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CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP; AND TO PROVIDE CIVIL … | Furman | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |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
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
The first bill that we'll take up today is House Bill 1433, uh, Representative Kendra Moore, are you ready to present your bill? If you tip in
the table. Representative Moore, do you have an amendment on this bill? Can you, uh, have you signed the amendment yet?
Members, we have an amendment on the bill. Just give it a couple of minutes to get that passed out
to you all. Represented more 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
1:58
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Kendra Moore, District 23, and with your permission, I'd like to introduce, uh, Barb Mariani from the domestic violence coalition. Yeah, absolutely. And when, when you're ready to speak, if you just would identify yourself
and who you're representing. Uh, my name is Barbara Mariani. I'm if you wouldn't mind turning your mic
Barbara Mariani
Unverified
2:20
on, thank you. Uh, my name is Barbara Mariani.
Speaker 15
2:25
I'm legal counsel for the Arkansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence. There
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
2:32
more you recognize 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 this is what this amendment does. It's pretty simple. It just on page 2 deletes lines 1 through 23 and just substitutes the language that Oh, a warrants check for active
warrants should be ran before serving the order of protection, and that's all the amendment does.
you'll be a doctor. 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. opposed, I have it. Congratulations, you've adopted
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
3:15
your amendment. You're now recognized to present your bill. Thank you. So again, this just, uh, addresses the concern that the members had earlier in the session that respondents would come to a hearing and 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 amended. And
would like to make? Uh, I'm just here in
Speaker 15
3:55
case there's any questions on the legalities or anything about the
law. OK, perfect. Is there any questions from the committee? Seeing no questions,
we don't have anybody to signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Moore, you're recognized to close for your bill. I
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
4:10
am closed for my bill and appreciate a good vote. What's the
wishes of the committee? Du pass 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. All opposed. I 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 rep uh to present House bill. 1861. right
Members, we have a fiscal impact on this bill, so we'll get that passed out to you here momentarily and if
Senator Duffield, um, if you'd recognize yourself or or identify yourself, you, you'll recognize to present your bill. Representative Matt
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
6:30
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. Staff, if you would, when you get
to the end of the table, just identify yourself and uh you guys are recognized to. Your remarks. Good morning and thank
Carlton Saffa
Unverified
6:49
you. My name is Carlton Saffa. I'm here
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
6:53
on behalf of the Saracen Casino Resort in 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 a legal 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 6 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 and drafting, and that didn't happen.
This bill will somehow harm the lottery and 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 40% is may, 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, 1st 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 OK 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 we'll 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 sports book has already ignored a cease and desist from DFNA. This is a kick them 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 patronage, anti-money laundering practices aren't serious about problem gaming, employing 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 NIO drawing be allowed on the casino app. And I
might add here that Saracen is offered free of charge, willing to share this, uh, 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 NLL 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 passive 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. 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 the expense of the illegal operators exceeds $100 million in new general revenue a year. There's no good answer. We have our gaming this morning. Regardless of what we do today,
we will have i gaming. 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've already made your statement and I got in here late. Would you like to make
Speaker 32
14:08
a statement? I have not yet, but I would love to if that's possible. Yes, we'll go
ahead and take that, and then we'll take up questions. Sure.
Speaker 35
14:19
I want to thank you all for, 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 DFNA to the racing Commission, and two others. This is important.
Speaker 46
14:50
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, then television, movies, and music combined.
Trust me, I would rather be down in Pine Bluff checking out what
Speaker 35
15:27
the wind did to our $250 million expansion than be here today, but it is
Speaker 46
15:33
important. Now, you have no doubt been lobbied as Representative Duffield said. 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
Speaker 35
15:57
it. But as Representative Duffield mentioned, West Virginia has had this for a long time. You've been told this is only in liberal states or northeastern states. One Arkansas companies actually already doing this in West Virginia and it's working quite well. He was elected officials are tasked with making tough choices for
Speaker 46
16:14
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 know, by the way, that this is only 6 pages, really 5 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 Deffield. 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 2 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'd be asked what the source is. Now the problem Gambling
Speaker 46
19:25
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 Luckyland 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 1086% 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 3 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 pitchman has now turned into daytime television ads, which you've probably seen and most disturbingly in just the last week, Sarason's digital team has worked around the clock with meta to take down over 100 different paid ads on Meta and uh 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 3 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 of 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 it's 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 3 who are allowed to do it. And if you are not one of those 3, 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 3 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, it was a New Jersey.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 him 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, you know, Pacific or the Southeast with Servers in Cyprus and Malta to stop a felony 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 or DFNA 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 noncontroversial 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 Google 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 OK. If you just, 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 operatorseely 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? Representing Hudson, you're recognized for
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
28:47
a question. Thank 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
Speaker 40
28:59
you explain to me why it doesn't. We Language in the bill. the
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
29:20
lottery didn't we? Yeah, Representative, I'm sorry. Yes, 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. See,
Speaker 35
29:33
where's that at? Uh, if, if I 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 Bosley 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. Uh, 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, 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.
Speaker 46
30:33
But 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 i gaming. It grew 11.9% on average. In a non-i gaming 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
Speaker 35
31:13
study that the Maryland 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, uh, and I'm happy to share it with you if you'd like, but this is something that that we were cognizant of from the beginning and in part because our organization has always been very lottery friendly. Uh, 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
Speaker 46
31:41
given 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-iaming is, as I said earlier, we sort of already have i gaming, so when you see the non-iamming states. There's there's already access to these products in those states anyway, but to
Speaker 35
32:08
specifically answer your question twofold. We amended the bill at the 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,
Speaker 25
32:26
which I'm happy to share with you, speaks directly to the fact that the impact is 0.04%, which is around here. He recognized for a
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
32:33
follow-up. Uh, 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,
right over here on the, yes, Mr. Staff, if
you'll move, please. Thank you. still identify yourself and
then uh representative Hudson has a question for you. Good morning. I'm Sharon Strong,
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
33:10
executive director of the Arkansas Scholarship Lottery. Thank you, Director, um, and thank you for coming to the end of the table. Um, sort of repeating the same question I had for Representative Duffield, Mr. Saffa, um, my concern, especially given, you know, some of the additional, um, obligations we put on funding lottery scholarships as we expanded the students who are eligible to receive them. Um, 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, you know, unintended consequences to the lottery.
Speaker 75
33:51
Could you kind of tell us what your assessment has been. So we, we do have a concern that any time um Any new channels are being introduced, that that would take up market share in the, in the gaming industry. And this bill would, as you
know, allow for a, 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, um, you know, whether it's at the movies or any other area in the entertainment industry or gaming, um, it's, you know, this would certainly make it more convenient for people to To use that discretionary income wherever they're located versus walking into a convenience store
or a grocery store to purchase their. Uh, sort of analog, if you, for lack of a better word, lottery ticket. Um, so, so that would be a concern. And, and at the forefront of my mind right now is, as you noticed, um, Representative Hudson that Well, so the lottery is the only sub sub sect 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, uh, the citizens voted to create a lottery for the benefit of students of higher education. So and 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. Um, and so for me as the executive director, that's my highest priority. Um,
And so I just want to, uh, my priority is making sure that we are able to continue to be sustainable and viable, and to, um, To fulfill our mission as we were created to do. Representing Clowney recognized for a
question. Do you have one for the lottery director. Thank you, madam. I actually do, we're lucky then. Do
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
36:03
you have anything to say about the the Maryland study. Can
Erin Hogan
Unverified
36:07
you expand on that at all? I, I haven't looked at that, um, and so I don't.
Speaker 75
36:16
I can't really comment on that data specifically. We do know that in states that have Um, i gaming. That the casinos and the lotteries are direct competitors with each other. Um, But here, You know, this, this bill would allow for the casinos to have i gaming, 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 to match that. That effort, I
guess. Do you need a follow-up representative? OK. 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
Eibel Ebel. I always get that wrong. I apologize. If you'll identify
Speaker 83
37:27
yourself, then you may make your statement. Uh, Walter Ebel, I am the general counsel for Oak Lawn, and I have been in that position for, uh, over 30 years, and uh, we're, I'm here to respectfully, uh, oppose the bill, the portions of the bill merely that would, uh, legalize i gaming and, uh, interactive gaming is
how it's referred to in the bill, uh, but i gaming 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 um a significant expansion of gaming in Arkansas. We liked the, the model of people coming to the physical casinos, and enjoying the entertainment aspect of that. Uh, 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, uh, uh, i gaming, if it's authorized in the manner, uh throughout the
state, uh, 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 uh directly and indirectly, uh, benefits from that. Um, if you look at the Innovation group, uh, was mentioned earlier in uh what they did in Maryland, uh, it's interesting that the innovation group just recently came out
with a, uh, a report on the negative impacts that i gaming would have on physical casinos and the direct and indirect economic benefits that that that entails. And so that uh is another aspect of it when people don't come to the physical casinos. They're not spending money. Coming to the casinos or not spending money in restaurants, uh, and hotels and things of that nature. Uh, we believe that would have a negative impact ultimately on, on the, uh,
Uh, communities in which the casinos operate. It's important to note that if you allow, uh, mobile wagering on every phone in the state, uh, when people spend money in Fayetteville on their mobile phone. Uh if you legitimize this by making it legal, uh, you will, uh, increase activity, uh, utilizing that aspect of it. If someone is in Fayetteville and they utilize their mobile phone to make a i gaming wager. They
have less money to go out and spend in Fayetteville and Washington County. uh, similar to every other county in 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, uh, achieved for those local communities, and it's important to note that when I place a wager on our gaming. From a place uh from my phone in Fayetteville or Washington County or any of the other counties other than the 3 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, uh, goes to the city and the county where the physical casino is located, Hot Springs or Garland. Pine Bluff or Jefferson County or West Memphis or Crittenden County. Uh, 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, uh, in Arkansas. Uh, I think it's common sense that if you as as the lottery, uh, director indicated, I think it's common sense when, 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
uh i gaming. 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 uh 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, of allowing the casinos to operate, I gaining on their phone, on phones all throughout the Arkansas all throughout Arkansas.
Then the lottery is gonna be here saying, well, we need the same thing. We need what's called eye lottery, which is another form of, of basically, uh, uh, slot machine on your phone through the lottery. And the lottery is gonna say, we need that. And it's gonna further expand the gambling, uh, footprint, uh, 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 is 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. It had the local communities have to end up having a say if there's any new
casinos authorized. By doing this, you're, 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, to do that. We think that the, the, uh, Advent of iGaming throughout Arkansas will also have a
negative impact on your charitable bingo and raffle games. People who are raising money for, uh, charitable purposes, your churches and charitable organizations. They're gonna come and say, well, we need a, uh, an internet, uh, Raffles so that we can compete with the casinos as the you legitimize this. Uh, so we think there's many negative impacts from, from this, and we would end up making money. I'm saying we're we're, 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, that yes, West Virginia is, as Carlton pointed out, yes, West Virginia authorizes this, but if you look at the other states, which is just about 6. They're all in the Northeast. They're Pennsylvania, they're New Jersey. There's states in the Northeast, no state around Arkansas or even in the South has, has authorized
I gaming. And though if you really follow it, you see that there's a lot of momentum, uh, shifting. There's less momentum to push Igaming. It's the negative impacts, uh, come out. And the negative impacts include the fact that unfortunately, I gaming is one of the most addictive forms of gambling. And you've got probably enough addictive forms of activity, uh, on your phone, uh, as it is. And so we respectfully just
are opposed to the portions of the bill, uh, basically section 2, that would, uh, authorize, uh, i-gaming throughout, throughout the state. And so we would just ask that this bill not be approved, the portions of section one that deal with, uh, regulatory aspects are not something that we're opposed to, but uh we are opposed to the expansion and legit, making it legitimate, uh, throughout the state. Mr. Ebel, we have
a a couple of questions if you'll
entertain those? Will you entertain questions? Resenting Moore, you're
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
46:12
recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, thank you, Mr. Ebel, for your testimony. I just want to get this clear because it sounds like you've talked a lot about um being against. Online wagering from your phone, but are you telling me you're
Speaker 86
46:25
against people wagering or gambling from their mobile device? No, I, I think it's different. I mean, there,
Speaker 83
46:31
as, as you know, there has been a wagering on horse racing, uh, on your phones for a long time that
you have wagering on sporting events on your phone. Uh, that's a different, entirely different form of wagering, uh, wagering on horse racing and sports, it's widely accepted. It's, it's uh widely done throughout the United States, many states have uh authorized that wagering on horse racing and 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
i-gaming, it's instantaneous. It's fast paced. You're just sitting there on your phone, making wagers right after, one right after the other, the pace of play
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
47:19
is totally different. Follow up, Madam Chair. You, you also mentioned that Regarding local taxes and local communities need to have a say in whether they're Citizens can't have that internet casino or that online wagering device in their pocket, um.
Speaker 86
47:40
Where do the taxes go from sports betting and Horse wager go to the communities in which the
casinos are located. Thank you. You get rips anymore representing
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
47:57
Eubank should recognize for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sir, is there, is there illegal online
Speaker 83
48:04
gambling available to the citizens of the state I'm certain that there probably is. There probably are some, uh,
illegal gambling going on on, on phones through through certain outlets. And there is a portion of this bill that, that deals with that, that we're not opposed to, but uh, that, that could
Speaker 86
48:20
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, uh, if you'll just, um, Identify yourself and you
Enid Valentine
Unverified
48:52
recognized to give your testimony. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Enid Valentine, um, I am with, I represent the Arkansas Problem Gambling Council, and I will be brief out of everyone's respect for your time, um, but as 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, um, and as someone who also is an advisor in digital marketing, and I work in digital marketing. Um, I just really want to urge You all to take. Decisive action. There are a lot of dangers. With these unregulated overseas markets, um, 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
Uh, the money and the tendencies to become gambling addicts, and they're causing harm. You've already heard about effects on the economy. But From the standpoint of the harm that it is causing to Arkansans because it is not regulated, um, like I said, thousands of calls in the last year, specifically, um, related to this issue. We get all, all kinds of calls, but this issue in particular, um, 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 um 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 5
separate illegal offshore gambling platforms is where this money was going. Um, and so if it's regulated, It will protect Arkansans. And it will also keep offshore illegal apps from, 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
these harmful illegal gambling apps. Thank you, Ms. Valentine, I don't see anybody, anyone, any questions, seeing their questions and for the record, I want to let the committee
know Ms. Valentine signed up for information,
I think I did not, she didn't put for or against, so I apologize for that. Uh, but thank you for appearing before the committee today and giving your testimony. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 97
51:43
Thank you for your time. You members, any
other question, um, we have no one else who has signed up to speak for Ms. Valentine, you're, you're welcome to go. Have a seat. Um, with that representing Duffield, you're recognized to come to the end of the table and close for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Would it
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
52:18
be appropriate if Mr. Saffo could join me for this, uh, close, please. Well, by rule, it's you. No problem. Sorry about that. No problem at all. Thank you so much, committee, for, for listening to all of this today. I know it's at the end of session and And things are moving at a fever pitch and, 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. I'll just a few things before we go into the close, I'll address on just a few of the The comments that were made, um, I think that To say that online sports betting, and i gaming. Our, are different, at least in, in my view, that's, 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 5 seconds
and I haven't done it, haven't done it since. Everyone has their hobbies there they enjoy. Everyone has things they, 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, that as, 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 a moral in our view, moral, whichever the case, I think that should be left up to the system to make that decision. So with that said, I think the, the picture has been painted. Essentially by the opposition of this bill. That this is something that doesn't exist as such. And is representative Eubanks. Asked earlier and I think the point was made. This is, 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, we spoke of that earlier. And my proponent of gambling? No, am I proponent of online gaming? No. But it's here. It's gonna be here. It's happening now. As we
said, we had the, the data that $500 million. 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 gonna 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, under a strict scrutiny.
That's my, my viewpoint of it. What's happening now? If anyone can pick up their phone and do it. The state of Arkansas is not seeing a single penny of that revenue and 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. I 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 could be put to very, very good use in many, many different ways. With that said, I understand this is a loaded topic. I appreciate everyone's patience with this bill, my colleagues, I certainly never, uh, like to add undue stress to my colleagues. I know we have enough enough stress as it is.
This is a lot to discuss. And we are here at the end of the end of the session. It's a mad dash. Do I like it? No, but again, it's, it's a reality kind of like this illegal online gaming is. It's here and that's the way it is. With that said, Um 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 is going to, going to be going on when we're, 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 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. Rever Duffield, um, from your request, I'm, 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 put it in
interim study, um, to finalize putting it into interim study, you'll need to go to the house and uh talk with Ms. Jaro. OK All right.
Thank you for your time. Thank you, people, uh, everyone who came to testify today on this bill. We'll allow you to do that. Represent Torres, if you'll come to the end of the table. Members, if you will turn to House Bill 1953.
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
59:36
House Bill 1953. Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank you, members. Uh, Randy Torres, state representative, District 17, Solemn Springs. If, if I could, Madam Chair, could I have Miss Tawny Roll with
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
59:54
chief counsel of the Department of Corrections. Join me. OK.
Hang on just a moment, Mr. uh Representors, till the door gets shut
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:00:12
so we can hear you. All right. You may proceed.
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
1:00:16
OK, um, House Bill 1953 is a very simple bill, and this will be pretty quick. Uh, 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, 2, it allows county sheriffs to do the same for county jails. 3, it requires that the extra money goes into specific funds used only for security-related expenses for 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 5, it gives state officials, including the chief of officer and the governor the authority to determine the surcharge amount. And with
that I'll take any questions, you recognize
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:01:26
for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative, uh, I understand the inmates. The
inmates are already most jails that I, 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, uh, so are we adding all with this bill, is it, is it gonna be an additional charge because I understand it's already pretty expensive for some of them to even make a call now.
Yes, Representative Tusk, I'm going to have Braley join me in on this. If you'll identify yourself. Good
Speaker 115
1:02:06
morning, Tony Rowell, chief counsel for the
Department of Corrections. You are correct that inmates are paying a
Speaker 116
1:02:12
fee and you know, often it's their 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 the great cap. It went from 14 cents a minute to 6 cents a minute. Um, that's a public policy argument at the federal level,
um, 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 6 cents 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. Um, and a lot of these were really important for security that goes along with the issues that come up within my communications. These were things like search warrant
processing, voice identification and verification. Um, storage of those phone calls and monitoring, word detection, analysis of the recordings and then helping with reporting obligations. So prior to this FCC ruling, um, our vendors rolled that service into what they gave us. The FCC ruling Provided this uh use 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 uh contract at no cost to the department and no, no cost to taxpayers. Um, we're going to be looking at paying close to a million dollars a year for. So the purpose of this is to just allow the chief fiscal Officer of
Speaker 117
1:03:52
the state to set a small surcharge that allows us to recoup that cost. He needed a follow-up representative yes ma'am. I'm
trying to process a lot of stuff I've got somebody else in line if
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:04:06
you want to process, then I can go to let me, let me ask this question, then I'll do a
little more process, but, uh, It was my understanding that vendors now, uh, you, you said that it was free for for that you had contracted with a vendor and, and these phone calls were through that contract where did I understand you say that we're free? No, sir, um, the
Speaker 123
1:04:32
phone calls aren't free. What was, yes, so what was provided to the
Speaker 116
1:04:37
department at no cost to the department was all of those
services that I just listed, um, which give us the opportunity to, you know, identify potential riots, all of those keyword searches we, we do genuinely use as an opportunity to help get contraband out of the prisons to the extent that we can, um, so it is a really important uh service for both our operations and the safety of our inmates, um, I'll be honest, I was really disappointed to see that those services were considered not used and useful.
Speaker 117
1:05:13
This is not a bill. I wanted to be. Oh, down here talking about
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:05:18
but. So you're saying the services and the safety of the officers. I, I, I'm, I'm trying to understand how How that's how a phone call for 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 Representative,
Speaker 116
1:05:37
it's not always their families they're calling, right?
Sometimes it's people on the outside that they're coordinating contraband drops with, um, sometimes it is, you know, girlfriends who they are working to, you know, subvert our genuine security interests 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. OK, I
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:06:06
think we're not on the same page. I'm understanding, I understood that what you were asking here was
you wanted an increase I'll be able to charge for inmates that were making phone calls on top of the, the charge that's already leveled 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, if they're making deals on the phone, would you agree they're going to make those deals whether the, whether they're charging them $5 a call or whether they're charging them $20 a call. I'm not really sure, seeing how this bill is going to protect that.
Speaker 115
1:06:45
So, I think the first thing to keep in mind is that
Speaker 116
1:06:49
even with this surcharge, it's not going to exceed the prior rate cap. Um, so the rate cap has dropped from 14 cents a minute to 6 cents a minute. So we're not going to go above what they're currently paying. They, 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
Speaker 126
1:07:17
giving the department at no cost. Um, and, and like I said, I,
Speaker 116
1:07:25
you know, they, they might continue to um broker 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
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:07:39
that makes sense. I know this is, so if there's no increase to the family.
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. OK, so I'm sorry
Speaker 116
1:08:01
if I misspoke or said that in a confusing way. There will certainly be a surcharge above the 6 cents. Um, 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. Um, it would be more than the 6th sense overall, and it would be collected by the vendor. Um, it will not exceed the 14 cents that they are currently paying. Madam Chair, I'm going
to get out of the queue. I might, I might get back in in a minute. Thank you. Representing Collins, you're recognized for
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:08:38
her question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and just to be clear though, there's nothing in these communications 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
Speaker 116
1:08:54
to do it, right? Um. Yes, it does look to offset the cost that the federal government now has placed on us, right? But in
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:09:02
follow please. You're right, but just to be clear, it's, 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 could seek an increase in general revenue, but
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:09:22
It's not as tailored to what the need is.
Representing Hudson, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I think uh Representative Toss 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 and the FCC rules. So how, how are we getting, how are you planning to get around the fact that there are these hard caps.
Speaker 116
1:09:53
Um, 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. You need a follow up? I do.
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:10:07
On average, how much are, are inmates currently paying for phone calls? Um, I believe we're right at the 14
Speaker 123
1:10:14
cents a minute right now. Representative Gonzalez, you recognized
for her question. Thinking about them, chair. So
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
1:10:24
you're, you're 14 cents a minute right now. The federal government says you can only charge 6. So you're wanting to get back to that 14 cents with the surcharge. Or around that, but we're, we're in the bill does it say that it's going to be capped at that 14 cents because
Speaker 116
1:10:42
I, I don't see that. Um, so, the bill does not expressly say that it'll be capped at about 14 cents, um, however, right now, Got 14 cents includes site commissions that we will not be
Speaker 123
1:10:55
able to get, um, I could very quickly do some math, um, on I could text and get information on how many minutes,
Speaker 116
1:11:01
um, I can just tell you that it's going to be nowhere near needing to get to 14 cents a minute to match that, that revenue stream. And like I said, the um, The chief fiscal officer of the state is going to be responsible for setting the amount of this surcharge, and it's going to be really narrowly tailored to the
Speaker 123
1:11:18
cost to cover those services that the federal government says that our vendor can no longer give us at no cost.
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
1:11:27
You need to 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. And upon approval by the governor so he didn't just the chief fiscal officer officer doesn't just set the charges, right? So why, why did we, why did you put the association of Arkansas Counties and law. Um, so that portion is actually for
Speaker 116
1:11:58
them to allow the counties to collect, that has to be in a
Speaker 123
1:12:02
separate section of the code, um, because county funding, there's actually one section for corrections and
Speaker 143
1:12:09
one section for counties. This is talking
Speaker 150
1:12:13
about the amount of the surcharge. And and how that's how that's
Speaker 151
1:12:18
determined, how the surcharge is determined. Yes, so that one is in section 4, and that one deals
Speaker 116
1:12:24
with assessing the surcharge for the 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 when this cheap fiscal officer consults with the division of Correction in Arkansas 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. OK, thank you. Representative
McCullo, you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
1:13:00
Madam 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. Um, aren't these phone calls recorded? So they are currently
Speaker 116
1:13:12
recorded, um, as of April 17th, however, we won't be able to record them without paying for the storage. And that's an enormous cost to the department, um, 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, you know, we could use. To pinpoint where that contraband is coming in at, but, um, without either identifying an additional source of funding or
Speaker 117
1:13:43
getting this surcharge added, we would not be able to keep that recording mechanism.
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
1:13:49
Um, follow up please, certainly, um, do y'all have any data about how much these phone calls affect contraband or that type of
Speaker 116
1:13:59
thing. Uh, so it would be pretty anecdotal, um, a lot of times that's when it makes it up to internal affairs.
Speaker 117
1:14:05
I don't have, you know. No. Hard and fast statistics on what that
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
1:14:09
looks like. Uh, one more, please. Um, so when you're talking about um so basically we end up
trusting the chief fiscal officer. There's nothing in this bill that limits anything. Is that correct? Uh, well, it does
Speaker 117
1:14:21
have a component where legislative audit has to weigh in. Representing Collins, you're
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:14:29
recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. My, my recollection serves me right, and I believe Senator Clark and I actually had a bill on this a couple of years ago going the opposite direction, um, but don't, 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. Um, so the FCC
Speaker 116
1:14:53
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 um move that money over, um, that varies pretty wildly. uh, we cut our commissions voluntarily during COVID because of, you know, limitations on visitation, um, and those have been bouncing back. They've kind of been all over the place. Uh, they're,
Speaker 123
1:15:16
they're in excess of a million dollars a year, so we all, we are already seeing that as a revenue cut.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:15:24
What percentage though, if I may follow, wasn't it like 50% or 75% something
Speaker 116
1:15:29
like that. So it varies by division, and I
Speaker 117
1:15:32
don't have that information in front of me. I'm sorry, that's in a contract at the office, and we don't get
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:15:39
any anymore, so. Yeah, because it was more than half goes back to the
uh the department. Thanks. Members, any other questions? Oh, I'm sorry, Representative Richardson, you're recognized for
Speaker 162
1:15:51
a 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, and we have to pull this out of general revenue for to be able to maintain the same services. Or be um we put that cost of those services on the inmates. Yes, sir. Thank you. I've
seen brown, you're recognized for a question. Thank
Speaker 164
1:16:20
you, Madam Chair. Um, is there any requirement or the law that we even allow inmates to have phone or video. Abilities to communicate. Uh, there is not.
Madam Chair. You're welcome and I guess this can be made of false to Representative Richardson's question, um, would it be fair to
Speaker 166
1:16:36
say that if we're not able to collect the money to make this thing work, would the option be just to
Speaker 123
1:16:44
get rid of telephone calls altogether. I, 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, Representing Torres, you're recognized
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
1:17:08
to close for your bill. Yeah. Did you sign
up? I tried to Yeah 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. He didn't sign up. Mr. Rosenswe all
Speaker 169
1:17:46
kidding aside, you're recognized if you'll identify yourself like
Speaker 170
1:17:50
Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Speaker 171
1:17:53
Greg Parish, Arkansas Public Defender Commission. Uh, 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 who the people it's going to land on the backs of the families of people who are almost all pretrial detainees. They haven't been convicted of anything, and they are in a much more, uh, necessary position of talking with their lawyers and uh And uh that type of thing and uh 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
Speaker 173
1:18:39
different things with with the money from
this spill. Hang on just a minute. Somebody leaned up against the
Speaker 169
1:18:47
lights. Thank you. Go ahead. I didn't, I'm sorry to interrupt. I
Speaker 174
1:18:51
finished my comments, I think Mr. Parish has
Speaker 170
1:18:54
some too. Mr. Parish, if you'll identify yourself. Thank you, Greg Parish, public trainer Commission, very aware of this issue because as a deputy prosecutor when this thing first initiated many, many years ago, uh, what was occurring is vendors were contracting with
the sheriff, but the phone systems in the jail, paying money upfront 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. Uh, well, I don't see in this bill is The how we're going to limit what's going to be imposed, nor do I see anything that our inmates 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 questions representing
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:19:48
Tasha recognized for her question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Counselor, I'm, I'm just curious, when the phone call is made, is there, uh, are you limited on the time that you can talk to your, you know, to your client is as far as communication between an attorney and the client is there like a limitation on 23 minutes, or do you, do you know, it
Speaker 171
1:20:10
depends on where it's from, but yes, in a number of calls that is that I've run to
that. OK, thank you. members, any other questions? Repent Clanna, you have a question.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:20:28
I do, Madam Chair. In your opinion, uh, well, I guess in the law, is there a requirement that Arkansas prisons provide telephone calls to their inmates. There's no, there's no
Speaker 171
1:20:41
provision. However, what will happen is, is they're going to be calls and what will happen is the guards will sell cell phones to the inmates. There, I don't know how many cell phones there must be and within the prison system, but 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
Speaker 182
1:21:06
have because people will be smuggling these devices into the prison system.
Speaker 170
1:21:12
to the jail. If I could add on to that as well, Representative McCloney. 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 80% of those inmates in the prison or in the county jails, the public defender represents. Oh,
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:21:33
you, I guess I'm, I'm confused. Maybe y'all can clear this up for me, or maybe, um, when corrections gets back to the table, but it's my understanding that
All criminal detention detention facilities are required to meet minimum standards. That is required by law and the minimum standards state currently, um, all inmates shall be afforded the opportunity to make phone calls at the detainees' expense in accordance with her written telephone usage policy, so I just wanted to to clarify that I do believe that is a requirement that that that that would be
Speaker 186
1:22:04
a statutory rule requirement. Thank you. Members, any other questions? Gonzalez, you're recognized for
Speaker 174
1:22:14
her question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you tell
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
1:22:18
me what were you think it says that each county sheriff can decide what charge, and we'd have 75 different charges because I read that it
Speaker 171
1:22:27
says the chief fiscal officer. well, the question is, so they, the chart, but then exactly how you're going to audit, uh, how the money that is obtained is going to be dealt with because you'll have 75 different people,
uh, or 75 different agencies deciding what goes in or doesn't go into this fund that they're talking about. Uh, you know, I'm sure that the, you know, the the the department Correction, which has a number of, you know, who Miss Ra and her group have, you know, uh, have a professional staff, that's not necessarily going to be so in within some of these county jails. You need another question? Sure,
Speaker 188
1:23:18
thank you. So, but that is still subject to legislative audit, right? And legislative audit is involved in setting those surcharges so they know where that money is it doesn't say consult or
Speaker 171
1:23:28
it doesn't say that legislative law of controls. It just says you got to talk to legislative audit, doesn't say anything there about obeying what legislative audit tells them. Just says consult with them. Well, no, but they
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
1:23:41
would have to obey the law that says it can only be used for those certain purposes, right? Well, there's a
lot of give in what we quote certain purposes might be. Members, any other questions? See no further questions. Thank you gentlemen for coming to the end of the table
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
1:24:08
and testifying representative Torres, you're recognized to come and 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
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:24:20
because of a federal ruling and law that was created that took funding away from us. And so with that,
I'll close. But Members representing Torres is closed for his bill.
We have a motion to pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Representing colleges are recognized
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:24:39
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 an income coming in. It's already pretty high at 6 cents a minute, to be honest with you, or 14 cents 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 uh 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 of motion to
pass all in favor of the motion, please say aye. All opposed say no. The nose habit, the bill has failed.
Representative Shepherd, I'm going to ask if you'll come take the um podium for just a minute, the desk for just a minute. Members, let's turn to House Bill 1895, House Bill 1895. Representative Dalby, recognized to present the bill. Thank you Mr. Chair. Carol Doby,
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 happy to take
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:26:42
any questions. Seeing no questions. Representative Dalby has Explain the bill.
Chair
Unverified
1:26:58
OK, looks like no one has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Uh, Representative
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:27:03
Dalby, you recognize the close for the bill. I'm close for my
bill and make a motion to pass a motion do pass. Is there
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:27:08
any discussion? All in favor say 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 yourself, you're
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:27:52
recognized to present House Bill 1948. Thank you, Madam Chair. Joey Carr, District 34, uh, 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 2. Lines 22 through 25, the controlled substances of fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine. Members, are there any
questions? Signal represent Collins, you recognize for a question. Thank
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:28:29
you, Madam Chair, and I understand and appreciate the bill. I'm kind of curious how long does fentanyl methamphetamine, heroin or or cocaine, does
it last in the system. Does the last in the
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:28:42
system a lot longer than the time of intoxication, uh, 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 had methamphetamine in his system. Blood was drawn. It was evidence that it was there, but there was no way for that to show because they said 30, 30 days. So, so here's the route I went, uh.
You know, they can prove that alcohol impaired, but because people's body are different. And so, uh, meeting with the crime lab and prosecutors prosecutor with Representative Gazaway. We went this route because those are illegal drugs anyway, and so More than likely, you know, you, you, you would think uh 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 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 um For those that are taking the blood draw in the hospital, um. The crime lab is having was having trouble getting blood drawn, and so because the holdup
there was they were afraid they would have to go and testify, so that last part of the current statute is being being removed. Because they, they were having trouble getting blood, blood drawn because
the people there didn't want to feel that they were putting themselves in a way to have to testify. Follow up, please. You're
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:30:35
recognized so with with the drug persisting in the system for 30 days, uh, and it is, I guess, true that you're going to capture people who are not
intoxicated at the time of the, you know, incident. Um, 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 uh uh chemical draw. I mean, right? Can't you, you can prove
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:31:17
intoxication just with the evidence you got. Uh, yeah, Crown Lab said they could determine intoxication with alcohol because of the The scientific studies they've done, they cannot establish a point of reference on the drugs. Because they Had they they're not able to test people because they're illegal to begin with, so they can't establish a point of reference with, with fentanyl. Methamphetamine, heroin or
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:31:47
cocaine. You couldn't do a field test or assess, you know, with the observations
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:31:53
of the officer 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, they can't conduct tests on people with fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin or cocaine. Uh, I, I don't know who would sign up for that field study.
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 happened in my district and what other states are doing with that. That's the direction I went in uh guidance with the crime lab.
Representing Collins, you're good. I have Represent
Speaker 174
1:32:45
Gonzalez, you're recognized for her question. Madam Chair. I'm a
Speaker 209
1:32:49
little concerned about striking this last part where Someone who we're talking about someone who does the blood draw will not have to show up to court to testify, right? Let's, that's what I draw themselves but not
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:33:03
the toxicologist that's analyzing the sample at the crime lab. The crime lab still will. It's just, but I think you may end up. causing yourself more
Speaker 209
1:33:11
problems here because the defense attorney is going to argue that the blood draw wasn't done properly. The chain of command
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
1:33:21
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, they did
Speaker 143
1:33:27
it the right way. If you don't have that testimony, I'm, I'm afraid you're gonna get a lot of these things thrown out. That was at the
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:33:36
request of the crime lab. Because they could not get enough blood draws.
Speaker 143
1:33:42
Yeah, I mean, I, I understand, I'm not an attorney, so somebody else may, you know, pipe in here and say something different or
that that will change my mind, but I think
Speaker 210
1:33:55
you're uh referred to Representative Gazaway to give a greater explanation on that. You know, you're, you're treading on
thin ice, you know, when you, when No, uh, I'm sure representing Gasway will have some questions here in a moment. Uh, I've got some others in the queue if you'll just hang on, uh, Pierce, he left the room, um,
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:34:26
Any other questions in gas while you have any questions? OK, so my understanding of what you're trying to
do here, Representative Carr. It was 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, uh, this again, the way I understand it. If there is fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin or cocaine. Any, 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, sir. OK. And Other states have laws like this, don't they? Yes sir. Do you recall or know how many other states have
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:35:43
laws similar to this. I don't know the exact number, no. But the idea was borrowed from um Uh There there was 3 to 4 that the language was
used from those states. I don't know the exact states though.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:36:05
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, uh, 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 the person's system at the time that they're the cause of A negligent homicide of death.
Then they can be charged with negligent homicide. That's in essence, what your bill does. Yes, sir. OK. All
right, that's all I have. Pierce, you're recognized
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
1:37:14
for a question first of all, this has something to do with Representative Galloway's question as well. Would 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 that say that you can't
have it in your system. Would you agree or disagree with that? OK, 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? Thank you Representing Brown, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Carr, of course, first half of your bill,
Speaker 164
1:38:06
100%, no problems at all. Um, can I like to follow up on Representative Gonzalez. The section on the Uh, striking the language and the prosecuting attorney being able to subpoena or the defendant being able to subpoena people, um. If I understood you correctly, you said that their goal was they don't have to come
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:38:23
testify. Is that right? Yes, whoever does the, the blood draw, uh, 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
1:38:41
OK, follow up here. I kind of wonder if they've kind of messed themselves up by striking that now because, um,
Speaker 164
1:38:48
Number one, Obviously, under the Constitution, you have a right to accuse or to confront the witnesses against you, and that's a fundamental right, um, and the statute still says you may call as a witness the person who calibrated the instrument. Uh, etc. etc. I represented the office and at least under the statute is written right now, they have to give at least a 10
day notice for that subpoena. Uh, I'm not a criminal attorney, but is it not 3 days on a criminal subpoena? Uh, like you can see or maybe 24 hours or something like you can actually get them into court a lot quicker. So By repealing this 10 day deadline, if anything, we're, 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 is we're actually making it harder on them, um, instead of making
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:39:35
it easier. It was suggested to me on, on that part to assist them in that
to ensure that blood draws would be occurring on every event that that would just that would just ensure that it would be done. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Representing Collins, she
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:39:52
recognized for her question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, I actually agree with Representative Gonzalez and Brown on, on that point they're making, but I have a different question and it's uh Representative Galway, it actually pretends to you, so if I, if I may, um. Sorry, but there was something
you said earlier, uh, that was important if, if that is correct. I just want to make sure I heard that right. Um, so you were saying that it would only be if there were suspicion that someone was intoxicated, that they would go through this process of the blood draw, and then I thought Representative Carter, you just said that they wanted to do this on every, every time there was a, 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 gonna do this on everybody and then they find they use
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:40:49
drugs 30 days ago. That's a different map. Well, the, 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, heroin or cocaine was present, then, then it would be uh. Of negligent homicide. Follow up you recognize so
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:41:09
they would do that. So 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 gonna 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. OK. Representing
Gassaway, you're recognized for a question. Thank
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:41:31
you, Madam Chair. OK. And I'm trying to, trying to think back to some of the conversations that we had. I
remember there was an issue about Um, the hospitals and the staff. Did you, were there provisions in here that dealt with that because uh There were some questions 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. Is that, does that factor into this somehow? That was that last part that was Removed. The part about compelling someone to testify. Yeah, and I, while I understand that, um. I, I mean, I'm just thinking through this. I do think that. That's it, yeah, I do think that
that is a really important part that they can be compelled to testify. And, and I think what we had discussed also was maybe granting them some form of immunity and that, that would probably be a better way to deal with that issue because it seems to me that just while I'm hearing from the committee, that that's got 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. Uh, 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 Otherwise I'm, I'm for your
bill we do have, well, we will have Tuesday. That I've I've got.
For house bills lined up and you could be number 5 and then we're moving to Senate bills after that. It, it's up to you if you want to pull it down and amend it or we can keep going. It's, I've got another question in the queue Representative Richardson has a question. We have someone who signed up to
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:44:06
speak against the bill, um, at this point, I will, I will pull the bill and I will amend
that last part and take care of the immunity, OK,
and without objection, we'll allow you to 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 represent Meeks has 4 bills, several of these we have heard, uh, in fairly detailed manner and so we're
just going to start with House Bill 1504.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:44:48
House Bill 1504, if that's all right with you representing Meeks, we're gonna start at the top. OK, sounds good. Uh house Bill
1504 colleagues, Representative Meeks, District 42. Um, this is the uh bill on the weaponization of robots, uh, you may remember, uh, well, we had some members with a few concerns, so I've addressed those concerns, so Representative Collins has some concerns about some unneeded duplicateative language. We've taken that um out. uh I think it was Representative Beatty had some concerns about 2nd
Amendment issues. So what I did is I modified the definitions, so that it's understood that this only applies to fully, 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
And so we've added a section in there that says if someone willfully changes the programming of one of these robots so that uh it it's reprogrammed to intentionally cause harm to human or property, then it's caught in here as well. Um. You know, since last time we talked, just, uh, I guess it's been about 3 weeks ago now. Uh, 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 500 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? Uh, but that's, I mean, it's gonna 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 we're 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 gonna be humanoid robots running around in here helping with the legislative process. Uh, I have no doubt That over time this will still, you know, this will need to be modified as a technology evolves, 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're done in a safe and um productive manner. So with that I'd be happy to take any questions from the
committee. Members, any questions? Seeing no questions, we have no one who signed up to speak for or against House Bill 1504. You're recognized clothes for your bill. All right, colleagues,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:47:43
again, I appreciate it again, this is just my attempt to try to prepare us for a future that we all, all know is coming, and with that I appreciate a good vote.
members representative Meeks his clothes for his bill. What are
the wishes of the committee, a motion to pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion of the motion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The, the eyes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Thank you. Members, let's turn to House Bill 1529. House Bill 1529. OK, um, if it's
OK, I've got an amendment and an impact statement on this one. Yes. We'll
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:48:39
get that passed out and then we'll take those up. Yeah, Madam Chair, with your permission, um, this is a, uh, one of the AI or AG's priority bills and so if it's OK, I'm going to ask for Mr. Bashir from the AG's office to join me at the table. Sure, no problem. And then
I think as Mr. Battle from in the room. Yes
Members, the impact statement we didn't get it printed out, so you may want to pull that up um on your devices to see what
the impact is. We apologize for that inconvenience. So our
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:49:15
colleagues as the uh the, the amendment that you're getting just adds a co-sponsors. We do have the impact statement here it
comes. Those of you who may be watching online are new to the committee. This is typical at the end of session where 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 was 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. Any nose, eyes have it. The amendment
has been adopted. Now if you'll just give us just a second to get that impact statement out.
All right, Representative Me you recognized to
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:50:38
present your bill 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,
Speaker 236
1:50:47
committee. This is Justin Brasher, senior assistant attorney General with the Arkansas Office of the Attorney General. You're recognized.
Oh, go ahead. Sergeant Cor battle at
Speaker 239
1:50:56
the Arkansas State Police in Arkansas Internet crimes Against Children's Task Force commander. Welcome, Quorum. I didn't see you down there.
You know, we've known each other for a long
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:51:10
time. It's good to see you. Awesome, bring out all the big guns here for this bill. Um, so what, uh, what brought this to my attention was is there was a case in Connecticut where boyfriend, girlfriend, uh, they broke up, uh, and uh 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 To deal with that because
unfortunately, the only way to prove that it was a deep fake was they would have had to have seen a photo of her and you're basically re-traumatizing the victim in order to prove that it was a deep fake to to begin with. And so, uh, what this bill does is it very simply, it it, you know, it defines what a deep fake is and all that. Uh, and eventually, uh, what it does is it says if someone creates or distributes a deep fakes under, under this. Uh, for the first time, it's a
class A misdemeanor. Uh, 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, for doing this, uh, and, but if it's done 2 or more times and it becomes a
felony and we get to where jail time is incurred. It also allows for the uh attorney General to take civil action on behalf of the state against a provider or developer of this.
technology, uh, and I'll draw a simple
analogy, you know, if we had a gun manufacturer who was uh 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. Uh, they, you know, they would have some responsibility for any uh problems caused by that firearm, but as a society, we've put safeguards in there so that Uh, it, it then was so safeguards are in place if
there's any issues, it's the responsibility of the person who did it. Um, you know, if somebody were to put up a website that says, uh, you know, deep fake is us, you know, put a, uh, you know, put your victims uh ID in here and we'll make all sorts of deep fake images that you can scatter all over the internet. I think they should hold some responsibility for that. What the, what the way the laws 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. 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 Steven Meeks riding a horse, and it wouldn't do it. So, uh, you know, all the, all the, the major players should already have that in, 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 to. but anything after that, I'll
Speaker 236
1:54:18
be ready to answer any questions. Thank you committee. This is an issue that's very important to the Attorney General. We deal a
Speaker 237
1:54:24
lot with sea salmon with crimes against children and with cybercrimes 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, uh, you know, 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 gonna 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 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 uh fits currently within the structure of speech
that has been identified by the Supreme Court, particularly cases like Ashcroft. Uh, 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. That's why the language is the way that it is, and I'll let the sergeant talk if he wants to. I'm happy to
take any questions. Pretty much covered it all members, are there any questions? Representing colleges
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:56:00
recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I think this is a, you know, a lot of good things here. I, 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 that's a crime that's going to be caught up in this too. That is correct. OK, OK. Yes. And Yeah, all right, thanks. Emmer, any
other questions? Seeing no further questions, we do have someone who signed up to speak against the bill, Mr. Rosenthwa.
Speaker 171
1:56:46
Jeff Ros, it's like Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. We don't have any objection to the distribution criminalizing the distribution as Representative Collins said the problem is going to be the simple creation and it that runs right into, uh, the Ashcroft case, among other cases with the US 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 that would not and should not be a crime, and I think you're going to have a serious constitutional 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 their questions. Thank
you, Mr. Rosensweig for being here today. We have I'm sorry, Represent Gassway, Mr. Rosen's wife, you'll
Speaker 174
1:57:57
come back. I didn't recognize. Represent Gassway, I apologize. No problem. Thank you, Madam Chair. And the question really
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:58:02
isn't so much for Mr. Rosensweig as much as it is for the Attorney General's office. I appreciate Mr. Rosensweig's argument. He says it's, 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 to why
Speaker 236
1:58:30
they believe it's not. Thank you. Justin Brasher
Speaker 237
1:58:32
again, senior assistant attorney General with the Arkansas Attorney General's office, Representative Gazaway to your question, uh, because the, the just the what is different here in Ashcroft, the language that was ruled unconstitutional. is different. The language in the federal code that was ruled
on constitutional 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 so they uh 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 uh. The two section on page 2, so lines 10 to 14, uh, 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
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:00:00
was then mirrored in this language. And, and correct me if I'm wrong, but some of these decisions were made years and decades ago and you know justice Thomas said that in some of these decisions that as the technology moves forward that they're going to have to relook 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 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 deepfakes of me at home or of your daughter at home, that's a violation of my rights.
Representing Gassway, you're recognized for her question.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
2:00:46
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. Rosensweig's argument about creation and simply if it's something that I created and is in my possession that therefore, that should be, you know, regardless of the indistinguishable argument, is there some argument that if I created it and I'm not distributing it, that that doesn't, uh, shouldn't be criminalized. No, we believe that that is
Speaker 237
2:01:23
defensible. I'm sorry. Yeah I'm sorry. OK, my apologies. Uh, thank you, Representative Gassway. 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, um, and so for that reason, we do believe that this is defensible and follow up.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
2:01:46
Thank you. And so the last, I guess the last question I have, Mr. Rosensweig specifically mentions the word
creation, which seems to bring some artistic. Quality to this, which, uh, of course, the courts have held that First Amendment autistic creations, um, Enjoy protections and so how do you feel about that in terms of affecting the constitutionality. Thank you. And
Speaker 237
2:02:13
that is specifically why the definitions are written the way they are is to make sure that we are not encroaching on that First Amendment uh artistic ability
that has been defined previously by the Supreme Court. this is specifically written so that it is only uh obvious, 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 Mister Rosensweig,
that is all signed up to speak for or against this bill makes, you're recognized clothes for your bill. Thank you, I like to
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:03:02
see, uh, you know, what happened to that young lady happened to one of our family members, our son or daughter or even, uh, you know, somebody could do something like that with one of our pictures and ruin our political career, so with that we're closed and would ask for a good, good uh you know, somebody could do something like that with one of our pictures and ruin our political career, so with that we're closed and would ask for a good, good, good.
Membership meets is closed for his bill with the wishes of the
committee. We have a motion to pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the as amended. We have a motion to do pass as amended, uh, is there any
discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion of the motion. All in favor, please say aye. Any
opposed? Say no. The eyes have it congratulations you have passed your bill. Thank you, committee. Members, the next bill
that representative Meeks has is House Bill 1648 representing Meeks you recognized to present your bill, OK? This is a bill
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:03:58
that we looked at earlier. This is uh concerning the uh fire department bomb squads. Uh, 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 bits representative Tosh had some concern about under whose this would be done. So after speaking with them, the attorney was of the mind that it was an implicitly applied through the way the law works now, that it would be under the authority of
the local city council, but 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 all 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 so that partially so that these gentlemen can receive a deputization under the US Marshals. They have to have that deputization under the US Marshals for two important reasons. Number 1 is so that they can receive the FBI training that they need in order to be
able to do their job at their best because these guys are dealing
with um you know, 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 2, should there be a need in a neighboring states that 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, you know, a bomb scare until local law enforcement can arrive to take the situation and so with that we'll be open to any questions from the committee and by the way, uh, the Attorney General's office has expressed their support for the bill. The sheriff, state police, they're all good with the bill. Uh, so as far as we know as of right now, there is no opposition to this bill moving forward.
Members, are there any questions? Representing Tash, you're recognized
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
2:06:39
for her question. Madam Chair, and represent mes I appreciate, I appreciate our discussion that we had. And, and you know how important that is to me that we have language in that bill that uh somebody has to have authority and accountability to, uh, for these officers, uh, 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 that amended so that if something does arise where there's any type of excessive force or, you know, that uh any type of abuse with that 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, is that my understanding? Yes, sir. We will make sure that
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
2:07:29
gets done. OK, thank you. Representative Beatty, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:07:37
I, I guess my question follows up on, uh, that of Representative Tosh, uh, 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 today happens, Senator
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:07:48
Johnson. Mark, Mark, yeah, yeah, yeah, he, 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 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 have my cell phone has asked me
to ask a question, so I'll do that in deference to someone who's watching, um, 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 that condition that Representative Miller was in, um, he's afraid that this individual is afraid the wording wouldn't.
cover him and that 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 of these needing, but he did want to ask, you know, uh, what would a, a
bomb squad do in a situation that
you have somebody who is 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 to this bill because it's talking about the bomb squad,
Speaker 249
2:09:09
huh? Oh, OK. This is the bomb squad, but I, I, I'm happy. This is why I don't
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 if you
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:09:28
want me to, it would not apply in that situation because under that other bill that, that, the uh the robot has to be either partially or fully autonomous in a wheelchair would not qualify for you.
I think that answers. I mean, it just popped up on my phone, so he didn't, he just said this bill. I was going with that, and I apologize. Yeah, no, no worries. Any other questions? We have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:09:55
You're recognized clothes for your bill. All right, thank you, colleagues. Again, I understand this this may not be the perfect situation, um, but, uh, you know, a lot of times with law 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, if we call, they're going to be there. This is a situation where they need our support and um I hope that at this time you'll be able to help us support them so that they can help support us, and with that we
would appreciate a good vote. members representing Meeks is closed for his
bill. What's the wishes of the committee? Seeing no motion, whoops, we do
have a motion now representing Tas has made a
motion to pass any discussion of the motion. Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. All opposed say no. The
My eyes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Thank you committee. One last one. House Bill 1877. Members House Bill 1877 representative Meeks you're
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:11:07
recognized. So, Madam Chair, we'll have an amendment on this as well, adding a passing it
out, Senate sponsor and a a lot of house co-sponsors.
All right, members, the amendment has been passed out representing mixes 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.
Any opposed say no, the eyes have it. Your amendment has been adopted,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:12:13
you're now recognized to present your bill as amended. Thank you, colleagues. This is another AG priority bill, um,
the uh uh this is a CSA 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 uh 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 it's, you'll see it's being added in a couple of 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 in any comments they'd like to make in this regard. Justin
Speaker 236
2:13:13
Brasher, senior attorney General, Arkansas Office of the Attorney
Speaker 258
2:13:15
General. Ba Arkansas State Police, Arkansas Internet Crimes Against Children's Task Force commander.
Speaker 237
2:13:28
Committee similar to the deffake bill that we just went through, um, this bill is again a priority of ours because we deal a lot with CSA and with child abuse material. And again, what we've seen a lot is uh 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, uh, computer generated means produce,
adapter, modified, and whole part through the use of artificial intelligence. That's the definition is written that way, and indistinguishable again, it's taken from the spot of the federal code that was modified post Ashcroft and his and his survived challenge to this point. Um So that's uh that's why it's written that way and indistinguishable does not include a visual print medium that depicts a child that is drying, that is a drawing cartoon sculpture or painting again, because we do not want to infringe on what the Supreme Court is 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. Um, would that happy to take any questions. Members, are there any questions? Seeing their questions, we
do have an individual signed up to speak against
the bill, Mr. Rosenswe you recognized come then the table and speak against the bill.
Speaker 171
2:15:01
Jeff Rosenw, 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, is you it has to involve a real child, not, 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.
This bill will pass, but be aware that you're going to run into some serious
constitutional problems. Members, are there any questions? Mr. Rosensweig, thank you for your testimony today. We have no one
else who signed up to speak for or against the bill representative. She recognized
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:15:49
clothes for your bill. Thank you, committee. Again, this is just trying to make sure that we protect our most vulnerable, you know, obviously if 37 other
states have passed it, they see the importance of doing this. I hope Arkansas will be the
thirty-eighth in 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. 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 closed, just appreciate a good vote. members who are representing Meeks his clothes 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. Any opposed? Say no. The ayes have it congratulations you have passed your bill. Thank you. Represent Shepherd and recognize she's go to the end of the
table, I do see that we have a court of appeals judge who has waited patiently, uh, members turned to House Bill 1832, House Bill 1832. It has an amendment member, so. We're going to get some paperwork passed out to you.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:18:01
Shepherd, you recognize to present your 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, um, uh, Zoom call yesterday with representatives of the Arkansas Bar Association. They ask if, if I would consider delaying the effective day and, uh, so I was thought that would be a good idea and so that's the, that's one part of the amendment. The
second part of the amendment is basically in the original bill, uh, on page 5, it made reference uh back to The page 5 line 1617, it referred back to the rules of the Supreme Court and the court of Court of Appeals of the state of Arkansas and uh what I, what we did was I just took language from earlier in the bill on page 2 and inserted that into it. Uh, so the language that's in this amendment was already in the
bill, uh, 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. All opposed his habit motion has been adopted. You're now recognized to present your bill
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
2:19:24
as amended. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, members, uh, I, I bring to you today, um,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:19:33
House Bill 1832 and really this bill is somewhat very simple. Um, what it provides for is that exclusive jurisdiction of facial challenges to acts of acts or rules of the General Assembly or rules that are promulgated would be, uh, heard or in the Arkansas Court of Appeals, and this only applies to facial challenges. A facial challenge is
A claim that an act will forsake of discussion, I'm gonna be referring to acts that we passed. A facial challenge is such to claim that there is no circumstance in which the that law is constitutional. All right? 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 in 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. are rules that are otherwise promulgated. Uh, the authority for this and the, and the approach to this is under Amendment 80 Section 10.
Amendment 80, uh, which if anybody's been around the legislature for any length of time, and if you've served on the judiciary Committee, you probably heard reference to Amendment 80. Amendment 80 was the amendment to the Arkansas Constitution that essentially reorganized our judiciary. Uh, 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 it, uh, because that maybe they infringed on the process and procedure which under Amendment 80 belongs to the judiciary. But under Amendment 80 section 10, the, uh, amendment, the Constitution provides that the that the General Assembly, we have uh purview over jurisdiction and venue. And this bill concerned 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, to introduce this bill. This is something that I've, I've looked at and thought about for a number of years. Um, particularly as I became Speaker, uh, as Speaker of the House for 6.5 years. Obviously challenges to actions of the
General Assembly is something that I took further notice of uh for various reasons, uh, 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, that's our process, OK? That's, that's our system of government. That's the checks and balances. Uh, but one of the things that we've seen is that my feeling
was that for virtually any piece of significant or substantive legislation, uh, 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 begin looking at this probably 6 years ago, quite honestly. Uh, 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, well, how is it that, how is it that a an act of the General Assembly can be enjoined by a circuit judge, uh, 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, 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 2 to 3 weeks, maybe months, 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 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, 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, 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 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, uh, 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 uh worked through this, uh, you know, when I read Amendment 80, looked at it again, I thought, well, we, we have jurisdiction 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've 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 6 months, there were about, uh, 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 30/6 months, it looks like approximately 50% 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 offered the amendment to delay the effective date to November 1st, that will allow approximately 6 months for the courts, the Supreme Court under their rulemaking authority can promulgate rules as they see fit. I, 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 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 are expect uh or used to, I think that that's nothing, that's not anything that we should, 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, 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. Um, 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 they, when these cases are filed, they uh 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. Collins, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:30:23
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 will work, but I still don't really think I've heard you say what the purpose
Speaker 268
2:30:33
is. What are we, what problem are we solving here with this bill. I think the problem
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:30:40
is we're ensuring public confidence. In our court system and in the in a challenge in which A judge is being asked. To Enjoying 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 5 circuit judges that potentially could receive that assignment. Why is it that a challenge 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 or based on the application of constitutional law. And I would imagine that probably uh the electorate, uh, 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 their, uh, 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 are elected from across
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:32:08
the state. Follow up. You're recognized. I guess it seems like it does the opposite to me, you know, when you, you say that because they're elected and Polanski and Perry County that there's not public confidence in what they're going to come up with. Well, why should any defendant
or litigant feel confident, you know, before one of those judges, if we can't feel confident in how they're going to handle these facial challenges. I, I'm not sure I'm, 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
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:33:00
they won't get a fair shake. Well, I think what I would say is, is I think what we're trying to do is bolster public confidence. I have, I have total confidence in fine, uh, personally with regard to decisions that may be rendered from Pulaski 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 in the state of Arkansas and is impacting the legislature's constitutional. to pass laws. And so what is the downside to this? I mean, what is the downside? It's ultimately it's going to the Supreme Court anyway. And so what is the downside? What is the downside to allow the court of appeals, a, 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
2:34:03
Follow up, if I may in response. 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, I guess that's my, that's really my, 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 is a member of the public is going to read this bill that way and many have read this bill this way as as an undermining and a and an implicit criticism of our circuit judges here in Plasa County. OK, so it's,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:34:56
it's not meant to be that at all, and I have again. I mean, I've been here for 14
years. Uh, I've probably, we've had decisions that have gone for and against the legislature. Uh, I was, I've even been made party to litigation that's been tried here. It's, it's, it's not personal to Pulaski County. Some of these cases can be brought outside of Pulaski County, uh, 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, why wouldn't we have these heard initially before judges and 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 the venue statute to eliminate the requirements that it be filed in Pulaski County would, would you have the same objection that we somehow, uh, 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 a, as a, an indictment on Pulaski County. It's not meant some may make it that they're And there, I realized there are many different viewpoints on this and some of those that support this probably support it for different reasons maybe than 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 uh domiciled or residents of Pulaski. County. This one category of case, if this affects every citizen in 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 in effect 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. Representing Hudson, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
2:37:45
Thank you, Madam Chair. OK. There was a shepherd, part of the concern I have about this, and you said in your introduction that that there were a number of different ways that you could have, you could have approached the problem that you say you've identified, um, 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
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:38:20
much like forum. Shopping to me. Well, forum shopping generally, I mean, if you were, if you wouldn't consider going
from the circuit court to the Court of Appeals forum shopping. Uh, I don't really consider that to be forum shopping in this case, we're 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 the to a court that has that has
would have jurisdiction in these matters from across the state and again pull from judges from across the state. What I, I guess I don't see that as forum shopping. If I had made it where you had to bring it in another, another county, then yes, that would be. Or if we had eliminated the requirement, then that, if we had elimin needed that maybe the venue requirements related to uh 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. Uh and
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
2:39:34
and perhaps I should have said it's it's analogous for shopping. I mean, I'm looking at some of the press on
this and some of the quotes in in the paper, um, and basically the, the argument and admit this, these quotes come from Senator Hester, um, it's basically that
The Plasky County Court gets overturned a lot and so we might as well just, just take it to a different
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:39:57
court where we think they're making better opinions. And, and that senator Hester's viewpoint, Senator Hester can speak for himself. He is my co-sponsor uh I think I alluded to that earlier. There's, 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 uh 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 um You know, is it outside the box?
Probably so. Uh, some other states have moved to some similar situations, North Carolina has made it where I believe on facial challenges, they pull 3 circuit judges from various areas to be the ones to hear it under Amendment 80, there was, 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, uh, you know, the front burner issue for me. I've
looked at this over the past 5 to 6 years. I could have brought it a long time. I guess a long time ago. I just, I'm down to my last few weeks and, 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, uh, these types of lawsuits. One last follow up
Speaker 275
2:41:43
one more. Like, and I guess that leads me
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
2:41:47
to a more substantive question, so I looked it up and it looks
like the court of appeals is is handling close to 1000 cases every year. Um, and each of the court of appeals justices is currently riding an average of 72 to 75 opinions per year. Um, 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. Um, I know that the fiscal statement says that there's no, there's no fiscal impact. pact, but I, I feel pretty confident that if we are adding to the workload of what is
already one of the busiest appeals courts. um, that, that citizens of Arkansas can access that there's likely to be a cost associated with that, um, given the fact that we are, 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 that we're going to require them to draft more opinions, so How logistically do you see this working? Well, that's going to be ultimately
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:42:49
up to the Court of Appeals because we can't get
into the rulemaking authority, but I would think that as I, as when I met, uh, with the chief judged the other day and the chief of staff, um, You know, I certainly for myself, I'm, I would, 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 6 months. They 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 uh Quick West Law search over the last 3 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, it's not a, uh, 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, if they're being efficient if they're doing their work, if they're working diligently on these things and they're needs that arise and I'm confident that we can listen to those
needs and and make determinations at that point. Are you good
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
2:44:38
representing Hudson? Representing Springer, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and uh Mr. Speaker, I have much respect for you, but I do have to get in on this, um, concern about you 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 Uh, they're going to eventually wind up in those court that court anyway, so why would we, why why are we going in this direction? It's, we're back to pretext again and I don't want to get back into that again, so I mean I'm I'm just really trying to understand why this is necessary when there
has not been any. Uh, I'm not aware of any cases where the that someone has come forward to say that this is necessary or have you uh 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 the, of the need to.
this is, this has not come from the court, but it's our role to make the laws. The court
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:45:56
gets to apply an interpret, why is it necessary? I think it's, it's
again to be proactive to attempt to bolster public confidence. If a if a law is going to be enjoined. I'm sure with any, with any um with any session, uh, 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, 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. What uh, again, I don't see the downside to that. Why wouldn't we want that? I mean, this is what I hear from, from, uh,
legislators going back throughout my time as Speaker of the House or for that matter, members of the of of the community. We passed a law and, 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 juris. venue. That's under Amendment 80 Section 10, and so why wouldn't we, 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, we're talking about cases in which a judge can invalidate. Can put on hold, can enjoin, can restrain the actions of the legislature that it passed both houses and been signed by the governor. That's extraordinary, and I know that they take that very seriously. Again, it's, it's not, it's not the,
you know, it's 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
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
2:48:19
fairly common sense one and I'm, I'm just not understanding why now, I mean. I just, I don't think you've answered the question right now. Representing
guess what you're recognized for a question. Thank
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
2:48:32
you, Madam Chair. And so, And thank you, Representative
Shepherd, 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 gonna 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 have to, will, 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 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 the 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 these, 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 I 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. Resolved in the circuit court. Just how, how practically do you see
that playing out? I guess I could answer
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:50:37
yes to whatever 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. Um You know, what, what I would foresee and, and again, this is going to be subject to rulemaking is that the exclusive jurisdiction is what the court of appeals, they a litigant probably would want to make those other claims as part of the pendent 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, um, those things, the facial challenge potentially could be considered sooner than later. Uh, it's not uncommon necessarily in civil litigation. On occasion, there are issues that come up, uh, that requires 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, um, and that's also
why, you know, we're providing this delay of the effective dates November 1st is that that will allow, you know, 6 months for rulemaking and for consideration of those uh those issues that may arise along the way. You recognize for a follow up, yes, and so
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
2:52:04
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, 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. Um 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. been several years ago now, where we appealed to the Court of Appeals. We had, I didn't handle it because I'm Don't typically handle appeals. We had to hire an appellate. My client had to hire an appellate lawyer. It costs. Seems like around $10,000 to handle the appeal to the Court of Appeals. And so, you know, you're going directly to the court of appeals, which is going to be expensive for the litigants as opposed to just, you know, 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 you know, starting at Straight in the court of appeals kind of adds an additional cost to litigants.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:53:25
What, 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, uh, pay for the record and, and have that, uh, uh, prepared, um, 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 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, they could still make their as-applied challenge to any action that we've taken, and it would still be, uh, not, 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 um related rulemaking. You need one more? That's fine. Just to follow up, but, and
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
2:54:34
I guess my point is, 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 well
aware of discovery, motions, evidentiary issues, etc. That,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:54:52
that would, I mean that would be a decision for the, for the attorney and the, and
the claimant, the plaintiff to make, um. 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 uh uh lawsuit, but again, if, 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, a
different uh a different court that pulls from across the state. Representing Collins, recognized for
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
2:55:33
her question. Representing Springer, you're recognized for her question. Thank you, Madam Chair. So let
me just ask this question. Uh, so if, if someone decides to um file a challenge to your bill if it becomes law. Will, will that be, will this, will that lawsuit be heard before the Pulaski
Speaker 280
2:55:52
County Circuit Court, or will it be, will it
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:55:55
go directly to the Supreme Court. That's a good point, based on my amendment, I guess it'll likely be filed in Pulaski County. And I'm OK with that. If I wasn't, I would leave the emergency clause in, but I think that it makes sense to allow, allow that rulemaking to take place and again, I, I have respect for the court and so we'll, 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, uh, trying to, trying to
be out in front of an issue that I believe we're going to hear more and more.
Chair
Unverified
2:56:34
Hudson you recognized for a question. Thank you,
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
2:56:40
Madam Chair. Um. I, I don't mean to keep harping on the, the workload in the court of appeals. However, uh, kind of piggybacking off what Representative Gazaway was talking about on civil cases. Let's talk about the effect on criminal cases. Um,
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, um, just, 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 challenges proceeding through the court of appeals. What are we doing to the administrative administration of justice. It seems to me as though we're going to continue to exacerbate the backlog in the criminal cases. Um, and also exacerbate the backlog at the court of appeals because whether there's only 15 or 20 of these facial challenges being filed, you know, within the period that you looked at before from a strategic standpoint, if I know as an attorney that I can
I can take advantage of, um, 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 and keep these people, these defendants, from having to be sentenced. I think
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:58:16
that, I think there may be kind of a, a, um, I mean, I think that as this is rolled out, I think as a rulemaking is, is, uh, if there's rulemaking, I mean,
ultimately the court can decide if they need rules or don't, but I think that The that over time, I believe that many of those things will, will work themselves out because I think that to your point about maybe people making, uh, facial challenges just that are not necessarily legitimate. It's just a, it's an effort to delay it's maybe kind of a frivolous, it's it's an effort to delay the, 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. um, 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, uh, but I think they'll be able to work, uh, uh, to work through that. And if, and if
there, if there's a need demonstrated that the Court is um You know 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 uh governor's office that they would consider that. I mean, we approved a new judge in Benton County, um, you know, 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, uh, uh,
the, the additional expense that would be involved. I think that the court is well Situated to be able to manage this, but if they again if they're working diligently and it's shown that there is an issue that needs consideration that I trust that the legislature will be able to respond to that. You need to follow it. But
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
3:00:20
and And thank you for your answer. You mentioned, you know, several times, well, you know, they can probably take that up in rulemaking, um, they can probably come up with a rule and
To Representative Gassway's questions so they 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 7 months. Is that correct? Yes. OK. Members, any other questions? Seeing
no further questions, we do have a few individuals signed up. Mr. Rosensweig, you've
Speaker 171
3:00:59
signed up to speak against the bill. Jeff Rosenw, Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers, although I, I, we think the bill is unconstitutional and under Amendment 80, I'm not going to deal with that, uh, Representative Hudson point is the one I wanted to talk about. In every death penalty case, for instance, just as a matter of course because of the lawyers will file a uh a facial challenge. to the statute, as well as
as-applied challenges. And if 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 lit. all the litigated all the way through, uh, maybe all the way
to the US Supreme Court because that's the 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 2 purports to make the rules. And
as 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 uh works out. Most of the facial challenges, uh, you know, 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 if it's going to pass, it needs to be restricted to simple cases.
Members, any questions? No questions. Thank you for your testimony today.
We do have, um, Chief Judge Burke. Clapping back and and Solomon.
Thank you for waiting for the last
3 hours to get to us. Thank you for not, not very many times that those of us who practice can uh make a, a
chief judge wait, so you know that, 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
3:04:00
yourselves, you're recognized. Mark Clenbach, 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 Um Or um Yeah, OK, well, we, 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. Um The Court of, OK, uh. 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. Excuse me. Two of the goals of the bill, as we understand them, are to save time and money on the base facial constitutional issues that 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 Shepherd has shared numbers with us, um. And um 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 or local attorneys and um So we're we're concerned about those numbers, um. Not knowing what impact this might have on our docket is especially concerning because our court manages a very heavy case load since January 1 of this year, our court has decided 313 appeals, 185 of those with,
um, written opinions and uh 128 was ESD or employment um unemployment. cases Um, not having the reliable number of cases that we might add ranges ranges financial questions. This will have a fiscal impact on our court's operation. We will need to uh we may need additional appropriations for special masters, court reporters, and attorneys and staff to manage the additional caseload. We we don't know because we don't have those in
in front of us and um Um We're just not used to being a fact finding court and so the special masters would be required and um we're just concerned about those costs and we certainly appreciate. Um, representative Shepherd's, um. Um, Looking favor on us and, and his um His opinion of us that we can handle this, but um those are just our concerns right now.
Speaker 296
3:07:23
Ms. Solomon, would you like to, yes, Representative Dalby, very briefly, um, I'm here today to support Chief Judge Clappenbach, um, primarily because of my two main tasks as chief staff attorney. Um, 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, Uh, Judge Clappenbach hit the nail on the head. We, um, are
concerned that we don't have a good grasp on how many numbers, how many of these cases there are, um, and If I, as I was listening today, I heard Representative Shepherd 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, um, Even if there are only 10 or 15 cases right now, if that number's accurate. I don't know what that means for our docket
in the future. And I also don't I don't know what that means for our budget for the future. I, I think it means much more
Speaker 298
3:08:33
appropriation would be needed and that, um, it may slow down our docket. That's my concern. Thanks We do
have questions. We all take questions. Representing Collins, who recognized for her question. Thank
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
3:08:47
you, Madam Chair. I, I appreciate y'all being here and saying, uh, you know, giving your perspective on this. That
was actually one of the initial things I wondered about was, uh, 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 factfinder. I think of you guys' reviewing decisions and, and being in the book, so to speak, and, uh, and then passing it on up. So are there any other areas where you are the initial factfinder, and can you talk about your capacity to do that
Speaker 296
3:09:18
fact. finding, if any? Absolutely. There are, the court of appeals is not a finder of fact. That is currently a circuit courts
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, um, anticipate what the dollar amount of that cost might be at this point. Um, so no, we've had very limited instances since our inception in which we've had to have a fact finding, um, most recently when we had a contempt issue with the litigant, well, with the court reporter, frankly. Um, and we had to have
a fact finder. appointed, um, cost a few $1000 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 there that day, of course, we needed office space to have a hearing. Um, so there are some additional costs that the court of
Speaker 298
3:10:16
appeals is not currently set up to, um, handle with the, 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. We have no one else who's signed up to speak for or against representing Shepherd
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
3:10:44
you recognized to come to the end of the table and close for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. Just a
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
3:10:50
few points related to some of the testimony we've just heard, uh, Mr. Rosensweig had alluded to the fact that this bill, uh, references court rules that
somehow we're attempting to uh 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. Uh, secondly, I want to make this very clear. The court of appeals and they the court of appeals, they each judge has a number of law clerks. How many law clerks per?
Judge 2, OK, they have 2 clerks, um, many circuit judges across the state have no law clerks. All right. If 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, 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 confident that the Arkansas Court of Appeals is able to sit and hear facts if they so choose, or if they decide to 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, a 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 to 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.
All opposed say no. The eyes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill.
Members, uh, we're gonna keep rolling along. Represent Bentley vindicated
to me that you were 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.
Speaker 197
3:13:25
It'll be on Tuesday. Oh Repreceding Richardson. Representing 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? OK, we're gonna move those if you're here on house, you only had 2, am I correct? Um, 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 I, before everybody we have representing and representing Unger, uh, you have the recidivision. Bill Are you ready for
that and how long is that? I don't think we have anybody do anybody signed up?
We don't have anyone signed up to 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
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:14:47
I've got two individuals still here. I'd be glad to roll with it. I'm prepared for it. I
had the amendment sent over. There's no, no known opposition, uh, 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. You want to take a run at it real quick
because I'm gonna try, I got to get it out and we don't have anybody signed up on it. has
We're gonna pass out House Bill 1931, and that's being passed out
representative I mean, I'm sorry, representing Beatty. Uh It's being passed out, but if you could just give a brief history, um, as to this particular bill coming out of a task force. As they're looking
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:15:37
at your amendment. Representative Howard Beatty District 95. Basically, this, this bill is, is just what the chairman.
Um, said is, uh, the recidivism task force that's kind of created under the ProTE Act, um, this, this group's been meeting. And, and looking at ways to reduce recidivism in the state, uh, 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, uh, we got that little quick
background. We've got your amendment, explain
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:16:19
your amendment, and then we'll roll on. Members uh basically once, once this bill was presented and reviewed by the parties that it affected the Department of Corrections. They had some concerns about some of the language, primarily the language on the last page of the bill, uh, dealing with, um, I think the school, uh, and some of those other issues. And so this, this amendment came at their request. We're agreeable to that. And basically what the
amendment does, instead of stating that they have to have a plan. To implement And submit that to legislative counsel. It allows them to submit a feasibility study to establish and implement a plan. Uh, so it gives a little bit more time on on that side to cover those, those um those issues identified on page 11 of the bill. And are you making a motion to adopt your
amendment? I would offer a motion to adopt
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:17:10
the amendment. Members may 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.
Any opposed say no, that the eyes have
it, you passed your amendment. If you're
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:17:28
now Quickly present your bill as amended. I'm going to quickly again Howard Beatty District 95, House Bill 1911, basically, uh, the bill that's before you outlines the process to create the recidivism reduction system within the Department of Corrections. It'll 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%, uh, projected cost associated with the recidivism rates 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, out of jail. So, um, 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, key areas. I mean, it, it validates the risk and need assessment at intake for all prisoners, all inmates, uh, case plans, um, uh, on, on all prisoners, um, and then provides evidence-based programs, meaningful activities to help reduce the recidivism, uh, and, and incorporates incentives for inmate
participation and completion, um, involvement. those programs, um, so, and there, there are some reporting and audit requirements in in the program, um. And then, like I said, the temporary language where we go in and provide for the feasibility study, uh, for full implementation of this plan, uh, all in all, the, the, the, the goal of this is to reduce recidivism in, in the state, uh, and, and have some quality metrics on what, what we're doing at Department of Corrections. So with that, I'm
entertaining questions. Representing Collins recognized for her
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
3:19:30
question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I, I understand the, the late hour and all of that at the same time, this is important bill and it is 12 pages and I, I just, I may need just a little bit of time here. So, all right, I, I certainly applaud the goal, and I think to reduce recidivism is hugely important. It's, I just want to understand exactly how we're going to do that. So I staffing up, get that, the
validation of the data. I get that case plans. get that incentives, I get that. I think what I'm trying to understand is, are we newly requiring uh activities for inmates is that a new, is that a required and is it B newly required, and then if they don't Participate, are they gonna get punished? I think that's what I, that's what I need to know. I just want to understand if we're doing that or not. First, I would say, and I'll
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:20:30
direct you to page 5 of the bill. I think it's page 5 here. Under the incentive incentive system, I think that might answer some of the questions. I don't think it mandates that that they participate in, 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 and identifies all that there on page. 5 of the bill, but it, it does not have a penalty.
And, and unless by choice and life's about choices, and it's the reason that, that, that they're actually there is, is choices. So you get a reward if you choose to do certain things, uh, certain things is
the normal, normal process that you have. So I don't think that it's a penalty. Follow up, please. Do you
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
3:21:18
recognized. All right, so let me then ask you to direct you right under that, it's starting on the last line of page 5 and going on to page 6, 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 our program. Does that mean that if they don't participate, they will be. disincentivize, whatever that means, or does
Speaker 311
3:21:45
that mean that if they act up, that they will, I just seem to know what you do. I think the intent on that
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:21:52
is, is for, um, because the planning and staffing and and the the program that that they go into, if these folks, I think some of it's the if if they're disruption or they're acting up.
I also think some of it is, uh, if you sign up for the program that that they want them to participate in that program and
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
3:22:12
and complete the program and and go through. that side. OK. And just finally, if are
we gonna be adding more options or or different options or what's really gonna be the way that we're going to get recidivism down through this bill. I understand sort of the monitoring and the case findings 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 gonna get it
or something else or more offerings or or what? What's going to be the real
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:22:44
rubber meets 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 to society through, you know, their, their time in, in incarceration, and they're released back, making certain that they have the skills, um, to integrate back into society once they, once, once they're
released. I think that's the overall goal of the program, uh, to provide those folks with opportunities, expansion of maybe some of the trade, uh, trade, education, educational, uh, attainment, um. And and and other areas that are addressed so that they can incorporate back into society and contribute at a level, um, where they don't repeat uh the the errors of the
past and then end up back in our prison system. 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 recognize to
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:23:43
close for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I'm closed for the bill. I'd offer a motion do pass as amended and appreciate a good vote. Members, we have a motion to pass
as amended on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye.
Any opposed? Say no. The eyes have it, congratulations, you have passed your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you committee. Long in the room. Not seeing representing wrong,
representing Barnett, you're recognized to come the end of the table and present your bill. Oh, 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. Hello, I'm Lincoln Barnett
Representative Lincoln Barnett
Unverified
3:24:41
representing District 63. Uh, thank you. Chairwoman Dalby and good morning committee members. Well, now good afternoon. Um, 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 a 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, uh, participated and attended the counseling or therapy sessions and their recommendation of the officer returning to active normal duty. Um, 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 at 398, which requires public employers to provide licensed counseling for public safety
employees who have experienced a traumatic event. However, the requirement for counseling, um, 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. Um,
lastly, on page 2 lines 26 to 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. Um, I would ask for your support in this effort and would appreciate
Speaker 316
3:27:18
a motion due pass and a good vote and I'm willing to take any questions that you
all may have. members, 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 Sykes, Scott Bradley, if y'all would like to go to the end of the table, you may speak against the bill.
Mike Hager
Unverified
3:27:55
I'm Gary Sypes, director of the Arkansas Association of Chiefs of Police. Mike Hager, Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Director of State Police. I'm Scott Bradley. I'm
Speaker 319
3:28:14
the director of the Arkansas Sheriff's Association. Y'all, y'all recognized to offer your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I've actually spoken to Representative Barnett on the phone briefly and, 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 the, the bat and the investigation is completed by the prosecutor. That we'd be able to return to work. That was what I got from my shares more than anything. That after an unfortunate situation like that happens, the
worst thing we can do after we complete the investigation and the 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 I can and 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 the my sheriffs brought to my attention that if you and, and maybe Maybe I'm misunderstanding it, but it appears I 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, 2 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, we want, that's why we tried to talk and work through it, but the 90 days is, is a real problem for us.
Speaker 321
3:30:05
Uh, pretty much the same thing for the 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 uh I mean we don't want this is very serious thing, and I appreciate you for uh having the officers' well-being, wellness, mentally, physically, um, 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, uh, we, as a chief we've in a supervisor during my time. We always looked after the officer, make sure that nothing's going on with them and uh block uh Scott said there, everybody has a policy in place. In fact, the Arkansas Chiefs Association has put together a policy to cover all this, um, I mean, I don't want to take
anything away from trying to help our officers, but I
Mike Hager
Unverified
3:31:13
think it's already in place. And Mike Hager State Police Department of Public Safety, just echo their comments and I also want to thank uh the representative for, uh, very well-intentioned, uh. 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 psychiatrists and uh that does that evaluation to let us know if they're clear to go back to work or if they need to continue treatment, um, it's been our Experience that when you force treatment on someone, it can it can be counterproductive.
That's, that's something that we would really like to get away from 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 are uh Don't have the caseload that some districts do, that may not be an issue, but just give you an example um 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 9 members of our SWAT team that were engaged in. That was in Pulaski County. It's not uncommon at no fault of the prosecutor's office. In fact, they worked very well with us. It's not uncommon for that
letter to not be cut for sometimes, you know, 4 to 6 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, uh, if 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, you know, 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 uh neighboring teams that we have a um 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, uh, it potentially would have had 9 members of our team off up to 6 months and not To include their primary day to day assignments. So that's our greatest concern with this legislation as written. Representative Crawford, you recognized for a question. Thank
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
3:34:32
you, Mr. Chair. Um, what is the policy that is now set in place. I, I think that's gonna differ
Mike Hager
Unverified
3:34:44
from each ANC, but there's a standard, a national standard that most states Arkansas adheres to, and these gentlemen could speak to their agencies that they represent better than I could, but within the state police, if someone is involved in a daily use of force incident, um, they're automatically taken out of service or put on administrative leave, um, we assign a uh 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 uh Evaluation to be determined or 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 in assigned, and they give us a brief and let us know, uh, the basics of it, of course, if there's any documents, case files, videos, things like that, that is watched. Um, 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 a cut and dried, um, use of force, then we typically put them back to work, um, as soon as we receive that initial brief and they've been signed off on by the psychiatrist. Um, how do you feel like that's
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
3:36:17
working? How are the officers, their mental health when they go back to work, um. Is it working in
Mike Hager
Unverified
3:36:25
the process that you're doing now? Yes, ma'am. We've had no issues that we're aware of. Um, we've actually been very intentional in our agency is the police departments and sheriff's departments with the resources they have have as well. About standing up a very robust wellness program, um, once they're cleared from duty, they're assigned to 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, they talked 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, um, but as far as I know and 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
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
3:37:30
other 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. Represent Barnett, you're recognized to close for the bill.
Representative Lincoln Barnett
Unverified
3:37:55
Thank you, Chair. Um, 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. Um,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
3:38:08
well, without objection we'll let him pull the bill down. Thank you for uh
presenting it and thank you for uh. Working with the committee on this.
Representative Long believe your next up. Yeah So long, are you prepared
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
3:38:46
to run House Bill 1678? Mr. 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
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:38:55
think our next meeting will be Tuesday. fixer. Yes, sir,
Chair
Unverified
3:39:01
I guess I'm ready to run the bill. OK,
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
3:39:04
you're recognized to identify yourself and you're to present your bill. Thank you. Representative Wayne Long, District 39. Committee, this is my first time for the judiciary, and I appreciate it if you take it easy on me, um, I'll bring
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:39:17
for you today House Bill 1678. It's a simple bill that might representative long in just one moment. You said. Do you have an amendment for
your bill? I forgot about that. Yes, sir. Thank you. I passed that out and then I'll need you to present the amendment. Thank you.
of long ear recognized to present the
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:40:07
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 um you know in in this bill that I'm proposing, we get standing for the father of of the uh more child to sue, but we wanted to make clear that they couldn't do it if it was uh it was a result of criminal contact.
Excuse me, criminal conduct, so um we, we add that to the
language and that's it. Are there any questions regarding the Emmett?
From the committee Seeing what's the wishes of the committee. You make a motion to adopt the amendment, a motion to adopt the amend from Representative Crawford, a discussion on the motion saying none all favor please say
aye. I, I have it. You've adopted your amendment. You're recognized to present your bill. Thank you.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:41:07
I bring for you House Bill 1678, a simple bill that only makes 4 changes to the existing abortion inducing drug Safety Act. The 4 changes are that are being requested 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, um,
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 it soon, 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 and uh from the current a misdemeanor to a class D felony.
As we heard this week in the House 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 has 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 born child,
the woman's parents or legal guardian if she's under under age and also added the Attorney general to make it clear that we also have uh 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 authorities to take the 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 bill. Representative Hudson, you're
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
3:43:13
asked for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Long, I'm looking at, uh, page 2. Um, beginning at line 17, so this is section 3C. So the cause of action for injunctive relief against a person or entity that is purposely, knowingly or recklessly violated this chapter may be maintained by what a 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, 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.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:44:14
Well, not being an attorney such as yourself, um, I basically like not all of us 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 um.
Speaker 340
3:44:27
That's unfortunately the only answer I have for that. Follow up.
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
3:44:31
recognized it, and, and I appreciate that, but, 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, um, the The vision that
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:45:03
I had was I was trying to do a two prong approach, both criminally and civilly because you know some of these, well, I guess all these providers are out of state and I
wanted basically to have option of either way going after him criminally or civilly to discourage them from breaking Arkansas law. Representative Clowney, you're going to ask
Chair
Unverified
3:45:26
for a question. No, Rona Beatty. that's a fair question. Well, I
Speaker 344
3:45:33
kind of got a couple in here and, and. Just trying to follow your intent.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:45:38
I see the, the language in here about the father. Um
Is there, is there anything in the bill that had the requirement that the the The father be adjudicated by the court or anything that they are the father of paternity test or anything like that that's in the bill and what if the 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 for
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:46:15
damages under your bill. I'm correctly, um, I think we stated
both father or spouse because that's sometimes are not the same and and trying to cover both bases. Yeah I
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:46:29
know, uh, so the other side is I see you've got language in here for the Attorney General. Uh, did you consult with the Attorney General on this bill? Did they give you any guidance or any feedback on your bill.
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
3:46:41
Yes, sir, I did over several months
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:46:43
and in the end they said basically that uh from a legal standpoint they saw no problem with it, so.
So they were supportive of your bill, is what you're saying. They said they had
Speaker 214
3:47:01
no legal problems with it. OK. 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 First have Kelsey. Is that, Am I saying that correctly? If you wouldn't mind coming to the end of the table, identifying yourself, and then you're recognized for your remarks.
Speaker 350
3:47:31
Thank you. Uh, I'm Kelsey Muse, 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 RD 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 cost 4 times the complications as surgical abortion with a risk of death that is 10 times higher,
according to 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, can form 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 pusher's 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 been placed in 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 1 in 3 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, 7 in 10 victims are women and girls. It's no surprise that abortion pill pushers are willing to risk women's lives in 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 Mark.
I any questions from the committee? Seeing no question. Well, Representative Gonzalez, you. I
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
3:51:26
think we're sure on on page 3, Representative Long, this may be for you. I don't, I don't know, on page 3, starting on line 7, 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, and you're striking all of that, why would you be OK with Bringing a lawsuit and
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:51:59
bad faith or a frivolous suit. Uh. Gonzalez that question actually, my, my thinking there was it might uh Thinking that they're going to
be possibly sued her I guess countersuit might prevent you know some poor people from um you know entering into a suit so that was, that was basically my thinking at the time. OK, thank you. Any other
questions from the committee? Seeing other questions. Thank you for your remarks. You're excused. We have one other individual, Aaron Hogan. He signed up to speak for the bill.
Chair
Unverified
3:52:36
wouldn't mind going to the table and identifying yourself and you're recognized.
Erin Hogan
Unverified
3:52:42
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. Uh,
Speaker 356
3:52:44
my name's Erin Hogan. I'm a director of government relations at family council. And uh I just wanted to come up here and um, Just let it be known that family counsel supports this bill. I believe it's a good bill that accomplishes good things, um, under Arkansas's current abortion inducingug Safety Act that was passed in 2015 and I believe updated in 2021, um, and that was well before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. So a lot has happened in between,
uh, then and now, and so, uh, our current laws, as many know, prohibits abortion except to save the life of the mother, but abortionists from out state have been marketing abortion drugs to women in Arkansas. Um, in fact, last year, um, our attorney general was forced to issue cease and desist letters to New York companies, um, 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. Um, 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 um support Representative Long in his efforts here. Thank you for your remarks. Uh, are there any questions from
Speaker 334
3:54:08
the committee? Seeing our questions. Thank you for your being here today.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:54:19
Representative Long, you ready to close reveal? Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, having heard 22 different things brought up that members had concerns about
if if you may, uh, 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. Good back next week. Thank you, members, that's what all the bills we're going to hear
today. Hopefully you'll have a little bit of time to get some lunch. Uh, we are adjourned.
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 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
Representative Carol Dalby Chair
Unverified
Speaker 32
Speaker 35
Speaker 46
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
Speaker 40
Speaker 25
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 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 236
Speaker 239
Speaker 237
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Speaker 249
Speaker 258
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
Mike Hager
Unverified
Speaker 319
Speaker 321
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
Speaker 340
Speaker 344
Speaker 214
Speaker 350
Speaker 356
Speaker 334