Judiciary Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (44)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB441
· 5 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. SB441 Hester TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025. S…”
|
TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025. | Hester | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1641
Act 600
· 4 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “Chair. Brianne Davis, State Senate District 25 presenting House Bill 1641. Nicole Clowney, State Representative District 21. Thank yo…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HARASSMENT; AND TO INCLUDE THE USE OF A TRACKING DEVICE … | Clowney | Notification that HB1641 is now Act 600 |
|
SB597
Act 770
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…IS IN A CHILD'S BEST INTEREST WHEN THERE IS DOMESTIC ABUSE. SB597 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF THREAT OF HARM…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF THREAT OF HARM UPON A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION EMPLOYEE. | B. Johnson | Notification that SB597 is now Act 770 |
|
SB509
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB509 G. TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVI…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. | G. Stubblefield | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1611
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AL IMPROVEMENT FUND OR ITS SUCCESSOR FUND OR FUND ACCOUNTS. HB1611 Gonzales TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING WITH RE…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ANIMAL … | Gonzales | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1624
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1624 Gazaway TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF COUNTY LAW LIBRARY BOARDS. | Gazaway | Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1630
Act 599
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1630 Gazaway TO ADD A MISDEMEANOR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OFFENSE T…”
|
TO ADD A MISDEMEANOR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OFFENSE TO THE PREDICATE OFFENSES FOR CAPITAL MURDER, MURDER … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1630 is now Act 599 |
|
HB1662
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN BEFORE A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION. HB1662 B. McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTI…”
|
TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY. | B. McKenzie | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1692
Act 678
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. Stubblefield HB1692 M. Brown TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS AND VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS EXAMINERS; AND TO AMEND … | M. Brown | Notification that HB1692 is now Act 678 |
|
HB1717
Act 952
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1717 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CHILDREN AND TEENS' ONLINE…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CHILDREN AND TEENS' ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT. | Gramlich | Notification that HB1717 is now Act 952 |
|
HB1729
Act 679
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY. HB1729 R. Burkes TO AMEND THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ACT; AND TO PROV…”
|
TO AMEND THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ACT; AND TO PROVIDE THAT A HOMESTEAD OWNED BY A … | R. Burkes | Notification that HB1729 is now Act 679 |
|
HB1749
Act 680
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…GIBLE FOR THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. HB1749 M. Brown TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM TRUST DECANTING ACT. HB1777 G…”
|
TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM TRUST DECANTING ACT. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1749 is now Act 680 |
|
HB1778
Act 832
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1778 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF STALKING TO INCLUDE PLACING A PERSON … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1778 is now Act 832 |
|
HB1779
Act 833
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1779 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO THEFT OF PROPERTY; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO THEFT OF PROPERTY; AND ENHANCE THE OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION FOR … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1779 is now Act 833 |
|
HB1799
Act 685
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1799 Vaught TO AMEND THE PERMISSIBLE METHODS OF REPORTING UNDER…”
|
TO AMEND THE PERMISSIBLE METHODS OF REPORTING UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT. | Vaught | Notification that HB1799 is now Act 685 |
|
HB1831
Act 690
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EMENT OF CONTINGENCY FEE CONTRACTS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. HB1831 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF SETTLEME…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. | M. Shepherd | Notification that HB1831 is now Act 690 |
|
HB1835
Act 691
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1835 Dalby CONCERNING SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS; AND TO UPDATE AN…”
|
CONCERNING SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS; AND TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING DRUG COURT, MENTAL … | Dalby | Notification that HB1835 is now Act 691 |
|
HB1838
Act 713
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OURT, VETERANS COURT, AND DWI/BWI SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS. HB1838 Dalby TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROBATE ACTIONS; AND TO A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROBATE ACTIONS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ADOPTION AND … | Dalby | Notification that HB1838 is now Act 713 |
|
HB1839
Act 692
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ADOPTION AND GUARDIANSHIP. HB1839 Dalby TO AMEND THE PROCEDURES FOR THE DECLARATION OF LEGAL…”
|
TO AMEND THE PROCEDURES FOR THE DECLARATION OF LEGAL DEATH OF A MISSING PERSON. | Dalby | Notification that HB1839 is now Act 692 |
|
HB1844
Act 822
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RES FOR THE DECLARATION OF LEGAL DEATH OF A MISSING PERSON. HB1844 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF FLEEING BY…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF FLEEING BY MEANS OF A VEHICLE OR … | Tosh | Notification that HB1844 is now Act 822 |
|
HB1848
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…A MOVING VEHICLE OR CONVEYANCE WHILE FLEEING. Page 2 of 3 HB1848 Hudson TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN AWARD OF JOINT CUSTODY BETWEEN PARENTS … | Hudson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB144
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TY CORRECTION IN CRIME REDUCTION AND PREVENTION ACTIVITIES. SB144 B. King CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER…”
|
CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER TO THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION; TO PROVIDE FOR … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB145
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…REATE COUNTY JAIL-STATE INMATE CLOSE-TO- HOME PARTNERSHIPS. SB145 B. King TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS RESULTING FROM LITIGATION INVOLVING THE USE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB452
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…1 Hester TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025. SB452 B. King CONCERNING CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE OR REC…”
|
CONCERNING CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE OR RECYCLING OF WIND TURBINES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB458
Act 988
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OR RECYCLING OF WIND TURBINES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. SB458 G. Leding TO REQUIRE A COURT TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF FACT…”
|
TO REQUIRE A COURT TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF FACTORS SUCH AS TRAUMA AND INVOLVEMENT … | G. Leding | Notification that SB458 is now Act 988 |
|
SB461
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…A CRIME AS A MINOR DURING A TRANSFER OR SENTENCING HEARING. SB461 J. Scott TO COLLECT DATA REGARDING THE USE OF SOLITARY CONF…”
|
TO COLLECT DATA REGARDING THE USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN ARKANSAS PRISONS AND JAILS. | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB462
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN ARKANSAS PRISONS AND JAILS. SB462 J. Scott TO CREATE A CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYABILITY FOR A PER…”
|
TO CREATE A CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYABILITY FOR A PERSON WITH A FELONY CONVICTION; AND TO … | J. Scott | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB472
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ERNING PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS AND PRIVATE SECURITY AGENCIES. SB472 J. Bryant TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION…”
|
TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION OF AN E-LIQUID PRODUCT OR VAPOR PRODUCT … | Underwood | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB477
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AND CIRCUIT COURTS TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF EMPLOYABILITY. SB477 G. TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVI…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. | G. Stubblefield | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB5
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF COUNTY LAW LIBRARY BOARDS. SB5 B. King TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HA…”
|
TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB501
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE USE OF A TRACKING DEVICE IN THE OFFENSE OF HARASSMENT. SB501 J. Scott TO CREATE THE TENANT POSSESSIONS RECOVERY ACT; AND…”
|
TO CREATE THE TENANT POSSESSIONS RECOVERY ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A LANDLORD TO PROVIDE CERTAIN … | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB548
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB548 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WARRANTS OF ARREST; A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WARRANTS OF ARREST; AND TO REQUIRE THAT NOTICE OF A … | G. Leding | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB549
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…WARRANT BE SENT TO THE PERSON NAMED IN THE ARREST WARRANT. SB549 G. Leding TO ENSURE THAT MANDATED COSTS AND FEES PAID BY A…”
|
TO ENSURE THAT MANDATED COSTS AND FEES PAID BY A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE … | G. Leding | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB566
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…PITAL MURDER, MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, AND MANSLAUGHTER. SB566 B. King PROVIDE FOR FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION, IMPROVEMENT,…”
|
PROVIDE FOR FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION, IMPROVEMENT, OR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE AND COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES; … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB581
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ORRECTIONAL FACILITIES; AND TO ADDRESS PRISON OVERCROWDING. SB581 B. King TO CREATE THE POULTRY INTEGRATORS DECEPTIVE TRADE P…”
|
TO CREATE THE POULTRY INTEGRATORS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES AND TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB599
Act 744
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SE OF THREAT OF HARM UPON A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION EMPLOYEE. SB599 C. Tucker TO ELIMINATE INTERLOCUTORY DECREES OF ADOPTION; A…”
|
TO ELIMINATE INTERLOCUTORY DECREES OF ADOPTION; AND TO AMEND THE REVISED UNIFORM ADOPTION ACT. | C. Tucker | Notification that SB599 is now Act 744 |
|
SB6
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE. SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. SB4…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1726
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1726 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT.”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT. | Gramlich | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1777
Act 683
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1777 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD; AND TO INCLUDE … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1777 is now Act 683 |
|
HB1830
Act 689
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1830 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE … | M. Shepherd | Notification that HB1830 is now Act 689 |
|
SB143
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB143 B. King TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE TO COORDINATE WITH LOCAL SHERIFFS AND THE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB356
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB356 J. Bryant TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBT…”
|
TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE ARKANSAS CRIME INFORMATION CENTER … | J. Bryant | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB595
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB595 G. Leding TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HI…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN … | G. Leding | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB600
Act 771
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB600 C. Tucker TO REGULATE CONTRACTS; TO MANDATE CONTRACTUAL PRO…”
|
TO REGULATE CONTRACTS; TO MANDATE CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN CONTRACTS; AND TO CLARIFY PROPER JURISDICTION … | C. Tucker | Notification that SB600 is now Act 771 |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 7, 2026
roadmap. We're going to go to House Bill 1641. We do have a quorum. I see a quorum. And we're going to go House Bill 1641, Senate Bill 441, and then Senate Bill 597. That's the first three we'll hear. And so, Senator Davis, you're recognized to recognize yourself for the record, and then we'll move forward. Thank
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
0:26
you, Mr. Chair. Breanne Davis, State Senate, District 25, presenting House Bill
1641. Nicole Clowney, State Representative, District 21. Thank you. You guys may proceed. Thank you. Members, this bill has already been heard in this committee and been debated, I think, pretty broadly. This bill just does not allow someone to digitally track another person without their knowledge or consent. I'm open to any questions. Thank you for
presenting the bill. Members, any questions on the bill? Seeing none, we don't have anybody signed up for or against. You are free to close for your bill. I'm closed, thank you.
I see a motion from Senator Gilmore, a second from Senator Tucker. All in favor of the motion, do pass. Signal by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed, like signed.
Congratulations, Representative Clowney. Your bill is passed. All right, members, we're moving to Senator Hester for Senate Bill
441. All right. Senator Hester, please identify yourself for the record and you are recognized.
Do we have an amendment on this bill as well? 441? I do have an amendment.
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
1:50
It would be passed out. All right, you can recognize yourself, please. State Senator Bar Hester, District 33, Senate Bill
441. All right, I see a motion from Senator Gilmore to adopt the amendment and a second from Senator Johnson. All in favor to adopt the amendment, signal by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. All right, congratulations, your bill is amended.
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
2:14
You are recognized to present as amended. Thank you, members. I suspect you've heard about this bill already. It's possible that one side or the other has lobbied you and encouraged you. It's not a very complicated bill. I'm just going to talk about what I think this means to the state of Arkansas. Really, we've just got two sides to this. We've got one side that is doing their best to help keep pharmacy costs under control to your citizens and your constituents.
They're doing best to help those that are the most needy among us. Our school teachers, our firefighters, people that are struggling, our seniors to cover the cost of their pharmacies. Every one of our constituents, one group's doing their best to help them. Another group is doing their best to harm them by charging, by suing for fees. well, this is appropriately titled a junk lawsuit, Prevention Act,
to create, to try to get some sort of financial gain, which goes directly to the cost of all of your constituents, for what? For who gets the benefit from it? Who gets the gain if there's money paid? We know who pays it. It's every one of your constituents. But who gets the money, right? Some tall building lawyers, right? maybe some non-profit who's never been harmed by this at all. I really think it doesn't get any more complicated than that.
I think we have to be concerned about letting these tall building lawyers come into the state of Arkansas with these junk lawsuits, whether we're going to give them any ground or not. Just in the past year or two, this same company has sued CVS. They've sued Walmart. They've sued Blue Cross and Blue Shield. They've sued Simmons Bank. Every one of these are businesses from our communities that employ our people. That this group wants to come in and harm our local businesses, cost them money,
which takes money, either increases the cost to our constituents or takes away jobs, right? Like this group, this bill is about are we going to stand with our citizens, with our small businesses, with our big businesses, with our constituents, Or are we going to let these groups from out of state come in in what I consider parasitic behavior, something that we want to keep out of the state of Arkansas? With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Questions from the committee?
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
4:59
Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Not for nothing, but the tall building lawyers are the defense lawyers. They're the ones
who represent Simmons Bank. There you go. And so my question is about, and I see in the
amendment you have, it was retroactive for all time in the original bill, and in the amendment, you made it retroactive
to January 1st, 2021. My question is, if this bill is passed and it's retroactive to January 1st, 2021, will
it affect ongoing litigation? Yes. Okay. So it will impact cases that have been filed already or in the court system now? I hope so. All right.
Speaker 37
5:45
Okay. Thank you. Questions from committee? Senator Johnson? Would that be considered junk litigation? Senator Tucker, would that be considered junk litigation? I believe Senator Hester would say yes.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
6:03
Okay. I'm not familiar with the lawsuit, so I can't come.
Speaker 42
6:20
Other questions from committee? Seeing none, I am, Chair is
surprised to the point of being shocked after all the lobbying that has gone on that there's no one signed up to testify.
Senator Tucker, would you like to close for, Senator Tucker, Senator Hester, would you like to close
for your bill? Senator, I signed up this morning to
finish. Oh, we still got the same list. It's a new list. Oh, it's a new list. Have you got the old list? But come on up. Understand, though.
This is a big bill. Are you Bart Calhoun? Yes, Senator, Chairman. Okay. we you do have to re-sign up but that's okay uh you are if you'll identify yourself for
Bart Calhoun
Unverified
7:20
the record and who you represent thank you chairman my name is
Speaker 56
7:25
bart calhoun um i am a partner mcdaniel wolf law firm i'm here on behalf of the burt and annette mullins foundation um the foundation was formed by the late burton annette mullins um it's been funded by their estate all right hold
on just a second. We moved this morning for a three-minute limit. If
Speaker 56
7:50
you were here this morning, you know that, and you are recognized to proceed. Thank you, Chairman. So I'll start out by saying again that I'm here on behalf of the foundation, the Mullins Foundation. Generally, the foundation is to, it's very broad in its objectives, but it's focused on benefiting Polk County and the general public. One area of interest is consumer protection. I was hired because I was formerly an
assistant attorney general in the consumer protection division of the Arkansas attorney general's office, and I just want to briefly go down through the bill and set forth some issues that we have with the legislation. So this seeks to amend what is a consumer protection statute, not something I would consider necessarily tort reform, but it goes to the heart of legislation past legislation that was enacted to give consumers rights and protections specifically in the pharmaceutical realm in in regards to these discount cards so if you go down
to the first part the exchange for fees the legislation would take out any application to any. Could you
Bart Calhoun
Unverified
8:59
give us a page and line number? Is that page 1, 29 and 30? I'm sorry. Yes,
Speaker 56
9:06
sir. Okay. 29 and 30 would make it where it's not applicable to any company that's not providing their customers with these cards for a fee. The issue with that is that regardless
of whether customers are paying fees, there's a lot of things that are supposed to be in bold print that goes to help those customers and the consumers, including identifying that it's not an insurance card. This doesn't only help the consumers, but it also helps pharmacies. And it should also be noted that just because a company is providing these services to a consumer for no fee, it doesn't mean that that company is not getting paid otherwise. They're getting paid by PBMs or someone else in the line of transaction for pharmacies.
One of the biggest problems we would have with it is the limits on relief. The bill would restrict relief by taking out the penalty provision. I think the most harmful thing of this bill is probably taking out the attorney's fees and costs. So in Arkansas, we go by what's called the American rule. I think a lot of people are under the understanding or the wrongful presumption that if you prevail in a lawsuit, you're automatically going to get your attorney's fees and costs. but that's not the case. So if you take out attorney's fees in a statute and you prevail,
you're not going to get the attorney's fees. So if someone was harmed by one of these cards or the lack of disclosures under the card and they brought a suit, they could pay thousands of dollars for representations, but they're not going to get that back in the end. I also think it cuts into the AG's enforcement of it by taking out the penalty provisions and also by taking out some enforcement teeth with the written notice. This legislation would allow a company.
Mr. Calhoun, you're out of time. I would assume there will be questions from the committee.
Speaker 26
11:13
All right, thank you. Any questions from the committee? Senator
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
11:18
Tucker? Could you just expound a bit on the last thing you were
Speaker 56
11:23
saying, the most harmful part of the bill? I think I was going into the 30-day written notice and cure period. Yeah. Basically, under this, no matter how bad the violation of the statute is,
the company would get a 30-day window to cure any kind of violation they're under, which takes out all of the teeth of the legislation. Thank you. Senator Stubblefield, you recognize? All right. The
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
11:49
current law is a 30-year-plus-old consumer protection law, correct? I believe, Your Honor, I mean, I'm sorry,
Speaker 56
11:57
Your Honor, I'm used to be in a court. Senator, I believe it was passed in 2005, if I recall correctly.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
12:04
So that provides civil penalties and is meant to be a deterrent, correct? That's correct. Okay. When the amendment that requires injury and disallows attorney's fees, You're left with a consumer protection statute that is useless as a consumer. Is that not correct? Yes, Senator. I would agree that's correct. When I
Speaker 56
12:24
was working at the Attorney General's office, there's only so much an office can handle. So a lot of times in these statutes, you're really relying on that consumer enforcement for them to be able to bring actions and hold these companies accountable.
Because it's not for the benefit of the company or to punish the company. to provide the consumer an avenue for relief and to prevent this conduct. But if you take out attorney's fees, there's not a mechanism to do that. So then you're relying strictly on the Attorney General's office, which then is probably going to only focus on systematic violations. Then you put on top of that this cure period and you really don't have an enforcement action either from the consumer or the Attorney General's point of
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
13:08
view. Well, the Attorney General doesn't make laws. I mean, the
last section added requires a 30-day written notice,
and that can be summed up as follows. You must inform me if I have messed up. I must then apologize and say that I'm sorry, and you can no longer see
me. Does that pretty well sum it up? I think that sums it up,
Speaker 56
13:30
and then after that 30 days, if there was an issue whether they did cure it or not, then who decides then whether it was cured? That's all I have right now, Mr. Chairman.
Bart Calhoun
Unverified
13:39
Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Kellen, would you
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
13:45
just talk, we haven't talked a lot about the consumer to this point.
We talked about the process, you know, for providing relief. Can you just describe what some of the harms to the consumers are that
Speaker 56
13:57
these lawsuits seek to prevent? Well, I think one of the main ones is consumers thinking that they have something that they don't, whether it be in the way of that it's an insurance card or something like that. So consumers are going to get these cards and maybe think if there's not these disclosures in there that these cards do something that they don't and rely on that instead of going out and getting insurance or other avenues of funding for their medical necessities.
And without the disclosures in there, regardless of whether the company you get the card from or not is getting paid, that risk is still
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
14:30
on the consumer. So they might think they have insurance, not go
get insurance, and then have something happen to them, not have coverage, and really be in a bad
Speaker 56
14:39
position. Right, especially in the context of thinking about showing up to, you know, you have emergency treatment and things like
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
14:47
that. Right. All right. Thank you. Senator Stubblefield? Yeah, just because the card is free, that does not mean that a consumer should lose their protection. Is that correct?
Speaker 56
14:56
Right. Regardless whether a consumer pays for it or not, they should still be able to get the same
protections under the statute. Right. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Other questions from the committee? Let me follow up in the vein of Senator Tucker. I appreciate the exchange. But let me, because my interest here would purely be consumers. I don't know how well the bill's written.
Using this lawsuit as an example, who would be harmed? So
Speaker 56
15:35
in regards to the lawsuit, I'm not involved in any of the lawsuit. Do you have any knowledge of the lawsuit? I know there's a lawsuit pending. I haven't gone and reviewed the lawsuit. I don't know what the claimed damages are for the lawsuit. I don't know what the claimed harm is. I'm speaking just directly on the bill. So the harms that I'm testifying to are the ones that I've kind of exchanged with Senator Tucker, just about any consumer in general, not those in the lawsuit, not having the disclosures that are otherwise afforded to these consumers who have paid for cards.
Are you aware that in some of these lawsuits, because I was
not aware, that in some of these lawsuits that it is not actually the people that are harmed that
Speaker 56
16:26
get paid? I'm not aware of that. I mean, I'm aware that in lawsuits when there's attorney's fees, provisions, then there, I don't know the relationship between the consumer and their attorney. I'm not involved on that.
Okay. And I don't suppose there's anyone here who can offer us
Speaker 94
16:58
knowledge on that subject. NEW SPEAKER: Because
I'm interested in whether it is possible to sue a company without actually having standing and collect based on the harm that was done to other people and the people
that supposedly were harmed don't get anything.
Speaker 56
17:23
and Mr. Chairman respectfully I understand that that concern unfortunately I think the bill here with what it does is it doesn't just address that concern okay but again so there so
keep in mind I haven't been one day of law school so if if I have a valid concern
how does that work if you
My concern is that we have laws on the books that say that you can sue a company without actually having been harmed on the basis that somebody else has been harmed, but yet you can collect outside attorney fees and the people who have been harmed don't get a
dime. I am confused by that and concerned by that. Chairman, I'm not aware of
Speaker 56
18:18
any lawsuit where you bring an action on behalf of someone and that person or those that are harmed
aren't given compensation. I'm not saying you're incorrect on that. I'm saying I'm not aware of it. Interesting. I don't
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
18:37
believe you can file a lawsuit unless your client has been harmed. Now, there might be someone else who suffered the same harm that you don't represent and you can't file a lawsuit on their behalf if you don't represent them unless it's a class action. But if your client hasn't sustained harm, then I don't
believe you have standing to file a lawsuit. Interesting. Chairman, this
Speaker 96
19:02
could go the same for the DTPA. I think I was recognized. Senator Hester. Senator Clark, I
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
19:09
have somebody with me that I intended to have sitting with me during testimony that can answer that
question if you want. Yes, I very much want. It's very much important to my vote an answer to that question.
Would you please identify yourself, make sure the mic's on and identify
Speaker 107
19:35
yourself for the record. Senator Martin Caston, I'm with the law firm of Friday, Ellers and Clark. We are the law firm that is defending these lawsuits that have been filed regarding these cards that Mr. Hester has referenced. I'm happy to answer any questions. Just as a couple of preliminary things, Mr. Hester is correct that the intent of these cards is to save Arkansas consumers money on prescription drugs.
In these lawsuits, the plaintiffs are trying essentially to take advantage of some technicalities and loopholes that are involved as far as whether a certain print is in bold or not, even though the print is there. Statements are there. There has been no accusation of actual damages in the complaint that's been filed in Polk County. There's been no proof as to any consumer being deceived thus far.
And, you know, the plaintiff in the complaint has even stated that the foundation has not used one of these cards. So I think what maybe Senator Tucker and others about having a standing issue for having these types of statutes that allow pursuit without actual damages is one of the problems that we're encountering with the statute.
Well, I wish we had a bill before us that covered that. The, but I do have concern, and full disclosure, I have a card, I have a card that the nurse practitioner clinic that I go to gave me, because
I have health insurance, and the, on certain prescriptions, saves me a lot of money.
If it saves me a lot of money, then it saves other consumers with less means than me a lot of money. And whether somebody could perceive it to be insurance or not, I think is beyond. I certainly didn't perceive it to be that. But this question, because I'd never heard this, and evidently two attorneys here had never heard this, That you could, one, without being damaged, sue for, you know, and collect based on other people being supposedly damaged.
That is possible. Yes, Senator.
Speaker 107
22:36
I mean, that's the theory that the plaintiffs are operating under with this lawsuit.
That is correct, is my understanding. Okay.
Speaker 107
22:50
What does this bill do to address that? I think essentially what, you know, Senator Hester was talking about is that this bill essentially removes this practice by GoodRx, our client, from being within the scope of the statute and therefore obviating the need or the legitimacy of any kind of lawsuit.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
23:18
You got a question, Senator Tucker? Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's been a long day, Mr. Cass. You doing okay? I
am. It's good to see you, Senator. You too. You too. It's been a long day. Can you, I'm just trying to wrap my brain
Speaker 107
23:41
around this concept of a lawsuit where the plaintiff hadn't been harmed. Can you explain that one more time? Yeah, as I understand the existing statute, it does not require any actual damage. If somebody is actually damaged, I think they can recover, but I don't think that it's required.
As I understand it, there's a $100 penalty per violation or here potentially per card that's issued in the state. And that when that, if a plaintiff somehow were to recover that, there's, the statute doesn't provide for, for example, distribution of that collection back out to anybody who had a card. It appears from the statute's language that the plaintiff keeps the money. I mean, for example, this is not a
traditional Rule 23 class action, as you and I might understand that term. This is a statutory collective action that does not have all the safeguards that we would normally see in that class action situation okay i don't know if you helped participate in the writing of
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
24:45
the bill and maybe it's a question for senator hester but i'm curious if if y'all
contemplated putting in the and i think this is kind of what senator clark was getting at if you contemplated putting
in the bill a requirement that someone had to be harmed before they could before they had standing to sue under the statute did y'all did anybody consider that
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
25:18
i think it's just basic common sense that someone would actually have to be harmed to be able to sue that doesn't mean a
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
25:28
lot to tall building lawyers mr casson's a tall building lawyer i say
that with all due respect to the friday elgin clark
firm. I first got to know, full disclosure, I got to know Mr. Keston when I was a summer employee of the Friday Eldridge and Clark law firm 21 years ago. So anyway, no disparagement
there. But okay. Sticking with the consumer, Mr. Calhoun, I think this sort of goes to what
you were talking about with one of the biggest risks of the bill if a company has engaged in conduct that violates the statute
and then they get noticed and they cure the conduct and there can be no accountability again i'm sort of confused about this concept of plaintiffs without harm but let's just say for the sake of this question that a plaintiff has been harmed and they've been harmed substantially, this bill would preclude them that the plaintiff who has been harmed from getting any recovery, because while the conduct may have maybe stopped moving
forward, which is a positive, there's no accountability for the
conduct that's already occurred, the conduct that's harmed that plaintiff. Is that right? I
Bart Calhoun
Unverified
26:51
agree, Senator, And that's one of the issues I have with the legislation. Senator Calhoun, for some reason,
we're not hearing you very well.
Bart Calhoun
Unverified
27:00
Is that better? That's better. So one of the main issues we have is in regards
Speaker 56
27:05
to that provision. So I know we've been talking a lot about standing the past few minutes, which is important.
And if all this bill did was fix or, you know, clarify the standing, that's one thing. But this bill does the 30-day notice, an opportunity to cure. It takes out the exchange for fee provision would take out companies that aren't receiving fees from consumers. There's other parts of this that I'm here testifying directly related to the consumer, not to an ongoing lawsuit or standing or lawyers that are making money. That could be addressed separately if there was an issue. I'm talking about the
Speaker 63
27:43
consumer-oriented provisions in this and that I think could affect consumers going forward.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
27:48
Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Other questions from committee? Senator Stubblefield? Can you tell me if there's a current lawsuit that's been filed on behalf
of our candidates against the company for not following a very simple consumer protection law?
Speaker 56
28:23
Senator, are you asking me or my colleague? I'm asking you, Mr. Cowan. To my
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
28:32
knowledge, there has been. I'm not familiar with the lawsuit. Okay. Now, this may not be important to the other committee members. I don't know. But it's
important to me because I want to get to know more about this company. So I looked up some things about it. I Googled them up, and I want to read them, and you tell me if I'm right or wrong. We provide access to abortion.
We are updating our benefits to reimburse employees
for travel expenses related to accessing reproductive health care. We have also launched a new reproductive health center to provide all people with resources around emergency
contraception, abortion costs, and access. Our mission is to provide Americans with excess care and to provide women with abortions. Is that a true statement?
Speaker 96
29:20
Senator, I hate to answer that.
They're not my client and my colleague sitting here. It might be
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
29:32
a better question for him. I can answer. It's a true statement for both, the lawyers
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
29:48
is GoodRx's policy. And the lawyers. Anything else, Senator? Well, there's a difference
in a lawyer and a firm, Senator Hester.
I mean, a whole conglomerate, a company, than one individual. No, sir, I can talk. An individual may have a
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
30:05
separate. Okay, so this is the firm's. It's the firm's position. In fact, the firm has represented, sued two states advocating for young
girls to get double mastectomies and young boys to be castrated. They give free legal services to sue states like us who protect young children from double mastectomies and castration. And they provide the funds
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
30:27
for these people to go to these states and have that done?
does. That's what I wanted to know. Yeah. Thank you. the yes I have no doubt that I know they did with me so
I'm sure they did with you that the lobbyists have made sure that we know that both sides do not have political views that most of us would agree with the I think this bill is gonna be one of the hardest ones to stay on the bill but we need to and again I
I don't have any problem with any question that you ask. We're pretty freewheeling
here and you always do a good job, but need to try to stay with the bill and what the bill does and whether that's a good idea or isn't a good idea. At the same time, it is hard to ignore how it affects consumers, whether the bill's written well or not.
Speaker 142
31:43
If you have another question, Senator Stofield. - Well, you know, when I
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
31:52
read the bold letters, - Would you turn your mic on, please? - When I read in large bold letters that this company provides access to healthcare is everyone's right. Well, I agree with that, but you know what? When you're deprived of life at birth, you no longer have liberties. or you no longer have life. So that's a pretty strong stance that a company takes.
Speaker 144
32:14
And it's not the one I would want to do business with. Maybe some others
would, but not myself. - I think that's a good point. I do
do business with them, kinda. And that they work to get discounts on certain drugs, probably all drugs, but the farmers. So, but I agree with your point of view, but on the, and each one of us can vote however we want to vote.
It comes back to whether, what we think the law should be. Other questions from the committee?
Speaker 146
33:03
mr was martin something yes senator martin caston
mr mccaston did you have anything to do with writing this bill i did not okay uh the i think that senator tucker and mr calhoun make
some good points on the legislation itself. Senator Hester I don't know that the bill is written as well as it could be by a long shot and I don't know if it
passes here that you get it all the way through and
knowing what I believe I know, I wish that weren't the
case. But no other questions from the
committee. We have no one else signed up to testify. Senator Hester, you are recognized close for
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
34:07
your bill. Thank you, members. You know, there was a question about whether somebody had to be harmed, and on page 3, lines 6, 7, and 8, it It clarifies that between seven and eight. It says if injured, someone may seek compensation. But look, and I'm going to speak more to Senator Stubblefield since he brought this up.
Both sides have just untenable, untenable, in my opinion, in your opinion, political beliefs. All right. They both believe in not protecting the life of the unborn. One side gives free legal services to those that want to mutilate children, right? Both sides, equal standing on that. So I hope we can just move to what's important about this bill. Are we going to stand up for the little guy?
And I've appreciated this committee. They've always stick up for the little guy. This card right here, this is about this language on the bottom. They say it's not bold enough. That's it. There it is. There it is. Good Rx is not insurance. There it is on the card. It's not bold enough. That's what this is about. This is junk lawsuits. Junk lawsuits. And we don't want these companies coming into the state of Arkansas starting to continue to sue.
They sue Blue Cross Blue Shield. They sue CVS. They sue Simmons Bank. They sue Walmart. They're going to sue one
of your local business owners next and harm your community. With that, I ask for a
good vote. Will the committee? Motion. Motion to pass as amended from Senator Dees. Second from Senator Gilmore. Discussion? Senator Tucker? I'll be very brief. I don't
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
35:56
want to relitigate anything. One thing I respect about Senator Hester is he tells it like it is. He doesn't beat it around the bush.
The fact that this would affect ongoing litigation, I don't believe we should pass legislation that we know is going to affect ongoing litigation that's been going for some time. I just, if we pass laws that are prospective in nature and may change future cases, we do that all the time. I don't think we should pass bills that affect cases that have been going. And I think we also put some consumers at risk if we pass this bill. I think we should put that if injured language in, you know, that Senator Hester read. If that were the bill, I could support
it. But in terms of the retroactivity and preventing consumers from having the ability to recover
for the harm that they have, those are my hold-ups. Senator Deese? Thank
you, Mr. Chair. I'm seeing if injured in the bill, so that puts me at comfort
on page 3, line 7. And I think what I enjoy about this effort is that we've
got a very litigious atmosphere constantly that folks are looking for reasons to come after folks
to make money, to profit off of. And it's pretty frustrating when you see it's over a font size is the crux of what we're doing. So that's the reason I'm in favor
of this bill. Thank you. Senator Ross? Committee
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
37:33
discussion. Senator Tucker, could you expound? because I came in at a late and that's something that's concerned me is the retroactivity. Can you, is that abnormal?
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
37:45
I'm sure it's not unprecedented. I'm sure it's happened before. But it's very abnormal. Okay. I can't recall a time when we passed a bill that we knew for certain was going to affect ongoing litigation. Thank you.
I do. My first session. But before I say it, tell what it was, it's not that I disagree. I have not got overly excited about this bill in the time that it's been out there and we've been lobbied.
Because big guys after big guys, and they're already in a lawsuit, that's not some place where I immediately want to jump to help anybody. I think there is consumer involvement, and it's not in being harmed by thinking that it's insurance or that the wording was not bold. But I'm not the judge in the case. But it would be harmed because I can tell you I've got medicine that will cost me a lot more money if this company is no longer doing business in the state or paying huge amounts out.
And then to find, again, separate from the bill, but all part of the information, to find that the party suing is not harmed, but may get a large amount of money. And the people that we're crying about will get nothing if they, in fact, were harmed. Those things bother me. But back to school choice in 2013, Governor Beebe told us over and over and over to let the courts settle it.
There was a lawsuit in place that we should let it go. I disagreed. I said the courts are watching us and very much would like to hear from us. And as it turned out, when we barely squeaked a landmark school choice bill through, that the courts did indeed say the legislature has settled it. And so I think it ought to be a rarity that we involve ourselves in such things
because it can get kind of fishy smelling for these type of things. And I think that you and Senator Calhoun brought out some good points. While this may fix the situation, it may cause harm in other situations. So this is certainly not a slam dunk on either side, in my opinion. I think it's apparent, I think, that I'm going to vote yes.
BUT I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH THINGS TO THINK ABOUT ON EITHER SIDE TO MAKE THIS ONE A DIFFICULT ONE. OTHER DISCUSSION?
HEARING NONE, WE HAVE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. DO PASS AS AMENDED. ALL FOR THE MOTION, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? NO. Okay, I'm going to do a roll call because it sounded like it was close enough to have passed and I'm not sure.
Speaker 167
41:11
But if it passed, it barely passed. Senator Stubblefield? Senator Stubblefield? No. Senator Rice? Senator Rice, no. Senator Johnson? Yes. Senator Rice? Senator Johnson, yes. Senator Tucker? SENATOR TUCKER? NO. SENATOR GILMORE? YES. SENATOR GILMORE? YES. SENATOR MCKEY? NO. SENATOR MCKEY? NO. SENATOR DEESE? YES. SENATOR DEESE? YES.
THERE'S FOUR NO'S, SENATOR HESTER. YOUR BILL HAS FAILED. WHO'S UP NEXT? You didn't go first?
Speaker 172
42:04
We got out of order. Well, the directions
were for you to go for it. Senator Johnson, you're recognized for present your bill. That's all right. You don't take over?
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
42:20
Is there anybody else after Blake Johnson? There's a hole.
order? No. Okay. All right, Senator Johnson, you are recognized to identify yourself
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
42:47
and tell us which bill you're looking at. It's 597, Senator Blake Johnson, District 21. This is another bill, the Banking Association, and I forgot to file before spring break.
She emailed it, and she didn't text me also. Yeah, I told her it don't work with 150, 200 emails a day. So anyway, this is a threat to a financial institution employee. It creates a Class B misdemeanor. I don't know what that's equivalent to. Is that a speeding ticket or what? But help me out, Tucker.
that's that's about it uh you got anything to add
Speaker 181
43:35
there i would just give one example sorry we're trogden president and ceo of the arkansas bankers association um just recently and apparently this happens often um we had a bank employee that was working on a foreclosure and and got several calls from a very upset customer they ended up having to send her home and hire an off-duty deputy to be in the bank lobby for the rest of the week um just to make sure she was kept safe so that happens a lot in a lot of different lobbies for a variety of reasons and people get banned
from lobbies but it's much more common than people
know. Thank you. Anything else? I'm good. Okay any questions for Senator Johnson on Senate Bill 597?
Speaker 187
44:25
Is that like a speeding ticker ticket or
Speaker 188
44:28
what? we're going to pause for senator
tucker is looking up if he has a question or not
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
44:40
he's got it back behind you bill is there 30 days
and fine up to 2,500 you recognize senator tucker 90 days for class b uh and then a thousand not up to 90 days for Class B, up to $1,000 fine for Class
B. I better write that down, hadn't I? All right. Any further questions? Seeing none, we don't have anybody signed up for or against. Seeing no one in the crowd to speak for or against. Senator Johnson, you're free to close for your bill.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
45:11
Thank you. I'm at the will of the committee. I'd appreciate a good vote and make a motion to do
pass. We have a motion from Senator Johnson and a second from Senator Gilmore to do pass on Senate Bill 597. All in favor, signal by saying aye. OPPOSED LIKE SIGN. CONGRATULATIONS, SENATE BILL 597 HAS PASSED. ALL RIGHT, WE ARE MOVING TO SENATOR LEDDING. SENATOR LEDDING, PLEASE IDENTIFY
YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD AND TELL US WHICH BILL YOU'RE REFERENCING TODAY. THE
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
45:45
VERY TIRED SENATOR GREG LEDDING FROM DISTRICT 30 IN FAYETTEVILLE. I HAVE THREE. WE'RE GOING TO START WITH SENATE bill 458 and there is an amendment for this bill. Okay.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
45:53
458. Senator Gilmore is recognized. Just a point of privilege. I'd like to remind the good Senator Letting that he's done enough. He can stop running bills. Noted. Thank you, sir. All right.
While the amendment is being passed out, would your guests please identify herself for the record as well? Thank
Speaker 203
46:11
you, Mr. Chair. Emily Virgin, Director of Advocacy and Government Relations at Human Rights for Kids. Thank you, Ms. Virgin.
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
46:19
the amendment I can just explain that very quickly just
incorporating some feedback for that we got from this committee from the prosecutors and from Judge Braswell who spoke on this bill essentially we struck a lot of the legislative findings from the front we took out the mandatory minimum part that I know was a concern for many of you and I specifically remember Senator McKee having concerns over that issue and incorporated like I said some language
that Judge Braswell recommended and that is the amendment thank you we have a Motion from Senator Dease to adopt the amendment. Do I see a second? Second from Senator Stubblefield. All in favor of adoption of the amendment. Signal by saying aye. Opposed, like sign. All right. It is passed. The amendment has been adopted. Please proceed with Senate Bill 458 as amended.
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
47:05
Sure. And won't spend too much time since we did spend quite a few minutes talking about this bill last week. Essentially what we're doing is just trying to make sure that when a minor is being sentenced that we are considering certain factors from their childhood, including traumatic experiences. We understand that this is usually the practice in juvenile courts, but it's not always the case that adult court judges do this kind of thing. And with that,
Speaker 202
47:30
I will let Ms. Virgin say a few things. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair and members. So in the last committee meeting, I think there was some discussion about whether this evidence is already being considered at transfer hearings.
And what we heard was that generally, yes, if that hearing is being conducted in the juvenile court, juvenile court judges are pretty well trained on these things and are considering them. However, what we have learned in speaking with the juvenile ombudsman in particular is that in cases where she's called to testify in transfer hearings, the vast majority of those are taking place in adult courts. And so those judges are not as well trained or as well experienced in the backgrounds of juveniles.
And so what this would do is require that those judges have that consideration as well. And something else that I think would be of note to the committee is that attorneys also look at these statutes, defense attorneys, in preparing for a hearing and having this language specifically that they must consider they should present evidence if it's available on trauma, on adverse childhood experiences, and on evidence of the child's status as a victim of trafficking or abuse.
That gives defense attorneys a roadmap to be able to know what a judge must consider. And so what we're doing is not only providing that roadmap for attorneys, but also ensuring that this evidence is considered whether you're at a juvenile court or whether you're in an adult court. And so I'd be happy to take any
questions. This is probably a naive question for myself. But when a case is decided to go to, you said some judges have more experience in juvenile cases and some more adult.
What's the signal of sending a case to which judge?
Is it by age of the defendant or is it clear cut? Will you help
Speaker 202
49:29
me understand that? So when you're dealing with a case that is up for transfer, so a child, essentially it's a decision of whether a child should be in juvenile court or whether they should be in adult court. There is nothing that says which court
Speaker 203
49:45
they should consider whether, which court is appropriate. Sorry, I'm also tired and hungry.
So my brain may not be working as well as it should. But so what you have is that
Speaker 202
49:58
there isn't a whole lot of consistency when it comes to where this transfer hearing is taking place and what kinds of judges are considering it. So you could be in juvenile or adult court considering whether a child should be tried as an adult. Thank
you. Members, any questions? I see none.
We do have, I believe, potentially two people signed up to speak against the bill.
The first is a Tom Tatum. This is from the previous bill sign-up. Is Tom
was no one else. Did I miss anybody on the list? Okay. We also have Mr. Paul Calvert. That's a different bill. Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry, wrong bill. Excuse me. All right. Anybody else in the room? I'm not seeing any. Okay. All right. Senator Letting, you're free to close for your bill. I'm closed. I would ask for a good vote. Okay. Members?
I've got a motion from Senator Gilmore as amended. A motion do pass as amended from Senator Gilmore. Do I hear a second? A second from Senator Stubblefield. All in favor to pass Senate Bill 458 as amended, signal by saying aye. Opposed, like sign. All right, congratulations, Senate Bill 458 as amended has passed. Thank you. Senate Bill 595.
Yes, sir. Okay, we've got an amendment on Senate Bill 595 that's being passed out as well.
Speaker 209
51:32
Yes. these amendments add the house sponsors yes
all right that amendment is being passed out sure and
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
51:48
i can describe the amendment briefly this adds a house sponsor senator johnson uh it also incorporates feedback that we got from senator mckee while we were vetting this bill and some feedback that we got from the prosecutors THANK YOU
SENATOR LETTING YOU'VE HEARD THE DESCRIPTION OF THE AMENDMENT DO I SEE A MOTION
TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENT I SEE A MOTION FROM SENATOR RICE A SECOND FROM SENATOR TUCKER ALL IN FAVOR TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENT SIGNAL BY SAYING AYE OPPOSED LIKE SIGN CONGRATULATION THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN ADOPTED YOU ARE FREE TO PRESENT THE BILL AS AMENDED ALL RIGHT THANK YOU MR. VICE CHAIR THIS IS A
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
52:19
LITTLE BIT MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD ALL WE'RE SAYING HERE IS THAT IF A MINOR IS GOING TO BE INTERROGATED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT THEY SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE A PARENT or guardian with them in the room. Again, we incorporated some feedback from Senator McKee who wanted to make sure that if the parent is also perhaps a suspect in whatever it is that
the child is being questioned over, that that is taken into consideration. And then also incorporated some feedback from the prosecutors who said what if they can't make contact with the parent or guardian. And so we've just said that they need to make a reasonable attempt to contact them. Speaking with the vice chair earlier, asked why we wouldn't have the minor be required to have an attorney with them. We actually tried that four years ago and was not able to get that passed but we do feel with all the work that we're doing to empower parents the least we can do is make sure that a child has a parent or guardian
with them while they're being interrogated and with that I'll
Speaker 202
53:12
let Ms. Virgin speak. Thank you Senator Letting and thank you Mr. Chair, members. Senator Letting has explained this very well this really is about ensuring that when a child is being interrogated by law enforcement no matter what the offense is that they speak with a parent or legal guardian before they waive their rights before they can be interrogated by law enforcement. We feel this is important for a number of reasons. Number one I think it is common sense that a parent rule would want to be would want to actually consult with
their child have some contact with their child before they are interrogated by law enforcement. We know that this is important for a number of reasons and I think incumbent upon this committee is to make sure that that there is integrity and these interrogations and so to ensure that children understand the gravity of the situation, that they understand the seriousness of the situation, that they understand the consequences of waiving their Miranda rights and speaking to law enforcement. Those are all very important things to
ensure the integrity of law enforcement interrogations and to prevent false confessions. I won't belabor the point or give you all of the numbers but we know that children are at a much higher risk of falsely confessing to something. We have seen that time and time again. Children just don't understand sometimes they think if they tell law enforcement what they want to hear then they'll get to go home that's not the case but that is something that a child
in this situation might believe and so for them to just have this simple consultation with their parent it can take place via phone video conference or in person and then the exceptions that we've built in number one if the parent is is a co-defendant number two if the parent is unavailable and law enforcement has made an effort to contact them and then also there is an exception for if the parent has harmed the child so if they've been convicted of
if they've been accused of or if they are being investigated for some sort of crime against the child and wouldn't necessarily have the child's best interest at heart then that would be provided for as an exception. We tried to incorporate all the feedback that we've received on this to cover all of those situations where this might not be reasonable or protective of the child. And I will say that current law in the juvenile code says that a parent must be notified that their child has been taken into custody but there's currently no
requirement that the parent and the child actually consult with one another. Thank you for
the description of the bill. Members do we have
questions? Seeing none, we do have some folks signed up for and against, I believe, here. We've got Mr. Brian Sexton. I'm free to come to the table. And we also have a Will Johnson.
Sorry, Will Jones, excuse me. Please identify yourself for the record. And we do have a three-minute testimony. Is this a one testimony or separate just for our timing records? Need to make sure we're clear on that. We're going to try
Speaker 228
56:38
to make it one testimony as best we can. And I'm David Etheridge. I'm the elected prosecutor from the
Speaker 229
56:44
14th Judicial District. Brian Sexton, elected prosecutor, Benton County, 19th Judicial District West. Will Jones,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
56:49
elected prosecutor for Velasquez and Perry County, right here in Little Rock.
Thank you. You gentlemen are recognized in three minutes for
Speaker 229
56:58
testimony. Thank you. We are against the recommended changes for a number of reasons. The first and foremost is we believe that the juvenile code covers these particular provisions quite well. Not every juvenile is a juvenile. At some point, a prosecutor has to make a determination based on the history of a child, based on what officers can determine for their investigations, that they're not living as a juvenile. They're living as an adult.
And that usually, with the consideration of the seriousness of the charge, triggers the prosecutor's obligation to consider an adult case. That said, that's not set in stone. A juvenile can ask for a transfer hearing, and all of those factors are built into the transfer hearing to make a determination on whether the juvenile understands what's going on. I believe that that has already been set forth by the legislature. It does its job, and these changes are not needed. I'll defer to my colleagues.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
57:56
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be brief. Obviously, I'm the prosecutor in Little Rock, and I can safely say it's the most violent county in the state. We've got currently right now, just looking at our numbers from this morning when I knew this was going to run, we've got 52 juveniles right now in our jurisdiction charged as adults for very serious crimes. Murders, shootings, batteries, terroristic acts, all kinds of things like that. And what we have happened, in fact, we've had four since four capital murders have been committed by juveniles since the first of the year, first of January.
So what we run into is we have violent adults that want to have juveniles carry out their violent acts. And we see that. And it's a term that the people that I work with in our community, they call them crash test dummies. They literally get juveniles to go commit their offenses because they know they won't face the same amount of time as others. And so now this would be a situation where you say, you go carry out this execution that I want done and just make sure that we don't have your parents around and make sure that then you don't even have to talk about it as an adult if you are caught and questioned by police.
And I just don't want to put children in that situation. And as Mr. Sexton said, the case law right now covers that. If it is a case that is prosecuted in juvenile court, you have to have juvenile Miranda, which has the parents and
all that. If it's a case that we make the decision to charge someone and it stays in adult court, then they are treated as
an adult. Thank you. Members, any questions for the prosecutors?
All right, seeing none, thank you for your testimony today. That's helpful for me. I think that was one of my questions about which court,
and it sounds like that's some definitional examples there. So thank you. All right,
any further questions? Seeing none, Senator Letting, you are free to close for your bill. NEW SPEAKER: CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THOSE
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
59:51
COMMENTS, BUT STILL FEEL THAT IF ANY OF US, IF OUR CHILD WAS BEING INTERROGATED, WE WOULD ABSOLUTELY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE THERE WITH THEM
DURING THAT PROCESS. WITH THAT, WE ARE CLOSED. NEW SPEAKER: THANK YOU, SENATOR LEDING. LET'S
THE WILL OF THE COMMITTEE. I SEE A MOTION DUE PASS FROM SENATOR TUCKER AS AMENDED.
I DO NOT SEE A SECOND. WITHOUT A SECOND, I'M SORRY THAT THE BILL has failed. Thank you.
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
1:00:21
Just one more that would also be very brief. Yes, sir. This would be Senate Bill 549. And if Mr. Calvert would like to come to the table. There is also an
amendment. Yes. Do we have an amendment for this one? Well, so yes. I guess we do have an amendment there that is being passed out. If you want this to be an amendment, we have an amendment.
AND MR. CALVERT, WILL YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF WITH THE RECORD, PLEASE? PAUL CALVERT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. YOU ARE FREE TO DESCRIBE
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
1:01:00
YOUR AMENDMENT. YES. SO THIS AMENDMENT CAME TO US JUST THIS AFTERNOON FROM A JUDGE UP IN NORTHWEST ARKANSAL. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS DID NOT CONFLICT SHOULD IT PASS WITH THE LAW THAT WE PASSED EARLIER THIS SESSION. THANK YOU.
MEMBERS, YOU'VE HEARD THE THE AMENDMENT AND I'VE GOT A MOTION TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENT FROM SENATOR DEESE, DO I SEE
A SECOND? I SEE A SECOND FROM SENATOR JOHNSON. ALL IN FAVOR TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENT SIGNAL BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED LIKE SIGN. CONGRATS, YOUR AMENDMENT HAS BEEN ADOPTED. YOU'RE FREE TO PRESENT AS
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
1:01:30
AMENDED. THE IDEA BEHIND THE BILL IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. IT'S JUST SAYING THAT IF SOMEONE, IF A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE IS ACQUITTED OR THE CASE IS DISMISSED, THEY can have any fees that they might have paid refunded. We've gone back and forth. I know there have been some concerns. We've addressed some of those with that amendment. We learned just this evening at the start of the committee hearing a gentleman reached
out to Senator Gilmore to express concerns that it's not clear enough that the funds should be paid, the fees should be refunded by the state and that any third party vendor that might have, say, provided an ankle monitor is not made to return those fees. SO WE WOULD NEED TO CLARIFY THAT TO A VERBAL AMENDMENT IN COMMITTEE. THANK
YOU, SENATOR LETTY. MR. CALVERT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD
Speaker 246
1:02:17
ANYTHING? I WAS JUST GOING TO CLARIFY HOW THAT
Paul Calvert
Unverified
1:02:19
VERBAL AMENDMENT WAS GOING TO BE PUT IN.
I TALKED TO SENATOR CLARK ABOUT THAT A FEW MINUTES AGO AND HE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE OKAY. SO IN LINE 34 ON THE FIRST PAGE WHERE IT SAYS SHALL BE REFUNDED TO THE DEFENDANT, WE WOULD add shall be refunded by the state to the defendant okay line 34 page one
shall it says shall be refunded to defend it and you want you would change it to what shall be refunded
Paul Calvert
Unverified
1:02:43
by the the state by the state to the defense so add three words there by the state okay
I'M GOING TO CHECK WITH STAFF. I BELIEVE THAT IS
TECHNICAL IN NATURE VERSUS SUBSTANTIVE, BUT I DO WANT TO VALIDATE HERE.
So members, just for discussion purposes on it, we need to decide if we believe that's technical in nature versus substantive. And if it's substantive, okay, well, our options are to decide if it's technical. If we don't believe it's technical, there is another option to suspend the rules. But let's make that determination here.
One more time, Mr. Calvert, could you describe, just so we have it correct,
Paul Calvert
Unverified
1:04:06
on line 34, we would strike to the defendant if. We wouldn't strike anything. We would just add the three words by the state. So to the defendant, by the state, if. Refunded by the state to the defendant. Refunded? Okay. So after the word refunded, we should add the three words by the state. Understood. Okay. Thank you for the clarity. If it helps any about the amount, we're talking
Speaker 246
1:04:32
a pretty small amount of money here.
Okay. I don't know if that... I'm going to open up to
just a discussion with the members here. Members, any thoughts or comments? Again,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:04:44
Senator Gilmore. Thank you. Thank you for recognition there. I think I generally like the idea of what we're trying to do. I just think some more clarity would be helpful. I know it's late, and I know we're late in the session, but I'm concerned that maybe we need to take a little more time to think
it through. Any other discussion from the—or Senator Letting, would you like to respond?
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
1:05:07
No, I certainly understand, and it sounds like we're not going to agree to the verbal amendment, and it's my understanding that we don't have the support if we don't get that clarified, so we're happy to pull the bill down and discuss an amendment and get something
engrossed. I think that's wise by some nods I'm seeing, so we'll be ready when you come
back. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Are there other bills? Senator Letting, or was it those two? Okay, thank you. All right, members, we're going to go to House Bill, let me look at here, 1630.
1630, and I believe Senator Gilmore is running with some Prosecutor Jones to the
table. All right. Senator Gilmore, please recognize
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:05:56
yourself and prosecute Jones as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Gilmore,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:06:01
District 1. Will Jones, prosecuting attorney for Pulaski and
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:06:04
Perry County. Thank you. I'm here for House Bill 1630. With that, I would turn it over to the prosecutor.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:06:13
Well, I'm not used to this part, but I think I can get through it here. So this bill is one that we want to run because what it is is it essentially makes any drug transaction a predicate offense for capital murder. Right now, and we've had this. We've had this come up several times in Little Rock, and people don't really believe it, but the most violent drug in Little Rock is marijuana. We have drug deals all the time where people get killed. And so if it's a drug deal that involves 14 grams of marijuana or less and someone gets killed in that drug deal, they can't be charged with capital murder as a predicate offense.
And so the misdemeanor marijuana transactions are no less dangerous, no less deadly than the felony ones. And so if someone had a drug transaction that had 15 grams of marijuana and someone was killed during that transaction, they could be charged as capital murder. But if it's 14 grams or less, they couldn't be charged. And so we've had a couple of specific cases, one that happened at about 3 o'clock outside of one of our elementary schools where there were multiple shots fired.
Speaker 266
1:07:22
I mean, like 30 to 40 shots that were fired. And we didn't know, we couldn't tell exactly who pulled the gun first, and people, either one of them had some self-defense claims there, and so we
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:07:34
couldn't charge capital murder. But if it would have been a felony amount, if that particular case was a misdemeanor amount of marijuana, if it would have been a felony amount, then we could have charged him with felony murder and the capital murder. And so one of the things that we did on the House end, Jeff Rosenswag, who is a prominent defense attorney and I think is familiar to people in this committee,
he had some ideas that we should also amend murder in the first degree and all the way down to manslaughter to make the lesser included offenses track with that. And so the bill was pulled down and that amendment was made, and that's when it was passed out of the House. So it's a very simple thing just to make any drug
transaction, when someone is killed during that drug transaction, that the person could be charged with murder. Thank
you. Thank you, Prosecutor Jones. Senator McKee, you recognize?
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:08:30
Just because I'm not an attorney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, if you're involved in a drug transaction and someone gets killed after that, you could be charged with capital
murder, whether or not you were responsible for the murder? The
Speaker 266
1:08:50
language is typically in the course and furtherance of the murder. So, if three people agree to go out,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:08:56
it's like robbing a bank, you know, if they go and rob a bank, then all of the people involved, under accomplice liability, they can all be charged.
for the same crime. Like the getaway driver and somebody shoots them inside, they can all be charged. Now, you know, when it comes to sentencing and things like that, typically there's different levels of punishment and stuff, but as far as being on the hook for that,
if you engage in that activity, yes, sir. Thank you. Is Senator Stubblefield recognized? Isn't it still against federal law to sell marijuana? How would this bill, I mean, the federal consequences
are much more serious than the state, is what I've always been told.
And marijuana is still against federal law. Well, this is just talking about someone who kills someone and us having the ability on the state level to charge someone with capital murder or with murder in the first
degree for that. So I don't know about federal. Well, there has to be some kind of implication with the Fed when it comes to selling
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:10:06
drugs that are illegal on the federal level. And, Senator, to that, it is illegal on the federal level. This does not change the level of offense related to marijuana in Arkansas at all.
This is, that's not changing with this bill, if I'm understanding your question. Maybe
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:10:26
I'm not. Well, what I'm saying is that if you have three guys and they're selling marijuana, and these three guys sell marijuana to someone who dies, are they going to be charged on the federal level? Are they going to be charged at the state level?
So I don't know, but this is your actions in the course and furtherance of that.
We were talking about armed drug deals and people shoot each other and kill them. We're not talking about someone that dies based on the drug, ingesting the drug. It's just about selling the drug, and it's a dangerous drug transaction that we have all the time here
Speaker 277
1:11:01
in Little Rock. Right. Yeah, I understand
Chair
Unverified
1:11:04
that. That's all I have right now. Thank you, Senator. Senator Tucker,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:11:10
you recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I think I'm basically restating what you've said. I just want to make sure I understand. You want to be able to charge capital murder for offenses that include a misdemeanor drug as a predicate offense.
Okay. All right. Yes, sir. Any other questions? See none. We do have Mr. Jeff Rosenzweig is signed up to speak. I do not see him. All right. And that is all we have signed up. Senator Gilmore, you're
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:11:41
free to close. I'm closed. And as was stated, Mr. Rosenzweig's amendment was incorporated in the bill in the House end. So with that, I appreciate a good vote. Make a motion to pass. We've got a
motion to do pass from Senator Gilmore. We've got a second from Senator McKee. All in favor of the motion to pass HB 1630, signaled by saying aye.
Opposed, like sign. Congratulations, your bill has passed. All right, members, we're going to Senator Tucker. And
please identify yourself and let us know which bills we're going with next. NEW SPEAKER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:12:26
MEMBERS, WITH YOUR PERMISSION, I'M GOING TO ASK MR. J.P. HIBBLE TO COME UP AND SIT WITH ME AT THE TABLE.
THIS IS SENATE BILL 599. NEW SPEAKER: SENATE BILL 599, LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:12:39
AN AMENDMENT PASSED OUT AS WELL. NEW SPEAKER: THE AMENDMENT ONLY AS SENATOR
PENZO AS A COSPONSOR. I MOVE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT. NEW SPEAKER: OKAY, WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENT. IN FAVOR TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENT ON SENATE BILL 599 SIGNAL BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED LIKE SIGN. CONGRATULATIONS THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN ADOPTED AND WOULD YOU PLEASE RECOGNIZE YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD AS
Jp Treble
Unverified
1:13:02
WELL. SURE. MY NAME IS J.P. TRIBELL AND I'M AN ATTORNEY IN ARKANSAS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. I'M SORRY IT WAS
J.P. TRIBELL. TRIBELL. THANK YOU MR. TRIBELL. OKAY. SENATOR TUCKER you're recognized to present your bill as amended. Mr. Tripple is
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:13:18
the expert, so this addresses interlocutor decrees in an adoption context, and he's the expert. He'll explain it better than I can, so I'm going to defer to him.
Jp Treble
Unverified
1:13:29
Mr. Tripple. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Tucker. I'll try to be as brief as I can. I know it's late, but I feel a little background is necessary to understand
why we're doing what we're doing here. So in adoptions, you have under the present code two kinds of decrees. You have a final decree of adoption, which is where the petitioners go to court, the judge hears the case, and will decide either to grant the adoption or deny the petition at that point. After that, the adoptive parents become the legal parents and are free to go home. The second option is an interlocutory decree where the judge hears the case
and the judge has two options. Either the judge can order that the decree is finalized in a date certain down the road in the future or can require a further hearing depending on the judge's
Jp Tribble
Unverified
1:14:31
discretion. In 1982, there was a procurium Supreme Court order that found that
Jp Treble
Unverified
1:14:39
an interlocutory decree is a final decree for purposes of appeal. However, even though it can be appealed,
the actual rights to a final adoption to the adopted parents do not vest until the time passes. The reason this, let me just say, you may have
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:15:00
said this, but an interlocutory basically means temporary. It's kind of any interim until a final order or judgment or decree is entered. So interlocutory, yeah. So I think that's an important piece of context.
Jp Treble
Unverified
1:15:14
It is. So where this creates, essentially we have a loophole or a gray area that we're trying to close here with this bill.
Because if a child is placed with an out-of-state couple, what happens is if the adoption is finalized in Arkansas, they become the legal parents and can travel home with their child as if the child were born to them. But if you have an interlocutory decree or the adoption is finalized, the decree is not heard until sometime down the road, and the adoptive parents want to go home in the meantime,
that requires the approval of the interstate compact on placement of children. Anytime a child crosses state lines for the purpose of an adoption that is not finalized. What is happening is is certain people are using an interlocutory decree as a way to escape oversight by the interstate compact on placement of children. And by the way, the interstate compact is called the
ICPC. They approve it in Arkansas and in the receiving state for that child to go home and then let's say come back to court six months down the road. So what is happening is because of the procurium order saying that an interlocutory decree is a final order, they're trying
Jp Tribble
Unverified
1:16:47
to skirt under the radar and allow the adoptive parents to go home with a
Jp Treble
Unverified
1:16:53
child without ICPC approval. And what we're trying to do here is really close that loophole because their
rights don't vest until the final date, whether it's another hearing or the decree becomes automatically final, that would be the time at which they would be able to leave the state. There's no, at this point, it's very, very rarely used. It was used prior to the adoption of our current code in the 70s. And essentially all
Jp Tribble
Unverified
1:17:26
parties are supportive of closing that loophole. WITH THAT, I WILL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
NEW SPEAKER: THANK YOU, MR. TRIBALE.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:17:36
I SEE CENTER MCKEY. NEW SPEAKER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. SO I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY THAT THE INTERLOCUATORY DECREE WAS WHAT TRIGGERED THE OVERSIGHT BY THE IPCC? NEW SPEAKER: NO, THAT -- NEW SPEAKER: I MISERVED IT. NEW SPEAKER: YES, THAT IS INCORRECT. NEW SPEAKER: SO IF -- I'M SORRY, IF AN ADOPTION IS NOT FINALIZED AND YOU CROSS STATE LINES YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE OVERSIGHT OF THAT ORGANIZATION RIGHT YOU SHOULD YOU SHOULD BUT THEY'RE USING THE INTERLOCATORY DECREE WHICH IS CONSIDERED
Jp Treble
Unverified
1:18:13
A FINAL ORDER YES IN QUOTES IT IS CONSIDERED A FINAL ORDER FOR PURPOSES
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:18:20
OF APPEAL SO IF WE DO AWAY WITH THE INTERLOCATORY DECREE WHICH IS TECHNICALLY A TEMPORARY STANDING right? So what was the purpose of issuing temporary standings? Was it so that there could be oversight in the process or is it like a cooling off period where observation could take place? I'm trying to figure out.
Jp Treble
Unverified
1:18:42
Okay. That's a very good question. The
interlocutory decree really is a holdover from the past adoption code that we had prior to, so 1977, we adopted the basis of our current code, which is the Revised Uniform Adoption Act, and also the ICPC Act came into force, if I understand, in the late 70s as well. So the interlocutory decree would have really been used as a tool more prior to the interstate
compact coming into force. And where the waters got muddied is in the early 80s when the Supreme Court said, for purposes of appeal, an interlocutory decree is a final appealable order. The problem is, and I did fail to state this earlier, the problem is even though the Supreme court considers an interlocutory decree a final appealable order, the rights do not vest
until it becomes an absolute final order, meaning that if you have an interlocutory decree entered, for example, on April 1st, and let's say the judge says it becomes final on July 1st, well, on May 15th, the prospective adoptive parents can say, I no longer want the child, I moved to have the order vacated. And it could be vacated from the beginning, meaning that no rights of adoptive parents would have vested in them. Yet the Supreme Court
considers it an appealable order. So, and just to wrap all that up, in that instance, it should come under ICPC jurisdiction. But what's happening is that's not always happening. SO IF WE GET RID
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:20:42
OF THE INTERLOCATORY DECREE, EVERYTHING DE FACTO BECOMES FINAL ORDERS? YES. AND SO THAT -- BUT THEN YOU ALSO DON'T HAVE THE OVERSIGHT, DO YOU?
Jp Treble
Unverified
1:20:56
IT DEPENDS. IF THE ADOPTION OCCURS IN ITS ENTIRETY IN ARKANSAS, FROM PLACEMENT TO FINALIZATION, than no. And ICPC is very clear that, and there's also an Attorney General's opinion on that, it's very clear that that does not come under the jurisdiction of ICPC. However, if, I'll give you an example. So, if a child is born and placed with the adoptive parents, and the mother is married
but estranged from her husband, the mother consents to the adoption, but the legal father has to be located and given notice that because he's the legal father, his consent is required. In an instance like that, what should happen and what normally does happen is the child would travel home with the adoptive parents, let's say to Virginia, for example, and ICPC would approve it both in Arkansas and Virginia. They would go home to Virginia, wait for the legal father to be
SERVED WITH NOTICE, AND THAT MAY BE THROUGH PUBLICATION, BUT ONCE THAT HAPPENS, THEY WOULD THEN COME BACK TO ARKANSAS AND HAVE THE FINALIZATION HEARING MONTHS DOWN THE ROAD. BUT
Jp Tribble
Unverified
1:22:14
ICPC ABSOLUTELY WOULD ALWAYS BE INVOLVED IN A CASE IN THAT INSTANCE. NEW SPEAKER: LAST
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:22:21
ONE. OKAY, SENATOR TUCKER, I DON'T KNOW THIS FELLA, BUT I KNOW YOU.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:22:32
you tracking? I can't say that I'm 100% tracking. It's a bit odd, Mr. Chair, but you mind if
I ask Mr. Tribble a question from here? We need it, yes. So I think what the goal that we all share is we want, you know, kids to be protected and safe and we want the oversight to be there. So if we remove the interlocutory decree, just for the, just for what it's worth, just for a bit more context, you've all seen a lawyer show where they're in court and a lawyer objects and the judge rules. Whichever party loses that objection, they can't appeal that
decision right then, right? You can only appeal a final order, generally. There's a handful of exceptions to that where you can you can go ahead and appeal before the lawsuit is over for example if a judge certifies a class action right and that's an that's an example of an interlocutory appeal and that's that's what created the context for this whole thing so anyway back to my question to mr. Tribble here um so my understanding was that uh with the interlocutory decree that uh some folks were skirting icpc and we want icpc to have oversight
Yes, absolutely. That's the goal. I am tracking on that. I think the part where I'm a bit confused is, if we only have the final decree, why is ICPC not involved in that? It's because the adoption
process all takes place in a single state, and ICPC trusts that that
Jp Treble
Unverified
1:24:06
state did it properly or? No. Okay. The reason, so the reason in the first example when the entire process occurs in Arkansas, For example, in Arkansas, if an Arkansas family adopts a child born in Arkansas, the only
oversight is on the court through the adoption process. In that instance, if, for example, in my practice we have all the time we have attorneys, pardon me, we have adoptive parents who come to Arkansas to adopt, they remain in Arkansas after the child is born until the final decree is entered. How long is that? And that can be generally about two weeks. So what happens is when the final decree of adoption is entered,
the adoptive parents become the legal parents of the child. And the reason ICPC is not involved, and the ICPC office here in Arkansas is in full agreement with this, the reason they are not involved is because if I have an adopted child and all of my rights as a parent have vested, then I have a constitutional right as a parent to travel anywhere in the country without state oversight. The only trigger for the state getting involved
in my movement with my own child would be if there's an allegation of abuse or neglect. Shy of that, the state doesn't have any right to get involved in any of our families without some sort of trigger. And in adoptions, once the adoption is finalized, the child becomes that child's, the parent's
Speaker 306
1:25:50
child, as if the child were born to them.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:25:56
Senator McKee, you recognize? I don't know that, I don't feel like you answered this question. Do you feel
like he answered your question? Yes, yeah, I do. Can you
use your language and you know
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:26:11
that we understand? The answer that I hear is, once the adoption is final, then it's your child as if it's your kid. And then the ICPC nor anyone else has any oversight over how you raise your child at that point.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:26:26
I thought the goal was to get oversight
before the adoption is finalized. But
Jp Treble
Unverified
1:26:36
if the adoption is finalized in Arkansas, there's no need. And that's what I was saying. The goal is, in cases where the finalization drags out, presently ICPC is not exercising oversight, and our goal is to make sure that happens.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:27:00
So let me ask it this way. If you get an interlocutory decree in Arkansas, the court has not exercised a full review of the adoption
Jp Tribble
Unverified
1:27:13
case. Is that fair? That depends on the discretion of the court. They may or may not.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:27:21
If a court has fully vetted the parents and gone through the full adoption process, but that's a process that we trust yes absolutely yeah so if you if you have an interlocutor so
that's why i see i'm gathering that's why icpc is not involved if you have a full vetting of the adoption through the court but if you have an interlocutory decree the court may have not done a full gone thoroughly through the process then you go to another state without the icpc oversight and the child has left the state both without a full thorough vetting by the court and also without the ICPC oversight. And that's where the problem lies. If the chair will permit me
Jp Tribble
Unverified
1:28:05
to make a few more comments on
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:28:08
that. Yeah, and then if it's all right with the chair, I'd like
maybe the prosecuting attorneys to come answer the question. We'll do both. Sure. The prosecutors
Jp Treble
Unverified
1:28:19
come to the table and what did you want to answer? So one of the main goals of the ICPC oversight is if a child is placed out of state, the goal is for them to ensure that all of the T's are crossed and I's are dotted, that the
home study is compliant with the state who will finalize, that essentially to ensure that the adoption won't disrupt. And in this case, under the interlocutory decree, they're essentially escaping that oversight. So the other issue that we have is that the code does not define exactly what an interlocutory decree is,
And it also does not define when to use it. And that lack of definition and direction in the code is very evident in our conversation here today in committee.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:29:23
So this would resolve that. With my apologies, I should have had a better understanding before I sat down. But it's not clear when you can get an interlocutory degree. Yeah, okay. Okay.
Jp Treble
Unverified
1:29:37
And by the way, for the record, I have spoken to a few individual judges on this,
and my feedback is full support. Judges are also generally saying that this is a confusing area of the law that needs to be cleared up. Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 315
1:29:59
Yeah. Other questions from the committee?
Seeing no other questions from the committee. Is there anybody, there's no one here to testify yes
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:30:29
or no? Senator Tucker, you're recognized to close. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And again, with my apologies, I should have, we're
late in the session. The situation is that with an interlocutory degree, all the I's may not be dotted, all the T's may not be crossed, and then you leave and you don't have the oversight.
If you go through the full process, you have to dot all the I's and cross the T's. So that's the
purpose of this. So with that, I appreciate a good vote and move to pass.
Do pass as amended, second by McKee, were you first? Oh, Johnson. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL FOR THE MOTIONS
WE NEEDED THAT ONE. I DIDN'T HEAR THE BILL. ALL AGAINST BY THE SAME SIGN.
Speaker 36
1:31:24
CONGRATULATIONS, SENATOR TUCKER, YOU HAVE PASSED YOUR BILL AS AMENDED. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:31:30
I'VE GOT ONE LAST ONE. IT'LL BE QUICKER THAN THAT ONE. I'VE GOT MY
Speaker 36
1:31:37
MIND WRAPPED AROUND THIS ONE. WHAT BILL NUMBER IS IT? 600. THERE IS AN AMENDMENT. ASPE 600 WITH AMENDMENT. SENATOR JOHNSON WILL BE HAPPY TO
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:31:46
HEAR THAT THE AMENDMENT ADDS REPRESENTATIVE GASSAWAY AS A HOUSE SPONSOR. I'LL EXPLAIN THE REMAINDER OF THE AMENDMENT WITH THE FULL BILL WITH THE COMMITTEE'S INDULGENCE
And with that, I move adoption of the amendment. You've heard the motion. Any discussion? All for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed? Senator Tucker,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:32:13
your bill is amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This issue was brought to my attention just a few days ago by retired federal judge Leon Holmes, who I clerked for, for two years, 20 years ago.
and he was helping a couple. They bought a mobile home through an adhesion contract. And an adhesion contract is another term for a contract where one party has no bargaining power, and one party has all the bargaining power. So, this mobile home, the seller is in Texas, the financer is in Utah, and the contract said that any litigation with the seller had to be in Texas under Texas law, and any litigation with the entity financing the purchase had to be
in Utah under Utah law. Something happened with this couple. They got sued in Utah. There's no way they can go defend themselves in Utah. They got sued in Utah under Utah law, and that company then registered their judgment in Arkansas and started collecting on whatever assets they could collect on. So the purpose of this is it's not for any home, but if you buy a home that's valued at $100,000 or less, I mean, we're talking about vulnerable people here, and that's part of what
the amendment does. It clarifies this is not a purchase of any personal property. It's a piece of personal property that will be used as a dwelling unit. That's in the amendment. But if you're buying a piece of property that you're going to live in, either a house or a mobile home, AND IT'S LESS THAN $100,000, THEN ARKANSAS LAW GOVERNS YOUR TRANSACTION AND ANY LITIGATION PERTAINING TO THE CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO JURISDICTION IN ARKANSAS. SO IT'S JUST IF YOU'RE A LOW-INCOME GROUP THAT'S BUYING A HOME THAT'S RELATIVELY INEXPENSIVE
FOR THE HOUSING MARKET, THEN YOU CAN ONLY BE SUED HERE IN ARKANSAS WHERE YOU LIVE AND
where you bought the home. Senator Tucker, so what I'm picking up from what you presented is someone bought manufactured housing and signed the contract, which you have to sign the contract if you're going to buy it, and the contract said that if there's any dispute, you'll be subject
to some state other than Arkansas is that you've got it Senator Clark okay all right any other questions
Speaker 324
1:35:02
from the committee Senator Johnson why why limit it to a hundred thousand dollars why wouldn't we set
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:35:13
jurisdiction on all. Well, it's not a bad point, Senator Johnson. I think the higher,
I'll give a kind of a theoretical answer. The higher the dollar value, the more balance there is in the bargaining power between the parties. If it's a lower dollar value, then one party has all the bargaining power, the other party has zero. But if you're buying a house for four or $500,000, for example, from a seller and you're making offers and counteroffers, you're negotiating the terms of the contract, then if you have some bargaining power and you agree to a provision
that you're going to be subject to law of some other state, then you should be bound by your agreement. In these contracts, we know there's no bargaining power on the part of the purchaser. It's
like when you check the box for the terms and conditions when you get your iPhone
Speaker 324
1:36:13
from AT&T or something like that. You know how many houses in Corning you can buy for $100,000 or less? I mean it's a lot
COMPARED TO LITTLE ROCK. SO, I MEAN, IT'S DIFFERENT. THAT'S A FAIR POINT. I'M CERTAIN
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:36:27
THAT'S TRUE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE? HEARING NONE. NO ONE
TO TESTIFY FOR OR AGAINST. TUCKER YOU RECOGNIZE AND CLOSE FOR YOUR BILL I'M CLOSED I APPRECIATE A GOOD VOTE AND I MOVED TO PASS AS AMENDED
SECOND FROM CENTER GILMORE TO PASS
AS WAS THIS AMENDED PASS AS AMENDED ANY DISCUSSION HEARING NONE ALL FOR THE MOTION SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE ALL OPPOSED MOTION CARRIED CONGRATULATIONS SENATOR
TUCKER YOU HAVE PASSED YOUR BILL Is there anyone here's
the problem with that we committee I need your attention
just a moment the center Johnson wants to run a house bill y'all ran a house bill in my absence the problem with you running that house bill was not that I had a problem with the problem was this there were multiple witnesses who wanted to testify against that bill who did not come because I announced this morning and this afternoon that we wouldn't be here in house bills that's the the danger and doing something and I only said we wouldn't hear house bills because I
I didn't want to keep y'all any later than we had to keep you. But, Senator Johnson, since we said we would not be running house bills, and the one we slipped in this morning, those people got back to testify, and I sincerely regret it after we got into it that we were running it. Not that we shouldn't run it at some point. It was just today it ended up taking time away. So
you sure there's nobody to that's going to want
to testify against it because the fact that they haven't signed up doesn't mean anything because they were told that we wouldn't run it. They weren't signed up. They weren't here because they knew we weren't going to run it. Senator Johnson, I'm asking you if you think that there's no one
that will want to testify against it, Again, because if I hadn't made that announcement, we'd go right
on. That wasn't my question, Senator Johnson. My question. I don't know anything
about the bill. I don't know if it's controversial, if it's not controversial.
Senator Johnson, go ahead. If we run into problems, we're going to be recalling House bills back to the Senate Judiciary. Go ahead. Okay.
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:41:00
Britt McKenzie, Rogers, Arkansas State Representative, District 7.
Speaker 37
1:41:10
identify yourself for the record? Senator Blake Johnson, District 21. What's the bill? 1662.
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:41:30
NEW SPEAKER: YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. NEW SPEAKER: THANK YOU, SIR. HI, COMMITTEE. I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF, AND I APPRECIATE THE DEFERENCE AND OPPORTUNITY FROM THE CHAIR. I UNDERSTAND IT'S TOUGH TIMES, A LOT GOING ON, BUT I'M HERE TO PRESENT HOUSE BILL 1662. THIS BILL IS A PART OF THE GOVERNOR'S PACKET FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE NATURAL STATE. similar to other legislation that's come through this year through this
committee as well as others relevant to protecting the our state against the encroachment of the People's Republic of China the CCP. This bill is fairly specific and fairly clear. It is relevant to a lobbying ban for entities or covered foreign entities in the state of Arkansas. It's a clear and targeted step prohibits lobbying on behalf of the covered foreign entities in this instance. I know we use that definition in different ways across different bills. In this instance, it's just the People's Republic of China as well as the Federation of Russia.
This is not a vague or over broad. It zeroes out on entities with documented ties to adversarial foreign powers. That could undermine our state's interest. This bill establishes a straightforward rule. No person receiving a monetary benefit for lobbying can do so on behalf of these covered forward entities in the state of Arkansas. It sets up graduated steps for offenses ranging from first to third offense. It's a monetary fine of $3,500 for the first. The second becomes an unclassified misdemeanor with up to six months imprisonment or $5,000 fine or both. And the third and subsequent offense is an unclassified felony, punishment by one year
in prison and a $10,000 fine or both. Just generally to say, I respect, I have great respect and admiration for political speech in our state. That being said, it's not unfettered and it's not unregulated. Our speech is regulated in so far as political speech in the form of political campaign contributions. None of us are able to take political campaign contributions from foreign entities. Not just the People's Republic of China or the Federation of Russia, but any foreign entity.
As well as we have protections from these foreign entities, covered entities, insofar as our research facilities, political contributions, registration for certain business types, insofar as where they're licensed as opposed to incorporated from their foreign countries. REP. I'M GOING TO STOP YOU. I KNOW FOR A
FACT THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE LOBBYING AGAINST THIS BILL. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'LL HAVE ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST IT OR NOT. COMMITTEE, I HAVE ON THE SENATE FLOOR THIS SESSION SCOLDED PEOPLE FOR SIGNING A BILL
out of committee after it publicly it didn't even get a second. Senator Rice brought up on the floor yesterday how there was a move made like that. We have always been very careful not doing anything like that. You know that I am extremely careful. I hate it when chairs call a vote one way or another. You know I'm very careful to get what your vote is regardless of whether I like it or not. so I'm going to ask that you pull this bill down so that if these people do want to be here
because I clearly said this morning and this afternoon on the Senate floor that we weren't going to run House bills and that's why they're not here that's the only reason they're not here so I'm going to ask you to pull this bill down we'll be glad to hear it next week but we don't want to do anything nefarious we never have and I apologize I'm also going to ask you to expunge the vote, it's up to you, but I'm going to ask you to expunge the vote on House Bill 1641 because we had people who specifically relied on what I said and weren't here to testify
against that bill. And it may not change the outcome at all, but we do not want to do anything. You know, I've been accused of doing that, running a bill, when people weren't there, and I didn't do it at all. It was on the agenda. I said I was going to run the bill, and they didn't show up. But I don't want to actually do that, and I don't think you want to actually do that. This committee's always operated above board, and I would rather that this was a bill that I was not involved in. It'd be much easier for me to ask this if I didn't have
a position on it, but I think it's the right thing to do, to expunge the vote on House Bill 1641. one. If anybody agrees with that, I need a motion. Well, I'll pull my
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:46:18
bill down first before you get into motions. Yes. So thank
you. Okay. I have a motion from Senator Rice. Second from Senator Stubblefield. Any discussion?
Sure. Just a quick discussion, because I believe I was in the chair on one of those at least,
And for clarity, it was my understanding that the announcement or discussion was, it was our intent not to hear House bills because of our schedule. But if we had gaps, that might be allowed. But I just wanted to be clear that it was not for any other reason other than that. There was no other secrecy or maneuvering, and I just want to make sure that was clear.
Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up, because
let me be clear. I don't
think y'all did anything nefarious. I'm just telling you that people relied on the statements
that the chair made, and we don't want that to even accidentally happen. No, I don't think that anything was
Speaker 154
1:47:37
done intentionally. Any other discussion? The last thing I'd add. Oh, sorry, Mr.
Chair. Is if, I don't know if that moves them into a different schedule or order, these bills that we potentially are going to expunge.
It may not. It's just one. Okay.
The other one, as far as I know, has no controversy. If anything comes back, then I
will come to you before it runs on the floor and say, hey, we need to stop this one.
But I don't, again, I'm only, if there were no problems, I wouldn't be presenting this
Speaker 355
1:48:17
one. So. I mean, we have a regular agenda.
Speaker 37
1:48:23
I mean, whatever it is. Mike, Senator Johnson. We have a regular agenda. And the intent is one thing. We are in the second to last week, and, I mean, we don't control what the public does, and the public has the ability to see that regular agenda, and any of those bills can be heard, whether it be by intent or not, and I don't see pulling a bill down that has been heard by this committee,
And it's not like there was five of us here. It was the committee as a whole was here, especially for that bill that was heard. And I'm not talking about my bill. I'm good with pulling it down and waiting. But it was heard by this committee, and it was on the regular agenda, and the public had noticed, and it was close to whenever we got out of session. So, you know, it's not against our will. IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE PUBLIC'S WILL, THERE'S BAD WEATHER, BUT WE DON'T CONTROL
THAT EITHER, AND I DON'T THINK THAT BILL SHOULD BE PULLED, YOU KNOW, SHOULD BE EXPUNGED, AND THAT VOTE SHOULD NOT BE EXPUNGED BECAUSE OF THOSE FACTS, BUT I DON'T MIND WAITING EITHER, BUT WHENEVER WE HAVE VETTED THAT AS A
Speaker 324
1:49:53
WHOLE, I JUST DON'T SEE PULLING THAT BILL
down. Senator Johnson, it's my fault. I've told everyone both in both announcements and then everyone represented Dalby contacted me. She has three bills. Senator Boyd contacted me. But the
bigger issue, because I'm normally right with you, it's on the agenda, except that the chair said, and the only reason the chair said, but it's my fault, is because I didn't, I knew you were going to be here late. I didn't want to make you later over bills that we were not obligated to run today. And so it's my fault, but I said it and people relied on it that would have definitely been here to testify against it. And since we can rectify it, I think we should. And you can all
vote the exact same way that you voted this time, but the public shouldn't feel like they got snooker and again we would never do
that on purpose but we shouldn't do it accidentally either any other discussion center Gilmore thank you mr. chair
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:50:59
and I certainly appreciate what you're trying to do and again I think it's always the will of the community be completely transparent and I think I recognize that certainly it's not going to change my vote on the bill but if I
may just an inquiry to the chair how many were signed up on that bill
do we know do we have the list I'm just no one was signed up because they didn't because I announced that we weren't going to run them so were they signed up previously
yes they have signed up previously okay so we don't what were they signed up this morning I guess was my question I
don't know but again again we weren't supposed to be running house bills until we got senate bills run so they were here this morning that I can I can tell you they were or they weren't no they
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:51:46
were here this morning and they were here before. Okay. But we don't have anybody that was signed up. Is that what I understood? No. On 1641? No. Okay. I guess in my question and maybe you know as the chair because they may have reached out to you and I'm not going to question that. I'm just if they weren't signed up to speak this morning before you made the announcement because they would have signed up prior to your announcement.
I'm just questioning whether they were signed up or they were intending to speak. But that would
be my question. Okay. Well, I have to tell you again, on Monday, I said that we would only be, before today, that we would only be hearing Senate bills. I voiced my displeasure that people had put off running their bills for you. I'll stay here forever. when you have done your jobs all throughout the session and then you get loaded up
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:52:45
and have to stay at night. And for the record, I'm not impugning anyone or anybody or anything in this
process. I just, I think it's a point of clarification that was helpful to me in this
discussion. We can disagree and I'll leave here friends. So I just, you know, I'm very careful people come to me and ask when a bill's going to run. And if I don't know, I tell them don't know. If I do know, I'll try to let them know so, again, that they can be here because we're not trying to play games. We're just busy. And so you can vote however you want to vote.
Any other discussion? Not just how you want to vote, but how you think you ought to vote. Hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All against, signify by saying no. Senator McKee, I didn't hear you. Okay, then it is not expunged. The bill stays the way it is. So any other business?
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:53:53
Senator Gilmore? And I would, I recognize what the chair was trying to do, and I
appreciate that. If we hear a lot of displeasure with that, I think it's fair that we talk to the sponsors, maybe ask them to hold the bill and be willing to re-refer if there's a lot of opposition that we hear. But that would just be my words to the committee, and then maybe we can communicate that to the sponsors as well.
Again, for me, if no one was signed up, but again, I don't want to rehash this, but I appreciate the will of the chair and what the chair is trying to do and account for the transparency. Because
we're all trying to do the right thing, I think. Thank you. No, absolutely. You all have integrity. And
I feel a special responsibility you can understand. And I'm not saying anything nefarious was done by the sponsor, because I don't believe that either. But they did know their opposition, and they have talked to the opposition.
So, no other business? Monday, do y'all want to meet at 10 o'clock again? Okay. 10 a.m. on
Monday then. And we'll be hearing, if we have any Senate bills, we'll hear them first. Obviously, at that point, it's very important because I've got a Senate bill come Monday because of all the amendments they've been trying to do, not in this committee, but somewhere else. But we'll be hearing everything.
So if anybody doesn't show up, that'll be
on them. Okay. Members of the committee,
Speaker 330
1:55:47
there is food back here. You can move Kings because he's not going to run them, but I would leave them just.
Okay, you know, Senate Bills 5, 6, and 452 are being deferred because Senator
King said he's not going to run them. I would ask you that if he does show up to run them, that
you vote to let him move them and do so, I don't think. Those numbers were again? They're
the ones right at the top of our list. Oh, 5 and 6? 5, 6, and 452. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, there's food in the back. Either eat some, take some with you. Have
a good evening, what's left of it, and we're adjourned.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
SB5 B. King TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE.
SB441 Hester TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025.
SB462 J. Scott TO CREATE A CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYABILITY FOR A PERSON WITH A FELONY CONVICTION; AND TO ALLOW THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION AND CIRCUIT COURTS TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF EMPLOYABILITY.
HB1641 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HARASSMENT; AND TO INCLUDE THE USE OF A TRACKING DEVICEIN THE OFENSE OF HARRASMENT.
SB501 J. Scott TO CREATE THE TENANT POSSESSIONS RECOVERY ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A LANDLORD TO PROVIDE CERTAIN NOTICE TO A TENANT WHEN A COURT HAS
SB509 G. TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. ISSUED A WRIT OF POSSESSION.
HB1624 Gazaway TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF COUNTY LAW LIBRARY BOARDS.
SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM.
SB452 B. King CONCERNING CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE OR RECYCLING OF WIND TURBINES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
SB458 G. Leding TO REQUIRE A COURT TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF FACTORS SUCH AS TRAUMA AND INVOLVEMENT WITH THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM ON A
PERSON WHO COMMITTED A CRIME AS A MINOR DURING A TRANSFER OR SENTENCING HEARING.
SB461 J. Scott TO COLLECT DATA REGARDING THE USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN ARKANSAS PRISONS AND JAILS.
SB477 G. TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. Stubblefield
HB1692 M. Brown TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS AND VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS EXAMINERS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING
PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS AND PRIVATE SECURITY AGENCIES.
SB472 J. Bryant TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION OF AN E-LIQUID PRODUCT OR VAPOR PRODUCT BY A MINOR.
OF A TRACKING DEVICE IN THE OFFENSE OF HARASSMENT.
SB509 G. Stubblefield TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. ISSUED A WRIT OF POSSESSION.
SB548 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WARRANTS OF ARREST; AND TO REQUIRE THAT NOTICE OF A WARRANT BE SENT TO THE PERSON NAMED IN THE
ARREST WARRANT.
SB549 G. Leding TO ENSURE THAT MANDATED COSTS AND FEES PAID BY A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE SHALL BE REFUNDED UPON AN ACQUITTAL, A DISMISSAL, OR AN ORDER OF NOLLE PROSEQUI.
HB1630 Gazaway TO ADD A MISDEMEANOR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OFFENSE TO THE PREDICATE OFFENSES FOR CAPITAL MURDER, MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, AND MANSLAUGHTER.
SB566 B. King PROVIDE FOR FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION, IMPROVEMENT, OR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE AND COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES; AND TO
ADDRESS PRISON OVERCROWDING.
SB581 B. King TO CREATE THE POULTRY INTEGRATORS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES AND TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT.
SB595 G. Leding TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN BEFORE A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION.
HB1662 B. McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY.
HB1729 R. Burkes TO AMEND THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ACT; AND TO PROVIDE THAT A HOMESTEAD OWNED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE
HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
HB1749 M. Brown TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM TRUST DECANTING ACT.
HB1777 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD; AND TO INCLUDE BRIBING OR ATTEMPTING TO BRIBE A CHILD IN THE
OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD.
HB1778 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF STALKING TO INCLUDE PLACING A PERSON IN FEAR OF SEXUAL ACTS; AND TO AMEND THE
DEFINITION OF COURSE OF CONDUCT WITH RESPECT TO STALKING.
HB1779 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO THEFT OF PROPERTY; AND ENHANCE THE OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE THEFT OF A POSTAL PACKAGE
DELIVERED TO A PERSON'S RESIDENCE AND LEFT WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF
THE RESIDENCE.
HB1799 Vaught TO AMEND THE PERMISSIBLE METHODS OF REPORTING UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT.
HB1830 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE PROCUREMENT OF CONTINGENCY FEE
CONTRACTS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
HB1831 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
HB1835 Dalby CONCERNING SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS; AND TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING DRUG COURT, MENTAL HEALTH COURT, VETERANS
COURT, AND DWI/BWI SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS.
HB1838 Dalby TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROBATE ACTIONS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ADOPTION AND GUARDIANSHIP.
HB1839 Dalby TO AMEND THE PROCEDURES FOR THE DECLARATION OF LEGAL DEATH OF A MISSING PERSON.
HB1844 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF FLEEING BY MEANS OF A
VEHICLE OR CONVEYANCE; AND TO INCREASE THE PENALTY FOR A PERSON
WHO JUMPS FROM A MOVING VEHICLE OR CONVEYANCE WHILE FLEEING.
HB1848 Hudson TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN AWARD OF JOINT CUSTODY BETWEEN PARENTS IS IN A CHILD'S BEST INTEREST WHEN
THERE IS DOMESTIC ABUSE.
SB597 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF THREAT OF HARM UPON A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION EMPLOYEE.
SB599 C. Tucker TO ELIMINATE INTERLOCUTORY DECREES OF ADOPTION; AND TO AMEND THE REVISED UNIFORM ADOPTION ACT.
SB600 C. Tucker TO REGULATE CONTRACTS; TO MANDATE CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN CONTRACTS; AND TO CLARIFY PROPER JURISDICTION FOR CERTAIN CONTACTS.
SB143 B. King TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE TO COORDINATE WITH LOCAL SHERIFFS AND THE DIVISION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION IN
CRIME REDUCTION AND PREVENTION ACTIVITIES.
SB144 B. King CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER TO THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION; TO PROVIDE FOR A DESIGNATED DIAGNOSTIC
INTAKE FACILITY; AND TO CREATE COUNTY JAIL-STATE INMATE CLOSE-TO-
HOME PARTNERSHIPS.
SB145 B. King TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS RESULTING FROM LITIGATION INVOLVING THE USE OF FUNDS FROM THE
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT FUND OR ITS SUCCESSOR FUND OR FUND
ACCOUNTS.
HB1611 Gonzales TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ANIMAL FIGHTING; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF
UNLAWFUL ROOSTER FIGHTING.
DEFERRED BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1717 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CHILDREN AND TEENS' ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT.
HB1726 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT.
SB356 J. Bryant TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE ARKANSAS CRIME INFORMATION CENTER BY THE OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT OR CRIME VICTIMS REPARATIONS BOARD.
ADJOURN
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Apr 2, 2025 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Tyler Dees Chair
Unverified
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 37
Speaker 42
Senator Alan Clark Chair
Unverified
Bart Calhoun
Unverified
Speaker 56
Speaker 26
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Speaker 94
Speaker 96
Speaker 107
Speaker 63
Speaker 133
Speaker 139
Speaker 142
Speaker 144
Speaker 146
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 167
Speaker 172
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 176
Speaker 181
Speaker 187
Speaker 188
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Speaker 203
Speaker 202
Speaker 154
Speaker 209
Speaker 228
Speaker 229
Speaker 246
Paul Calvert
Unverified
Speaker 266
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
Speaker 277
Chair
Unverified
Jp Treble
Unverified
Jp Tribble
Unverified
Speaker 306
Speaker 315
Speaker 319
Speaker 36
Speaker 324
Speaker 95
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
Speaker 343
Speaker 355
Speaker 330