to record them without paying for the storage. That's an enormous cost to the department, and that is one of the things that we're able to use that for.
If contraband comes in and we're able to tie it to an inmate, we can allow our investigators to look and see if they had any conversations that we could use to pinpoint where that contraband is coming in at. without either identifying an additional source of
Speaker 117
1:13:38
funding or getting this surcharge added. We would not be able to keep
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
1:13:44
that recording mechanism. Follow-up, please. Certainly. Do y'all have any data about how much these phone calls affect contraband
Speaker 116
1:13:51
or that type of thing? So it would be pretty anecdotal. A lot of times that's when it makes it up to internal
Speaker 117
1:14:00
affairs. I don't have, you know, hard and fast statistics on
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
1:14:04
what that looks like. One more, please. So when you're talking about, so basically we end
up trusting the chief fiscal officer. There's nothing in this bill that limits anything. Is that correct? Well,
Speaker 117
1:14:16
it does have a component where legislative audit has to weigh in.
Representative Collins, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:14:26
Thank you, Madam Chair. My recollection serves me right. and I believe Senator Clark and I actually had a bill on this a couple years ago going the opposite direction. But don't you guys already get a large kickback from your deal with the phone provider? And can you tell me what that amount is that
you get back as a commission just from having this on every phone call? So the FCC
Speaker 116
1:14:48
ruling, one of the things that I pointed out in my initial review was that those site commissions are eliminated under the FCC ruling,
so we can't just move that money over. That varies pretty wildly. We cut our commissions voluntarily during COVID because of limitations on visitation, and those have been bouncing back. They've kind of been all over the place. They're in excess of a million dollars
Speaker 123
1:15:11
a year, so we are already seeing that as a revenue cut. What percentage, though, if I may follow up, wasn't
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:15:19
it like 50% or 75%, something like that? So it varies by division, and I don't
Speaker 116
1:15:25
have that information in front of me.
Speaker 117
1:15:29
I'm sorry. That's in a contract at the office, and we don't get any
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:15:34
anymore. Yeah, I recall it was more than half. It goes back to the
department. Thanks. Members, any other questions? Oh, I'm sorry. Representative Richardson, you're recognized for a
Speaker 162
1:15:46
question. Thank you, Madam Chair. So just step me through. Our options are, A, we lose the revenue stream from the federal government cuts, and now the taxpayers, we have to pull this out of general revenue to be able to maintain the same services,
or B, we put that cost of those services on the inmates. Yes, sir. Thank you. Representative Brown, you're recognized
for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Is
Speaker 164
1:16:15
there any requirement or the law that we even allow inmates to have phone or video abilities to communicate? There is not. Follow-up, Madam Chair? Your request. And I guess this is going to be maybe a follow-up to Representative Richardson's question. Would it be fair to say that if we're not able
Speaker 166
1:16:31
to collect the money to make this thing work,
would the option be just to get rid of telephone
Speaker 123
1:16:39
calls altogether? We are very hopeful we wouldn't have to do that. I would never take it off the table because we haven't had that policy discussion. But it would certainly result in a decrease in services somewhere. Money is not unlimited for us. Members, any other
questions? We have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the
bill. Representative Torres, you're recognized to close for your bill. Yeah. Did you
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
1:17:03
sign up? I believe so. I tried to.
you're not signed up but if you've got come on down come on down make it short though come
on down it's like price is right
today mr. Rosenzweig all kidding aside you're recognized if you'll identify yourself Jeff
Speaker 169
1:17:41
Rosenzweig, Arkansas Association of Colonel Defense Lawyers. Greg
Speaker 170
1:17:45
Parrish, Arkansas Public Defender Commission.
Speaker 171
1:17:48
In addition to the comments that various members have made seeing the flaws in this bill, I want to point out that it's going to be particularly pernicious with regard to the county jails. It's going to land on the backs of the families of people who are almost all pre-trial detainees. They haven't been convicted of anything, and they are in a much more necessary position of talking with their lawyers and that type of thing.
And who knows what sort of spectacular mischief there's going to be when you have 75 different county sheriffs doing various different things with the money from
Speaker 173
1:18:30
this bill. Hang on just a minute. Somebody leaned up against the lights. Thank you. Go
ahead. I'm sorry to interrupt. I've finished my comments. I
Speaker 169
1:18:42
think Mr. Parrish has some, too. Mr. Parrish, if you'll identify
Speaker 174
1:18:46
yourself. Thank you. Greg Parrish, Public Defender Commission.
Speaker 170
1:18:50
I'm very aware of this issue because as a deputy prosecutor, when this thing first initiated many, many years ago, what was occurring is vendors were contracting with the sheriff to put the phone systems in the jail, paying money up front that went into the radio log, or the radio equipment of the sheriff, and inmates were calling out at over $3 a minute collect was the cost. And that's what's changed. What I don't see in this bill is how we're going to limit what's going to be imposed,
nor do I see anything that our inmates are going to be charged to communicate with their lawyers now under this provision and their right to communicate with counsel. be it from
the county jail or the prison. Members, are there any
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:19:43
questions? Representing Tosh, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Counselor, I'm just curious. When the phone call is made, are you limited on the time that you can talk to your client as far as communication between an attorney and the client?
Is there a limitation on two minutes, three minutes, or do you know? It
Speaker 171
1:20:03
depends on where it's from, but yes, in a number of calls that I've run into that. Okay, thank you. Members,
any other questions? Representative Clowney, you have a question? I do,
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:20:23
Madam Chair. In your opinion, well, I guess in the law, is there a requirement that Arkansas prisons provide telephone calls to their inmates?
Speaker 181
1:20:32
There's no provision. However, what will happen is there are going to be calls,
Speaker 171
1:20:38
and what will happen is the guards will sell cell phones to the inmates. I don't know how many cell phones there must be within the prison system. So you're not going to be able to stop calls, and the more financial burden you're going to have, the more corruption you're going to have because people will
Speaker 182
1:21:01
be smuggling these devices into the prison system or into the jails.
Speaker 170
1:21:07
If I could add on to that as well, Representative Clowney, they do have a constitutional right to communicate with their lawyer. They have that right, be it in person, be it by phone. And as this committee knows, a minimum of 80% of those inmates in prison or in the county jails the
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:21:28
public defender represents. You're recognized. I guess I'm confused. Maybe y'all can clear this up for me or maybe when Corrections gets back to the table. But it's my understanding that all criminal detention facilities are required to meet minimum standards.
That is required by law. And the minimum standards state currently all inmates shall be afforded the opportunity to make phone calls at the detainee's expense in accordance with a written telephone usage policy. So I just wanted to clarify that I do believe that is a requirement. Yeah, well, that would be
Speaker 186
1:21:59
a statutory rule requirement. Yeah, thank you. Members, any other questions? Representative Gonzalez,
Speaker 174
1:22:07
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you tell me where you think it says
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
1:22:13
that each county sheriff can decide what charge,
and we'd have 75 different charges? Because I read that it says the chief
Speaker 171
1:22:22
fiscal officer gets to set the chart. Well, the question is, so the chart, but then exactly how you're going to audit how the money that is obtained is going to be dealt with because you'll have 75 different people or 75 different agencies deciding what goes in or doesn't go into this fund that they're talking about.
You know, I'm sure that the, you know, the Department of Correction, which has a number, you know, who Ms. Rowell and her group have, you know, have a professional staff, that's not necessarily going to be so within some of these county jails. You need another question? Yeah, sure. Thank
Speaker 188
1:23:10
you. But that is still subject to legislative audit, right? And legislative audit is involved in setting those surcharges so they don't know where that money is.
It doesn't say consult, or it doesn't say
Speaker 171
1:23:23
that legislative audit controls. It just says you've got to talk to legislative audit. It doesn't say anything there about obeying what legislative audit tells them. It just says consult with them. Well, no, but they would have
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
1:23:36
to obey the law that says it can only be used for those certain purposes. Well, there's a lot of give in what, quote, certain purposes might be. Members, any
other questions? Seeing no further questions, thank you, gentlemen, for coming to the end of the table and testifying.
Representative Torres, you're recognized to come and
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
1:24:03
close for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair and House members. Again, this effort is just to maintain the security services that we currently offer because of a federal ruling and law that was created
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:24:16
that took funding away from us. And so with that, I'll close.
Members, Representative Torres is closed for this bill. We have
a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Representative Collins, you're
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:24:34
recognized for discussion. You know, in this committee and in the state generally, we've done a pretty good job trying to move away from these fines and fees, these regressive taxes that really are burdens ultimately on the families of these inmates. I mean, these are people who in many situations can't work at all. They certainly don't have income coming in. It's already pretty high at $0.06 a minute, to be honest with you, or $0.14 a minute.
And these are paid by the families. These are families who have already lost their loved one, and, you know, they did something wrong, absolutely. But the burden goes to the families primarily here when we jack up the fines and the fees on these people who are incarcerated and can't earn money to pay. So there's plenty of ways to handle this. There's plenty of funding sources that we have in the state. This is the worst, in my opinion, way to do it is to just keep squeezing from a rock that has nothing more to give.
And so I would urge you to vote no. Members, any other discussion? Seeing no further discussion, we have a
motion on the table. If motion do pass, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. No.
The no's have it. The bill has failed. Representative Shepard, I'm going to ask if you'll come take the podium for just a minute, the desk for just a minute. Members, let's turn to House Bill 1895. House Bill 1895.
Representative Dalby, you recognize, present the bill. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. Carol Dalby, District 100. Members, House Bill 1895 is simply a bill that's going to allow a corporation or a voluntary association to employ in-house attorneys to represent affiliates of the corporation or the voluntary association. That's all this bill does. I'll be
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:26:37
happy to take any questions. Seeing no questions, Representative Dalby has explained the bill.
Chair
Unverified
1:26:45
Okay. Looks like no one is signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Dalby, you're recognized to close
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:26:58
for the bill. I'm close for my bill and make a
motion do pass. We have a motion do pass. Is there any discussion?
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:27:03
All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The bill is passed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee.
Members, if you'll turn to House Bill 1948, Representative Carr, if you'll come to the end of the table, identify
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:27:47
yourself. recognized to present House Bill 1948. Thank you, Madam Chair. Joey Carr, District 34. House Bill 1948, it amends current statute dealing with the offense of negligent homicide as a result of operating a vehicle, aircraft, watercraft, and what we've done is we have added controlled substance and the listing there is on page two, lines 22 through 25, the controlled
substances of fentanyl methamphetamine heroin and cocaine members are there any questions seeing
no question oh represent collins you're recognized for a question
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:28:24
thank you madam chair and and i i understand and appreciate the bill i'm kind of curious how long does fentanyl methamphetamine heroin or cocaine does it
last in the system does it last in the system a lot longer than the time of intoxication. Yes,
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:28:40
this came as a result. I had a woman and her child were
killed in a car wreck, and the guy that crossed over and hit them had methamphetamine in his system. Blood was drawn. It was evidenced that it was there, but there was no way for that to show because they said 30 days. So here's the route I went. You know, they can prove that alcohol-impaired, but because people's body are different.
And so meeting with the crime lab and prosecutor with Representative Gassaway, we went this route because those are illegal drugs anyway. And so more than likely, you know, you would think anyone that's going to use any of those for it's not with 30 days in between. So we just went that route because I understand the impairment would probably be there without them going the other route that they have a problem with.
Also this, one other thing I need to add, I'm sorry, is for those that are taking the blood draw in the hospital. The crime lab was having trouble getting blood drawn and so because the hold up there was they were afraid they would have to go and testify. So that last part of the current statue is being removed. Because they were having trouble getting blood drawn because the
people there didn't want to feel that they were putting themselves in a way to have to testify.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:30:27
Follow-up, please. You're recognized. So with the drug persisting in the system for 30 days, and it is, I guess, true that you're going to capture people who are not intoxicated at the time of the incident. You know, you have an A in the existing law, so part A there on page 1, line 34, where they already are committing negligent homicide if they're intoxicated. And, I mean, don't you think that if they were intoxicated by any of these other drugs, fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin, or cocaine,
there's other ways to prove that other than a chemical draw. I mean, right? You can prove intoxication just with
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:31:15
the evidence you got. Yeah, Crown Lab said they could determine intoxication with alcohol because of the scientific studies they've done. They cannot establish a point of reference on the drugs because they're not able to test people because they're illegal to begin with.
So they can't establish a point of reference with fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin, or cocaine. You can do
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:31:44
a field test or assess, you know, with the observations of the officer.
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:31:48
Well, and here's what came up in the meeting with them. It's illegal to have fentanyl, so you can't field test with fentanyl to determine the effects it has. They can't conduct tests on people with fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin, or cocaine. I don't know who would sign up for that field study.
Okay. So they can't determine the point of reference for that as far as the intoxication part. So they went with other states that has a no tolerance like this. So that's where this, because of the situation that happened in my district and what other states are doing with that, that's the direction I went in guidance with the crime lab. Representative Collins, you're good?
Representative Gonzalez, you're recognized for a question.
Speaker 174
1:32:42
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm a little concerned about
Speaker 209
1:32:45
striking this last part where someone who does the blood draw will not have to show up to court to testify, right? The blood draw themselves, but not the toxicologist that's analyzing
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:32:58
the sample at the crime lab. The crime lab still will. But I think you may end up causing yourself more problems
Speaker 209
1:33:06
here because the defense attorney is going to argue that the blood draw wasn't done properly,
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
1:33:14
the chain of command wasn't there. Like, that's why those people have to show up to testify to say that they are qualified to do it, that they
Speaker 143
1:33:22
did it the right way. If you don't have that testimony, I'm afraid you're going to get a lot of these things thrown out. That was at the
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:33:31
request of the crime lab because they could not get enough blood draws.
Speaker 143
1:33:37
Yeah, I mean, I understand I'm not an attorney, so somebody else may, you know, pipe in here, say something different or that will change my mind, but I think you're, I believe the bill's going to have the opposite effect.
Speaker 210
1:33:51
May I refer to Representative Gassaway to give a greater explanation on that? You know, you're
treading on thin ice, you know, when you, when, no, I'm sure Representative Gassaway will have some questions here in a moment. I've got some others in the queue, if you'll just hang on. Representative Pierce, he left the room. Any other questions? Representative Gasway, do you have any questions?
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:34:25
Okay, so my understanding of what you're trying to do here, Representative Carr, is to essentially
create a no-tolerance policy when it comes to being under the influence if there are certain substances in a person's blood or urine. Is that right? In the event of a vehicular fatality. That's right. If someone has died in a motor vehicle accident and there's some suspicion that the person who caused the wreck was under the influence of some intoxicating substance,
then if there is, again, the way I understand it, if there is fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin, or cocaine, any amount, any trace of that in their system at the time, which is illegal. You should never have those substances in your system. If there's any trace of that in the person's system by test of their blood, then they can be charged with negligent homicide. That's essentially the crux of what your bill does, as I understand it. Yes, sir. Okay.
And other states have laws like this, don't they? Yes, sir. Do you recall or know how many other states
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:35:38
have laws similar to this? I don't know the exact number, no. But the idea was borrowed from, there was three to four that
the language was used from those states. I don't know the exact
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:36:03
states, though. Right. And, um, yeah, this is, uh, as I, as I remember, and I know you and I discussed this at some point, we had a meeting with state police, crime lab, and lots of people, prosecutors, prosecutors, and we were trying to figure out, uh, because, as I recall, there were issues about how you can't really do a quantitative test.
even with a blood test, they have trouble determining quantity of these substances in a person's blood. And then, of course, when you get to trial, there are questions about that. And what we ultimately determined was, as many other states have done, there would be a zero-tolerance policy with respect to the four particular drugs, fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin, or cocaine. If there's any trace of that in a person's system at the time that they're the cause of a negligent homicide, a death,
then they can be charged with negligent homicide. That's, in essence, what your bill does. Yes, sir. Okay. All right.
That's all I have. Representative Pierce, you're recognized for
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
1:37:09
a question. Well, first of all, and this has something to do with Representative Gassaway's question as well, Would you agree that it is illegal to possess the drugs, but it's not illegal to have the drugs in your system at the time of the accident? There's no law that I'm aware of that says that you can't have it in your system.
Would you agree or disagree with that? Okay. And so, and there's no way to do a toxicology to get to the amount of, So we can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether that person was under the influence at the time of the accident or before the accident and had sobered off of that illegal drug. Am I correct, Melissa? Thank you. Representative Brown, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 164
1:37:58
Representative Carr, of course, first half of your bill, 100%, no problems at all.
Coming to follow up on Representative Gonzalez, the section on the striking language on the prosecuting attorney being able to subpoena or the defendant being able to subpoena people, if I understood you correctly, you said their goal was they don't want to come testify. Is that
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:38:18
right? Yes. Whoever does the blood draw, from my understanding, I was told that they had trouble getting them to do the blood draw because they thought that would obligate them to come testify, and they did not want to do that.
Speaker 220
1:38:33
A follow-up, Madam Chair? You're right, Pastor. I kind of wonder if they've kind of messed themselves up by striking
Speaker 164
1:38:43
that now because, number one, obviously under the Constitution, you have a right to confront the witnesses against you. That's a fundamental right. And the statute still says you may call as a witness the person who calibrated the instrument, et cetera, et cetera, represented the office, and at least under the statute that's written right now, they have to give at least a 10-day notice for that subpoena.
I'm not a criminal attorney, but is it not three days on a criminal subpoena, or maybe 24 hours or something? You can actually get them into court a lot quicker. So by repealing this 10-day deadline, if anything, they're still subject to subpoena and they're on a shorter deadline now. And so I wonder if it's kind of an unintended consequence of that change as we're actually making
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:39:30
it harder on them instead of making it easier. It was suggested to me on that part to assist them in that to ensure that blood draws would be occurring on every event that would just ensure that it would be done.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:39:47
Collins, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually agree with Representative Gonzales and Brown on that point they're making, but I have a different question, and it's Representative Gasway. It actually pertains to you, so if I may. Sorry, but there was something you said earlier that was important. If that is correct, I just want to make sure I heard that right.
so you were saying that it would only be if there were suspicion that someone was intoxicated that that they would go through this process of the blood draw and then i thought representative car you just said that they wanted to do this on every every time there was a death so i guess which is it because i think if there's already a suspicion of intoxication i have no problem with any of this, but if they're just going to do this on everybody and then they find they used drugs 30 days ago, that's a different matter.
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:40:44
Well, the point is, is the mandate was if there is a vehicular fatality, that a blood draw would occur. And then that if fentanyl, methamphetamine,
heroin, or cocaine was present, then it would be a negligent homicide. Follow up, please. You're recognized. So they would do that. So
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:41:04
whether or not they suspect the person's intoxicated, whether or not they show any kind of, you know, like they've been on drugs of any kind, they're going to do a blood draw. And if they did something 20 days ago and they were not under the influence, they're getting a higher charge.
Yes. Okay. Representative Gassaway, you're recognized
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:41:26
for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay. And I'm trying to think back to some of the conversations that we had. I remember there was an issue about the hospitals and the staff. Were there provisions in here that dealt with that? Because there was some question state police had.
They were having problems with staff at hospitals even being willing to do the blood draw because they were afraid of liability and we were not getting blood draws on fatality cases because the hospital staff who should have been doing these blood draws were afraid of the liability. Does that factor into this somehow? That was that last part that was removed. The part about compelling someone to testify? Yes. Yeah, and while I understand that, I mean, I'm just thinking through this.
I do think that that is a really important part, that they can be compelled to testify. And I think what we had discussed also was maybe granting them some form of immunity. And that would probably be a better way to deal with that issue. Because it seems to me that just what I'm hearing from the committee, that that's really the problem with the bill is that you couldn't compel these people to testify. Now, some people may have problems with just the fact that the presence of fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin, or cocaine in a person's system at the time would basically be a presumption of negligent homicide.
If there are people that have that objection, then that's one thing. But this other objection seems to be pretty well founded because they do need to be able to compel these people to testify. They're going to be essential witnesses. And if they're concerned about the liability of doing the blood draw, what we probably should do is grant them immunity. I don't know if you'd be willing to consider amending it. Absolutely. Kind of
late in the process here, but otherwise I'm for your bill. We do have, we will
have Tuesday that I've got four House bills lined up
and you could be number five and then we're moving to Senate bills after that. It's up to you if you want to pull it down and amend it, or we can keep going. I've got another question in the queue. Representative Richardson has a question. We have someone who signed up to speak against the bill. At this point, I will
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:44:01
pull the bill, and I will amend that last part and take care of the immunity. Okay. Without objection, we'll allow
you to pull your bill down so you can get it amended and bring it back to us Tuesday.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. Representative Meeks. Members, Representative Meeks has four bills. Several of these we have heard in a fairly detailed manner, and so we're just going to start with House Bill 1504. House Bill 1504. If that's all
right with you, Representative Meeks, we're going to start at the top.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:44:43
Okay, sounds good. House Bill 1504, colleagues, Representative Meeks, District 42. This is the bill on
the weaponization of robots. You may remember we had some members with a few concerns, so I've addressed those concerns. So Representative Collins had some concerns about some unneeded duplicative language. We've taken that out. I think it was Representative Beatty had some concerns about Second Amendment issues.
So what I did is I modified the definitions so that it's understood that this only applies to fully or partially automated robots. So if there's a human in control of the robot at all times, then this statute doesn't apply. And then the last change I made was from Representative Richardson, which I think was a very good catch, Because these robots are going to be so powerful that they don't necessarily need to have a weapon in order to be dangerous to humans.
And so we've added a section in there that says if someone willfully changes the programming of one of these robots so that it's reprogrammed to intentionally cause harm to human or property, then it's caught in here as well. Since last time we talked, I guess it's been three weeks ago now, I've seen a couple of articles where Tesla's come
out and said in the next year they're going to be producing
between 5,000 and 10,000 of these robots that they're hoping to actually rent out to people for $300 to $400, and this robot will be running around your home. It will do all the cleaning for you. It will cook dinner for you. It will tutor your kids in math. it will provide security for you at night and I mean who wouldn't want that right for $300 and someone's cleaning your house I mean wouldn't that be great but that's I mean it's going to be here before we know it and so as your technology chair I've always tried to look forward to be
proactive on these issues so that we're prepared for when these things get here I have no doubt that our freshman class by the time they get to be the senior class there's going to be humanoid robots running around in here helping with the legislative process. I have no doubt that over time this will still, you know, this will need to be modified as the technology involves, but I at least want to have some basic protections in place so law enforcement has the tools that they need to make sure that as these technologies come online they are done in a safe and productive manner. So
with that, I'd be happy to take any questions from the
committee. Members, any Any questions? Seeing no questions, we have no one who's signed up to speak for or against House Bill 1504. You're recognized to close for your bill.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:47:38
All right. Colleagues, again, I appreciate it. Again, this is just my attempt to try to prepare us for a future that we all know is coming. And with that, I'd appreciate a good
vote. Members, Representative Meeks is closed for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee? If a motion to do pass on the table, is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion
of the motion. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Thank you, committee. Members, let's turn to House Bill 1529. House Bill 1529. Okay. If it's okay,
Speaker 229
1:48:18
we've got an amendment and an impact statement on
this one. Yes. We'll get that passed and then we'll take those up.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:48:34
Madam Chair, with your permission, this is one of the AG's priority bills. And so if it's okay, I'm going to ask for Mr. Brashear from the AG's office to join me at the table. Sure, no problem. And then I think, is Mr. Battle in the
room? Yes. Members, the impact statement, we didn't get it
printed out, so you may want to pull that up on your devices to see what the impact is.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:49:04
We apologize for that inconvenience. So, colleagues, as the amendment that you're getting just adds co-sponsors. We do have the impact statement. Here
it comes. For those of you who may be watching our line or new to the committee, this is typical at the end of session. We've got lots of paper flying around, so hang on just a minute.
I tell you what, you've made an explanation of your amendment.
Any questions on the amendment? What's the will of the committee? We have a
motion to adopt the amendment. Any discussion? All in favor of adopting the amendment, please say aye. Aye. Any no's? The ayes have it. The amendment has
been adopted. Now, if you'll just give us just a second to get that impact statement out. Thank you.
All right, Representative Meeks, you're recognized to present your bill
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:50:33
as amended. All right, thank you, Madam Chair. With your permission, I'd like to let my guests introduce themselves. Certainly, Mr. Brashears. Good morning, committee.
Speaker 236
1:50:42
This is Justin Brasher, Senior Assistant Attorney General with the Arkansas Office of the Attorney General.
All right, you're recognized. Oh, go ahead.
Speaker 239
1:50:51
One more. Sergeant Corum, battle with the Arkansas State Police and Arkansas Internet Crimes Against Children's Task Force Commander.
Welcome, Corum. I didn't see you down there. And we've known each other for a long time.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:51:05
It's good to see you. Awesome. Bring out all the big guns here for this bill. So what brought this to my attention was there was a case in Connecticut where boyfriend and girlfriend, they broke up and the boyfriend took her image, put it on an illicit photo, sent it out to the entire high school and basically destroyed this girl's life. The state of Connecticut at that time didn't have any way to deal with that
because unfortunately the only way to prove that it was a deep fake was they would have had to seen a photo of her, and you're basically re-traumatizing the victim in order to prove that it was a deepfake to begin with. And so what this bill does is that very simply, it defines what a deepfake is and all that, and eventually what it does is it says if someone creates or distributes deepfakes under this, for the first time it's a Class A misdemeanor.
The reason why I went with misdemeanor the first time is because if it's an 18-year-old just being stupid, we're going to give him a real hard slap on the wrist for doing this. But if it's done two or more times, then it becomes a felony,
and we get to where jail time is incurred. It also allows for the attorney general to take civil action on behalf of the state against a provider or
developer of this technology. And I'll draw a simple analogy.
If we had a gun manufacturer who was manufacturing guns and made it available to everybody willy-nilly, "Here's weapons, firearms, there's all the ammunition you want, there's no safeguards in place," they would have some responsibility for any problems caused by that firearm. But as a society, we've put safeguards in there so that it then, since those safeguards are in place, if there's any issues, it's the responsibility of the person who did it.
You know, if somebody were to put up a website that says, you know, deepfake is us, you know, put your victim's ID in here and we'll make all sorts of deepfake images that you can scatter all over the internet, I think they should hold some responsibility for that. The way the law is set up here is, if they put reasonable guards in place, just like with the firearms, we put reasonable guards in place, then at that point it's solely going to be on the perpetrator for creating and distributing the deep fake.
Most of the reputable places that do image generation these days have those guards in place. I went to one and said, "Hey, create an image of Representative Stephen Meeks riding a horse," and it wouldn't do it. So all the major players should already have that in place. So in a nutshell, that's what the bill does. This is trying to protect our citizens against the
malicious use of that technology. I don't know if these gentlemen have anything they would like to add, but anything after that. I'll be ready to answer any questions.
Speaker 236
1:54:13
Thank you, committee. This is an issue that's very important to the Attorney General. We deal a lot with
Speaker 237
1:54:19
CSAM and with crimes against children and with cyber crimes in general. We have a group of people that deal with that and work with groups like the state police on a regular basis. And this is something that our people have seen. We've particularly seen it in issues where someone will take a picture of somebody and then put it on someone else's body in some sort of compromising sexual activity, for example,
and then use that and say now i have this video i'm going to send it unless you give me some money that sort of thing happens uh and so this is something that we think and we're appreciative of representative meeks for bringing it forward we have worked on the language on this to make sure that we believe that this is constitutional and gets around fits currently within the structure of speech that has been identified by the supreme court particularly cases like ashcroft And so one thing that we really did is we took the definition of indistinguishable that is currently in the federal code that was modified after the Ashcroft decision.
And we have put that here in the bill, particularly in the criminal section, so that we're not talking about anything that maybe could look like a person. But the indistinguishable, it needs to be that's an identifiable person and that is, you know, a regular reasonable person would see that and think that is that person in a sexual act. And so that's why the language is the way that it is. And I'll let the sergeant talk if he wants to. And I'm happy to take any questions. Pretty much covered well. Okay. Members, are there any questions?
Representative Collins, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:55:55
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I think this does a lot of good things here. I do want to ask, just to make sure I understand the way it's set up, if you have a kid who just creates but does not distribute a nude or whatever for his personal use, That's a crime? That's going to be caught up in this too? That is correct. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thanks.
Immerse, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we do have someone who
Speaker 171
1:56:40
signed up to speak against the bill. Mr. Rosenzweig. Jeff Rosenzweig, Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. We don't have any objection to the distribution, criminalizing the distribution, but as Representative Collins said, the problem is going to be the simple creation. And that runs right into the Ashcroft case, among other cases.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided there's no way to, If a person wants to create an image and does not distribute it to anyone, it is merely in his computer or at his house or whatever under Ashcroft. That would not and should not be a crime, and I think you're going to have a serious First Amendment constitutional problem with the simple creation. The bill can be fixed just by striking creation and just criminalizing distribution.
Members, any questions? Seeing no questions, thank you, Mr. Rosenzweig, for being
here today. We have, oh, I'm sorry, Representative Gasway. Mr. Rosenzweig, if you'll come back,
Speaker 174
1:57:52
I didn't recognize Representative Gasway. I apologize. No problem. Thank you, Madam Chair. And the question really isn't
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:57:57
so much for Mr. Rosenzweig as much as it is for the Attorney General's office. I appreciate Mr. Rosenzweig's argument. He says it's directly on point in terms of the Ashcroft case
and would be a clear constitutional violation to make this law constitutionally suspect. I'd like to hear the Attorney General's response to that as
Speaker 237
1:58:27
you. Justin Brasher, again, Senior Assistant Attorney General with the Arkansas Attorney General's Office. Representative Gassaway, to your question. Because what is different here in Ashcroft, the language that was ruled unconstitutional
is different. The language in the federal code that was ruled unconstitutional in that case is different than the language we've used here. So the language that the court took issue with was the language that said about, right? So the language said indistinguishable meant it looked about like someone was in participating in sexual activity. The new definition of indistinguishable that we took from the federal code that was amended following Ashcroft, and that has not been declared
unconstitutional or to have any constitutional issues, we took that and put that in here and it is in the two section on page two, so lines 10 to 14. Such an ordinary person viewing the deep fake visual material will conclude the depictions of the identifiable person engaging in sexual contact, sexual intercourse, deviant sexual activity, or sexually explicit conduct. So the change there is that you do, it does look like
this person, not in about, it is indistinguishable from the actual pornography that would be, that it is meant to look like. And so that change that happened in the federal code in response to Ashcroft was
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:59:55
then mirrored in this language. And correct me if I'm wrong, but some of these These decisions were made years and decades ago, and Justice Thomas said that in some of these decisions that as the technology moves forward, that they're going to have to re-look at some of these decisions as the new capabilities come online, and so I think
at some point even some of those
issues are going to be re-looked at by the Supreme Court. I would also argue, and again, I'm not an attorney. I'm a tech guy, that if someone has one of these deep fakes of me at home or of your daughter at home, that's a violation of
my rights. Representative Gasway, you're recognized for a
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
2:00:41
question. Thank you, Madam Chair. And so I appreciate your response, Mr. Brasher, about the indistinguishable, the definition of indistinguishable being different from the other bill
that was challenged in the Supreme Court ruling there, and you believe that that's enough. What do you make of Mr. Rosenzweig's argument about creation and simply if it's something that I created and is in my possession, that therefore that should be, regardless of the indistinguishable argument, is there some argument that if I created it and I'm not distributing it, that that shouldn't be criminalized?
Speaker 237
2:01:16
No, we believe that that is defensible. I'm sorry.
I'm sorry. Okay. My apologies. Thank you, Representative Gasway. We believe that that is defensible, that you can still criminalize simply the creation, because particularly with the different definition of indistinguishable, there's a lack of consent in that creation. And so for that reason, we do believe that this is defensible. And thank you. I'm sure
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
2:01:41
to follow up. Thank you. And so the last, I guess the last question I have, Mr. Rosenzweig specifically mentions the word creation, which seems to bring some artistic quality to this,
which, of course, the courts have held that First Amendment artistic creations enjoy protections. And so how do you feel about that in terms of affecting the constitutionality? Thank you. And that
Speaker 237
2:02:08
is specifically why the definitions are written the way they are, is to make sure that we are not encroaching on that First Amendment artistic ability that has been defined previously by the Supreme Court.
This is specifically written so that it is only not obvious, that's the wrong word, but sexual activity and sexual activity of this nature is not protected speech and therefore this bill is written specifically to make sure that it is not infringing on artistic protected speech. Members, any other
questions? Seeing no further questions other than Mr. Rosenzweig, that is all signed
up to speak for or against this bill.
Representative Meeks, you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:02:57
colleagues. I think everyone at this table understands the importance of getting this done. None of us would like to see what happened to that young lady, happened to one of our family members, our son or daughter, or even somebody could do something like that with one of our pictures and ruin our political career. With that, we're closed and would ask for a good vote. Members, Representative
Meeks is closed for his bill. What is the wishes of the committee? We have a motion to do pass on the table.
Is there any discussion as amended? We have a motion to do pass as amended. Is there any discussion of the
motion? Seeing no discussion of the motion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed,
say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Thank you, committee. Members, the
next bill that Representative Meeks has is House Bill 1648. Representative Meeks, you're recognized to present your bill.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:03:50
Okay. This is a bill that we looked at earlier.
This is concerning the fire department bomb squads. We've had a chance to visit with many of the members, try to get a lot of your questions answered about this. I think the only issue that's kind of still out there hanging a little bit, Representative Tosh had some concern about under whose authority this would be done. So after speaking with him, the attorney was of the mind that it was implicitly applied through the way the law works now, that it would be under the authority of the local city council.
So to make sure that that is fully understood, should the committee agree to go ahead and move this out, then we get down to the city and
we will amend in some language that explicitly says that this will be done under the city council so
the city council knows that the city would be accepting responsibility should any liability come from the use of this authority that we're about to give them. Again, just a refresher, the arrest authority is needed partially so that these gentlemen can receive deputization under the U.S. Marshals.
They have to have that deputization under the U.S. Marshals for two important reasons. Number one is so that they
can receive the FBI training that they need in order to be able to do
their job at their best. these guys are dealing with highly charged situations, no pun intended, and we want to make sure they have all the tools and knowledge that they need in order to be able to deal with these situations. And number two, should there be a need in a neighboring state, so God forbid there's another Oklahoma City bombing or similar in Nashville, by our men being deputized, it
allows us to go and assist our neighboring states. Without this, they will not have that authority. Again, all we're asking for is to allow these gentlemen in these situations to be able to make an arrest only in these situations as it's related to a bomb scare until local law enforcement can arrive to take over the situation. And so with that, we'll be open to any questions from the committee. And by the way, the Attorney General's office has expressed their support for the bill.
The sheriffs, state police, they're all good with the bill. So as far as we know, as of right now, there is no opposition
to this bill moving forward. Members, are there any questions? Representative
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
2:06:34
Tosh, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Representative Meeks, I appreciate our discussion that we had, and you know how important that is to me that we have language in that bill that somebody has to have authority and accountability for these officers, you know, these firefighters when we give them that
type of police responsibility. So if I understood you correctly, I know it's not in the bill now, but you're going to make sure that when that goes to the Senate, you're going to have that amended so that if something does arise where there's any type of excessive force or any type of abuse without authority, that those officers will be held accountable. And not only that, but the agencies that have accepted that responsibility will be held accountable. Is that my understanding? Yes, sir. We will
make sure that gets done. Okay, thank you.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:07:31
Representative Beatty, you're recognized for a question? I guess my question follows up on that of Representative Tosh. Upon reviewing your bill, there's no Senate sponsor on the bill. Who is going to be the senator carrying this bill to ensure what you told us
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:07:43
today happens? Senator Johnson. Mark. Mark. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. He represents Conway. And so the Conway Fire Department is the one that's kind of been leading the charge here. So he's agreed to carry it for us. So that's the other amendment we'll do. We'll get his name amended
on there. Members, any other questions? I typically don't ask any
questions, but somebody who's watching online and who doesn't have my cell phone
has asked me to ask a question, so I'll do that in deference to someone who's watching. Their question was in reference to, remember, Representative Josh Miller, who may have needed a robotic device to help for self-defense, and we know the condition that Representative Miller was in. He's afraid that this individual
He was afraid the wording wouldn't cover him and what happened if the bomb squad, you know, thought he was doing something wrong, that kind of thing. I'm not quite sure I understand all that he's needing, but he did want to ask, you know, what would a bomb squad do in a
situation that you had somebody who was
maybe handicapped but had a robotic device with them for self-defense? Is that reference to this bill or the last bill? No, it was reference
to this bill. to this bill? Because it's talking about the bomb squad. Huh?
Speaker 249
2:09:04
It's 15:04. Oh, okay. Oh, this is the bomb squad. Yeah, yeah. This is why I don't
ask questions and trying to also navigate through all the paperwork up here. I apologize. To answer his question, Madam Chair, if you want me to,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:09:23
it would not apply in that situation because under that other bill that the robot has to be either partially or fully autonomous and a wheelchair would not qualify for it. Thank you. I think
that answers, I mean it just
popped up on my phone so he didn't, he just said this bill. Right. I was going with that and I apologize. Yeah, no worries. Any other questions? We have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. You're
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:09:50
recognized, closed for your bill. All right. Thank you colleagues. Again, I understand this may not be the perfect situation, but you know a lot of times with law we We've got to deal with the circumstances that we have in front of us. And so what this is, you know, this is an attempt here to try to make sure that these men
and women have the tools they need to be able to protect our citizens at the highest level possible.
You know, if we call, they're going to be there. This is a situation where they need our support, and I hope that at this time you'll be able to help us support them so that they can help support
us. with that, we would appreciate a good vote. Members, Representative
Meeks is closed for his bill. What's the wishes of the
committee? Seeing no motion, whoops, we do have a motion now. Representative Tosh has made a motion.
Do pass. Any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. All opposed say no.
The ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Thank you, committee. One last one. House Bill 1877. Members,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:11:02
House Bill 1877. Representative Meeks, you're recognized. So Madam Chair, we'll have an amendment on this as well, adding a Senate sponsor and a lot of house co-sponsors.
All right, members. The amendment has been passed out. Representative Meeks has explained the amendment. Any questions on the amendment? Any discussion? Do I have a motion to adopt the amendment? I have a motion to adopt the amendment on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion?
Seeing no discussion of the motion, all in favor of adopting the amendment, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it.
Your amendment has been adopted. You're now recognized to present your bill as amended.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:12:08
Thank you, colleagues. This is another AG priority bill. This is a CSAM bill, which stands for Child Sexual Assault Material. Arkansas is one of only 13 states that does not have this protection already in code, so hopefully with your help today, we will become the 38th state to put this in place. This is
kind of similar to the last bill that we presented. What this says is that
it is, we're adding to the child obscenity laws,
saying that it is illegal to make computer-generated child pornography. That's it in a nutshell. It's being added to current child obscenity laws, which is why you'll see it's being added in a couple different code sections. Instead of reinventing the wheel, we're just adding to what's already there. And with that, I'll let my two guests once again
introduce themselves and any comments they'd like to make in this regard. Justin Brasher,
Speaker 236
2:13:08
Senior Attorney General, Arkansas Office of the Attorney General.
Speaker 258
2:13:13
Corwin Battle, Arkansas State Police, Arkansas Internet Crimes Against Children's Task
Speaker 243
2:13:20
Force Commander. Committee, similar to the deepfake bill that we
Speaker 237
2:13:24
just went through, this bill is, again, a priority of ours because we deal a lot with CSAM and with child abuse material and again what we've seen a lot is someone takes a picture of somebody else they run it through AI and then can create a sexually explicit image that looks almost
or does look lifelike and so that's why the definitions are written the way that they are here computer generated means produced adapter modified and whole or in part through the use artificial intelligence. That's the definition is written that way and indistinguishable again is taken from the spot of the federal code that was modified post Ashcroft and has not and has survived challenge to this point. So that's that's why it's written that way and indistinguishable does not include a visual print medium that depicts a child that is drawing it is a drawing cartoon
sculpture or painting again because we do not want to infringe on what the supreme court has currently outlined as the bounds of artistic free speech under the First Amendment. So that's what the definitions are, and then the rest of the bill is simply encoding that into the already existing laws regarding child sexual abuse material. So with that, happy to take any questions. Members, are there any questions? Seeing no questions, we do have an
individual signed up to speak against the bill. Mr.
Rosenzweig, you're recognized to come to the end of the table and speak
Speaker 171
2:14:51
against the bill. Jeff Rosenzweig, Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Mr. Brasher and I disagree on what Ashcroft says. Ashcroft has not been overruled, and the bottom line of Ashcroft is it has to involve a real child, not a child who was an image that was artificially created and does not portray a real child. I guess
at some point the Supreme Court's going to have to weigh in. I assume that this bill will pass, but be aware that you're going to run into some serious constitutional problems. Members, are there
any questions? Mr. Rosenzweig, thank you for your testimony today. We have no one else who signed
up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Beek should recognize
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:15:44
to close for your bill. Thank you, committee. Again, this is just trying to make sure that we protect our most vulnerable. Obviously, if
37 other states have passed it, they see the importance of doing this.
I hope Arkansas will be the 38th and the more states that
pass this to say, hey, we want to protect our children and stop these predatory acts because something that wasn't brought out, even though it's not a real child, there have been many cases, and these gentlemen could attest to it, where groomers have used those images to groom children for, we'll just say, unthinkable acts after that. This is trying to protect our most vulnerable. The more states
that pass that, the more weight that the Supreme Court needs to weigh in on
this, and so with that, I'm closing. Just appreciate a good vote.
Members, Representative Meeks is closed for his bill. We have a motion to do pass as amended on the floor by Representative Richardson. Is
there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations. You have passed your bill. Thank you, committee. Representative Shepard, we
recognize you to go to the end of the table.
I do see that we have a Court of Appeals judge who has waited patiently. Members turn to House Bill 1832. House Bill 1832. It has an amendment, members, so... We're going to get
some paperwork passed out to you.
Representative Shepard, you're recognized to present your
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:17:57
amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, this amendment really does two things. One, it delays the effective date until November 1st of 2025. I had a Zoom call yesterday with representatives of the Arkansas Bar Association.
They asked if I would consider delaying the effective day, and so I thought that would be a good idea. And so that's one part of the amendment. The second part of the amendment is basically in the original bill on page 5. It made reference back to the page 5, line 16 and 17. It referred back to the rules of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals of the state of Arkansas.
And what we did was I just took language from earlier in the bill on page 2 and inserted that into it. So the language that's in this amendment was already in the bill just to make sure there's no doubt about how this is to be interpreted. And so I would move
adoption of the amendment. Members, we have a motion
to adopt the amendment on the table. Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of motion, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? The ayes have it. Motion has been adopted.
You're now recognized to present
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
2:19:19
your bill as amended. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I bring
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:19:25
to you today House Bill 1832, and really this bill is somewhat very simple. What it provides for is that exclusive jurisdiction of facial challenges to acts or rules of the General Assembly or rules that are promulgated would be heard in the Arkansas Court of Appeals.
And this only applies to facial challenges. A facial challenge is a claim that an act, for sake of discussion, I'm going to be referring to acts that we passed. A facial challenge is such to claim that there is no circumstance in which that law is constitutional. And so in essence, that is seeking to invalidate, to enjoin, to throw out, if you will, an act of the General Assembly.
There is also what's called a challenge as applied, where an individual is claiming that the act as applied to them and their circumstance is unconstitutional. This bill does not touch those types of challenges. This bill only touches facial challenges. These are challenges to essentially invalidate and throw out acts of the General Assembly or rules that are otherwise promulgated.
The authority for this and the approach to this is under Amendment 80, Section 10. Amendment 80, which if anybody's been around the legislature for any length of time and if you've served on the Judiciary Committee, you've probably heard reference to Amendment 80. Amendment 80 was the amendment to the Arkansas Constitution that essentially reorganized our judiciary. It provides certain parameters on conduct and action that we can take. You've heard it many times that we can't pass rules of procedure.
We can't get into process and procedure. You know that there have been actions that we have taken that have been struck down because maybe they infringed on the process and procedure, which under Amendment 80 belongs to the judiciary. But under Amendment 80, Section 10, the amendment the Constitution provides that the General Assembly, we have purview over jurisdiction and venue. And this bill concerns solely jurisdiction.
Amendment 80 also provides that we can amend rules of the Supreme Court, court rules, and that's in part what we're doing by this to bring consistency with what we're doing regarding jurisdiction, but also bring consistency into the court rules. Now, what brings us to this point? What brings me to introduce this bill? This is something that I've looked at and thought about for a number of years, particularly as I became Speaker, as Speaker of the House for six and a half years.
Obviously, challenges to actions of the General Assembly is something that I took further notice of for various reasons. I certainly was paying attention to court action, to challenges that take place. And I certainly have tremendous respect for the judiciary. I have no problem with challenges that may be made. That's our process, okay? That's our system of government. That's the checks and balances. But one of the things that we've seen is that my feeling was that for virtually any piece
of significant or substantive legislation, it's almost without question going to be challenged. More and more in our political process, this is just part and parcel of that process. And I began looking at this probably six years ago, quite honestly. But it's become part and parcel of our political process. And, you know, because of venue statutes or other things, many of these things are heard in Pulaski County, but others are heard in other counties.
This is not directed at Pulaski County or any other county. This is about facial challenges as a whole. But obviously I've heard from legislators that want to know, how is it that an act of the General Assembly can be enjoined by a circuit judge, and ultimately many of those things were overturned by the Supreme Court, because facial challenges generally, if they're successful at the trial court level, generally end up before the Supreme Court for
a final decision, which is still the case under my bill. But I've seen that over time that's been a point of contention. That's been a point of concern. And I hate to say it, but completely unrelated to this bill, in the last two to three weeks, maybe month, I think you've seen this debate begin to play out at the federal level, particularly when it comes to nationwide injunctions. This bill is not related to that. It just so happens that the discussion at the federal level
happens to come at the same time that this bill has been introduced. And so because of that, I began to look at, well, what makes sense? What would be, is there a better way to do this? And we could have done this a number of ways. I could, you know, we could have changed the venue. There's a statute that requires that essentially most actions against the state get brought in Pulaski County. Well, I could have introduced a bill to change that statute to make it Baxter County or Union County or Miller County.
But I didn't really think that was the best way, Because I know that when you start picking counties, people start thinking, well, you're trying to, it's kind of forum shopping. We could have gotten rid of the requirement that actions against the state be brought in Pulaski County. But then again, that would just lead to forum shopping, which also could occur on actions that don't relate to the state. And so as I began to look, we could have offered a constitutional amendment that could have changed completely how this is determined. We could have set up a new circuit court and could have provided that the governor appointed the judge.
We could have set up merit selection for judges, which I offered that about 10 years ago. We could have done a lot of things, but ultimately, as I thought about it and as I worked through this, when I read Amendment 80, looked at it again, I thought, well, we have control over jurisdiction and venue. we already have a court that exists that is elected from across the state in the Arkansas Court of Appeals. And so my thought was that I would bring this bill to just simply say that if
you're making a facial challenge to invalidate an action of the General Assembly or a rule that's otherwise promulgated, that that, the exclusive jurisdiction for that, would be with the Arkansas Court of Appeals. People have asked about numbers. It's hard to get a good number about how many facial challenges there are. My understanding from talking with, I met with the Court of Appeals the other day, I think they're not sure how many there are. I've worked with the AG's office, asked them. I believe over the last six months, there were about, the information I was provided,
there were about 30 constitutional challenges, some of which don't relate necessarily to statutes. They may relate to city ordinances or other things, which this does not apply to. But of those 30 over six months, it looks like approximately half of them are facial challenges and about half are as applied. We're only talking about facial challenges. Only facial challenges. And I think that it makes sense, I think it makes sense that actions that are taken by the General Assembly that
have been passed by both houses or that have rules that have been promulgated and essentially approved by the General Assembly that has been elected by the people of Arkansas, that If there's going to be a challenge to throw that out, even on a temporary basis, I think it makes sense to provide for that to be heard by a court whose judges come from a cross-section of the state of Arkansas. Now I will say this, I mentioned it earlier, we can only do so much under Amendment 80. We can't get into rules and process and procedure.
You heard me on my amendment, I've been willing and have offered the amendment to delay the The effective date to November 1st, that will allow approximately six months for the courts, but the Supreme Court under their rulemaking authority can promulgate rules as they see fit. I would also offer the example that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction already. They have original jurisdiction related to lawsuits over petitions. I would also point out that in federal court, even in redistricting cases, oftentimes in
In a redistricting case, there's a three-judge panel that's assembled. And so the fact that this is handling facial challenges a little differently than what we've otherwise expect or used to, I think that that's not anything that we should fear. How the court will handle it, I'm not sure. Because, quite honestly, I can't get into their rules and procedure. I could offer suggestions. It may be, I would think that it would be heard by a three-judge panel, but also, I don't
know, that will be up to the rules and procedures. The effectiveness and efficiency of this is going to rest largely on their shoulders, but that's all we can do under our Constitution. So what I'm simply offering is that under Amendment 80, Section 10, and under Amendment 80, I believe it's Sections maybe 5 and 9, our ability to amend rules is simply saying for this small category of cases, that when these cases are filed, at this point, they allow a
singular judge to invalidate actions of the General Assembly, I'm saying, shouldn't we have that in front of a court that's elected from a cross-section of the state? And by the way, just so anybody out there may think, oh, I'm after circuit judges, my brother's a circuit judge, my dad was a state Circuit judge. He's a judge. I have tremendous, I probably have the most respect for judges of anybody in this legislature. And I think that my track record proves it. It's not about individuals. This, in my view, is being proactive. It's being proactive. It's getting in front of an issue
that if you don't believe me, it's going to be an issue. Just look at what's going on at the federal level. I'll be
glad to answer any questions. Representative Collins, you're Recognize
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:30:17
for a question? Thank you, Madam Chair. So I feel like I heard you say what we're doing and that we can do it and how it'll work, but I still don't really think I've heard you say what the purpose is. What problem are we
Speaker 268
2:30:28
solving here with this bill? I think the problem is we're ensuring public confidence in our court system
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:30:36
and in a challenge in which a judge is being asked to enjoin or otherwise set aside an action of the General Assembly. Right now, most of those cases have to be filed in Pulaski County. Right now, under Pulaski County's case management order, there are five circuit judges that potentially could receive that assignment. Why is it that a challenge that could invalidate and throw out an action of the General Assembly,
why is it that only the voters of Pulaski and Perry County have the opportunity to elect a judge that gets to decide that? These cases, facial challenges are not so much based on the facts, they're based on the application of constitutional law. And I would imagine that probably the electorate, when it comes to judges, whether it's in Union County, Miller County, Pulaski County, Washington County, Baxter County, that probably, even though judges are nonpartisan, they can't speak to maybe their constitutional viewpoints.
I would think that that might be different from across the state. Again, we could have done a lot of things that if I were just interested in reaching a certain result, I could have changed the venue statute. We could have changed other aspects of this. This is just simply saying, why not move it to a forum where the judges
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:32:03
are elected from across the state? Follow-up? You're recognized. I guess it seems like it does the opposite to me. You know, when you say that because they're elected in Polanski and Perry County,
that there's not public confidence in what they're going to come up with, why should any defendant or litigant feel confident before one of those judges if we can't feel confident in how they're going to handle these facial challenges? I'm not sure I'm following your question. Well, let me restate it then. You're saying with this bill that we need to move the cases out of Pulaski County because there's not public confidence in how the judges can handle it.
Why is that true for these, but not true for any litigant or any defendant in one of these courts? Why would they feel like they won't get a fair
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:32:56
shake? Well, I think what I would say is I think what we're trying to do is bolster public confidence. I have total confidence and fine personally with regard to decisions that may be rendered from Velasco County. What I'm saying is this is a different type of lawsuit. This is where you're allowing a circuit judge to, again, invalidate an action of the General Assembly.
The vast majority of other cases that take place involve residents, at least one resident or citizen of Pulaski County. These cases are impacting every citizen of the state of Arkansas and is impacting the legislature's constitutional role to pass laws. And so what is the downside to this? I mean, what is the downside? Ultimately, it's going to the Supreme Court anyway, and so what is the downside to allow the Court of Appeals, a court that is elected from across the state of Arkansas, just simply allowing them to be the one to make an initial determination?
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:33:57
I'll follow up, if I may, in response. You're with us. So, I mean, I think that the issue and the downside is that by saying that a judge from a certain place elected by a certain population can't do the job or shouldn't do the job regarding a certain set of cases, I don't really see there being a distinction between their inability to do it with respect to one set and another set. I guess that's really my issue with this, is that it seems like it is an implicit judgment negatively about the judge's capacity to handle these cases fairly. And I think that
someone who perceives the judiciary from the outside in the state as a member of the public is going to read this bill that way, and many have read this bill this way, as an undermining and an implicit criticism of our circuit judges here in
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:34:51
Pulaski County. Okay, so it's not meant to be that at all. And I have, again, I mean, I've been here for 14 years. Probably we've had decisions that have gone for and against the legislature.
I've even been made party to litigation that's been tried here. It's not personal to Pulaski County. Some of these cases can be brought outside of Pulaski County. But quite simply, this is where, I mean, I think we all know, regardless of which party is in control, that ultimately legal challenges of acts and rules are becoming more and more commonplace. And if that's the case, why wouldn't we have these heard initially before judges in a court
that is selected from across the state of Arkansas? And so I guess by the same argument, if I were to change the venue statute to eliminate the requirement that it be filed in Pulaski County? Would you have the same objection that we're somehow alluding to the fact we don't have trust in Pulaski County? Or if we moved it to Union County and had all cases against the state heard? That's completely within our purview. It's not meant as an indictment on Pulaski County.
It's not meant, some may make it that. And I realize there are many different viewpoints on this, And some of those that support this probably support it for different reasons maybe than necessarily why I'm here proposing it. What I'm trying to do is get out in front of an issue that I think is going to become more and more prevalent. I'm not sure what the downside would be. The vast majority of cases that are tried in Pulaski County relate to businesses, individuals who are domiciled or residents of Pulaski County.
This one category of case, this affects every citizen of the state of Arkansas, not just citizens of Pulaski County. And why wouldn't we want it to be heard initially, particularly when we consider a restraining order, an injunction, an effort to put a statute on hold while it's making its way through the court system? Why wouldn't we want that to be heard initially by a court that is selected from across the state? And again, this is only facial challenges. It's not as-applied challenges. It's only facial challenges.
The vast majority of cases are unaffected. Probably the vast majority of maybe constitutional cases are unaffected by this. I'm not sure about that. But it's a very narrow category that impacts every citizen of the state of Arkansas. Representative Hudson, you're recognized for a
question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay.
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
2:37:44
Representative Shepard, part of the concern I have about this, and you said in your introduction that there were a number of different ways that you could have approached the problem that you say you've identified, but you were afraid that that would be an appearance of forum shopping. Isn't this forum shopping?
I mean, essentially your introduction was we really don't like the opinions that are coming out of the circuit court, and so we would like to
move to a different court. I mean, this feels very much like forum shopping to
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:38:15
me. Well, forum shopping generally, I mean, if you would consider going from the circuit court
to the Court of Appeals forum shopping, I don't really consider that to be forum shopping. in this case, we're going from a small subset of the state, generally, whether it's filed in
Pulaski County or if a challenge is filed in any of the other counties, we're going from a small subset of the state to a court that would have jurisdiction in these matters from across the state, and again, pull from judges from across the state. I guess I don't see that as forum shopping. If I had made it where you had to bring it in another county, then yes, that would be. Or if we had eliminated the venue requirements related to bringing cases against the state
in Pulaski County, then you would have plaintiffs engaged in forum shopping. But this is not forum shopping when you're simply moving from a small subset of the state to a court that has judges pulled from the entire state. And ultimately, ultimately, all of these cases of any great import are going to end up before the Arkansas Supreme Court. And perhaps I should have said it's analogous to forum
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
2:39:29
shopping. I mean, I'm looking at some of the press on this and some of the quotes in the paper.
And basically, the argument, and these quotes come from Senator Hester, is basically that the Pulaski County Court gets overturned a lot, And so we might as well just take it to a different court where we think they're making better opinions. And
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:39:52
that's Senator Hester's viewpoint. Senator Hester can speak for himself. He is my co-sponsor. I think I alluded to that earlier. There's a lot of different reasons people may support this. I just think it really makes common sense is why wouldn't we move to a forum where, again, I don't know how the Court of Appeals,
Ultimately, the Supreme Court oversees rulemaking. You know, exactly how will they handle it? That's going to be up to them. But I think the, I'm not sure what the downside is to having a court whose judges are potentially elected from all over the state of Arkansas being the ones to initially hear these constitutional challenges. I'm not, I don't see what the downside is to that. Is it different? Yes. Is it, you know, is it outside the box?
Probably so. Some other states have moved to some similar situations. North Carolina has made it where I believe on facial challenges, they pull three circuit judges from various areas to be the ones to hear it. Under Amendment 80, unless we amend the Constitution, I couldn't have gone that route. I think Tennessee has adopted a similar situation. again, from my standpoint, I'm trying to be proactive. Obviously, if this was something that was the front burner issue for me, I've looked at this over the past five to six years. I could
have brought it a long time ago. I'm down to my last few weeks. And also, I do think that what you're seeing at the federal level is also instructive of a lot of what we may see and maybe already see feelings, right or wrong, about how people view these types of lawsuits. One last follow-up. One more.
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
2:41:42
a more substantive question. So I looked it up, and it looks like the Court of Appeals is handling close to 1,000 cases every year. And each of the Court of Appeals
justices is currently writing an average of 72 to 75 opinions per year. I know, and that's that's now. And what you're talking about is adding additional duties on top of the ones that they already have. I know that the fiscal statement says that there's no fiscal impact, but I feel pretty confident that if we are adding to the workload of what is already one of the busiest appeals courts that citizens of Arkansas can access, that there's likely to be a cost associated
with that, given the fact that we are going to require them to hear more cases, we're going to require them to have more hearings, we're going to require them to read more briefing, we're going to require them to draft more opinions. So how logistically do you
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:42:44
see this working? Well, that's going to be ultimately up to the Court of Appeals because we can't get
into the rulemaking authority. But I would think that as when I met with the chief judge the other day and the Chief of Staff. You know, certainly for myself, I would listen to any concerns as we move forward
on this, but I believe you heard me speak to the numbers that I've seen in the last six months. There may be 15 facial challenges. I did a quick Westlaw search the other day. Again, because the numbers are not, it's very difficult to know for certain, but looked at a quick Westlaw search over the last three years, it looks like potentially there were maybe 60 cases decided at the Supreme Court level that may have dealt with a facial challenge. So it's not a tremendously large
number, but I'm confident that they will be able to manage that workload. And if there are issues or concerns that arise, then I think that they can certainly visit with the legislature and the governor's office. And I've had those conversations with the governor's office, had the conversations with Senator Hester. The legislature, I think we've always been fairly attentive and fairly responsive to the needs of the judiciary. I recall that I think we've given millions of dollars for e-filing and other things. We've been fairly responsive. I think that we've been, you know,
we've advocated for efficiency. I want it to be efficient. And if they're being efficient, if they're doing their work, if they're working diligently on these things and there are needs that arise, and I'm confident that we can listen to those needs and make determinations at that point. Are
you good, Representative Hudson? I'll go back. Representative Springer, you're recognized for
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
2:44:33
a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Mr. Speaker, I have much respect for you, but I do have
to get in on this concern about your bringing this legislation before us. I'm still trying to understand why this is necessary when you've already admitted that these type of cases will eventually wind up before the court you're trying to put them before at this particular time. So I'm just having a hard time understanding why this is necessary when they're going to eventually wind up in that court anyway. So why are we going in this direction?
We're back to pretexts again, and I don't want to get back into that again. So, I mean, I'm just really trying to understand why this is necessary when there has not been any, I'm not aware of any cases where someone has come forth to say that this is necessary or this is just you saying that it's necessary so no one from the court has indicated to you that maybe that's a need because of their need to handle these kinds of things.
Now, this has not come from the court, but it's our role to make
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:45:51
the laws. The court gets to apply and interpret. Why is it necessary? I think it's, again, to be proactive, to attempt to bolster public confidence. If a law is going to be enjoined, I'm sure with any session, inevitably, I'm sure there will be litigation filed. It doesn't matter who's the party in control. There's always litigation.
And many times, while that is making its way through the court system, we have laws that are enjoined, that are put on hold, essentially, while the case makes its way through the court system that can take months or longer. And so why wouldn't we want those cases, even at the initial stages, to be decided by judges that are pulled from potentially across the state of Arkansas?
Again, I don't see the downside to that. Why wouldn't we want that? I mean, this is what I hear from legislators going back throughout my time as Speaker of the House, or for that matter, members of the community. We pass a law, and it's enjoined, well, it was enjoined in Pulaski County Circuit Court. It was enjoined wherever, some other circuit court. Well, why is that? Why is it decided here? Well, that's the way it is. We have control of jurisdiction and venue. That's under Amendment 80, Section 10.
And so why wouldn't we want these to be decided at the initial level by judges pulled from across the state? We're not talking about run-of-the-mill cases. We are talking about cases in which a judge can invalidate, can put on hold, can enjoin, can restrain the actions of the legislature that have passed both houses and been signed by the governor.
That's extraordinary, and I know that they take that very seriously. Again, it's not, you know, the system is what it is. I'm trying to get out in front of an issue because I think there are more drastic steps that people could have taken, more drastic bills that probably could have been introduced, and I think this is a fairly common sense
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
2:48:14
one. And I'm just not understanding why now. I mean, I just, I don't think you've answered the question why now.
Representative Gaswell, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
2:48:27
Thank you, Madam Chair, and so, and thank you, Representative Shepard, and I'm not expressing an opinion necessarily for or against the bill. I just have some questions practically as to how this might work, and I have a feeling you're going to tell me that's going to depend on the rules that are promulgated if this passes. But I'm going to ask anyway, because I do think, you know, you said it doesn't affect run-of-the-mill cases, but in some ways it will affect run-of-the-mill cases because those facial challenges will come in some cases on run-of-the-mill car wreck cases, for example,
where a bill that we passed about damages that may be admissible or not admissible in trial will be, there may be a facial challenge to that law, but there are also additional issues that may be left for a court to decide. So let's say there's a facial challenge to a law that we passed about damages. Let's say there's an as-applied challenge to a law that we passed about damages. Let's say there are factual issues that need to be resolved about my broken leg that happened in the car wreck, which is a run-of-the-mill case.
Where are all of these different kind of parts of this cause of action going to be decided? So you've got the facial challenge that goes to the Court of Appeals. You have an as-applied challenge that stays with the circuit judge. You have factual issues that have to be made somewhere. Do they all go? And again, do they all go to the Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals acts as a trial court or appoints a special master that makes decisions on these other remaining issues?
Do we bifurcate it and have the Court of Appeals decide the facial challenge and the as-applied challenge decided by the circuit judge and the factual issues that motions that are pending resolve in the circuit court. Just how practically do
you see that playing out? I guess
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:50:32
I could answer yes to everything you just said. I mean, ultimately, as you alluded to, it's going to be a matter of, I
believe, of rulemaking and practice and procedure within the judiciary.
You know, what I would foresee, and again, this is going to be subject to rulemaking, is that the exclusive jurisdiction is what the Court of Appeals, a litigant probably would want to make those other claims as part of the pendant jurisdiction, but
what I would foresee is that maybe there's the opportunity for those claims to be severed and for the Constitution, the facial challenge to be considered. those things, the facial challenge potentially could be considered sooner than later. It's not
uncommon necessarily in civil litigation. On occasion, there are issues that come up that require some type of interlocutory appeal to decide an issue. And so I think there are a number of different ways in which this could be handled to make sure that it is
not delaying justice but that is also respecting the fact that a facial challenge is very significant and that's also why
you know we're providing this delay of the effective date to November 1st is that that will allow you know six months for
rulemaking and for consideration of those those issues that may arise along the way you recognize for a follow-up follow-up yes
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
2:51:59
and so thank you madam Chair. And so, you know, as you note, I mean, there are a number of issues, as you know, as well as anyone in a lawsuit. At the beginning, you're dealing with discovery. You have a lot of other things that may be pending in addition to the facial challenge. And so there's just really a lot to be thought about in terms of how this would be implemented practically. And I guess
hopefully the rulemaking authority might take care of that if we pass it. I will say, I think this may be some consideration that hasn't been talked about too much, which is just the cost to do business in the Court of Appeals. I had a case, it's been several years ago now, where we appealed to the Court of Appeals. I didn't handle it because I don't typically handle appeals. We had to hire an appellate. My client had to hire an appellate lawyer. It cost, it seems like around $10,000 to handle the appeal through the Court of Appeals.
And so you're going directly to the Court of Appeals, which is going to be expensive for the litigants as opposed to just having the matter heard before the circuit judge initially. I know ultimately it may end up there, and you've got to be prepared for that cost, but starting it straight in the Court of Appeals kind of adds an additional cost to litigants.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:53:20
What do you have to say to that? I wouldn't think the cost would be too significant because unlike a normal appeal to the Court of Appeals, You're not having to pay for the record and have that prepared.
This would be more in line with an initial filing in circuit court. Again, the Supreme Court already has original jurisdiction in certain matters. We're just providing that the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction in this one limited area. The other thing is that, you know, with regard to some of these cases that you alluded to, as far as run-of-the-mill cases, car accidents, things of that nature, they could still make their as-applied challenge to any action that we've taken,
and it would not trigger the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. This is only when it comes to cases in which the claim is to, or the relief sought, is to invalidate and have ruled unconstitutional an action of the General Assembly or related rulemaking. Need one more? Just to follow up,
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
2:54:29
and I guess my point is that those are often made simultaneously with other causes of action.
I mean, I may challenge it facially. I may challenge it as applied. And then, of course, we have all the other issues that you're
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:54:47
well aware of, discovery, motions, evidentiary issues, et cetera. I mean, that would be a
decision for the attorney and the plaintiff to make. I would imagine in those cases, those car accident cases, they're most concerned about how is it applied to them personally in that particular lawsuit. But, again, if there's going to be a claim to invalidate it across the board, I just think it makes sense to move it to a different court that pulls from across the state.
Representative Collins, you're recognized for a question. Representative Springer, you're recognized
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
2:55:28
for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. So let me
just ask this question. So if someone decides to file a challenge to your bill, if it becomes law, will that lawsuit be heard before the
Speaker 280
2:55:44
Pulaski County Circuit Court, or will it go directly to the Supreme Court?
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:55:51
That's a good point. Based on my amendment, I guess it will likely be filed in Pulaski County, and I'm okay with that. If I wasn't, I would leave the emergency clause in. But I think that it makes sense to allow that rulemaking to take place. And, again, I have respect for the court, and so I'm sure it will proceed if there's a challenge. I'm sure it would proceed through the court system appropriately. Again, this is just a different way to handle trying to be out in
front of an issue that I believe we're going to hear more and more.
Chair
Unverified
2:56:29
Representative Hudson, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
2:56:35
Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't mean to keep harping on the workload in the Court of Appeals. However, kind of piggybacking off what Representative Gassaway was talking about on civil cases, let's talk about the effect on criminal cases. We already know that there's a backlog of criminal cases pretty much in every court in the state. And if in those cases, knowing that in the Court of Appeals it often takes a year or more now
before we add these additional things to get orders out, just as a matter, of course, as the administration goes now, and as a criminal defendant, I can make a facial challenge to the statute under which I've been charged, and I can go home and wait for the year while my facial challenge is proceeding through the Court of Appeals, what are we doing to the administration of justice? It seems to me as though we're going to continue to exacerbate the backlog in the criminal cases
and also exacerbate the backlog at the Court of Appeals because whether there's only 15 or 20 of these facial challenges being filed within the period that you looked at before, From a strategic standpoint, if I know as an attorney that I can take advantage of the delay in getting decisions to the benefit of my client, why wouldn't we just start seeing a whole bunch of facial challenges to criminal statutes in order to slow the process down and keep these people, these defendants, from having to be sentenced?
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:58:08
I think there may be kind of a, I mean, I think that as this is rolled out, I think as the rulemaking is, if there's rulemaking, I mean, ultimately the court can decide if they need rules or don't. But I think that over time, I believe that many of those things will work themselves out because I think that to your point about maybe people making facial challenges
just that are not necessarily legitimate, it's just an effort to delay. It's maybe kind of a frivolous, it's an effort to delay, as you put it, the administration of justice. I would think that the court over time would be able to develop a process by which they can handle and can sort through and could quickly dispose of those that are clearly meritless or that involve claims that are being routinely decided by the court.
And so I think that that is something that the court can address. I think they're going to be able to, I think that they'll be able to work through that. It may take a little bit of time, but I think they'll be able to work through that. And if there's a need demonstrated that the court is diligently working and that there is
a need to adjust based on caseload or other things. I'm sure that a future legislature and governor's office, that they would consider that.
I mean, we approved a new judge in Benton County. We could have gone the route of creating a new circuit that just heard these things. I just didn't feel like that was the way to go because of the additional expense that would be involved. I think that the court is well-situated to be able to manage this. But, again, if they're working diligently and it's shown that there is an issue that needs consideration, then I trust that the legislature will be able to respond to that. You need a follow-up?
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
3:00:16
And thank you for your answer. You mentioned, you know, several times, well, you know, they can probably take that up in rulemaking. They can probably come up with a rule. And to Representative Gassaway's question said they could probably take that up in rulemaking. But, you know, according to your amendment, they're going to have to get all these rules made in the next seven months.
Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we do have a
few individuals signed up. Mr. Rosenzweig, you've signed up to speak against the bill.
Speaker 171
3:00:48
Jeff Rosenzweig, Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Although we think the bill is unconstitutional and under Amendment 80, I'm not going to deal with that. Representative Hudson's point is the one I wanted to talk about. In every death penalty case, for instance, just as a matter of course, because the lawyers will file a facial challenge
to the statute, as well as as applied challenges. And if those are not filed and not pursued all the way, they will be deemed waived for federal court purposes. And so it is essential that those all be filed. The way this bill is currently written, it appears that everything would have to be on hold, although there's really no guidance on that, while the facial challenge is litigated all the way through, maybe all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, because that is the
appeal from the, or the certiorari from the Arkansas Supreme Court. There'll be all sorts of delays as a result of that. There's a filing fee. Well, most criminal defense defendants are indigent, but this requires a filing fee. There's talk about the rulemaking. Well, page two purports to make the rules. And it is a change to the rules. So we need a whole lot more guidance out
of this bill if it's going to pass. I suggest that you, if it is going to pass, that you exclude criminal cases from this while we see how it works out. Most of the facial challenges, by definition will fail, but they have to be brought. And at some point, they might connect. And of course, every time the legislature meets and passes a new law, there may be a facial challenge to that as well.
I believe this would cause a lot of havoc if applied to criminal cases. And if it's going to pass, it needs to be restricted to civil cases.
Members, any questions? Seeing no questions, thank you for coming.
your testimony today, we do have Chief Judge Bart Klappenbeck and Ann Sullivan. Thank
you for waiting for the last three hours to get to us.
Thank you. Not very many times that those of us who practice can make a chief judge wait, so
that gives us some pleasure maybe but all kidding aside thank you for your for coming and you are if you'll recognize
Speaker 292
3:03:55
yourselves you're recognized um my mark levinbach chief judge for the arkansas court of appeals and ann solomon is here to my left she's our chief staff attorney um we We aren't really voting, supporting, or, yeah, okay, well, we're neutral on the opinion.
Basically, we'll do whatever the legislature or the Supreme Court tells us to do and work in with our cases. The Court of Appeals was established in 1979 as a court with solely appellate jurisdiction, while we are not necessarily opposed to having original jurisdiction over certain cases. We are here because our court has concerns about this bill that we'd like to share with the committee.
Two of the goals of the bill, as we understand them, are to save time and money on the facial constitutional issues that are currently decided by circuit courts. When we learned about this bill, we began trying to research how many potential new cases that might add to our docket. This particular information is not tracked by Administrative Office of the Courts, and Representative Shepard has shared numbers with us. and some new numbers today that we didn't have the other day when we talked to him.
But we are concerned that the AG's office doesn't have, didn't give him numbers on matters that they are not opposing. Sometimes when these issues come to the AG's office, they just pass them off to the local attorney, local prosecuting attorneys or local attorneys, and so we're concerned about those numbers. Not knowing what impact this might have on our docket is especially concerning because our court manages a very heavy caseload.
Since January 1 of this year, our court has decided 313 appeals. 185 of those was written opinions and 128 was ESD or employment, unemployment cases. Not having the reliable number of cases that we might add raises financial questions. This will have a fiscal impact on our court's operation. We may need additional appropriations for special masters, court reporters,
and attorneys and staff to manage the additional caseload. We don't know because we don't have those in front of us, and we're just not used to being a fact-finding court, and so the special masters would be required, and we're just concerned about those costs. And we certainly appreciate Representative Shepard's looking favor on us and his opinion of us that we can handle this.
But those are just our concerns right now.
Speaker 296
3:07:18
Ms. Solomon, would you like to? Yes, Representative Dalby, very briefly. I'm here today to support Chief Judge Klappenbach, primarily because of my two main tasks as Chief Staff Attorney. I am the docket manager for the Court of Appeals, and also, much to my dismay, when I first took the job, I became the Chief Financial Officer of the Court of Appeals as a practicing lawyer.
Um, Judge Klappenbach hit the nail on the head. We, um, are concerned that we don't have a good grasp on how many number, how many of these cases there are. Um, and if I, as I was listening today, I heard Representative Shepard say in one way or another a couple of times, he's, one of the reasons he's filed this bill is to get out in front of a problem that he sees that might become more and more prevalent. even if there are only 10 or 15 cases right now, if that number is accurate,
I don't know what that means for our docket in the future. And I also don't know what that means for our budget for the future. I think it means much more appropriation would
Speaker 298
3:08:28
be needed and that it may slow down our docket. That's my concern. Thanks. We do have questions.
Will you all take questions? Sure. Representative Collins, you're recognized for a question. Thank
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
3:08:42
you, Madam Chair. I appreciate y'all being here and saying, you know, giving your perspective on this.
That was actually one of the initial things I wondered about was how would that work with you guys as the initial fact finder? Because I don't ever think of a court of appeals as a fact finder. I think of you guys as reviewing decisions and being in the books, so to speak, and then passing it on up. Are there any other areas where you are the initial fact finder, and can you talk about your capacity to do that
Speaker 296
3:09:13
fact finding, if any? Absolutely. The Court of Appeals is not a finder of fact. That is currently a circuit court's domain.
So in any case in which a finding of fact must be made, we would have to appoint a special master. That is one of the costs that we are anticipating but cannot anticipate what the dollar amount of that cost might be at this point. So, no, we've had very limited instances since our inception in which we've had to have a fact-finding. Most recently when we had a contempt issue with a litigant, well, with a court reporter, frankly,
And we had to have a fact finder appointed, cost a few thousand dollars for a day's work of hiring a special master appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. We had to have a court reporter there that day. Of course, we needed office space to have a hearing. So there are some additional costs that the Court of Appeals
Speaker 298
3:10:11
is not currently set up to handle with the way we operate today. Thank you. Members, any other questions?
Seeing no further questions, thank you for being here today, and thank you for your testimony.
Thank you for hearing us. We have no one else who's signed up to speak for or against. Representative Shepard, you're recognized.
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
3:10:39
Come to the end of the table and close for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
3:10:45
the committee. Just a few points related to some of the testimony we've just heard. Mr. Rosenzweig had alluded to the fact that this bill references court rules, that somehow we're attempting to adjust court rules.
Well, he's right, because under Amendment 80, I believe it's Section 9, we can annul and amend court rules. We can't necessarily set all the rules of procedure, but we can amend and annul those rules, and so that's part of what we're doing here, and that's permitted under the Arkansas Constitution. Secondly, I want to make this very clear. The Court of Appeals, each judge has a number of law clerks. How many law clerks per judge? Two.
Okay, they have two clerks. Many circuit judges across the state have no law clerks. There's nothing in here that requires a special master. If the court determines that they want to, I guess that's within their purview. Facial challenges are essentially questions of law because it's saying that not just in the instance of that particular case, but there is no instance in which the act is constitutional. These are things that largely would involve little to any factual information.
But to the extent it does, I'm confident that the Arkansas Court of Appeals is able to sit and hear facts if they so choose or if they decide to put that off on a special master, that would be their call. Again, if they're working diligently and there's a need that arises, I'm confident that the General Assembly would duly consider that need. I believe this is a good bill. It's what we're allowed to do under the Arkansas Constitution, and with that, I would move do pass as amended.
Members, we have a motion to do pass
as amended on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Excuse me. Seeing no discussion of the motion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye.
Aye. All opposed, say no. No. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed
your bill. Members, we're going to keep rolling along.
Representative Bentley, you've indicated to me that you are not running House Bill 1916. So not today. It'll be run on Tuesday.
So if you're here for House Bill 1916, we are not hearing that today. It'll be
Speaker 197
3:13:20
on Tuesday. Representative Richardson, I want to, just
for the record, you've indicated that you want to run House Bill 1178 and House Bill 1057 on Tuesday. Is that correct? No.
Okay. We're going to move those. House, you only had two, am I correct? If you're here on House Bill 1178 or House Bill 1057, those will be run on Tuesday. All right,
members, the next bill that we're going to take up, but wait, Representative Beatty, I
need to ask you, before we have Representative Beatty and
Representative Unger, you have the recidivision bill? Are you ready for that and how long is
that? I don't think we have anybody, do we have anybody signed up? We don't have anyone
signed up speak for or against. Do you want to present it today? We can put you on Tuesday.
I'm just trying to clear my docket up because I've got two individuals
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:14:42
still here. I'd be glad to roll with it. I'm prepared for it. I had
the amendment sent over. There's no known opposition, so there's some agreed upon. The amendment was agreed upon by the only concerns
raised by the Department of Corrections. It should be a simple bill to run through. Do you want to take a
run at it real quick because I've got to get it out and we don't have anybody
signed up on it. We're going to pass out House Bill 1931.
As that's being passed out, Representative Beatty, it's being passed out, but if you could just give a brief history as to this particular bill coming out of a task
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:15:32
force as they're looking at your amendment. Representative Howard Beatty, District 95. Basically, this bill is
just what the chairman said is the recidivism task force that was kind of created under the Protect Act.
This group's been meeting and looking at ways to reduce recidivism in the state. And I think all of that's kind of coming out in this bill, some of those meetings, as well as pulling, looking within what DOC was already had in place and trying to consolidate that all into one risk system. Okay, we got
that little quick background. We've got your amendment. Explain your amendment,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:16:14
and then we'll roll on. Members, basically once this bill was presented
and reviewed by the parties that it affected at the Department of Corrections, they had some concerns about some of the language, primarily the language on the last page of the bill, dealing with, I think, the school and some of those other issues. And so this amendment came at their request. We were agreeable to that. Basically what the amendment does, instead of stating that they have to have a plan to implement and submit that to legislative council, it allows them to submit a feasibility study to establish and implement a plan.
So it gives a little bit more time on that side to cover those issues identified on page 11 of the bill. And are you
making a motion to adopt your amendment?
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:17:05
I would offer a motion to adopt
the amendment. Members, we have a motion to adopt the amendment on the table. Any discussion of the motion? Seeing
no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no.
The ayes have it. You have passed your amendment. If
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:17:23
you will now quickly present your bill as amended. I'm going to quickly, again, Howard Beatty, District 95, House Bill 1911.
Basically, the bill that's before you outlines the process to create the recidivism reduction system within the Department of Corrections. It will be at the cabinet level position. The intent of this legislation is to reduce the recidivism rate in the state of Arkansas currently at 48.3%. I'll say that again, recidivism rate in the state of Arkansas, 48.3%. Projected cost associated with the recidivism rate is running around $140 million,
which stressed the importance of why this act is important. It's going to reduce and save money to the state, as well as improve the quality of lives for our inmates once they get out of jail. I won't go through all the key provisions for timeliness in the bill, but basically what it does, it consolidates all the programs, some of the key areas. I mean, it validates the risk and need assessment at intake for all prisoners, all inmates,
case plans on all prisoners, and then provides evidence-based programs, meaningful activities to help reduce the recidivism, and incorporates incentives for inmate participation and completion involvement in those programs. And there are also reporting and audit requirements in the program. And then, like I said, the temporary language where we go in and provide for the feasibility study
for full implementation of this plan. All in all, the goal of this is to reduce recidivism in the state. and have some quality metrics on what we're doing at the Department of Corrections. So with that, I'm entertaining questions. Representative Collins, you're recognized for a
question. Thank you, Madam Chair. And
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
3:19:25
I understand the late hour and all of that. At the same time, this is an important bill, and it is 12 pages, and I may need just a little bit of time here.
So, all right. I certainly applaud the goal, and I think to reduce recidivism is hugely important. I just want to understand exactly how we're going to do that. So staffing up, get that. The validation of the data, I get that. Case plans, I get that. Incentives, I get that. I think what I'm trying to understand is, are we newly requiring activities for inmates? Is that A, required, and is it B, newly required?
And then if they don't participate, are they going to get punished? I think that's what I need to know. I just want to understand if we're doing that or not. First, I would
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:20:23
say, and I'll direct you to page five of the bill. I think it's page five here. Under the incentive system, I think that might answer some of the questions. I don't think it mandates that they participate in these programs, But what it does do is it incentivizes those that choose to participate.
And some of those incentives provide extended phone privileges, extended time for in-person or video visitation, increased commissary spending limits. It identifies all that there on page 5 of the bill. But it does not have a penalty unless by choice, and life's about choices, and it's the reason that they're actually there is choices. So you get a reward if you choose to do certain things.
Certain things, it's the normal process that you have.
So I don't think that it's a
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
3:21:13
penalty. Follow-up, please. You're recognized. All right. So let me then ask you, direct you right under that. It's starting on the last line of page five and going on to page six. The system shall incorporate disincentives for an inmate who, let's go to the or, the second part of that, for an inmate who fails to meet the participation expectations for a program. Does that mean that if they don't participate, they will be disincentivized, whatever that means? Or does that mean that
Speaker 311
3:21:40
if they act up, that they will?
I just seem to know what you do. I think the intent on
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:21:47
that is for, because the planning and staffing and the programming that they go into, if these folks, I think some of it's the, if they're disruption or they're acting up, also think some of it is
uh if you sign up for the program that they want them to participate in that program and complete the program and go
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
3:22:07
through that side okay and just finally if are we going to be adding
more options or different options or what's really going to be the way that
we're going to get recidivism down through this bill i understand sort of the monitoring and the case plans that will have an impact staff working on all this stuff but ultimately are we are we forcing them in there and that's how we're going to get it or something else or
more offerings or or what what's going to be the real rubber meets
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:22:39
the road on this i think the real rubber meeting the road is once these folks have finished and they've served their time they paid their price society through, you know, their time in incarceration, and they're released back,
making certain that they have the skills to integrate back into society once they're released. I think that's the overall goal of the program, to provide those folks with opportunities to expansion of maybe some of the trade education, educational attainments, and other areas that are addressed so that they can incorporate back into society and contribute at a level where they don't repeat the
errors of the past and end up back in our prison system.
Okay, thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we have no one who's signed up to speak for or against the bill. You're recognized to close for
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:23:38
your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I'm closed for the bill. I'd offer a motion to do pass as amended and appreciate a good vote. Members, we have a
motion to do pass as amended on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion,
all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, committee. It's representing Long in the room. Not seeing representing Long, representing Barnett. You're recognized to come to the end of the table and present your bill. Well, you're up. So, representing Barnett's bill is House Bill 1885. House Bill 1885. If
you'll identify yourself, you're recognized to present your bill.
Representative Lincoln Barnett
Unverified
3:24:31
Hello, I'm Lincoln Barnett, representing District 63. Thank you,
Chairwoman Dalby, and good morning, committee members. Well, now good afternoon. I'm here before you today to present House Bill 1885. The intent of this bill is to ensure a standard level of support for law enforcement officers who are directly involved in a use of deadly force incident. House Bill 1885 ensures those officers are provided with paid leave and mental health support services during that time of leave.
This bill does not dictate a minimum or maximum period for this paid leave, permitting the local and respective agencies to determine the length of leave that is appropriate while the use of deadly force incident is investigated. House Bill 1885 does establish standard requirements for the involved officers to return to normal active duty. Page 2, lines 12 through 25, requires clearance from the prosecuting attorney investigating the deadly use-of-force incident,
documentation from the licensed mental health professional confirming that the officer participated and attended the counseling or therapy sessions, and their recommendation of the officer returning to active normal duty. This bill does have some similarities to a previous bill that has become before our legislative body, which is House Bill 1505, which is now Act 398, which requires public employers to provide licensed counseling for public safety employees who has experienced a traumatic event.
However, the requirement for counseling within this bill is in alignment with that existing act and does not conflict. However, the difference with House Bill 1885 is that it ensures the officers are given a period of paid leave during the investigation and counseling period, and it provides agencies with a standard across-the-board approach to returning that officer back to normal duty. Lastly, on page 2, lines 26 through 29, it exempts a law enforcement agency from providing these provisions
if the officer is charged with a criminal offense as a result of the deadly use of force. So overall, House Bill 1885 intends to support our law enforcement officers through such an unfortunate incident with paid leave and counseling and establishes a clear and reasonable path to returning them to active normal duty. I would ask for your support in this effort and would appreciate a motion to pass and a good vote.
Speaker 316
3:27:11
And I'm willing to take any questions that you all may have. Are there any questions?
Seeing no questions, we do have some individuals who have signed up to speak against the bill. I see the gentleman right here on the front row, Colonel Hager, Chief Seitz, Scott Bradley. If you all would like to go to the end of the table, you may speak against
Speaker 317
3:27:48
the bill. I'm Gary Sipes, Director of the Arkansas Association of Chiefs of Police.
Mike Hager
Unverified
3:27:53
I'm Mike Hager, Secretary of Department of Public Safety and Director of State Police. I'm Scott Bradley. I'm the Director of the
Speaker 319
3:28:09
Arkansas Sheriff's Association. Y'all are recognized to offer your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I've actually spoken to Representative Barnett on the phone briefly, And I asked him, he had some other provisions in the bill about keeping us off work for 45 days.
And I said that, you know, once we, I asked him that once we had our psychological exams, which is policy, I don't know any agency that doesn't have that as a policy already. And once I complete that and the investigation is completed by the prosecutor, that we'd be able to return to work. That was what I got from my sheriffs more than anything. But after an unfortunate situation like that happens, the worst thing we can do after we complete the investigation and seeing the psychologist, the worst thing we can do is sit home.
They want to come back to work and get back to normal as quick as they can. Representative Barnett, we had a great conversation. He did remove the 45 days from the bill, which I very much appreciate. However, the 90 days is what my sheriffs brought to my attention, And maybe I'm misunderstanding it, but it appears, though, if you need to have some psychological help, that you have to take it for 90 days. It's not up to the examiner to make that decision, whether it's one day, two days, however long it takes.
We'd like for him to be able to let us go back to work. Again, we've already got the policies that this bill is asking for. So it really wasn't a far stretch. You know, that's why we tried to talk and work through it. But the 90 days is a real problem for us.
Speaker 321
3:30:01
Chiefs Association. They're concerned about the number of days.
And I apologize to Representative Burnett because I was unable to get to you. But, I mean, we don't want to – this is a very serious thing, and I appreciate you for having the officer's well-being, wellness, mentally, physically. We want to take care of them. But, again, an officer needs to get back to work, and they want to get back to work as soon as possible after a situation like this.
We, as a chief and a supervisor during my time, we always look after the officer, make sure that nothing's going on with them. And like Scott said, everybody has a policy in place. In fact, the Arkansas Chiefs Association has put together a policy to cover all this. I mean, I don't want to take anything away from trying to help our officers, but I think it's already in place. Thank you.
Mike Hager
Unverified
3:31:08
And Mike Hager with State Police, Department of Public Safety. Just echo their comments and also want to thank the representative for very well-intentioned behind this legislation. We do have a few concerns. One, sometimes the process following a shooting can be almost as traumatic to an officer as the incident itself. They feel like a lot of times they're being treated or labeled as if they've done something wrong.
That's why we rely heavily on the psychologist or the psychiatrist that does that evaluation to let us know if they're clear to go back to work or if they need to continue treatment. It's been our experience that when you force treatment on someone, it can be counterproductive. That's something that we would really like to get away from. The second issue or concern that we have with the bill is the fact that the officer may not be able to return to duty
until they're actually given a letter by the prosecuting attorney's office. In rural counties and rural prosecutorial districts that don't have the caseload that some districts do, that may not be an issue. But just to give you an example, since January of last year, we've had 20 troopers involved in shootings alone. We've had multiple other incidents that were deemed to be deadly force by the nature of the incidents that they were involved in.
We had one incident in October of 2022 that was a SWAT shooting. There was an extended gunfight that I believe we had nine members of our SWAT team that were engaged in. That was in Pulaski County. It's not uncommon at no fault to the prosecutor's office. In fact, they work very well with us. It's not uncommon for that letter to not be cut for sometimes, you know, four to six months before or after an incident takes place. So we typically get an initial brief from the prosecutor.
We get a brief from our criminal investigations division and any other agencies that are involved, and we make that determination on whether or not that person can return to duty. in addition to the counseling that they're required to attend by our policy. So in that one situation, if this were enacted, our SWAT team literally would have to stand down. In the incident that I talked about, there's still a fairly lengthy time that it takes to get all of those troopers through counseling and have their mandatory visits
and get those initial briefs. And during that time, we had to reach out to neighboring teams that we have an MOU with, basically to ask them to respond to incidents around the state because our team was ineffective and they were unable to respond due to manpower. So if we added this, it potentially would have had nine members of our team off up to six months and not to include their primary day-to-day assignments.
So that's our greatest concern with this legislation as written. Representative
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
3:34:27
Crawford, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. What is the policy that is now set
Mike Hager
Unverified
3:34:36
in place? I think that's going to differ from each agency, but there's a standard, a national standard that most states of Arkansas adheres to, and these gentlemen can speak to their agencies that they represent better than I could. Within the state police, if someone is involved in a deadly use of force incident,
they're automatically taken out of service. They're put on administrative leave. We assign a wellness officer to reach out to that person to address them, and not only them but their immediate family, any specific needs that they may have. And then we schedule a psychological evaluation to be conducted to determine if they're fit for duty to be able to come back to work. We then, our criminal investigation division will put together a brief
that they present to the command staff in the chain of command for wherever that trooper is assigned. They give us a brief and let us know the basics of it, of course, if there's any documents, case files, videos, things like that, that is watched. If it's ever gray or if there's any question, then typically that trooper is going to remain off duty until we get a final closure from the prosecutor's office. But again, depending on the district and how busy that district is, that can sometimes take months. So if it's a cut-and-dried use of force,
then we typically put them back to work as soon as we receive that initial brief and they've been signed off
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
3:36:08
on by the psychiatrist. How do you feel like that's working? How are the officers, their mental health when they go back to work? Is it working in the process that
Mike Hager
Unverified
3:36:20
you're doing now? Yes, ma'am. We've had no issues that we're aware of. We've actually been very intentional in our agency as the police departments and sheriff's departments with the resources they have as well about standing up a very robust wellness program.
Once they're cleared from duty, they're assigned to, or a wellness officer is assigned to that person who, in the case of DPS, we do have licensed professionals, but we also have mentors and peers within state police that have received additional training in that discipline. And they talk with them and follow up with them as much as necessary. That is something that's kept confidential. that's not a something that's made privy to the command staff or to their chain of command and
that's for that officer's well-being so but as far as I know in the feedback that we have gotten on our wellness program it's it's been very positively received and we've had no issues with it any other
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
3:37:25
questions for these witnesses all right seeing none gentlemen thank you for your testimony. I understand no one else has signed up to speak on the bill. Representative Barnett, you're recognized to
Representative Lincoln Barnett
Unverified
3:37:48
close for the bill. Thank you, Chair. In light of the concerns that have
been highlighted and shared, I am willing to take the bill down and work on it some more. Well,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
3:38:03
without objection, we'll let him pull the bill down. Thank you for presenting
it, and thank you for working with the committee on this. Representative
Chair
Unverified
3:38:20
Long, I believe you're next up.
Representative Long, are you prepared to run House Bill 1678? Mr.
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
3:38:41
Chairman, are you all going to be running bills this afternoon after? I don't, because we're not, because the
House is not convening tomorrow, I do not believe we'll be meeting. I think our next meeting will be Tuesday. Thank you, sir. Yes,
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:38:52
sir. I guess I'm ready to run the bill.
Chair
Unverified
3:38:56
Okay. You're recognized to identify yourself and you're recognized to
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
3:38:59
present your bill. Thank you. State Representative Wayne Long, District 39.
Committee, this is my first time before the judiciary, and I'd appreciate it if y'all taking it easy on me. I'll bring before you
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:39:12
today House Bill 1678. It's a simple bill that makes... Representative Long, just one moment. Do you have an amendment for your bill?
Speaker 335
3:39:19
I forgot about that. Yes, sir. Thank you. I'll pass that
out, and then I'll lead you to present the amendment. Sure.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:40:00
to present the amendment to your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's adding
Senator John Payton as my Senate sponsor, adding some co-sponsors, and also we wanted to clarify that in this bill that I'm proposing, we give standing for the father of the unborn child to Sue. We wanted to make clear that they couldn't do it if it was a result of criminal contacts. excuse me, criminal conduct.
So we add that to the language, and that's it. Are there
any questions regarding the amendment from the committee? Seeing none, what's
the wishes of the committee? Are you making a motion to adopt the amendment? I have a motion to adopt the amendment from Representative Crawford. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, please
say aye. All opposed, the ayes have it. You've adopted your amendment. You're recognized to present your
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:40:58
bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I bring before you House Bill 1678.
It's a simple bill that only makes four changes to the existing Abortion-Inducing Drug Safety Act. The four changes that are being requested are a result of countless hours of research looking at similar bills in other states. The Abortion-Inducing Drug Act has served us well since 2015 because we've been willing to amend it as needed. I believe the time has come to address a new problem that has arisen since the Hobbs decision caused our implementation of our trigger law. That trigger law outlawed all abortions in Arkansas except to save the life of the mother.
I, like many people, thought that was the end of abortion in Arkansas, but soon I found out that only the method of abortion had changed. There are many out-of-state abortion providers that are breaking Arkansas law by shipping chemical abortion pills into our state. This bill seeks to stop that from continuing by increasing the criminal penalties from the current A misdemeanor to a Class D felony. As we heard this week on the House floor, it's currently a felony to fight roosters in Arkansas,
but currently it's a misdemeanor to provide abortion-inducing drugs. This bill also adds a $50,000 fine for individuals or entities found guilty of breaking this law. Also under this bill, the following people will have standing to sue the drug providers. The woman upon whom the abortion was performed or attempted, the father of the unborn child, the woman's parents or legal guardian if she's under age, and also added the Attorney General to make it clear that he'd also have standing to sue.
Finally, we made a violation of this law subject to the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. This makes it possible for our authorities to take a company to court if they engage in business practices that are deceptive or illegal, which this is. So I'm ready to try
to answer your questions. All right, members, you've heard an explanation of the
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
3:43:08
bill. Representative Hudson, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Long, I'm looking at page 2, beginning at line 17.
So this is Section 3C. It says, a cause of action for injunctive relief against a person or entity that has purposely, knowingly, or recklessly violated this chapter may be maintained by. What injunctive relief exactly does this bill purport to provide? Because it appears to me in reading this bill that this is a cause of action after the woman has received the abortion-inducing medication.
And an injunction is typically something that you ask the court for to stop someone from doing something or to compel someone to do something. So what exactly does this injunction purport to do if the medication is, what are we stopping or what are we compelling? Well, not being an attorney such
as yourself. I basically, like all of us
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:44:11
non-attorneys do, I went to BLR and told them this is what I'm trying to achieve and this is the language they gave me.
So that's unfortunately the only answer I
Speaker 340
3:44:22
have for that. Follow up. You're recognized.
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
3:44:26
And I appreciate that, but knowing that the definition is you're either going to stop someone from doing something or you're going to compel somebody to do something, then what action is a woman who received the abortion, the father, the spouse, parent, or guardian, or the prosecuting attorney or the attorney general, What are they, what do you envision their action to be here?
What are they stopping or what are they
compelling? Well, the vision that I had was
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:44:58
trying to do a two-pronged approach, both criminally and civilly, because some of these provide, well, I guess all these providers are out of state, and I wanted basically to have the option of either way going after them criminally or civilly to discourage them from breaking Arkansas law.
Chair
Unverified
3:45:21
Representative Clowney, you're recognized for a question? Representative Beatty, you're
Speaker 344
3:45:28
recognized for a question? Well, I've kind of got a couple in here
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:45:33
and just trying to follow your intent. I see the language in here about the father. Is there anything in the bill that had the requirement that the father be adjudicated by the court or anything that they are the father, a paternity test or anything like that that's in the bill?
And what if the child's conceived out of wedlock and there's no presumption of who the husband, that the husband is the father, or if there's no paternity test, how can you conclude who the father is and who actually has standing to sue
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:46:10
for damages under your bill? If I remember correctly, I think we stated both father or spouse because that sometimes are not the same. I'm trying to cover both bases. Yeah.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:46:26
So the other side is, I see you've got language in here for the Attorney General. Did you consult with the Attorney General on this bill? Did they give you any guidance or any feedback on your bill? Yes, sir,
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
3:46:36
I did, over several months. And in the
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:46:38
end, they said basically that from a legal standpoint, they saw no problem with it. So they were supportive of your bill is what
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:46:46
you're saying? They said they had no legal
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:46:48
problems with it. Okay. Are there any other questions from the committee?
Seeing no further questions from the committee, we do have a couple of individuals signed up to speak for the bill. We first have Kelsey Mews. Am I saying that correctly? If you wouldn't mind, come to the end of the table identifying
Speaker 350
3:47:23
yourself and then you're recognized for your remarks. Thank you. I'm Kelsey Mews, and I'm the field team EA with Students for Life Action.
We have groups in college and university campuses in all 50 states, including here in Arkansas. Good afternoon, committee members, and a special thank you to Representative Wayne Long for introducing this SFL action-inspired amendment to the already-in-effect Abortion-Inducing Drug Safety Act, HB 1678. Thank you, Vice Chair, for giving me the opportunity to address you all today. Leaders such as yourselves grapple with many tragedies on behalf of your constituents and work to protect both the citizens, laws, and values of your state.
Today, I ask for your support in increasing the criminal penalties and clarifying the civil penalties of those who violate the Abortion-Inducing Drug Safety Act. Because of the deadly harms of chemical abortion pills, women and girls are subjected to injury, infertility, and death. The pills cause four times the complications as surgical abortion with a risk of death that is ten times higher, according to a National Institute of Health study. The FDA and its website, even with inadequate reporting, notes many women have died.
If you wanted to sell these deadly pills safely, the demand would be for in-person care with an ultrasound and check on the RH-negative status of the mother's blood for possible treatment. But big abortion pharma and international pill pushers are willing to risk women's fertility and lives at the hands of abusers to facilitate a quick sale. women's fertility can be harmed by infection when the pills don't complete the abortion and tissue remains. A new study on what they call retained products of conception looking at birth and abortion reported that among a pool of women who underwent a hysteroscopy exam for this,
more than 71% who had tissue still inside were post-abortion. About 15% of the population has RH negative blood after an exchange of blood between mother and child through birth, miscarriage, and abortion. Antibodies can be formed that must be quickly neutralized, and if they are not, infertility can be a result as future pregnancies are attacked by the antibodies. And then we get to the abortion water pollution. We are all drinking abortions as chemically tainted blood, placenta tissue, and human remains turn our waterways into cemeteries in our sewers.
The unnatural pills contain endocrine-disrupting chemicals, or EDCs, that can interfere with the regulation of hormones in the body and are carried into the wastewater to treatment facilities where they cannot be removed during the treatment process. Most cruelly, chemical abortion pills are an abuser's dream drug and pill pushers dream financial scenario, whether a young woman is trapped in sex trafficking or tricked by an abusive partner. In Louisiana, State Senator Thomas Presley sponsored innovative legislation on chemical abortion pills on behalf of his sister
Catherine Herring, whose husband placed an abortion drug in her drink without her knowledge. In a project summary from the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence, it's reported as many as one in three women report physical or sexual violence, psychological harm, or stalking by a partner in their lifetime. When it comes to the horrors of sex trafficking, seven in ten victims are women and girls. It's no surprise that abortion pill pushers are willing to risk women's lives and fertility to make a quick sale of a concoction designed to end life in the womb.
When death is your business, concern for others is hardly a priority. Even if you support abortion, that's not an argument in favor of risking so much and hurting so many. The trafficking of chemical abortion pills creates dangers that can be confronted by voting in favor of this amendment and creating stronger penalties for abusers. We are asking you to vote yes on HB 1678 and send it to the House floor. Thank you. Thank you for your remarks.
Any questions from the committee? Seeing no questions.
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
3:51:19
Representative Gonzales, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On page three, Representative Long, this may be for you, I don't know. On page three, starting on line seven, you're striking all this language, "If a judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant and the court finds that the plaintiff's suit was frivolous and brought in bad faith, the court shall render judgment and reasonable attorney fees in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff." you're striking all of that, why would you be okay with bringing a lawsuit in bad faith
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:51:49
or a frivolous suit? Thank you, Robert. It's all for that question. Actually, my thinking there was it might, thinking that they're going to be possibly sued, or I guess countersued, might prevent some poor people from entering into a suit. So that was basically my thinking at the time. Okay. Thank you.
Any other questions from the committee? Seeing no other questions, thank you for your remarks. You're excused. We have one other individual, Aaron Hogan, who
Chair
Unverified
3:52:31
signed up to speak for the bill. If you wouldn't mind
Erin Hogan
Unverified
3:52:36
just going to the table and identifying yourself, and you're recognized. Thank
Speaker 356
3:52:39
you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. My name is Erin Hogan. I'm Director of Government Relations at Family Council, and I just wanted to come up here and just let it be known that Family Council supports this bill. I believe it's a good bill that accomplishes good things. Under Arkansas's current Abortion
Inducing Drugs Safety Act, that was passed in 2015 and I believe updated in 2021, and that was well before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. So a lot has happened in between then and now. And so our current laws, as many know, prohibits abortion except to save the life of the mother, but abortionists from out of state have been marketing abortion drugs to women in Arkansas. In fact, last year our attorney general was forced to issue cease and desist letters to New York companies
that were advertising abortion pills in Arkansas. So that is something that is happening, and there are situations that we have come to knowledge of where abortion pills are being shipped here in Arkansas. So we agree that Arkansas needs to improve its abortion laws here to prevent this type of illegal activity, and we believe HB 1678 does that, and it helps tighten some restrictions on these abortion drugs. So we just support the bill and support Representative Long and his efforts here.
Speaker 334
3:54:03
Thank you for your remarks. Are there any questions from the committee?
Seeing no questions, thank you for being here today. Representative Long, are you ready to close
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:54:16
your bill? Mr. Chairman, or Mr. Vice Chairman, having heard two different things brought up that members had concerns
about, If you may, I'd like to pull down the bill, make some adjustments to it, and bring it back. Sure. If you're
asking to pull down the bill without objection, we'll allow you to do that.
Thank you, sir. Go back to speak. Thank you. Members, that's all the
bills we're going to hear today. Hopefully, you'll have a little bit of time to get some lunch. We are adjourned. Good to see you. Thank you.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1504 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF MANUFACTURING, MODIFYING, SELLING, TRANSFERRING, OR OPERATING A ROBOTIC DEVICE OR AN UNCREWED AIRCRAFT THAT IS EQUIPPED OR MOUNTED WITH A WEAPON.
HB1663 K. Brown TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMONY FOR A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED AN ACT OF CIVIL OR CRIMINAL DOMESTIC ABUSE WHEN THE VICTIM WOULD BE THE PAYOR OF ALIMONY.
HB1664 K. Brown TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS AND OTHER TESTING IN AN INVESTIGATION INVOLVING ALLEGED ABUSE UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1678 Long TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INCREASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE CIVIL PENALTIES.
HB1754 Gonzales TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES.
HB1765 Underwood TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DOMESTIC BATTERING IN THE THIRD DEGREE; AND TO AMEND THE OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION ENHANCEMENT BASED ON PRIOR ACTS.
SB302 Gilmore TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF GIFT CARD FRAUD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB314 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEXUAL SOLICITATION; AND TO AMEND THE PENALTIES FOR THE OFFENSE OF SEXUAL SOLICITATION.
SB375 Stone TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CAPITAL RAPE; AND TO AMEND A PORTION OF ARKANSAS CODE WHICH RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 3 OF 1936.
SB342 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN ANIMALS BY DOGS TO AUTHORIZE TREBLE DAMAGES.
HB1832 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND TO AMEND A RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE
ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION.
SB435 Irvin TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT UPON A HEALTHCARE WORKER; AND TO DEFINE "HEALTHCARE WORKER" REGARDING ASSAULT AND BATTERY.
SB446 Gilmore TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READER SYSTEM ACT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READERS BY PRIVATE LANDOWNERS, PRIVATE LEASEHOLDER, AND COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES.
HB1861 Duffield TO MAKE OPERATION OF AN ILLEGAL ONLINE CASINO OR SPORTS BETTING A FELONY; TO CREATE THE INTERACTIVE GAMING ACT; TO REGULATE INTERNET GAMING AND INCLUDE NAME, IMAGE, OR LIKENESS GAMES AND GAMING; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB364 Hester TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES RELATED TO CONTRACTORS.
SB313 Irvin CONCERNING FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND TREATMENT; AND TO PROMOTE AND IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES AND QUALITY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES.
HB1871 Gazaway TO REQUIRE A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR DEFENDANTS WHO REPEATEDLY VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THEIR PROBATION OR SUSPENDED SENTENCE.
HB1877 S. Meeks CONCERNING CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO POSSESSION OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL THAT DEPICTS A CHILD; AND TO INCLUDE A COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGE THAT IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE IMAGE OF A CHILD.
HB1885 Barnett CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER INVOLVED IN A DEADLY USE OF FORCE INCIDENT TO BE PLACED ON TEMPORARY LEAVE AND ATTEND THERAPY.
SB277 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PERMIT THE FILING OF A NEW UNIFORM PETITION TO SEAL A MISDEMEANOR VIOLATION OF THEFT OF PROPERTY AFTER TEN YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE THEFT.
SB457 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RELEASE FROM PAROLE OR POST- RELEASE SUPERVISION OF CERTAIN PERSONS WHO COMMITTED CRIMES WHEN THEY WERE UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN.
HB1648 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENTS; TO ALLOW A MEMBER OF A MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT BOMB SQUAD TO MAKE ARRESTS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1529 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL CREATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL; AND TO ESTABLISH A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNLAWFUL CREATION OF DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL.
HB1178 R. Scott Richardson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONTRACTING OF A MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SUMS COLLECTED BY DISTRICT COURTS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COST SHARING FOR DISTRICT COURT EXPENSES.
HB1057 R. Scott Richardson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY CERTAIN PERSONS; AND TO PERMIT THE RESTORATION OF THE RIGHT TO POSSESS A FIREARM TO A NONVIOLENT FELON.
HB1306 Furman CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP; AND TO PROVIDE CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR VOLUNTEER SECURITY PERSONNEL IN A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP.
HB1433 K. Moore TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS EXECUTING OR SERVING AN ORDER OF PROTECTION TO SERVE ANY OUTSTANDING CRIMINAL WARRANTS RELATED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR OFFENSES INVOLVING THE PETITIONER AS THE VICTIM.
HB1895 Dalby TO ALLOW A CORPORATION OR VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION TO EMPLOY IN- HOUSE ATTORNEYS TO REPRESENT AFFILIATES OF THE CORPORATION OR VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION.
HB1916 Bentley TO AMEND THE PROTECTING MINORS FROM MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACT OF 2023; AND TO INCLUDE GENDER-AFFIRMING INTERVENTIONS AS A RIGHT OF ACTION FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE.
HB1926 Unger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENSION, REVOCATION, OR NONRENEWAL OF A PERSON'S DRIVER'S LICENSE FOR FAILURE TO PAY A COURT-ORDERED FINE; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A DEFENDANT'S INABILITY TO PAY A COURT-ORDERED FINE.
HB1931 Beaty Jr. TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB325 A. Clark TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989; TO AMEND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING REINSTATEMENT OF PARENTAL RIGHTS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE CHILD MALTREATMENT CENTRAL REGISTRY.
SB326 A. Clark TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989 AND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO MODIFY GUIDELINES FOR A JUDGMENT MADE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF A CHILD; AND TO AMEND PROCEDURES AROUND REPORTING CHILD MALTREATMENT.
SB459 G. Leding TO AMEND THE MINIMUM AGE NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT.
HB1947 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA.
HB1948 Joey Carr TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE OFFENSE OF NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS COMMITTED; AND TO REPEAL THE ABILITY OF A PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OR DEFENDANT TO SUBPOENA CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS BEFORE A HEARING OR TRIAL.c
HB1953 Torres TO PROVIDE FOR A SURCHARGE TO BE ASSESSED ON INMATE PHONE CALLS TO OFFSET THE COSTS OF SECURITY NEEDS ASSOCIATED WITH INMATE COMMUNICATIONS.
HB1959 M. Brown TO ABOLISH THE WRIT OF SCIRE FACIAS AND SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS TO REVIVE AN OUTSTANDING JUDGMENT; TO ALLOW A JUDGMENT TO BE REVIVED BY NOTICE; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE FEES TO BE CHARGED BY CLERKS OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS.
HB1967 K. Brown TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF SEXUAL IMAGES OR RECORDINGS.
SB355 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS.
SB487 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW ON THE DESTRUCTION OR EXPUNGEMENT OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY RECORDS.
SB490 Irvin TO ALLOW A COURT TO WAIVE CERTAIN FEES WHEN A JUVENILE IS ORDERED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER.
SB426 Hester TO CREATE THE DEFENSE AGAINST CRIMINAL ILLEGALS ACT; AND TO ESTABLISH ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS WHO COMMIT
SERIOUS FELONIES INVOLVING VIOLENCE.
SB427 J. Bryant TO AMEND PROMOTING PROSTITUTION OFFENSES; TO ENHANCE THE PENALTIES FOR PROMOTING PROSTITUTION IN THE FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD DEGREE; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF PROMOTING PROSTITUTION AT A BUSINESS.
SB428 J. Bryant CONCERNING A CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO PROVIDE A STATUTE OF LIMITATION PERIOD OF TEN YEARS FOR A VICTIM OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING.
SB429 J. Bryant TO EXPAND THE SEALING OF CRIMINAL RECORDS FOR VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO PROVIDE THAT VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING HAVE CERTAIN RIGHTS; AND TO PROVIDE A MANDATORY NO-CONTACT ORDER IN A HUMAN TRAFFICKING CASE.
SB430 J. Bryant AN ACT TO REQUIRE MANDATORY RESTITUTION TO BE AWARDED TO A VICTIM OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS CRIME VICTIMS REPARATIONS ACT.
SB431 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; TO ELIMINATE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES; TO CREATE SAFE HARBORS FOR VICTIMS; AND TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN SEXUALLY EXPLICIT PRODUCTS THAT RESEMBLE A CHILD.
SB442 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO PROVIDE FOR FORFEITURE OF ASSETS USED TO CONDUCT HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HARBORING AN ENDANGERED RUNAWAY CHILD.
SB449 Dees TO PROVIDE CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR CONFISCATION OF ALTERNATIVE NICOTINE PRODUCTS, VAPOR PRODUCTS, E-LIQUID PRODUCTS, TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AND CIGARETTE PAPERS FROM A MINOR AT A SCHOOL.
SB511 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE IMPAIRMENT.
SB512 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ROBBERY AND AGGRAVATED ROBBERY.
SB513 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF MAIL THEFT; AND TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF THEFT OR UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION OF A MAIL RECEPTACLE KEY OR LOCK.
SB514 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A SKIMMER; AND TO INCREASE PENALTIES FOR THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A SKIMMER FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS.
SB537 Gilmore TO CREATE THE EARNING SAFE REENTRY THROUGH WORK ACT; AND TO CREATE A SENTENCE CREDIT PROGRAM FOR A PERSON ON PROBATION, PAROLE, OR POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION TO EARN TIME CREDITS THROUGH EMPLOYMENT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB539 Gilmore TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE LAW REGARDING THE DIVISION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION AND THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION; TO CLARIFY REFERENCES TO COMMUNITY CORRECTION CENTERS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE- HOUSE, Apr 3, 2025 | Agenda | 5 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Carol Dalby Chair
Unverified
Representative Kendon Underwood Chair
Unverified
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
Barbara Mariani
Unverified
Speaker 15
Speaker 17
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
Carlton Saffa
Unverified
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
Speaker 32
Speaker 35
Speaker 46
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
Speaker 40
Speaker 25
Speaker 72
Speaker 75
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Erin Hogan
Unverified
Speaker 83
Speaker 86
Enid Valentine
Unverified
Speaker 98
Speaker 97
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
Speaker 115
Speaker 116
Speaker 117
Speaker 123
Speaker 126
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
Speaker 143
Speaker 150
Speaker 151
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
Speaker 162
Speaker 164
Speaker 166
Speaker 169
Speaker 170
Speaker 171
Speaker 173
Speaker 174
Speaker 181
Speaker 182
Speaker 186
Speaker 188
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
Speaker 209
Speaker 210
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
Speaker 220
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 229
Speaker 236
Speaker 239
Speaker 237
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Speaker 249
Speaker 258
Speaker 243
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
Speaker 268
Speaker 275
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
Speaker 280
Speaker 292
Speaker 296
Speaker 298
Speaker 197
Speaker 311
Representative Lincoln Barnett
Unverified
Speaker 316
Speaker 317
Mike Hager
Unverified
Speaker 319
Speaker 321
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
Speaker 335
Speaker 340
Speaker 344
Speaker 350
Speaker 356
Speaker 334