State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (66)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB343
Act 734
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB343 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING STATE-OWNED MOTOR VEHICLE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING STATE-OWNED MOTOR VEHICLES; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC PROPERTY; … | Irvin | Notification that SB343 is now Act 734 |
|
HB1024
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1024 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; AND TO REPEAL THE LAW PROHIBITING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1028
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…S; AND TO REPEAL THE LAW PROHIBITING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. HB1028 A. Collins TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE LAW CONCERNING OBSCEN…”
|
TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE LAW CONCERNING OBSCENITY AND THE PROCESS FOR CHALLENGING MATERIALS INCLUDED … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1035
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1035 A. Collins TO CREATE THE ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 2…”
|
TO CREATE THE ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 2025; TO ALLOW ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION; TO … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1036
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1036 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO ALLOW VOTER REGISTRATION DURING EARLY VOTING AND … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1037
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TE THE ARKANSAS FORWARD ENGAGEMENT COMMITTEE WORKING GROUP. HB1037 A. Collins AN ACT TO CREATE THE PREREGISTRATION TO VOTE ACT…”
|
AN ACT TO CREATE THE PREREGISTRATION TO VOTE ACT; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1038
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51. HB1038 A. Collins TO CREATE THE NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING ACT OF 2…”
|
TO CREATE THE NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING ACT OF 2025; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1039
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NG; AND TO REPEAL VOTER QUALIFICATIONS FOR ABSENTEE VOTING. HB1039 A. Collins TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOT…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOTS; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1040
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EE BALLOTS; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS. HB1040 A. Collins TO CREATE THE WATER IN LINE ACT OF 2025; AND TO…”
|
TO CREATE THE WATER IN LINE ACT OF 2025; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1041
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LS, AND COMMISSIONS. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1041 R. Scott TO PROHIBIT DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES IN…”
|
TO PROHIBIT DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES IN ELECTION COMMUNICATIONS. | R. Scott Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1042
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ES FOR MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES RELATED TO VOTING. Page 3 of 5 HB1042 A. Collins TO CREATE THE DIRECT DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2025; TO R…”
|
TO CREATE THE DIRECT DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2025; TO REPEAL THE ENSURING ACCESS FOR ALL … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1043
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1043 A. Collins TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING OF NONCANDID…”
|
TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING OF NONCANDIDATE EXPENDITURES PERTAINING TO APPELLATE JUDICIAL ELECTIONS; AND TO … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1058
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1058 Unger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF I…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FOR PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; … | Unger | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1059
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…GIVING ADVANCE NOTICE TO ENTITIES OF REQUIRED INSPECTIONS. HB1059 Unger TO PROVIDE THE OPTION FOR A FREE LIFETIME HUNTING AND…”
|
TO PROVIDE THE OPTION FOR A FREE LIFETIME HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSE TO A COMMERCIAL … | Unger | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1069
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1069 S. Meeks TO OBSERVE STANDARD TIME YEAR ROUND IN ARKANSAS; A…”
|
TO OBSERVE STANDARD TIME YEAR ROUND IN ARKANSAS; AND TO ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME IN … | S. Meeks | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1078
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…PROVIDES CERTAIN INFORMATION RELATED TO HUMAN TRAFFICKING. HB1078 Long TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS; AND…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR A RUNOFF ELECTION FOR … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1162
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO ADOPT NEW LAWS CONCERNING APPELLATE JUDICIAL CAMPAIGNS. HB1162 Duffield TO ESTABLISH GOOD FRIDAY AS AN OFFICIAL STATE HOLI…”
|
TO ESTABLISH GOOD FRIDAY AS AN OFFICIAL STATE HOLIDAY. | Duffield | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1281
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1281 McAlindon TO AMEND REPORTING FOR A CANDIDATE FOR CERTAIN MU…”
|
TO AMEND REPORTING FOR A CANDIDATE FOR CERTAIN MUNICIPAL OFFICES AND FOR COUNTY OFFICE; AND … | McAlindon | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1365
Act 938
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1365 K. Brown TO REMOVE RACIAL AND GENDER QUOTAS AND QUALIFICATI…”
|
TO REMOVE RACIAL AND GENDER QUOTAS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERSHIP FOR CERTAIN BOARDS, COMMITTEES, COUNCILS, … | K. Brown | Notification that HB1365 is now Act 938 |
|
HB1415
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E ARKANSAS CODE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996. HB1415 L. Johnson TO REQUIRE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO RESPOND TO A…”
|
TO REQUIRE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO RESPOND TO A REQUEST FOR A FIRE INQUIRY. | L. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1459
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TATE AGENCIES TO PUBLISH FEDERAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS ONLINE. HB1459 L. Johnson CONCERNING RECURRING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GE…”
|
CONCERNING RECURRING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. | L. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1461
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1461 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE EVALUATION OF NE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE EVALUATION OF NECESSITY OF VARIOUS COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS. | L. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1494
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1494 Hawk TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS GUIDANCE OUT OF THE DARKNESS AC…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS GUIDANCE OUT OF THE DARKNESS ACT; AND TO REQUIRE STATE AGENCIES … | Hawk | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1614
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…aty, Jr. CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1614 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATIONS RELATED…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRANT PROGRAMS. | Lundstrum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1621
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MENT TO BECOME OR BE EMPLOYED AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. HB1621 Wardlaw TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO EXEMPT PERSONAL INFORMATION OF … | Wardlaw | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1631
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1631 Wardlaw TO ADDRESS THE ISSUANCE OF HUNTING AND FISHING LICE…”
|
TO ADDRESS THE ISSUANCE OF HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENTS. | Wardlaw | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1632
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. HB1632 Wardlaw TO REQUIRE REIMBURSEMENT TO THE ARKANSAS STATE GAME…”
|
TO REQUIRE REIMBURSEMENT TO THE ARKANSAS STATE GAME AND FISH COMMISSION FOR FREE OR DISCOUNTED … | Wardlaw | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1667
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AND THE STATE LIBRARY BOARD TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. HB1667 Bentley TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | Bentley | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1720
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1720 Vaught TO CREATE THE BABIES AT WORK ACT; TO ALLOW STATE AGE…”
|
TO CREATE THE BABIES AT WORK ACT; TO ALLOW STATE AGENCIES TO PERMIT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES … | Vaught | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1753
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…G THEIR INFANTS SIX MONTHS OR YOUNGER TO WORK. Page 4 of 5 HB1753 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO OPT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO OPT-OUT OF THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1769
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…BLIC MEETINGS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967. HB1769 Barnett CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER STANDARDS; AND T…”
|
CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER STANDARDS; AND TO REQUIRE A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION OR ASSESSMENT TO BECOME … | Barnett | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1773
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…END PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, § 5. HB1773 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR BA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR BALLOT QUESTION COMMITTEES AND LEGISLATIVE QUESTION COMMITTEES. | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1846
Act 946
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1846 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS 2036 COMMISSION.”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS 2036 COMMISSION. | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1846 is now Act 946 |
|
HB1849
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NS. HB1846 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS 2036 COMMISSION. HB1849 Gramlich TO ALLOW FOR THE CROSS DEPUTIZATION OF MUNICIPAL,…”
|
TO ALLOW FOR THE CROSS DEPUTIZATION OF MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, STATE, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ON … | Gramlich | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1867
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EMENT ON FEDERALLY-RECOGNIZED TRIBAL LAND WITHIN THE STATE. HB1867 B. McKenzie TO ESTABLISH THE NO GOVERNMENT TRESPASSING ACT;…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE NO GOVERNMENT TRESPASSING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT GAME WARDEN TRESPASS ONTO PRIVATE … | B. McKenzie | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1878
Act 978
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CT; AND TO PROHIBIT GAME WARDEN TRESPASS ONTO PRIVATE LAND. HB1878 McGruder TO ENSURE EARLY VOTING ACCESS FOR ARKANSANS RESIDI…”
|
TO ENSURE EARLY VOTING ACCESS FOR ARKANSANS RESIDING IN POPULATION CENTERS; AND TO REQUIRE A … | McGruder | Notification that HB1878 is now Act 978 |
|
HB1883
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1883 Long TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1884
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1884 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MARKING AND COUNTING O…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MARKING AND COUNTING OF PAPER BALLOTS. | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1891
Act 715
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ISSION FOR FREE OR DISCOUNTED HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES. HB1891 Ray TO ALLOW A PERSON FILING AS A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE…”
|
TO ALLOW A PERSON FILING AS A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE OF THE … | Ray | Notification that HB1891 is now Act 715 |
|
HB1925
Act 846
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LE OF THAT POSITION AS A PREFIX WHEN FILING AS A CANDIDATE. HB1925 Beaty Jr. TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOTS; AND…”
|
AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOTS; TO AMEND THE ABSENTEE BALLOT VOTER … | Beaty Jr. | Notification that HB1925 is now Act 846 |
|
HB1929
Act 797
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TEE BALLOTS; AND TO REQUIRE AN OATH FOR AN ABSENTEE BALLOT. HB1929 McAlindon TO CREATE THE RECOGNIZING JUDEA AND SAMARIA ACT;…”
|
TO CREATE THE RECOGNIZING JUDEA AND SAMARIA ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT STATE AGENCIES FROM USING … | McAlindon | Notification that HB1929 is now Act 797 |
|
HB1934
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SING THE TERM "WEST BANK" IN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MATERIALS. HB1934 McAlindon TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FORWARD ENGAGEMENT COMMITT…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FORWARD ENGAGEMENT COMMITTEE ACT; AND TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FORWARD ENGAGEMENT … | McAlindon | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1009
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MMISSION. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Number Sponsor Subtitle HJR1009 K. Brown AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO BE KN…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO BE KNOWN AS THE ARKANSAS VICTIMS' BILL OF … | K. Brown | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1014
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NCLUDING VICTIMS IN THE ADULT AND JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS. HJR1014 Beaty Jr. A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DE…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL … | Beaty Jr. | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1016
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. HJR1016 Ray A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REPEAL THE PROVISION OF A…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REPEAL THE PROVISION OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 5, § 1, ALLOWING … | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1017
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TIVE OR REFERENDUM PETITION TO CORRECT OR AMEND A PETITION. HJR1017 Ray A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROVIDING THAT A PROPOSED ST…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROVIDING THAT A PROPOSED STATE-WIDE INITIATED ACT OR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT SHALL BECOME … | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1018
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…N THE ELECTION AND A MAJORITY OF THE COUNTIES OF THE STATE. HJR1018 Ray THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. DEFERRED BILLS Numb…”
|
THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. | Ray | Approved by the Governor |
|
SB12
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB12 B. King TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING … | B. King | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB184
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB184 D. Sullivan TO TRANSFER THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ARKANS…”
|
TO TRANSFER THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ARKANSAS EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION COMMISSION AND THE STATE … | D. Sullivan | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB241
Act 885
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB241 J. Scott TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY A…”
|
TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY ACT; AND TO GRANT PAID LEAVE TO … | J. Scott | Notification that SB241 is now Act 885 |
|
SB351
Act 592
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB351 J. Dismang TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CAMPAIGN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE; TO AMEND PORTIONS OF INITIATED ACT … | J. Dismang | Notification that SB351 is now Act 592 |
|
SB357
Act 572
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IONS REGARDING REDISTRICTING BY THE BOARD OF APPORTIONMENT. SB357 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY…”
|
TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY ACT; AND TO APPLY MILITARY SERVICE CREDIT … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB357 is now Act 572 |
|
SB376
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OF THE DEATH OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE'S FAMILY MEMBER OR CHILD. SB376 A. Clark TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; A…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | A. Clark | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB445
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB445 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE LICENSURE OF ELEC…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE LICENSURE OF ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS. | K. Hammer | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB471
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE LAW CONCERNING THE LICENSURE OF ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS. SB471 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CANDIDATES FOR NONPART…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CANDIDATES FOR NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS; AND TO ALLOW CERTAIN CANDIDATES FOR … | A. Clark | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB479
Act 593
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB479 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER ASSISTANCE; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER ASSISTANCE; AND TO REQUIRE A PERSON ASSISTING A VOTER … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB479 is now Act 593 |
|
SB491
Act 956
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB491 K. Hammer TO REQUIRE A VENDOR THAT CONTRACTS WITH THE OFFIC…”
|
TO REQUIRE A VENDOR THAT CONTRACTS WITH THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION TO SUBMIT DATA FOR … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB491 is now Act 956 |
|
SB508
Act 756
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB508 Irvin TO AMEND THE FREQUENCY OF PAYMENT OF A STIPEND FOR CE…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREQUENCY OF PAYMENT OF A STIPEND FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC … | Irvin | Notification that SB508 is now Act 756 |
|
HB1683
Act 924
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1683 McAlindon TO PROHIBIT THE PROCUREMENT BY A GOVERNMENTAL ENT…”
|
TO PROHIBIT THE PROCUREMENT BY A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY OF AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE OR A COMPONENT … | McAlindon | Notification that HB1683 is now Act 924 |
|
HB1800
Act 998
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1800 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURE FOR CAMPAI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURE FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE; TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE BY A REPRESENTATIVE … | McAlindon | Notification that HB1800 is now Act 998 |
|
HB1837
Act 999
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1837 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURE FOR MATTER…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURE FOR MATTERS REFERRED TO VOTERS; AND TO BAN FOREIGN … | McAlindon | Notification that HB1837 is now Act 999 |
|
HB1870
Act 840
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1870 Wing CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION LISTS; AND TO ALLOW THE…”
|
CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION LISTS; AND TO ALLOW THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO PROVIDE A VOTER … | Wing | Notification that HB1870 is now Act 840 |
|
HB1896
Act 716
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1896 B. McKenzie TO CREATE THE JUNK FEE ELIMINATING ACT OF 2025;…”
|
TO CREATE THE JUNK FEE ELIMINATING ACT OF 2025; TO ABOLISH THE INFORMATION NETWORK OF … | B. McKenzie | Notification that HB1896 is now Act 716 |
|
HB1898
Act 837
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1898 Painter TO CREATE THE REGULATORY DIVISION AND THE REGULATOR…”
|
TO CREATE THE REGULATORY DIVISION AND THE REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT DIVISION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE … | Painter | Notification that HB1898 is now Act 837 |
|
SB433
Act 573
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB433 J. Dotson REGARDING THE DISPLAY OF THE NATIONAL MOTTO AND T…”
|
REGARDING THE DISPLAY OF THE NATIONAL MOTTO AND THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. | J. Dotson | Notification that SB433 is now Act 573 |
|
SB510
Act 594
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB510 J. Boyd TO ALLOW FOR THE CROSS DEPUTIZATION OF MUNICIPAL, C…”
|
TO ALLOW FOR THE CROSS DEPUTIZATION OF MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, STATE, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ON … | J. Boyd | Notification that SB510 is now Act 594 |
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
Chair sees a quorum, and we're going to pick up where we left off, Senate Bill 343. I saw Senator Urban here,
and I think we were in the questions phase of the presentation. Senator Urban, you're recognized.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
0:20
Thank you. I just wanted to continue with, we try to provide you, there's a handout that we try to provide with DF&A, and I have Jim Hudson here that can go over just some different additional information
that we've handed out to you in addition to the fiscal impact
statement. All right, that information has been passed out to the committee. The committee should have an opportunity to review that. And I guess what I would say, since we are in the questioning phase of the presentation, if the committee has any questions questions about the handout that you've been given, then we can bring Secretary Hudson
to the table and allow him to answer any questions.
Speaker 12
1:20
Any questions? Happy to go over it. Representative Beck, recognize that.
I don't really have a question. If you're going to go, are you planning on going down there and just going to listen
to these all out? Sure, I can do that. I mean, I'm just, what's the plan? I can ask a question on an item if we want. All right. Okay. So $500 to $1 million per year savings by having fewer vehicles in operation. Can you get a little bit more granular with that as to how we came up with that number? How we came up with that number?
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:08
Yes. I'll have to have Jim Hudson, and if they'll come up to the table, they
can answer that question. Thank you. Again, I think it's trying to take all of this and digitizing it's going to be a
Speaker 26
2:29
lot more cleaner data. Sure. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, just Jim Hudson, Secretary of DFA. You're
Speaker 28
2:35
recognized. The information that we have for the savings really came from the McKinsey study.
Their projections, just the consumables of having excess capacity in the fleet,
Speaker 29
2:46
so oil changes we're going to avoid, tires we're going to avoid buying, just breakdowns that are occurring, just the maintenance of surplus vehicles, that's where their
projections came from. So that's, did they
reference a percentage? Is that like you're going to have 20% fewer cars or, you know? I believe what they did
Speaker 28
3:12
in their methodology was just, you know, project an annual cost
Speaker 29
3:16
of operation for each vehicle and then we're taking 300 vehicles roughly out of circulation and then just assuming going forward that we'll have kind of a similar sort of accumulation of the vehicles that are not
Speaker 28
3:31
being driven to the maximum extent that those would be ongoing costs that we could avoid if we're effectively managing the fleet. I guess
my concern is cross, you can tell I'm a numbers person.
I would hope we'd all be. Yeah, my concern then is like the possible double, what they would call double dipping
or crossover, you know, like where you're saying, okay, we're going to have less cars, but we're going to run our cars twice as many miles. So there's going to be a net increase in that aspect of it, which would reduce the reduction. So if you're saying 300 cars and a reduction of 300 vehicles, and then you have 2,500 right now we heard.
And so, is that saying currently, so you would be distributing a
million dollars over 300 cars? Potentially. You know, I think the issue is
Speaker 29
4:32
in terms of the fleet that we retain, it probably will have better characteristics than the fleet that we're
at a million dollars, 300 cars, if you do the math there, that's a lot.
Speaker 29
4:51
You're paying a lot of money per car. And we have a lot of mileage on some cars. Some of the older cars have been, you know, driven for
years. And because they are older, they're breaking down a lot more. That's what, $300,000
per car per year? Not $300,000 per car per year. No, I'm sorry. No, it wouldn't be $300,000. But it's $1
Speaker 28
5:17
million. Well, yeah. $1,000. It could be $1,000, it could be $2,000 per car.
It would depend on what the breakdowns are.
Speaker 29
5:23
Some will be more expensive than others. But if you're doing oil changes three to four times a year, depending upon the mileage, you're replacing the tires every other year, it does
add up. I don't want to get too granular in this, but you're saying
that you're going to save a million dollars by getting rid of 300 cars. Now, you're not getting rid of the functionality of those cars, you're going to better utilize
your fleet. Correct. And so, therefore, you won't have the, I would say, the tags and insurance on those other
cars, but that's still a lot of money for 300 cars. So
Speaker 28
6:07
again, I would say that the expenses that we're
Speaker 55
6:11
currently having really are a lot for an old fleet that is on average, I believe, 10 years old at this point. So, you know, ultimately having a newer fleet that is
Speaker 29
6:25
more fully utilized, I don't know
that we'll have the breakdowns that we're having with an older fleet that's just sometimes just setting on the lot. Right. The number of incidents I know that we've had in state, the state fleet, just with having, you know, parts being stolen, because they've been setting out on a lot,
Speaker 43
6:43
they're just maintenance expenses with having an underutilized asset that we'll avoid going forward. But this doesn't include state
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
6:58
all. So, just in doing the math, if you take like a million dollars divided by 300 vehicles, I mean, that's roughly about $3,333.
I don't know if you've bought a set of tires lately, but they're pretty diagram expensive, plus an oil change, plus if anything happens to the vehicle, if the air conditioner goes out, transmission needs to be fixed, you know, windshield needs to be replaced, insurance on those vehicles, you know, all those things have to be taken into consideration. and $3,300 a year annually is probably about as much
as I spend personally on my vehicle to maintain it.
So I think that's reasonable math. If you
think it's reasonable, I chuckle a little bit. You sound a little bit like one of those car maintenance commercials there, you know, a transmission. Yeah, they always say a transmission to $200 anyway. Well, I can just say my husband. I'm with your numbers in it, $3,000. I'm just repeating
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
7:56
what my husband tells me about me
driving my car. I'm not trying to be a commercial here. I'm just trying to be a, yeah. I think the
Speaker 29
8:06
broader point, too, is that the numbers come to us from McKinsey based on the more,
they have the granular data, and we could obviously go mine that. But that's why we're bringing the proposal to the General Assembly, is there's an opportunity to save. if their pro forma numbers don't pan out, I've got zero interest in continuing to subscribe to the service. You know, these are the projections. Well, don't we have to just look at it in reality and see does it actually pan out? If it doesn't, then we need to discontinue the service. Okay. Thank you. I'll let someone
else ask a question. Representative Meeks, you're recognized.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
8:46
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So many of you may remember about a decade ago when I was first elected I delivered pizzas at night to work off some debt and even back then over a decade ago when we got on the clock we took out that little pizza topper thing put it on top of the car and that had all this tracking stuff in it and so private industry has been doing this for a long long time and you know whether it's pizza delivery courier service you know 18 wheelers
Just about anybody who utilizes vehicles in the public sector now is using some type of technology similar to this. One of the reasons that they employed this technology was to make sure that we were driving safely. And by driving safely, the companies got discounts on the liability insurance that they were having to cover us. And so my question is, does the state pay any kind of insurance or liability insurance for employees who are driving these vehicles?
And if so, is that a potential another source of savings that we could gain by proving that, hey, our employees are driving safely, we've got the data to prove it, can we get a better rate?
Speaker 28
10:03
So we do self-insure our automobile insurance as a state, and that's kind of part of the captive that y'all be looking at in the
Speaker 29
10:11
session. You know, I think that is not something we're currently considering for purposes of insurance. I think that's getting into granularity. Words kind of keep coming up.
That is getting more granular in terms of tracking individual usage. I will tell you from my standpoint, my chair,
Speaker 55
10:28
looking at this, the thing that I'm most supportive of is tracking the asset, not the employee. And that's not a distinction without difference. I understand the employees are in the cars, but the whole initiative is not aimed at the employee. It's aimed at the asset. And to understand where the asset is, is the asset getting fully utilized?
If it's not, why not? and can we redeploy it to someplace else that can make full
Speaker 29
10:58
utilization of it? And just really quickly, let me speak to utilization and why that's an issue. Currently, current practice, each individual department, they all have several agencies. And each of these agencies are individually procuring a fleet. And they're not sharing it within the department, let alone across departments. And so if a particular agency is not traveling very heavily, its vehicle is just sitting on the parking lot.
versus another agency that may have heavy travel. They can't borrow that other car. They don't have other cars available because we don't have the data on that. So the thing that I'm most interested in is understanding are we using a very expensive asset to the greatest
effectiveness. Thank you. Okay, and I want to follow up on that because I think it's a good point. We're all about efficiency. We all want to save money. Fleet management's important, these tracking devices can be helpful in that regard. Couldn't you do a fleet management
study, if you will, by placing the trackers on the car for a period of a year, two years, determine how your fleet's operating, where your efficiencies are, make those changes, and then stop using the trackers, and then ever so often maybe do it again. But the way I understand it is, if we go with this proposal, it's an $850,000 a year cost, year over year. Now I've heard multiple justifications, one of them is the fleet management perspective.
First justification I heard was that so the state employees didn't have to fill out those boxes of paperwork. If that's the true justification, then I have to go back to my constituents and say, in order to save that many boxes of state employees doing paperwork, we're going to to spend $850,000 a year, or in other words, $8.5 million over the next 10 years so that they don't have to do paperwork. I don't think my constituents would like that very much. But if it's fleet management, why don't we just do a study, figure it out, and implement
it as opposed to a permanent solution? So I'd like to hear a
Speaker 76
13:15
response to that. Thank you. Yes, sir, if I may. to your first
Speaker 29
13:20
point in terms of what you say to your constituents, you know, as the state CFO, I don't like that result
Speaker 55
13:26
either. I don't think the primary justification for doing this is work avoidance for state employees. I don't. I do think gathering data in a better way, in a more reliable way that can be centralized and then can be studied, I think that's a
good reason to do it. But to me, the primary benefit of having these telematics is to understand are the vehicles actually being driven, where they're being driven, who's driving them in the sense of the agency that's doing the driving, and then doing the analysis based on that. To your point, could we just do a study? I think we can do anything. The question would be if we take it off and then we decide that we need to do it again I think we are losing
some efficiencies in that process but I would make you this commitment I'm just as interested as you are in understanding that we have a genuine ROI on the expenses that we're incurring as a state and if this does not pan out and does not actually give us actionable
Speaker 29
14:31
data to make decisions about our fleet I will be the first one to recommend to the governor we need to discontinue
this. Well, so my response to that would be the easiest way to do this would be to do it on a temporary basis as a study.
Determine where the efficiencies are, make the changes, and then you don't continue to incur that cost year over year over year once you have determined what the efficiencies are. And I think that's a fair point. I think the efficiencies, again, my opinion, could be determined by placing the trackers for a period of time because, you know, one of the other concerns that's been brought up, Representative Beck's mentioned it in others, is the fact that while you're tracking vehicles, those vehicles are driven by people.
It's like Representative Beatty said, you put a tracker on his tie and you wouldn't be tracking him, you'd be tracking his tie. Well, yeah, except the tie is tied to him, so you're actually tracking him. There's very little distinction there. So, do you have any concerns with just the idea that, understand just the kind of overbearing nature, the oppressive nature of placing trackers on state employees' vehicles?
Speaker 28
15:57
Well, they're not state employees' vehicles. they belong to the state of Arkansas. That they drive, you know what I mean. I understand that, I understand that. But I do think that actually is a very important
Speaker 29
16:09
point that, you know, me as an employee of the state of Arkansas, I have a reasonable right of expectation of privacy when I hop in my pickup truck and I drive it from here to someplace else. If I'm in a state vehicle, I do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
That's not my vehicle. And I would think that if there is, Lord forbid, some critical incident that occurs with a state employee and allegedly
Speaker 55
16:37
with a vehicle and people begin to ask questions, well, did we know where something was at? Did we know where this employee was driving? It's a safety issue as well. And our
Speaker 29
16:50
response is, well, no, we don't have access to that information. When the prevailing standard, I'd argue, in most industry is you do have that information, people would write.
ask us questions why are we out of step. Now we are state actors I get that's a little bit of a difference. I'm not personally advocating for and I'd want to squelch any conversation about using tools to over scrutinize and over track employees. I carry two phones a personal phone and a state phone. My state phone has you know the find my phone function turned on that's automatically loaded that provides way more detailed information about my movements than being one of these trackers assigned to one of these vehicles.
Well, you bring up a great point because I think that's
the next logical step. Once we establish that we can place a tracker on vehicles driven by state employees, the next logical step is to do, as I understand Walmart does at their corporate headquarters, you give every state employee a badge, you figure out, you know, how many times they go to the bathroom, you know, how long they spend logged on to their computer. You determine how efficient of an employee is this or is this an employee that kind of likes to be lazy and not really do their work that much.
And at some point, you know, we have enough trouble attracting quality employees to state government as it is. But at some point, you know, you begin to become a bit oppressive and over burdensome. And I think we, you know, we have to walk a fine line in state government with that regard. You know, Walmart may can dictate that upon their employees, and certainly based on the amount that they pay them. State government's in a little different situation, and I just think we have to guard against this micromanaging of people,
this oppressive nature of constant surveillance of people's personal movements. When they go to the bathroom, when they go outside for a break. Hang on, I've got the floor. When they go outside for a break, when they go to lunch and come back, I mean, at some point, you have to trust your employees and you don't micromanage them, scrutinize them, and surveil them 24-7.
And so I'd just like to hear your response about that because I think there's a line. I'd like to hear where you
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
19:18
think it is. If you want to speak before I speak with them. Sure. I mean,
I would disagree with you that that would be a logical next step. To me, that's illogical. And I don't, I would not, to me, that would be an illogical thing to do and a waste of time and a waste of resources to do that with state employees. So I don't think it would be a logical next step to go from what we're talking about as far as a state vehicle as an asset and trying to manage our assets knowing where they're even part or if that's a secure location or not, if they're going to get broken into, whether we know that or not.
I think what we're talking about here is state vehicles as an asset that we're just trying to manage more effectively and efficiently utilizing the technology that we know that is already available and used in the private sector because it creates efficiencies. So my response to your question, Representative Gathaway, would be there's so many things that you could say, what if, what if, but again, we're just talking about the bill in front of us that's really dealing with an asset of the state of Arkansas, just like a computer, just like any type of equipment that is utilized by a state employee.
Speaker 26
20:41
Mr. Chairman, I would agree with you in terms of
Speaker 29
20:44
what your concerns are about privacy. You know, being a lawyer for about 30 years at this point, a substantial amount of my practice in the corporate world, working in the labor and employment area, representing corporate clients, I spent a little too much time having to tell my clients,
Speaker 55
21:01
you might be able to do that legally, but that sure is a dumb thing to do. And so I don't think that we want to go down the road of surveilling.
I do think that we can give assurances that the access to the information pertaining to these vehicles will be centralized and tightly controlled, as it is, for example, with our computers. You know, if you're a supervisor and you want to get access to somebody's email, you just can't just call up information services and say, send me my employees list of all their emails they've received and sent. There are protocols in place to make sure that we're not, you know, being too intrusive, that there really is a reason for that, and we have the right level of supervision, adult supervision, involved in that sort of analysis.
So I can tell you, you know, with
Speaker 29
21:50
100% certainty, my commitment to you, none of the conversations that I've personally been a part of in the Arkansas Forward Steering Committee, which I sat on, where this issue, you know, came up, Not one time did
Speaker 55
22:03
we validate the reason for the initiative based on our ability to surveil employees. This is all about fiscal
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
22:13
management from our perspective. But I do want to say, too, in response, the state police do utilize this type of technology for safety purposes
and to recreate any type of a car chase or anything like that so that they can recover evidence that may have been lost along the way. So, I mean, to the degree of what you're saying, they have to utilize it, but in a way that law enforcement, you know, utilizes it in those regards. So I would agree with you just that is happening, but in a law enforcement setting with our state police. Well, thank you
for that. And I appreciate your responses. Truly, I do.
But I will just, again, have to respectfully disagree. I do think that it is not unrealistic at all to expect that at some point in the future and maybe not the too distant future that there will be people sitting before this committee seeking to surveil state employees more than is being done now. It is happening in private industry, and part of the justification that I heard for this bill was FedEx implemented this type of fleet management technology a long time ago.
Well, Walmart has implemented employee management technology, if you will, that is very much, I think, intrusive in surveilling in nature, but they're Walmart, and so they have the ability to do that. And I don't think, again, it's unrealistic to think that at some point, and again, maybe not in the too distant future, that we'll be having the conversation that I'm talking about.
Maybe we won't, and I hope I'm wrong. I would be
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
23:57
opposed completely to that because I don't think a state employee is an asset like we're talking about in this regard.
And while I understand that, I think the response to that and the people who would bring such a bill, who would justify it, would say they are paid with taxpayer funds. And if we want to increase our efficiencies, then as a taxpayer, I have the right and we have every justification to get the best out of our state employees and make sure that they're not taking too many smoke breaks. I think that'll be the justification we'll hear from that end of the table. I may not be here, you may not be here, but 10 years from now, who knows?
Anyway, all right, any other questions by the committee? Representative Ray, you're
Representative David Ray
Unverified
24:43
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My questions are for Secretary Hudson. So I've got
a handful of questions here. I think I can move through them pretty quickly. As I understand it, the goal
of this legislation is to optimize the utilization of the state's vehicle fleet in order to A, produce savings for the taxpayers, and B, efficiencies on behalf of the state. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Earlier this session, I ran and passed a bill that's now been signed into law
dealing with how the sale of state property is
conducted, or sorry, the purchase of state property is conducted for building authority. And the main reason that we're hopeful that that will create efficiencies is because we're trying to move from a decentralized process where every agency is in charge of their own real estate to a centralized process where there's somebody who has the right financial incentives
and incentives for the taxpayer to manage that asset. Is it your contention that agencies will have, We will have better incentives for the purchase, utilization of state vehicles if there is more of a centralized process than a decentralized process where every agency does their own thing. Yes, sir. I think
Speaker 28
26:09
you gain efficiencies, but you also leverage
Speaker 29
26:13
expertise. So Ann Laidlaw and DBA, she's a property manager.
She understands how to do that. She understands how to develop property. She understands what market conditions are. She understands where
Speaker 55
26:24
we have space underutilized. So right now, if you look at it from the property standpoint, the person who's handling that for a particular agency, that is in other duties as assigned. And they are not quite as motivated as Ms. Laidlaw is to make sure that we're as efficient as we can be. The other thing I think that legislation did, it's analogous to this, is we're beginning to gather information across the board
to understand how many square feet we have in a particular building, what's the employee load in that building, Do we have the opportunity to put more employees in and gain efficiencies there? We lack a lot of data, a lot of metrics in state government. And without data, you can't make good decisions. Okay. And then
Representative David Ray
Unverified
27:08
I do kind of want to put you on the spot with these last two questions. Is the agency going to make an effort to document the savings from this if it passes
so that we can know a year from now, two years
from now, whether this is producing savings as we hoped it might. They will. Now, it's
Speaker 55
27:29
going to be in Secretary Fiskin's department, but, you know, I get to play in their sandbox a little bit, so that's some things I'm going to be looking for. And again, as I said earlier, as with all contracts, if there's not an ROI on this, we don't need to be doing it. And I want
Speaker 28
27:49
savings, That means that you were spending X before, and you're spending less than X now.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
27:54
We've got to be able to do that. Okay, and that leads me to my last point, and I think you've sort of said this before. I just want
to hear it one more time. Can you assure us that the centralization of the management of the state's vehicle fleet is either going to A, produce more savings than the telematics cost, Or B, if
Speaker 28
28:19
it doesn't, will we be rolling this back in two years? So it's currently not getting managed.
So we're going to begin doing something we're not currently doing, managing it. And if the team that we vest with the responsibility to do that can't manage it, we'll get a different team. We're going to do this. We're going to do it well. And we're going to achieve savings for the taxpayers. And we'll keep changing out the team until we do. All right, I've got a
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
28:48
motion at the proper time. Representative Hawke, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Secretary, there's
been a lot of conversation about tracking employees, and look, I've got
two vehicles from my personal business that I've got trackers on, right, because I want to know everything about what's going on. But one thing I do with my employees is I have them sign a, not really a waiver, but just saying that they know that there's a tracker on this vehicle, just so that they acknowledge that this is a thing. Is that something that the department would be willing to do so that employees know that they're being tracked?
Speaker 55
29:20
Yeah, you know, I think we need to develop a whole set of processes, you know, when we implement this. But again, I think the place I would begin with is at the centralized level at TSS and us to be very clear.
Who has access to the data and for what reasons? Because we should not be just assimilating out somebody's driving, you know, record, their driving history. There ought to be a legitimate reason for that. and
Speaker 104
29:44
it ought to be tightly controlled. Correct. My next
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
29:48
question is, I think the last time we heard this bill, we were talking about cost of these trackers for each vehicle. I believe Representative Clowney said it was going to
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
29:58
be like $20 a vehicle. Is that correct? Per month. Or per month. Yeah. Just
Speaker 55
30:03
on that point, and y'all right and proper to be asking questions about the cost,
I do want to be clear, this is not a procurement bill. We're not actually making a procurement decision if this bill is passed. So that was just to give you a sense of a range of a potential cost. If the bill is passed, if we move forward on this, we'll go through the standard review process. We'll bring the contract to ALC, and
Speaker 29
30:27
you all will be able to ask the questions, is that the right price, is that the right functionality
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
30:32
that we'll need? But I guess my point of this was, in your opinion, being the Chief Financial Officer of the state,
In your opinion, from based on the conversations that you've had, the savings that would be made on, you know, having these trackers and things would further be a good thing in what the cost of this would be. Yeah, I believe we'll hit breakeven relatively
Speaker 55
30:53
quickly. But I think breakeven is not good enough. I think we have to actually achieve savings on top of the expenses that we're incurring to do this, and that should not be in the too distant future. Again, if we don't see that,
Speaker 28
31:07
then my question is what are we doing and why are we doing it?
Correct. Okay, thank you. No more questions. All right, just a couple more questions. So this information that you're talking about will be housed centrally regarding the use of the vehicles. Is that subject to FOIA? I think it would
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
31:36
be, absent an exemption. Okay. I think state vehicles, though, state police would, they maintain a FOIA exemption.
Speaker 29
31:42
The driving logs that were currently maintained that would contain the same information are currently foiable as well. Again, absent of statutory exemption. Gotcha.
Okay. Very good. And are you making a commitment now that, in terms of what we talked about
earlier, the surveilling of state employees' persons, I understand that this is a fleet management bill,
but their persons is something that you would be opposed to going forward? I heard
Speaker 28
32:19
Senator Irvin say that. You will not have me at the table advocating for
Speaker 55
32:24
surveilling state employees. And you have my personal commitment that as we work out the processes for implementing this, based on the
Speaker 29
32:32
feedback, I mean, I'm slow, but I'm not that slow, that I'm hearing at the table, this is a concern, and your concerns are important to us. So we'll
Speaker 55
32:42
make sure that we have good processes in place
so that we're tightly controlling dissemination of that information. And frankly, we're using it for the reasons that I have told you today, to manage the state fleet. Honestly, if a supervisor needs to have a tracker to manage somebody, I've got questions about
Speaker 36
33:00
that supervisor. There's better ways to manage somebody. Okay, so you
won't be at the end of the table, but I take it your deputy and your other employees won't either?
Speaker 45
33:14
Anybody that I get to boss around won't be here.
Okay. All right. Very good. We also heard concerns in the last meeting that we had about this bill that it could be extended to the point, you know, to know how hard a person breaks, you know, in terms of how fast they're driving, how hard they're breaking even. Do you intend to take it to that extent? I don't,
Speaker 28
33:40
and that has not been a subject of the conversation. I can tell you I know that function is present in the insurance industry out there.
Speaker 26
33:49
You can turn that on and it can affect your pricing. I can tell you
it's not turned on in my car. All right, well, we did hear that from the end of the table last time. I thought, again, there's a fine line with all of these things, and
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
34:07
to me that seemed a bit much. I think what you're referring to, I know like some insurance companies have like little devices that are being put into people's cars. Is that right? That can, I guess, give you incentives or something like that.
That's not, first of all, I think that
would be a waste of state employees' times to even be looking at that level of detail. That's
my opinion. So the argument from the end of the table was, from a safety standpoint, and maybe it was just that the technology exists such that they could track such things, including speed, the degree of braking, and a number of other variables, not just location, and that they would do that under the guise of safety, as we do so many things.
So I just wonder if that's your intention, and do you see it going that far? No. Yeah, and I
Speaker 29
35:00
would say that as we go through the procurement process and that procurement document is produced for review, the services and all the features that we are buying with that will be made available to you and you'll be able to see what exactly we're asking them to provide us in terms of data. That's not something that we have scoped out as
Speaker 76
35:20
part of this project. All right. Representative Beck, you're recognized.
And this came up, I think either I borrowed it or someone
brought this up last time. Everything you want is on the vehicle, and it's the maintenance, and I agree with you. Those are great, and I think you will have savings. I think you'll be surprised by it. But the problem I have is why are we putting a person in the vehicle? Here's what I'm talking about. Why do we need to know who's driving the vehicle?
You need to know how many miles it's being driven. And quite honestly, if it's being driven way over speed or something like that, you could always have a system to go back and say, who's got that car checked out now? The person would have to do nothing other than say, I've got this car checked out. It's assigned to me. And then have your system that gives you all the information you wanted just monitoring the fleet. It tells you the cars, how the cars are being utilized without any reference to who's utilizing them.
And then that gives you the information you need to check, you know, do the maintenance and the check back to go. And you don't have any of this tracking issues that you have as far as, like, you're tracking employees because you're really looking at the car, the fleet. And then if something's going wrong or something, you can always go back and look at the
Speaker 55
36:51
data and say, who was that assigned to at that particular point in time? Yeah. I take your point. I guess the reason why maybe a name of an employee would be valuable from an asset management standpoint is to
Speaker 29
37:05
understand what job duties are, you know, generating the need to travel.
Just to be able to kind of understand do we have the right cars, you know, signed in the right places. And again, the identity of the
Speaker 55
37:16
driver is currently being documented. This is not creating a new record. This is just transferring a paper record to an electronic record, but same data. But again, to the point that I made earlier, I think as we talk about generating reports to do the analysis, you know, if there's not a need to have a name on a report, then we should probably take steps to make sure that we're only generating on the report the essential data elements to do the analysis.
But there could be a reason when we discover something like we probably ought to know because of a critical incident that occurred, an allegation of a hit and run, for example, you know, who was driving the vehicle that day? I think that would be valuable information that we would need, but only if circumstances warranted having that name to be able to disclose to a broader group of people. And
I just want to double down on this. You know, you can understand the concern here because you're saying, I want to know everything about this fleet and all that, and I agree.
I think that's all very valuable data. But then you step right over that line and says, okay, I need to know who's driving it. And that's tracking. Whereas what I'm saying is the vehicle could be signed out by a person on a given day. And then whatever occurs with that vehicle on that day, I mean, the employee should know, hey, this vehicle is being tracked and you've signed it out. So don't be letting someone else drive it and all that stuff. And that would be information. You would have all the information you wanted. And just by, I just typed into my phone, $14 a day, and they'll track,
they'll give you every bit of information that you've said that you want, but it doesn't have anything about tracking who's driving the vehicle. And that's a fleet management tool. That's a company out there who does it. So it's $14 a day, and they tell you every place that vehicle went, if it made quick stops and the
Speaker 128
39:05
speeds and every place it's been, so. Yeah, unfortunately, I think the dynamics of the committee
Speaker 55
39:10
setting creates a kind of like, you know, opposite views on things, we're not disagreeing about the concern. We really aren't. I think we all agree, at least I know I agree, that we ought to be careful about being too
intrusive into, you know, people's personal stuff. Totally agree with you on that. Sorry, I
said $14 a day. I meant $14 a
Speaker 55
39:29
month. Yeah, that's fine. But circling back, though, we're not creating a new data element. We're not. The data element is currently being tracked and using that word tracked. It's being archived. It's being recorded, and so we're just taking it from a paper to an electronic format. That's all this is doing, so we can make better decisions, do better analysis.
But again, the idea that somehow we may take this employee name and their travel patterns and create some sort of broad dissemination of it, that is not our plan. that's not the goal, and given the concerns I'm hearing here, we ought to make sure in our implementation procedures, we avoid it being an issue. All right, any other questions by the committee?
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
40:26
Representative Berry? You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've talked-- since we've been talking
here for the last 30 minutes, we've talked about two things. Vehicles, vehicle maintenance, and tracking employees, or tracking vehicles. Is-- do we have a problem with our employees being in places that they don't need to be?
And have they been-- No, this is not-- Have they been told what the policies are? And I know, can
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
41:10
you answer that? Sure. Thank you for the question. No, no. This is about management of what is a state
asset, these vehicles that are all over the place in all these different agencies. And you've got people that are tasked to deal with it.
Instead of dealing with children and family services issues in the Department of Children and Family Services, they're having to deal with the state vehicles that are part of that agency. So this is centralizing the state vehicles into transformation and shared services so we can better manage those vehicles. And when I say better manage them, that means you've got one centralized office that's looking at the maintenance of the vehicles, everything to deal with a vehicle.
That's their focus. Instead of it being in commerce and health department and human services department and DCFS and DYS and all these different agencies, that's not really their function. it's just part of what they have to do as a state employee we want to me i want those state employees to be focused on their mission if they're hired at the department of health to be dealing with department of health issues to me this is about management of our vehicles
and making sure that they're safe they're well maintained they're taken care of and that they're available quite frankly uh for people that need them i'm in working with my work with dcfs in particular division of children and family services and actually ran a bill based on the fact that you had a lot of traveling across state because these children were placed in the foster care system and if there wasn't a family available in fort smith and they may be in faulkner county but they were having to transport these children back and forth for court hearings and things like
that and so to me it's that's a safety issue and that's happening right now so you know it's a safety issue for our state employees to make sure that they have a good working vehicle they can use and that you've got one centralized office that's really tasked with making sure we're managing it to the very best of our ability. My husband manages our cars. I do not. I am not good at it. Okay. I understand
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
43:34
what the intent is, but I have to ask you a question. Yes, sir.
If this bill doesn't pass, you're not going to take that pizza
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
43:44
back, are you? No. I feel bad because you didn't get lunch. So, yes, I brought you
pizza. Sorry. All right. Any other questions by the committee? Seeing no further
questions by the committee, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Senator Urban, you're recognized to close for your bill.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
44:12
Thank you. I really do sincerely appreciate all the time that you've spent
hearing this bill and all the questions that have been asked about this bill. I give you my personal assurances that I will maintain my oversight over any implementation of this and bring anything before ALC that we might want or need as we work through this during the interim. I think those are some really great questions that everybody put forward. But again, I am interested to see how this is implemented and the information that we would receive from the data.
So I really appreciate all the time and diligence you've given me on the bill. And I appreciate a good vote
for the bill. And I will say that the governor's office is supportive of this, as is the governor. Thank
you. All right, Senator Irvin has closed for her bill. What are the wishes of the committee? See a motion do pass. Representative Ray? Is that as amended? Yes. Okay, motion do pass as amended. Is there any discussion on the motion? Representative Hawke, you're recognized.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
45:21
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, I think that we live in the 21st century and things are going digital and we've got to be able to find cost-saving measures in any way we can do it. And I think that this is a good first step to that. You know, when it comes to state vehicles, they need to be used for state purposes. And in that case, I think that the state should be able to track this. Going to do paper and logs are the old way of doing things, and there's more efficient ways to go about and figure out maintenance and things of that nature to find those cost-saving measures.
I was just telling Representative Collins just a minute ago that whenever on the two vehicles I have for my business, The other day we were doing our taxes, and one of my property management employees, we found that there were six trips to Oaklawn over the past year through the tracking that we had. And I went and asked him, he said, well, I went down to make a couple horse bets. Well, he was doing that during work hours. And we didn't, it was just a slap on the wrist, said let's not do that anymore, but it allowed for us to track that and correct the problem at the time.
And so with all that being said, I think this is a good first step. I don't think there's any harm in doing this to try
Representative David Ray
Unverified
46:37
to save taxpayer money, and I'll be a yes vote. Any other discussion? Representative Ray, you're recognized. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say real quickly, you know, on the campaign trail, a line that I often use is that I believe state government taxes too much and spends too much. And we all love cutting taxes because the political incentives for cutting taxes are aligned with our constituents.
The reason that it's so difficult to cut spending is because the incentives are often not aligned. It's hard to cut spending. But the one area that states can achieve real savings is in this sort of shared services arena, and it doesn't really impact anything programmatically. So whether it's real estate, whether it's vehicle fleet management, whether it's IT, there's all sorts of buckets along the way that states can and should and have in other states find savings.
So this is going to help us optimize the usage of our vehicle fleet, I believe. It will move us toward a centralized process as opposed to a decentralized process. I think at one point, I remember reading an old Democrat Gazette story during the Beebe administration where they said that there was one agency that had more employees than they did vehicles. That will never happen again under this sort of a system, in my opinion. And with the exception of maybe Representative Ennett and Representative Hawke, I probably
represent more state employees than anybody on this committee in my district. And so if there are problems with privacy, I feel confident that this committee will address it if it
arises. So I'll be a yes vote. All right, and I just want
to say for the record, I had some
serious concerns about these bills. I've expressed those. I've made no bones about them, particularly with regard to
the overbearing nature, the oppressive nature, the surveilling of state employees, the tracking. I have concerns about that. And one thing that has made me feel better, Senator Irvin has said from the end of the table that she intends to, I believe, protect those interests. That's not her intention. It is purely fleet management. And to the extent that rules are developed or there's issues that will come before ALC, I know Senator Irvin will be mindful of that, and I appreciate those remarks.
I also appreciate the remarks of Secretary Hudson and my friend Secretary Fiskin, who I've worked well with over the years. I believe that they all will work to protect the interests of state employees with regard to their privacy and utilize this in an appropriate manner. And so I appreciate those commitments that were made today from the end of the table. And then with regard to the fiscal impact, the financial costs that will be borne by this effort, I think that we're going to have to continue to analyze that.
I trust Secretary Hudson who says that if there's not an ROI on it, then we're not going to continue to do it. And so we need to continue to monitor that and scrutinize that very closely. And if it's not there, then we need to rethink what we're doing. So I appreciate all those remarks. I think that certainly has helped ease some of my concerns, and so I just wanted to say that I appreciate that all very much. And with that, we do have a—does anyone else have any discussion on the motion?
All right, seeing none, we do have a motion do pass as
amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the ayes have it. Congratulations, Senator Irvin, you passed
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
50:20
your bill. Thank you very much for your time and the input. Thank you.
All right, committee, we have met here for the purpose of
Speaker 153
51:15
taking up constitutional amendments. But before we do that, I made a
pledge to Representative Meeks that we would take up
his amendment on the 2036 Commission. And
so with that, Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hopefully this will be short and sweet.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
51:46
So, colleagues, this amendment basically does what you asked me to do. We pull out all the per diem and we explicitly state that members of the commission will receive
no compensation for serving on this commission. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions when the time's right.
All right, Senator, I'm sorry, Representative Meeks has explained his amendment. Are there any questions by the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee, is there a motion? Motion. Motion to
adopt the amendment. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed. Amendment's been adopted. Representative Meeks, you recognize to
present your bill as amended. Thank you colleagues. I think we've already discussed this bill
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
52:33
and that with that I'm ready to close and we'll make a motion do pass as amended. Representative Meeks
is closed for his bill he's made a motion do pass as amended is there any discussion on the motion seeing no discussion on the motion all those in favor say aye all those opposed guys have it congratulations represent meeks you passed your bill believe representative Beatty had a bill house bill so just
before we begin the constitutional amendments representative ray has a bill and then I see representative Pilkington here
and representative Brown here if If these are going to be Representative Hawke, Representative Unger. Now we convene for the purpose of
taking up these constitutional amendments. I just want to remind everyone of that. If these bills are going to be quick, we'll run them. Everybody tells me they're going to be so quick, so I'm trusting you on that. Representative Beatty, you're recognized.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
53:40
Representative Howard Beatty, District 95, Mr. Chair, here to present House Bill 1925. It's bill from Secretary of State's office.
Representative Beatty, my understanding is you have an amendment? I
do. All right, we're going to pass that out. Thank you. Always looking out for you.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
54:06
Well, actually, the amendment is really the new bill because it changed everything in the bill.
All right, everyone should have a copy of the amendment. Representative Beatty, you're recognized to
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
54:41
present the amendment. Members, basically what the amendment will do is basically everything that's after the enacting clause, it substitutes all the language in the remainder of the bill. So basically your amendment will be the bill. Representative Beatty has explained the amendment. Are there any questions
by the committee? Representative Collins, you're recognized. Representative Collins? Okay, no question. All right. Any
other questions by the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee. Representative Beatty, have you made a motion to adopt
the amendment? Yes, sir. I offer a motion to adopt the amendment. All right. Motion to adopt the amendment. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor
say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The amendment's been adopted. Representative Beatty, you're recognized to present the bill as amended.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
55:27
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, basically what this bill, it addresses the need on absentee ballot materials that will have an oath in the statement confirming the voter's qualification to vote included in the ballot must be signed by the voter and witnessed by an individual who's at least 18 years older. And the bill outlines the process for making, sealing, and returning absentee ballots.
It details the steps a voter must follow to prepare and submit their absentee ballot, including providing identification in certain cases. Exceptions are provided in the bill. And overall, the bill seeks to enhance the absentee voting process by implementing a more secure and transparent procedure, ensuring the integrity of absentee ballots in the state of Arkansas. To cover a few points as far as witnessing of absentee ballots and, you know, most of our, we've got many of our neighboring states that require absentee ballots to be witnessed by two citizens over the age of 18.
Louisiana also has requirement that the absentee be witnessed by one person over the age of 18. Right now, Arkansas has not had a witness requirement, so it leaves some vulnerability there. The bill requires a single witness for the absentee ballot voter statement. It would not be applied to disabled or sick voters, military family or religious observers. It's just a common sense step to put us on track to be a leader in election security instead of falling behind.
It lines up with the president's most recent executive order discussing the dangers of mail-in voting. And it was one of the areas under election integrity that we were lacking in. So it checks the box and will take care of that issue. With that, I'll entertain any questions. Representative
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
57:34
Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I guess, you know, there's a woman who used to live in my district and now doesn't.
She's 100 years old, and she calls me every couple months about all kinds of things. But she, you know, her husband died a long time ago. She doesn't have any family who live around here. She lives by herself. She's not in a long-term care facility. She always votes absentee. she's not technically physically disabled, but she just, you know, votes absentee all the time because that's how she does it. Um, so I, I guess, you know, someone like that, you would have to
have a witness come to their, their house. Um, I mean, who, who is she going to have come to her house to witness something like this? Well, I would hope
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
58:28
that someone would come visit her or that she'd have a guest in there, so I think she'd have ample opportunity to
have someone witness. There's no requirement on who that individual could be. It could be you, Representative Collins. You could go and take care of her and be a witness on her absentee ballot
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
58:44
for her. Well, I've helped her with
this increasingly nightmarish process over the last couple cycles,
but this is going to make it a lot harder for our elderly to vote. I
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
58:55
mean, wouldn't you agree? Well, I don't think it would make it that difficult or make it more onerous on them to vote, there are exceptions in the bill that the voters, the witnessing requirement should not apply to a voter under one of the following, that the voter is unable to attend the rolls on Election Day illness or physical disability, long-term care, and a few other instances there. So I think it provides enough exemptions
that that we could find an exemption to take care of of of your um of senior citizens um so i i i really don't think that that's a legitimate value concern that we should have in this issue okay representative finally
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
59:45
thank you mr chair um representative baity this may be elsewhere in the code i just wasn't able to look it up in time um what what happens on the back end if the person doesn't meet these requirements?
Is the ballot just automatically tossed out? Does it become provisional? Is there a cure period? I'm just curious the mechanics
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:00:04
of that bit. - On the absentee side? - Yeah. - I'm not exactly
certain on the absentee with this new requirement what would happen. I think it would follow the same procedures right now where that absentee ballot would not be, it would be an improper absentee ballot, but minus that witness signature. - Okay, thank you. Representative Meeks, you're recognized.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:00:30
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize if I missed this in your opening. What problem are we trying to solve by doing this, would be my first question. And then my follow-up is with the county clerks and the Secretary of State, because they're They're going to be looking at these witness, I mean, I could forge a witness statement kind of deal. So are they going to have to be policed that somehow?
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:01:03
Representative Meeks, I think mainly what those folks will be doing is just to make certain that there was a witness on that ballot, on that absentee when it came in, that they had someone witness and had that information on there. I don't know that there's going to be a lot more policing outside of that. It just provides for a more transparent process, and the fact that it's a statement from someone other than just the
individual that's made on that end, that they witnessed this individual sign their absentee ballot.
Okay. Okay, I see no more questions on the committee. Is there anyone here to speak more against the
bill? All right, what's the will of the committee? Oh, you
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:01:55
did motion due pass, okay, all right. I'm closed, and I'm closed, not offer motion due pass on- Thank you. The bill as amended.
As amended, okay, we have a motion due pass as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. I'm gonna call it the ayes, have it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Committee. All right, next. Representative Wright, do you have a bill?
Is this 1891? Yes, sir, it is.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:02:41
Please identify yourself for the Committee and you're good to go. David Gray, House District 69. Colleagues, I'm going to try to be the quickest bill in committee today. Earlier in the session, we passed House Bill 1222. That bill was designed to standardize the way various judicial offices can use their title on the ballot in the case of judicial appointments. After that bill passed both chambers and was signed into law, someone thoughtfully pointed
out to me that there's another section of code that we left out, and so this bill just goes back and captures that other area of code. Happy to answer any questions
if there are any. Committee, see no questions? Oh, we have no one here
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:03:37
to speak for or against the bill. Oh, Representative Woodridge. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative, I'm
I'm sorry, I was late getting to the committee meeting. Is this the bill, this has to do with judges using judge in front of their name on a ballot title. So is this like a judge that was a judge in a different state that
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:03:53
moves to Arkansas, runs different bill? No, no, no. That's a bill that Senator Clark has, I think that's working as
well. Yes, okay. I'm trying to get the agenda up. I'm just double checking. Yeah, no, the read, just, yeah, I'll just go back
and revisit the purpose for the original bill. Okay. There's a discrepancy in the law where if you're a circuit judge or a district judge
and you've been appointed to that position, if you run for a different position, you can use your ballot title as a prefix on the ballot. Okay. But if you're a Court of Appeals judge or a Supreme Court judge, for some reason you've not been able to, and I'm not aware of any policy distinction for that reason. So this is
just standardizing the way all of those judicial offices are treated. I remember that discussion. Thank you,
sir. Are there any more questions? Seeing none. No one has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Anyone in the audience? All right. Seeing no one, are you ready to close?
I'm closed for the bill and I move to do pass. All right, community. We have a motion to do pass. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations. Representative Ray, you've passed your bill. Next up, Representative Brown, I have you down to be 1365. Please identify yourself for the committee and you're good to go.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:05:24
Representative Carolyn Brown, District 67, which is mostly North Pulaski, where it is North Pulaski. Yeah, you're good to go. Go ahead. Thank you. I'm here to represent House Bill 1365. There
is no, the only change in this bill is I removed section 7. This bill,
Let me state, this bill is the act to remove racial and gender quotas and qualifications of membership for certain boards, committees, councils, and commissions, and for other purposes. There were 22 locations within our code that specified a race or gender quota. What we did not realize is that one of One of those boards was our Ethics Commission.
And that was put into our statutes by a referendum, Voters Referendum Initiated Act. And so the vote threshold to remove that, those quotas, or to amend that section of code required 67 votes. I got 61 votes on the House floor and I don't, at this point in time, I've just decided to remove that section from this legislation and we'll deal with that one later.
So, I would appreciate a good vote and I think I've answered the only questions that could be asked about my change here. All
right, are there any questions? Committee? Seeing none. Representative Haugh. Okay. It's getting late,
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:07:25
so I just want to confirm what you just said. So we're taking out the Ethics Commission. So we're cherry-picking Ethics Commission for all the rest of the commission just so we can get the bill passed. Is that correct?
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:07:37
Basically. Well, I mean, I don't want to be flip about this. We will deal with it later. But it
requires a 67-vote threshold for that one section. The rest of the sections are fine. As
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:07:50
for that one section, I get what you're saying. Okay, thank you. Seeing no other
questions, is there no one signed up to speak for or against? Is there anyone here who wants to speak on the bill?
Seeing nobody, your rights to close for your bill. I'm closed for the
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:08:13
bill, and I would appreciate a good vote. Thank you, committee. We have a motion
to pass from Representative Meeks. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Congratulations, Representative Brown, your bill's passed. Representative McClendon, do you need to be in another
committee? I do, I've got a bill in the insurance company. All right, do you
Is this going to be House Bill 1929? I have two, I have House Bill 1929, House Bill 19. All right, I got those. So 1929 first, recognize yourself for the committee and you're good to go. Oh, we have an amendment. I have an amendment, simple amendment. They're passing it out.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:09:22
Mr. Chair, real quick before we get started on this, I'm just asking maybe Carly or you, if we keep hearing bills, we're going to be here all night. And we were intended for constitutional amendments.
And I keep seeing representatives come in the room and things like that. Is this going to be the last bill, or what are we doing here? Because I just, like I know we all got bills to get out, but we had an agenda to do constitutional amendments, and we have yet to get to those.
I think I do recognize that. We're going to go ahead and do this bill, and let me do some paperwork
here. Okay, no, that's fine, I'm just trying to figure out what we're going to do. Thank you. I understand we'll try to get to those as quick as possible. Okay, thank you.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:10:23
Okay, Representative Mindy McElindan, House District 10. The amendment that you have before you just corrects the language on the first part of the bill from annexed to controlled, and at the request of the higher ed, it deletes the phrase use work
product document. Representative McElindon has explained her amendment.
Are there any questions on the amendment? Seeing none. Representative Underwood, you're recognized. Motion to adopt. Motion to adopt the amendment. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The ayes have
it. Congratulations. The amendment's been adopted. Representative McElindon, you're recognized to present the bill as amended. Thank you
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:11:14
so much. Thanks for letting me be here, and I'll be quick. I actually have a lot to say, but I'll be real quick to explain it to you because I know it's late with respect to Representative Hawke. The purpose of this bill is to actually require that in our governmental documents, as listed above,
that we go back to calling what we currently call the West Bank, which is a political term, back to Judea and Samaria, which is a historical term for the area. It is in keeping with our history with Israel. It is in keeping with our current newly approved ambassador to Israel. and I think it is the right thing to do in order to honor the history and our partnership with Israel. I've got lots of information to share with you, but I'm
going to keep it concise. All right. Representative McElindon has explained her bill. Are there any questions?
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:12:01
Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I guess my issue with this would be
it's possible that this may be inconsistent with what the United States federal government does, And I'm not saying it is right now, but if we put something into law, we're not following what the United States government uses necessarily. And I think the whole point with the Gulf of America discussion was that we should be following the new guidance, whatever that guidance is from the federal government when it comes to what we put on maps and who we recognize and how we recognize them in these sort of international conversations.
So, why would we set up our own nomenclature separate and distinct from the federal government? Well, I won't say that it is
separate and distinct from the federal government. I think the federal government, as we've seen with Gulf of America, does change what it calls different things. And I think in Arkansas, we're not coming up with a term that no one has ever heard of. It is a term that is used around the world for this area. West Bank is a very political term that is used and actually very disrespectful to the people of Israel.
And so the actual term of the land that has been there for thousands of years is Judea and Samaria. And there are maps that currently have it listed as Judea and Samaria. So it is not inconsistent. It is just not necessarily a term that everyone uses. But I think it is the right thing to do to say
let's use the historical words for that area. Well, obviously, you know, we all know it's a very, you know, fluid situation out there in many respects. And I don't necessarily have an issue with the terms. I have an issue with setting something up as a state where we are going to be on a different track from the federal government.
And so maybe my follow-up question to you would be, what is the current, is there a federal government position on this, or is it anywhere? I actually am not sure, but I will say there is a place for an exemption. If there's a
reason that it needs to be referred back to as the West Bank, there's actually a provision there to make that exemption as needed. Okay. All right, any other questions by the committee?
Seeing no further questions by the committee, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative McElhinney, you're recognized to close for your bill. I am closed for my bill and ask for a good vote. Representative McElhinney is closed for her bill. What are the wishes of the committee? See a motion, do pass. Representative, as amended, Representative Carr. Do pass, as amended. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. The ayes have it. Congratulations. You passed your bill. Thank you,
committee. That's my understanding you have another bill, Representative McElindon.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:14:53
I do, even faster. Okay. No amendments on this one, surprisingly. So this is— House bill. House bill. This is Mindy McElindon—oh, House Bill 1934. Okay. Representative Mindy McElindon, House District 10. This is a bill that is setting up the Arkansas Forward Engagement Committee Act. And basically, we are building—it's kind of an Arkansas doge, if you will. What we're doing is building off what's already happening with Arkansas Forward to create a group that will review state spending as well as regulations identifying waste, fraud, and abuse,
improve operational efficiencies, optimize the use of public resources, and foster a regulatory environment that supports economic growth. The working group consists of members such as secretaries of various departments, members appointed by the secretary of the Department of Shared Administrative Services, members of the House and Senate. All members are to work without compensation, including no per diem for legislators. This is a doge committee. The working group is also required to submit a final report of its findings to the Speaker and the President Pro Tem of the Senate by July 1st of 2026 and is set to be abolished on January 1st of 2027.
The Governor does have the option to extend it until 2029 if necessary. So again, the purpose of this bill is simply to identify ways to cut spending, to cut regulations, to spur economic growth. No one is getting paid, and it will sunset. All right, are there any questions by the committee? Seeing no questions by
the committee, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative McElhinney, you're recognized to close for your bill. Close for my bill and ask for a good vote. Representative McElhinney
is closed for a bill. What are the wishes of the committee? Motion to pass. Representative Ray, is there any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed. The ayes have it. Congratulations. You passed your bill. Thank you, committee. Thank you, chairman. All right. I said we weren't going to take up any Senate bills, but Representative Pilkington is here with a Senate bill,
I believe. He's been waiting patiently. He did talk with me about this beforehand, so we're going to take it up quickly. He promises me that it's going to be a very quick bill. So, Representative Pilkington, you're recognized. I think I have
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
1:16:55
an amendment with this as well. He has an
amendment, so it's not going to be a quick bill. It's quick. It's quick. Don't worry.
This is House, I'm sorry, Senate Bill 241. Staff's going to pass out the amendment.
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
1:17:11
And while they're passing that out, I just want to thank Shane Broadway for helping us with the language on this to make sure that it's correct and right
and not causing any issues. It's called bolstering. What? bolstering your case by invoking the name of Shane Broadway. It's a good, nice move.
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
1:17:34
It's good. You and me, we've been here a while. Everyone
should have a copy of the amendment. Representative Pilking, you're recognized to present the amendment.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:17:45
Like I said, this is some language
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
1:17:48
change and so original sponsor wanted this and like I said, we worked with Shane to make sure that it's correct and so with that I ask for a positive motion. All right. I see a motion.
Representative Rose to adopt the amendment. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.
Aye. All those opposed, the amendment's been adopted. Representative Pilkington, you're recognized to present Senate Bill 241
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
1:18:10
as amended. Thank you. Committee, I know it's been a long day, so I'll be very short on this. This is essentially to create a uniform attendance policy when it comes to bereavement when a public employee loses an immediate family member. And so, essentially, you know, we've had different agencies doing different things. We want to standardize it. This came from the governor's office. We know that by allowing us to have this, we'll believe that we'll be able to increase morale,
increase retention, and of course, when employees do return back to work, that they're able to focus on the work they're here to do and not on the loss of their family members. So with
that, I'm open to any questions. - Are there any questions by the committee
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:18:57
representative? No, no questions. Representative Ray. - Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Pilkington, I
think I could support this if it were limited to like spouse or child because those are just so traumatic.
But like grandmother, grandfather, I mean, everyone loses their grandparents. That's what happens when people get really old. - Yeah. - I've lost all of my grandparents. I have none left. And it was very sad when I lost them, but I knew that they were gonna pass at some point. I just, I feel like the state is pretty generous with PTO in general and with sick time as well. Do we really need more is my question.
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
1:19:43
- I would say, I believe we do. I think this uniform, uniformity number one is good for agencies to know what to follow. You know, we have more intergenerational families now Arkansas than we've ever had in the history of state. And for those who are unfamiliar with the term intergenerational family, it's oftentimes when the grandparents are the ones who are raising children or raising other family members. And so, for instance, in a case like that, where a grandmother has raised their, let's say, grandson, when that essentially grandmother dies, I mean, they were acting as the mother figure for that person. And so I would think that they
should be entitled to that. Now, once again, you don't have to take the entire leave. So like you said. I mean, if my grandmother were to pass and, you know, I'd known for quite some time that she was in hospice and this was coming, you know, I probably wouldn't need to take the whole 40-hour week to accomplish that. But some people might, and I think this is just, I think we've kept it tight enough that it's not extensive, you know, it's not cousins or uncles, but I think those
should be included because of the amount of intergenerational families we
have. any other questions by the committee seeing no further question about the committee representative pilkington how long of a leave
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
1:21:11
period are you proposing let me find it right here in the bill it is 40 hours of catastrophic leave
so okay five days if you do an eight-hour work day okay and
this applies to if there's a death of a family member in to what degree of relation it
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
1:21:30
is immediate family member means a father mother sister brother husband wife child grandmother grandfather grandchild in law or a parent or guardian or because I'm acting as a parent or guardian so yeah all right and then hold on real quick sorry I don't mean interrupt you chair sorry about that I just want to make sure I was clear on this on the child part we
include biological children unborn child a stepchild and an adopted child so we made sure the child was very broad okay well I
think that's I think that's very good I like that thank you representative Hawke
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:22:07
thank you mr. Chair, Representative Pilking. What was the idea behind a whole week? Like, rather than just like, because I know there's some companies that will only give three days, right? Why a whole week
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
1:22:20
off? Well, I just think that we thought was we just
thought that was appropriate. I think, actually, and I would say this, actually talking to another member who lost a family member recently. They had talked to, they worked for a private company that just gave them two days, and they thought that that was that was not enough. They think when it comes to making arrangements, especially for an immediate family member with funeral and all that comes with it, we thought a week was an appropriate amount of time. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions by the committee? All right. Seeing
no other questions by the committee, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative
Rose, you're recognized for a motion. Motion do pass as amended. Representative, actually I went out of order.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:23:06
Representative Pilkington. I'm close for my Bill. Thank you, committee. Thank you for
the questions. It was a good discussion. Representative Pilkington is closed for his bill. Representative Rose, motion do pass as amended. All right, we have a motion do pass as amended. Is there any discussion on the motion? I want to commend you, Representative Pilkington. I think it's a great bill and good work. So with that, seeing no further discussion on the motion, all those in favor say aye.
Aye. All those opposed? No. Ayes have it. Congratulations. You passed your bill. All right, I believe we have Senate Bill
351, Representative Ray. Let's do it.
Okay, all right. 351, Senate Bill 351.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:24:00
All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. David Ray, State Representative, District 69. So this is Senate Bill 351. This was originally Representative Eves.
He had some kind of energy bill he was running and said that if I could take this off his plate, that would be helpful. So this is mostly a cleanup bill for the Arkansas Ethics Commission. If there are questions, I could bring Director Graham Sloan to the table. But what I'm going to do is, just because I know people may not have had a chance to read this in its entirety,
I'm just going to go through section by section and just quickly explain. Oh, I'm getting head shakes. Okay. Well, all right. Then I'll do this. So there are a few things in this bill that are substantive. I do not believe any of them to be controversial. Most of these sections are cleanup in nature. The cleanup sections, most of them you'll see are cleaning up references to carryover funds. If you'll remember in 2021, we eliminated carryover funds and replaced them with remaining campaign funds.
So that's what most of those are about. Of the things that are substantive in Section 1, you know, currently the liability for an impermissible contribution is solely on the candidate. If somebody were to give you a contribution from an unregistered PAC or something and you take that donation, the liability is on you, the candidate, not on the goofball that gave you the illegal contribution. This just makes it to where it also extends to the contributor so that there's a dual responsibility.
Section 4 is substantive, but it's not really a big deal. Just like campaigns are required to maintain records for four years, this clarifies that independence expenditures and PACs are required to do the same. Sections 6, 7, 8, and 9 are clean up. Section 10, this is substantive, but again, not a big deal. It puts reports for exploratory committees on consistent footing with those for candidates. Section 11, same deal there, it just makes the reports for the IEs consistent with those
of candidates. Section 12 is clean up, 13 just says that the paid for by requirement for printed materials, that extends to IEs and just like they do campaigns, and that's pretty much it. Happy to take any questions if there are any. Representative Hock. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:26:49
Ray, I appreciate this because I fell victim to this last go around.
So let me just make it clear though, so for in my instance as well as other candidates in Saline County, the Republican women, they didn't register as a PAC like they were supposed to. a bunch of checks, and then next thing I know, I was on the front page of the paper as taking the illegal contribution. So with this bill, that would not make me on the front page. It would not be
Speaker 270
1:27:16
on me anymore. It would just strictly be on them, correct? No, I'm afraid that you would still be in a bit of hot water.
Even though they were originally a PAC, so it still falls on us.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:27:29
There would now be a dual responsibility, is my understanding, that they would be in trouble for giving you the contribution. There is a duty on behalf of the candidate to make sure that the contribution
they accept is legally permissible, but there's currently, you know, since you brought up that instance, I'll flesh that out a little bit. You'll remember the legal
defense of the PAC, if you will, they pointed out that they basically said, well, it's not illegal to give an
impermissible contribution. It's just illegal to accept one. So they basically blamed you for something that they did,
which was sort of a trash thing to do. No, it was terrible. But this would at least give dual responsibility to the person making the contribution. Thank you.
Representative Barry. Mr. Chairman. We have
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
1:28:29
someone in the audience that knows probably more about it than anybody could ask Graham Sloan if he has anything to add to that. Please identify yourself
for the committee. Graham Sloan,
Speaker 273
1:28:48
Director of the Ethics Commission. The law was changed a few years ago and there's now a list of permissible contributors.
And the law says that a candidate is prohibited from taking a contribution from somebody not on the list. And so the liability under current law runs to the candidate accepting the contribution. What this adds is a provision that if you're not on the list of permissible contributors, that you won't make a contribution. And so I think it's going to cut down by placing responsibility on the person making the contribution as well, you know, I can't imagine it's going to increase the number of impermissible contributions.
So it would serve to protect you all, but it doesn't take the responsibility off the candidate for accepting a contribution from somebody that's not on
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:29:54
the list. Representative Crawford. Representative Crawford: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Sloan, you just said, take him from someone
who's not on the list. When we fill out a campaign report, it says there's a place to check if it's an unlisted pack.
So does it go into that of not on the list, or is it different?
Speaker 273
1:30:17
Well, the law allows a candidate to take a contribution from an individual, from a political party, from a political action committee, from a county political party committee. That's five. I think the list may be six. I don't have instant recall on what they all are. But basically, if they're not on that list, you shouldn't take the contribution.
So if it's a PAC that's not registered, then it's not a permissible contributor. PAC is on the list. And so if it's a registered PAC, you can take the contribution.
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:30:54
If it's not registered, you can't. A follow-up. Then why on the form that we fill out does it say unlisted PAC? Like some, I'm confused because now I feel like,
because I've had to do that. So have I been in jeopardy?
Speaker 273
1:31:13
I think the, you know, when you're talking about filling out the form, electronic filing with the Secretary of State's office. It's not our form, but I think that it will, you can start typing the name of a PAC and it will auto, it'll pull up a list and let you pick the one. And then I think that if it's, if it's, if it's not one that's on the list, then it doesn't mean they're not registered. It just means they're not, they're just not one of the ones you can choose. And I don't know how they get on the list, but you know, maybe there's
wasn't time to put them on there yet so you're you're going to manually input that information as opposed to click on the drop down yeah i know how to fill out
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:31:52
the form i'm just making sure i haven't done something wrong so i guess i'll get with the secretary of state thank you sure representative rose yeah mr schlone i think she does make a good
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:32:07
point there is a check down box And I think that was just talking about that you can select an unlisted PAC,
and that is separate from what you guys are talking about, because that's with the Secretary
Speaker 273
1:32:21
of State, correct? Yes. I mean, as far as we're concerned, there's two types of PACs. It's an
Speaker 287
1:32:26
approved PAC, which is one that's registered at the time that they make the contributions, and then there's a prohibited PAC, which is one that is not registered at the time that they're making contributions. And so, the unlisted is just, that's just a designation on the Secretary of State's website. And if I could add
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:32:46
to, or respond to Representative Crawford and Representative Rose's question,
this does not change the
law regarding what is or is not a permissible contribution. It has, for a long time, been impermissible to take a contribution from a PAC that is not registered. I
think what you're talking about may be a glitch in the software that the Secretary of State's office
needs to take a look at, but it's not an issue in the law.
Seeing no other questions. No one's signed up to speak for or against. You recognize the close for your bill?
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:33:34
I'm close for my bill, and I regret having prepared as much as I did for this, but I would appreciate a good
vote, and I move to pass. Okay, we have a motion to pass. There was not an amendment, okay. There's a motion to pass. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
Any opposed? All right, congratulations, Representative Wright, you've passed your bill. Representative Bunger, if you're ready for, and I forget what Senate bill that is. 357, sir. All right, okay, you recognize to present, identify yourself for the committee and you recognize to present 357. Thank you,
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
1:34:18
Mr. Chair, committee, bringing for you today Senate Bill 357. May I ask Mr. Wood to join me at the table?
Go ahead. I will be as quick as I can with this awesome, non-controversial bill. The subtitle, to amend the Uniform Attendance and Leave Policy Act to apply military service credit to public employees' total service time for annual leave accrual calculation. Senate Bill 357 is about recognizing and valuing the service of our veterans and current members of the National Guard and Reserves who are employed by the state of Arkansas.
This bill allows their documented military service to count towards their accrued rate of annual leave, essentially acknowledging the time they've already served in uniform for state and nation when calculating how quickly they earn annual leave as state employees. It is important to clarify this bill does not provide additional leave, it simply credits relevant military service towards annual leave accrual. Senate Bill 357 helps Arkansas stay competitive with the federal government which already
credits military service this way. The new federal employee with five years of military service starts out with an accrued annual leave at the same rate as a 19-year state employee. It sends a strong message that we value discipline, dedication, and military experience, and will help us attract and retain high-quality public servants. The bill explicitly prohibits double-counting service time if the individual is simultaneously a state employee and in the military. It also outlines a proportional method
to credit National Guard and Reserve members based on their accumulated points, assuring fairness and consistency with active duty service. This bill passed the Senate with broad support, 31 yay votes, and has the endorsement of Attorney General Tim Griffin. I ask for your support and I'm happy to answer any questions and when I say aye, I actually mean Mr. Wood. Representative Meeks.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:36:41
So, in summary, state employee gets called up to work in the National Guard. They're deployed for
30 days. They will get credit as if they had worked those 30 days as a state employee for vacation. Is that a two sentence summary? No, Representative, to do it
real quickly. When you're in the National
Speaker 293
1:36:57
Guard, you get points for every day that you're on duty, whether it's drill or everything. And so, what we did is we took the number of points you accumulate in a year and divide that by 365, so it would be fair to someone who was in active duty who gets 365 days credit.
So the average guardsman gets around 80 or 90 points a year. So basically that would equate to about 2.2 months per year of National Guard service. This is just basically about being fair to someone who was on active duty the entire year so that a guardsman doesn't
get credit for a whole year. Okay. All right, seeing no other questions, no
one's here to speak for or against the bill. Lieutenant Bunger, you're recognized and closed for your bill.
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
1:37:42
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a bill that benefits veterans and state employees, and I ask you for a good vote.
Thank you. All right, we have a motion do pass on the committee, so is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations Representative Nunger, you've passed your bill. Thank you Mr. Chair, thank you committee.
Okay, Representative Hawks, do you want to present Senate Bill 749? Okay, another quick bill real fast, R.J. Hawk,
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:38:44
District 81. Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, I'll have Chris Madison with me at the table. Of course, Mr. Madison, you're recognized.
Chris Madison
Unverified
1:38:53
Thank you. My name is Chris Madison. of the State Board of Election Commissioners, and this is a State Board of Election Commissioners bill, and I'm ready to provide some information when Representative Hawke wants
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:39:03
me to. Yeah, really, this is just concerning voter assistance at the ballot box. I'm going to let Mr.
Madison tell the details of the bill, so if there's any
Chris Madison
Unverified
1:39:11
questions. Real quick, this was actually part of another bill in the Senate. Senator Tucker asked some questions about it, so we pulled this portion out, run it as a separate bill. And what it does is it requires an assistor who's helping a voter in the poll to vote,
which is legal and can happen, to provide identification. Currently, I could check in and help Representative Hawke and say my name is Chris Madison. I could help Representative Long and next say my name is Richard Madison, help Representative Beatty and say my name is Richard Christopher. What this does is require photo identification. State Board will adopt rules that says if you have an Amendment 51 qualifying ID, we put your name down on the assister log. If you have a photo ID from somewhere else, the poll supervisor gets additional information. And lastly, if you don't have any identification, We get some information from you, and you sign an affidavit, and this only applies to people that are 18 years of age or older, and this was approved, as I said, out of the Senate committee, state agencies, based on their comments, and this was written in response to those.
With that, I'll take any questions. Are there
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:40:14
any questions by the committee, Representative Clowney? Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 167
1:40:21
Chair. Actually, I answered my own question.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:40:23
Sorry. Thanks. Sorry. If we would all do that. Representative Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So are you, currently are you allowed to be 16 and help someone like a grandparent? Yes. Okay. Well, what's gained by going to 18? Why is that something that's public policy?
Chris Madison
Unverified
1:40:38
So part of it is a minor under the age of 18 is under the care custody of the voter, where a person over the age of 18 is an adult. And what we're really targeting with this are adults that are helping voters. I have actually been in the poll where the assister and the voter did not know each other. And I've also done investigations where the voter claimed that the assistor did not mark their ballot as they were instructed and we had to figure out who the assistor was. And so this is in response to that to protect voters to make sure that the assistors who are assisting voters are at least identified.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:41:14
Well, I understand that goal and I don't really disagree with it. I guess I'm asking something a little bit different, which is why is it a bad thing if a 16- or 17-year-old is in there helping out a
grandparent to vote? I didn't say it was. I said that's perfectly acceptable. Oh, so they could do that under this bill if this bill passes? That's correct. And the whole idea is if the voter wants to be influenced
Chris Madison
Unverified
1:41:36
by a 16- or 17-year-old, that's kind of on the voter. If the voter wants to bring an 18-year-old or older, then we want to get their ID.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:41:45
Okay, so if they, just bear with me on this, but if someone is helping and assisting a voter and they ask for their ID and they say, no, I'm 17, I don't have to do that, do they have to do that and how would they know if they are 17? So part of that would be the rule that
Chris Madison
Unverified
1:42:03
we work out and that will be worked out in the rule and probably they'll be handed off to the poll supervisor. We haven't adopted the rule yet, handed off to the poll supervisor to get their information because there is some limitations.
And one of the things you've got to understand, there are minors who attend and vote with their parents who are just there for the experience. And then this is actually targeting those people that are marking and casting the ballot, i.e. filling out the ballot or pressing the selections on behalf of the voter
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:42:33
and handling their ballot. Okay. All right. But you guys do intend to write rules to continue to allow these older teens to help grandparents? Absolutely. Yeah,
Chris Madison
Unverified
1:42:41
this is not to prohibit that. And really, the reason we're doing it as a rule is it allows a little more flexibility if we find better processes based on our more populous areas or less populous areas.
It gives us greater flexibilities to adjust it. What we want to do is identify the assisters and make sure that they are who
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:43:02
they say they are. Okay. All right. Well, I think I need to look at something else, another section of code, because as I look at this subpart B, it says that a person named by the voter who is present is 18 and presents the document. So I'm not seeing where they're exempted to be 16 or 17. Is that in subpart A or C or something else? It's a different section that talks
about a minor under the care or custody of the voter.
Okay. And then finally, then I will
be done. If somebody doesn't have an ID, so they're helping their elderly, disabled, whoever it is, grandparent, and they just don't have the ID, what happens to that person who's trying to vote? Who has the ID themselves? So the voter ID still is required, so if
Chris Madison
Unverified
1:43:44
I'm coming to assist you and I don't have my ID then under our rule I will fill out some additional information and I'll swear an affidavit swearing that I am who I say I am.
Okay, thanks. Alright, any other questions by the committee? Seeing no further questions by
the committee, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. against the bill, Representative
Hawke, you're recognized to close for your bill. I am closed for
the bill and I make a motion to pass. Representative Hawke's closed for the bill, he's made a motion to pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the ayes have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill.
All right, I believe that concludes all the regular bills that we have. so we're gonna move to the constitutional amendments. And so, give me one moment. All right, we're gonna start just at the top
in terms of the numbering, so that
would be HJR 1009. This is an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution to be known as the Arkansas Victims Bill of Rights and to
provide rights for victims of misdemeanor and felony offenses, including victims in the adult and juvenile
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
1:45:27
systems. Representative Berry. - Would you care to explain to me how we're gonna do this
exactly? - Absolutely, so, and I want to state
for everyone who's here in attendance
that we've already heard extensive presentations of these constitutional amendments. We've had extensive public comment, both for and against. The committee was here, the committee listened. We are very familiar, I think, with these, although some of these it may have been a while since we heard them, so this is for the purposes of really just refreshing the committee's recollection before we take a final vote in terms of ranking. What we're going to do is, after we've heard each constitutional amendment again,
a presentation of each constitutional amendment, we're going to rank them again on a new ballot that has all five, and we're going to rank them just the same way that we did the last time, with one being your number one priority. You'll be assigned five points. Your second choice, four points. Third choice, three points. Fourth choice, two points. Fifth choice, one point accordingly. And we will tabulate those, and we'll arrive at the top-ranked constitutional amendment, which will then be presented to the full committee for a vote by the full committee to advance that to the House floor.
If that vote fails the full committee, then we'll move to the second-ranked constitutional amendment, and that'll be voted on by the committee to see if it will advance to the House floor until we either advance one to the House floor or they all fail. And so that is the process. And I would ask those in attendance to try to keep your remarks abbreviated. We've heard, again, thorough presentations. We've never limited the debate. I don't intend to do that tonight unless the testimony goes obscenely long.
But I would just ask in consideration of this committee who's already heard these bills and who's already heard extensive comment that the presentations and any comment be
abbreviated. So with that, Representative Brown, you're recognized to present House Joint
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:47:40
Resolution 1009. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Carolyn Brown, District 67, presenting House Joint
Resolution 1009. I have a handout.
I just have two copies. I'd like to pass them down both sides of the table, if that's okay. Thank you Mr. Chair, thank you colleagues.
I'm here to present House Joint Resolution 1009. First
off, I want to sincerely thank the committee for including this HJR 1009 in your top choices for constitutional amendments. I can't tell you how much
it means to the crime victims and their advocates that I have spoken to. I respectfully
come before you today to ask that you advance HJR 1009 to the House floor.
As has been mentioned previously, our Constitution is a reflection of who we are as a state. In that document, we protect the things we hold most dear. I submit to you that protecting the rights of crime victims is among the values Arkansans believe strongly in. After all, we protect the rights of accused persons in the Constitution. Why should we not protect the rights of victims in our Constitution?
Think of the testimony we have heard at the hearing. People who are thrown into the criminal justice system through no fault of their own deserve the rights HJR 1009 would afford them. Most of these rights come with no cost at all to the state. It does not cost money to treat victims with fairness and respect. It does not cost money to have the safety of the victim considered in setting bail.
It does not cost money to confer with the prosecuting attorney or to allow victims to be heard and present in the courtroom. Yes, there could be some cost associated with notification, but Arkansas law already requires notification by statute. And with modern technology, the cost or time commitment should not be prohibitive. It is also important to note that several of the rights included in HJR 1009 require a victim to request or opt-in to access that right,
again, limiting the time or cost burden. I also want to be very clear on some of the things HJR 1009 does not do. It does not create a new cause of action for victims to sue prosecutors, judges, or any other state actors for money damages. The Arkansas Constitution already grants immunity under Article 5, Section 20, and HJR 1009 contains further immunity clause, page 4, lines 9 through 16.
Yes, victims can file actions to ensure their rights are being followed but not to sue any government actors for damages. It also does not make a victim a party in a criminal case. In fact, one of the provisions in the proposed amendment says a victim does not have the status of a party in a criminal proceeding. That's on page 4, lines 7 through 8. The amendment will give victims the right to ask a judge to ensure their rights are
being followed. That is known as standing, but only in very limited ways that is exclusive to their rights. And without this standing, the rights would not have any real meaning because a victim would have no way to make sure they are enforced. I ask you to think back to the testimony of the survivors at the hearing. They had real examples of their rights being violated
when they were facing some of the toughest moments of their lives. And these are, the rights that were violated that were mentioned by the victims here are rights that are already protected by statute. But they were not protected. And they had no
meaningful way of receiving redress, making them feel as if they were being re-victimized by the criminal justice system itself.
HJR 1009 will change that. And as you can see from the map I passed out, there are 34 states. All surrounding states for Arkansas have a Crime Victims Bill of Rights. Arkansas does not. We are one of 14 states, 14 states that do not, let's see, 13, 14, or 16, whatever. We are one of the states that does not have a Crime Victims Bill of Rights in our Constitution.
We do not have constitutional protections for our victims. This bill would allow Arkansas to do something really magnanimous for all the people of Arkansas. I believe that it would receive an overwhelming majority of the votes of the voters, and I thank you and respectfully ask you to vote to advance HJR 1009 so that Arkansas can join
the vast majority of states in providing rights to victims
of crime. All right, Representative Brown has presented her constitutional amendment. Are there any questions
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:54:13
by the committee? Representative Crawford? Thank you, guys. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. Representative Brown, I want to vote for this. I want to, but I'm scared, I guess would be a word, that 28 elected prosecutors have signed
a letter where they're against it, and then I find out that there was a bill that you worked with the prosecutors on HJR 1020 and then you withdrew that and you come back with this one
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:54:55
it. Help me, please. Okay, numerically speaking, 1009 was my original bill. Then in consultation with the attorneys and seeing that we had a looming deadline to file
constitutional amendments. I went ahead and pulled up the text of the Senate bill that was run during the previous session. It was a bill that the prosecutors had said that they would support, that they were okay with the language. The deal with that is that that legislation is limited to violent and sexual crimes.
And per my conversations with the prosecutors, all of the rights in that constitutional amendment are already provided for in statute. Now, if those rights are provided for in statute, why did the victims that were here express the experiences they had of being taunted by the defendant and the defendant's family?
Why was Mr. Carter and his father, why have Mr. Carter and his father received harassing mail from the convicted in prison sending horrible mail to him and his father as well as the criminal's family. So there are things that, there are rights that are not being respected, and that's limited to these violent and sexual crimes.
But we feel that all victims should have rights. If somebody burns your house down, is that a property crime or is that a violent crime against you? Did they think that you were asleep in your bed and it was attempted murder? I mean, there's, and then there's other crimes. There's smaller crimes where the victim would not, you know, care to be notified.
But this gives victims a right, and it gives, you know, they can opt in. My, just, you know, think about the elderly person who loses all of their life savings because, you know, some terrible person talked them out of their money. The money that they were going to live on to support them for the rest of their life. They're a victim, and they should have rights. They should have a right to know what's going on with that defendant or that accused person.
If you've lost a child to murder, wouldn't you like to know that when that suspect or defendant or convicted individual gets out, whether they, you know, whether they're released on own recognizance or they escape or whatever. You have a right to know where that person is to protect yourself and the rest of your family.
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:58:27
Follow-up. Can you tell me the difference between 1020 and 1009? Yes. Okay.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:58:42
The difference is 1009 protects all victims. 1020 protects only victims of violent and sexual crimes. And it does not include crimes committed by juveniles.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:59:08
Okay, thank you. Representative Hawke, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Brown, after the last time that
we were here, we heard from prosecutors that they were concerned with standing, right? That was something that was said quite a bit. It wasn't just by one. In fact, I think there was one prosecutor that had been a victim, right? Have you had, prior to this, did you have any conversations with the prosecutors on that
and about a potential amendment for covering the standing portion? Yes. Was there a reason
why we didn't try to do an amendment to help alleviate that? Because if a victim doesn't
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:59:53
have standing, there's no point in having a constitutional amendment. Thank you. All right. Seeing
no other questions by the committee. Thank you, Representative Brown, for your presentation. We do have individuals signed
up to speak for or against the bill. First, we have Leslie Abbott Boone signed up to speak for the bill. Ms. Boone, if you
would state your name for the record, any organization you're here representing, you'll be recognized to present your remarks.
Leslie Abbott
Unverified
2:00:25
My name is Leslie Abbott Boone, and I'm representing myself as a citizen of Arkansas. Who I
Speaker 323
2:00:31
bring with me today is Brianna Jane Alt, who was stolen from us and murdered in 2010 on September 13th. Her mother gave me the right to come and present to her today. This picture was not allowed in the courtroom. This is how easy it is to implement victims' rights with no cost, that the family sends a representative and a picture is provided in the courtroom.
Sometimes when a person is a victim of a crime, they may be treated like a problem without solutions, or the solutions are determined without their input. The solution is standing. It bridges the gap between the judicial system and the healing process. Victims' rights withstanding enable people impacted by crime to assert and enforce their rights, knowing they should be treated with respect, dignity, and kindness.
It empowers people to mitigate the impact of trauma. I appreciate the courtesies that our statutory laws provide our fellow Arkansans impacted by crime. But it's time now for the victim's rights to be elevated and enshrined in our Arkansas Constitution. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Boone. Before you leave, there may be
some questions by the committee. Are there any questions by the committee?
Seeing none, I do want to point out that in 2021, I sponsored a bill that passed that allows for a photo of a homicide victim to be displayed at the trial of the homicide victim.
I'm not sure how often that's been used, but I did sponsor that, and it passed. And
Speaker 323
2:02:15
we thank you for that, and we're telling people about it so it's used more often, and hopefully it will be enshrined in our Constitution. Thank
you. All right. Thank you very much. That was an important one. That was a good one, if I do say so myself. All right. We have to speak against the bill, Representative Bob McMahon.
Speaker 142
2:02:40
I'm sorry. Did my title get elevated? It's getting late. I apologize. You hear me okay? Didn't mean to insult you. Okay. We can hear you just fine. All right. Bob McMahon, prosecutor coordinator representing the Arkansas Prosecuting
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
2:02:53
Eternity Association. Committee members, I know you heard a couple of weeks ago from many of our prosecutors. I will not go over any of that testimony. I believe in your package you probably have a letter that was written, I think, to you all on March 17th. You heard a handful of prosecutors talk about our concerns with the specific piece of legislation.
Again, as we said earlier, as it was mentioned, all 28 elected prosecuting attorneys oppose this particular version of this constitutional amendment. Let me ask you, why would 28 prosecuting attorneys, along with many deputies and myself, who spent pretty much our whole legal careers representing victims and trying to help victims come out against something like this? Of course, we continue to want to help victims. The problems that we see in this bill, in this amendment, rather, were articulated by our prosecutors. Again, one of our biggest concerns is that it interferes with the criminal justice system.
Oftentimes, in cases, we see things from the eyes of a prosecutor is often different from the eyes of a victim. We have to balance that in the criminal justice system and uphold everyone's rights. We do have statutory duties and responsibilities that are carried out by our victim witness coordinators, prosecutors, and deputies. to to give victims these rights and again that's basically where we're coming from here in our opinion based on our collective experience we believe that what we currently have in arkansas law could certainly be amended to address certain things but the specific way to address that if
there are things that are missing in our victims rights is to do it statutorily this particular amendment we feel causes too many problems uh i know that um you know you've heard from a judge from Maricopa County Arizona at the very end of your last hearing and again I wouldn't ever profess to talk about Arizona law and how this bill works in Arizona and we're asking you to trust us as to how it would work here in Arkansas and not listen to somebody that has a different set of laws and different experiences and things of that nature so for those reasons mainly the
ones articulated in in our letter we oppose this bill and I hope that answers some of your questions again I wanted to be brief I'll be happy to try to answer anything if you have them there are a couple of other elected prosecutors here to address questions
if if I can't do that all right thank you mr. McMahon are there any questions by
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
2:05:14
the committee representative Crawford you're recognized thank you mr. chair so can you tell me the difference between 10 20 and 1 0 0 9 I don't have both from here in
front of me I know there are differences certainly the the issue of standing is one of those, and I believe Representative Brown was correct, and that this 1009 does extend those rights to different crimes than 1020 did. I will point out to the committee that that was amended. Our victim notification rights and the crimes that are affected by those statutes were amended with our Protect Arkansas Act. So you all did extend some crimes to our duties for notification in the Protect Arkansas Act.
So we're certainly not opposed, you know, to looking at situations that might not be addressed. But those are very much two situations, I think Representative Brown said, that are different in the bill. The standing issue, like I said, as you heard from many of the prosecutors, is very problematic. You know, what does that actually mean? It's interpreted by many different people as many different things. And it is not defined in that constitutional amendment. Again, we believe that the better way to address some of these things is with a statute. I hope that answers your question.
Follow-up, please. You're recognized. Help me understand standing. I'm not an
attorney. So what does it mean when you guys are concerned about standing? Well, again,
many different versions of a Marcy's Law or a constitutional amendment exist, and they vary on what different levels of standing. Again, as I've said, I don't believe standing is defined in this bill enough to be very, very clear about that. That standing could certainly be interpreted to give somebody an attorney that would represent
them through the process. You could then possibly have three different attorneys in a situation that could be interpreted that way. It certainly could be interpreted to give someone the opportunity to bring a cause of action against somebody that isn't doing what they want them to do in terms of enforcing their rights here. It does talk about a section where it won't interfere with the prosecuting attorney's duties and responsibilities that the prosecuting attorney has under the law. But further down in the amendment, it talks about being able to compel that action.
So I think that's an inconsistency there in the particular way that the bill is drafted. But those are examples, I believe, of standing. And again, it could be interpreted, I think, different ways
by different people because it is not specifically defined in the amendment. Okay. Thank you.
any other questions by the committee seeing no further questions about the committee thank you mr. McMahon appreciate you appreciate you being here thank you next we have signed up to speak
for the bill Teresa Ballew Hello,
Speaker 332
2:08:18
everyone. I'm Teresa Ballew. I've worked in victims' rights for over 40 years. You all probably know best as my role as Executive Director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I currently am on the regional board of MADD as a volunteer, and also I'm the chairman
of the board of Speak Up About Drugs and an advocate with Crime Victims' Rights of Arkansas. One of the questions that victims ask before it's all over with is, why? Why? Why? Why did this happen? And I
Speaker 331
2:08:55
want to talk about some whys and some questions that I have today. Why is it that
Speaker 332
2:09:02
our prosecutors who do a lot of good work, I have a great deal of respect for the work through the years that they've done
and certainly Representative Gassaway, you, your support of victim advocates and others and the bills and the laws and the Protect Arkansas Act, all of those things that are there. Why is it that having the balance of criminals having standing and victims having standing is such an odious thing to 28 elected prosecutors versus 34 states with prosecutors who over
the last 30 years have victims in their states who have standing, and they've been able to negotiate and work this out. When this, it becomes an amendment. What follows is correcting, writing, tweaking, whatever you want to call it, our state statutes so that everyone is comfortable with that. We'll have a whole opportunity for more debate about this. And certainly the prosecutors will be at the table for that. So these ideas of the things that can go wildly wrong
are just straw men for the argument against this amendment. Another why is this. Why is it necessary? Because victims deserve that their voices be the same volume as offenders. When Representative Ray's another, you know, I have such regard for him. He has three of the amendments that you'll be considering today. When he talked about this at the very beginning, he said to all of us, he looks at two things.
One, is it possible? It is very much not possible to secure the rights to the same level as the criminal without standing. It cannot be done in statute. So the answer to that is no. Is it passable? The answer is yes. In the states where there have been votes on a constitutional amendment, they have passed with 70 and more percent of the positive vote. Citizens want this.
Citizens who are upset about the crime in our communities around the state will not understand why elected officials would stand in the way of them having equal standing with their criminals. Another why is this. Why does this resonate to the degree that it does to just a common person on the street who's not, they're not wondering why we're up here at 6.30 at night talking about resolutions.
They're going about their business. When you say to them, is it wrong for criminals to have more rights than their victims? You want to know what they say? Yes. Yes, it's wrong. We have an opportunity to make that right, and I want to ask you to give the citizens of Arkansas and for the sake of all the victims that I personally have worked with, even those that the prosecutors have worked with, and those to come, because unfortunately there will be more, to give them a voice and to give them the equal standing with the criminals in our Constitution that they do not have now,
that they cannot have through statute. It's very, very important. This is the time to do it. And I don't know why we would not. I can answer any questions. Excuse me. Thank you, Ms. Ballou, for
those remarks. And we appreciate you being here. Are there any questions by the committee? Seeing none, thank you so much for being here. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill Tom Tatum. Tom Tatum is going to waive his speaking. Then we have against the bill, Chris
Walton. Mr. Walton, I would encourage you while you're here,
if you want to make a statement to go
ahead. Okay. You're recognized. Okay. If you'd state your name and your position. Yeah, I just don't like it. Is it on?
Speaker 338
2:13:47
Turn mine on. Turn that other one on. Okay. Turn the other one on. There we go. Better? Thank you. Chris Walton, Saline County Prosecutor. It is not that victims' rights are not important. That is not the issue. The issue is that the prosecutors have gone through this and do not think this is the way to handle it. I personally have been on their side of the table.
I have lost a family member, and I have had my brother kidnapped at gunpoint. I don't want to rehash other old issues, which I do feel like somewhat they are. They broke away from our negotiation to try to get this right, in my opinion. And here we are now with a bill that they stopped working with us on. And it was getting late in session, so they filed it.
And we strongly, 28 prosecutors who represent and fight for victims every day decided it was important enough to write a letter because we disagreed with it so much. That is the exact wedge we're talking about when you're dealing with victim and deputy prosecutor or victim and prosecutor. We don't want this conflict, but they filed this.
They have gone forward with it without us, and we have to be honest and direct and state that we disagree
Speaker 339
2:15:33
with it, and I hurt for them. I understand it, but this is not the
solution, and that's what I would say. Mr. Walton, we already do have, just to be clear, we have statutory
Speaker 338
2:15:48
protections for victims. is that right? 100 percent and as you pointed out earlier you've added to those and when they
become necessary we add to those. We advocate for court dogs in the courtroom so that the dog can be by a victim so that the victim has something comforting him or her. We add that type of legislation. We fight to get that done. And we will continue to fight for victims' rights as they come forward, as they are needed.
And we are willing to debate and talk issue by issue. It
Speaker 341
2:16:30
is this particular piece of legislation that we disagree with.
All right. And as an elected prosecuting attorney, you represent victims every day, is that right? Every day. Have a
Speaker 338
2:16:48
heart for victims. It's the whole reason I got into the business, to help people, to work for people, to fight for victims.
And I will continue to do that, and my whole office will do that. And I will push out every victim's rights because I have listened to all this, and I feel them hurting. And I will reemphasize to all of my deputies, hey, these are the statutes that we've got to abide by. This is what we have to follow. They will hear that from me over and over again. And I am sure that all of my fellow elected officials will do the same.
We don't want to be on the other side of victims. I feel like we just got put in that situation this
time. All right. A lot more lucrative opportunities for you out there, but you do it because you have a
Speaker 338
2:17:50
heart for victims. Is that right? One, well, I don't know about my lucrative opportunity, but I know that where my passion is, and it is representing people that have been victims in criminal cases. All right. Very good. Representative Rose.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:18:04
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'm sorry for the tragedies that you and your family have gone through. Thank you for sharing personal testimony. You referenced the, I apologize, this is a letter or statement. You referenced that all 28 of
you are in agreement. You have a position, the 28 of
Speaker 338
2:18:27
you are against this. Is that fair to say? That is correct, and for us to put that in writing was I can't overstate how strong that was. All the time I disagree with my fellow
prosecutors and Mr. McMahon surveys people, and I disagree. There'll be 26 yes, and I'm one of two no.
Speaker 345
2:18:49
I mean, that happens. And I'm not coming
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:18:53
after you for the letter. We can debate the merits of whether to or not to some other time. It was just I listened to your testimony where you made the case, hey, listen, all 28 of us, this is my language, not yours, I'm paraphrasing,
but we're legal minds. We have a very good understanding of the law, and we believe that this is bad. And I did sense some irritation that the bill sponsors and maybe the team, the committee that put that together kind of broke away from you guys. And I guess I just wanted to say the position that you hold is, hey, from a legal standpoint, we really feel like this is bad. And I know that you have a personal tie as a family that's gone through tragedy. But I also wanted to say, would it be fair to say that the folks who move forward with this bill may feel that they have some authority on victims and how victims feel and what they're fighting for from a victim's perspective?
Listen, I'm not even asking you to agree if they're right or wrong. Is
Speaker 348
2:19:58
that a justifiable statement? I feel their pain, and I hate it for them. I hate
Speaker 338
2:20:07
it. I do. And, you know, I spend a lot of time listening to victims and feeling how awful the system is. I mean, I started them off with my testimony recognizing how rough it is. And I understand them wanting to be, I mean, you know, there are victims that would prefer we didn't follow the law.
That, hey, this sentence is not enough. What do you mean the person can only get 40 years in the Department of Correction? That's not right. There are people that if you steal a lawnmower from them, they want to, they want that person in jail for 30 days. I mean, it is, it is, I'm just, I'm recognizing and admit, and what specifically some of the
Speaker 345
2:21:02
individuals back here have gone through,
I hate it for them, and I recognize why they're advocating. Certainly, I understand that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 338
2:21:18
And I will say just one thing. You know, I'm only given my perception about how this bill got
Speaker 345
2:21:26
to where it is. And if they disagree, I respect that too. So I just wanted to say that.
Okay. Seeing no other questions, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Next, we have Keith Boone
to speak for the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee
Speaker 351
2:21:51
members. Keith Boone, I'm also a citizen, so just a couple of comments. While I am speaking in favor of HJR 1009, it's not my voice, I want you to hear. Whenever this resolution was presented a few weeks ago,
this entire back section here was full of victims who came. And there was one woman who hitchhiked up from Hot Springs because it was important to her to make her voice heard. So
Speaker 352
2:22:19
remember those voices whenever you are considering the resolution. That's all I have. Are
there any questions? Seeing none, we appreciate your testimony. Next up is Laura Abbott.
Laura Abbott
Unverified
2:22:43
to speak for the bill hello my name is Laura Abbott I'm a citizen of the state of Arkansas I am so glad to be sitting here in reality it has taken us a little over a decade to get our voices as victims to this table we have tried in very transparent and good faith efforts as the citizens just like mr. Smith goes to Washington to have discussions with people in this room we appreciate and value the work of the prosecutors. I will forever be grateful to the man and his dad, Tom Tatum and
Tom Tatum Sr., who helped convict the man who ran over me multiple times and left me for dead on the top of a mountain, where I crawled to a cabin, where people prayed over me, saying how great those are. A medic put a needle in my chest, said my heart had stopped beating, went to a hospital, woke up, a doctor said you're going to Oklahoma. I got five sets of titanium plates, 32 screws, and then I got to go through the journey of the legal system. I will forever, ever be grateful
to the prosecutors of this state. However, at this point in time, and we have all been here a very long time, I'm going to be as transparent with you as I was in the beginning when I first reached out to representative charlotte douglas and 12 other legislators in 2014 and we started on a vehicular assault law since i'm no longer able to be a runner and we started a college track team at uca i actually made money running so i was a professional runner just a little humor here
people um i'm no longer able to play softball and i have watched bob mcmahon be the most phenomenal shortstop in the state of Arkansas, regardless of the fact that he's over 60. These are our friends. These are our people. I'm sorry. I invited an outsider to come in, and here's how that happened. After Lawrence Card was passed into law in 2015, Arkansas's Victim's Rights Card, my sister back here and her husband took us on a celebratory trip to Hawaii, and she said this,
we're on the last flight out. Give up your seat. I said, okay. Gave up my seat. They came back and got me. Next night, gave up my seat. As a school teacher, I had four days to use an $800 ticket. So my first time out by myself since I had been run over, I went to this National Crime Victim Law Institute, and all of a sudden, I was the country mouse going to the city. I had entered into victims' rights utopia. I had met the people that across the United States are all colored in that green color on the map that you see before you.
I stood in front of a group of people with my country bumpkin broken voice from coaching and said, can anyone come to Arkansas and help us? At this point, Charlotte Douglas and I worked as diligently with numerous legislators in good faith and transparency with the Prosecuting Attorneys Association. I was told I was the only victim and my family was told they had a problem with the judicial system. As God would have it, since I had nothing but time on my hands and I started watching true crime stories, I saw the story of a woman in Jonesboro.
It took me six months for her to reach back out to me. And when I reached her, I said, hey, how do things go in your case? So she tells me, well, she didn't know it because she had never been given information on victims' rights, or if she had, it's traumatic, people forget. But she had plead-dealed away a victim's right to speak at a parole hearing. she cannot come and speak here because she has got to have a relationship with her extended children. When there's domestic violence and a spouse has killed another spouse and then there's
children involved, the victims of our state are silenced. They're silenced due to the fact they may not have the money to come up here. They may not have a car to get here. They may not have a voice to speak. They may just be, sadly, a pitcher. And in people's hearts, they cannot come and speak. I love this state. My family's been here for six generations. We've had 100 families, 140 or whatever Christmases on the Abbott family. We have tried in good faith. This is Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
We've never taken a dime to help the victims of the state of Arkansas. And I am asking you, it is now time for the state motto, let the people rule, for these rights to no longer just be statutory because they're at the discretion of everyone in the judicial system except the victims, that these are enforceable and enshrined in our Constitution, and that Arkansas gets the gold standard of victims' rights instead of standing on the podium with the bronze medal for statutory rights. Thank you for your time, and I'm open to any questions.
Are there any questions? Seeing none, we appreciate
your testimony. Thank you. Well, and that concludes that there are no more to speak for against 1009. Are there anyone in the audience that hasn't signed up? All right. We're gonna move on to the next
to the next resolution. Oh, did you want to
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
2:28:14
close for your bill? Thank you committee. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. In no way did I feel like we had walked away
from the prosecutors. Indeed, I had met with them and we brought in some people who are experienced in this area. They've had other prosecutors, a judge from other states who have constitutional rights amendments. And we sat down at a table in a conference room in this building and tried to talk to each other and it became very clear to me that the prosecutors
and I'm not criticizing, I'm just making a statement of fact, they were very clear on their stance that they would support HJR 1020 and nothing else. So from that standpoint in knowing that they had already told me that all the rights in that resolution were already in statute and that that piece of legislation, that resolution did not include standing
and that was the only thing that they were going to be satisfied with, that they had put a lot of work into it during the previous session and they were happy with that. And so I felt like if I was going to run a resolution, I was going to run what we wanted, what we came to the table to defend. I wasn't going to defend something that we didn't really have our heart into. So I just want to say that I have a great deal of respect for our prosecutors.
And as you can hear from the testimony of these victims, they do also. They have tough jobs, and so many of them are currently doing exemplary work with crime victims. However, we have heard from national experts on crime victims' rights, including other prosecutors, who have said the fears that our prosecutors have expressed about the application of a crime victim's Bill of Rights have simply not been seen in other states with similar provisions.
I appreciate the fear of change, but when we are being told other states, including southern states, are not experiencing the worst-case scenarios some prosecutors are predicting if we adopt HJR 1009, I think that fact should give us some comfort that we are on solid ground. And with that, I would appreciate a good vote. Thank you all. Okay. Committee
Light will be ranking all these later on.
So that completes the testimony
for HJR 1009. Next up, HJR 1014, Representative Beatty. Please identify yourself for the committee and then
you're good to go. Thank you.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:32:09
You're recognized, go. Representative Howard Beatty, District 95. I'm here to present, what is it, HJR 1014.
You know, last time I went through this talking about the development and creation of an economic development district. Just kind of to lay it out there in layman's terms, all of us have had economic development projects in our districts. And one of the top complaints that we hear out of our district is that there's no tool and no vehicle that we can utilize in our counties and our cities for retail development, for housing development as far as incentive money or help from the state. So right now everything is related to manufacturing jobs and industry.
So the problem is, and that's what I was trying to explain with this bill, is the first HJR 1014 takes care of the constitutional issue that we have right now. There's no authority provided in the Constitution that allows for financing or development projects, and that's what this resolution, this amendment to the Constitution would do. It would allow that process to take place.
Most states have this, and it's kind of a common practice. Listening to Senator Dismane present and make his presentation in the Senate, All you have to do is travel the interstate highways once you leave this state into Texas, and you'll see what this, all of those developments that you have are pretty much because of TIFDF districts and tax increment financing that allows for that.
So that's what the bill does. Last time we got off in the weeds, we asked a lot of questions. I told you there was some other language. And what that is, it's a 31-page bill that goes through every one of the details and the things that we were talking about in those questions that you asked. It had all the provisions. You know, this once enacted, the Department of Commerce would provide support to the cities or the counties that create these economic development districts.
It could be as small as a building. for housing or some type of retail investment that would allow these these authorities to be created it could it could be as much as an entire you know block of land or whatever for a development but right now there's nothing that allows for retail development it would expand competition within our counties within the state for investment dollars to come in right now there's nothing on on this side for retail or for housing investment so all of you if you talk to your
mayors or you talk to your your folks and your constituents back home when it comes to retail the hands of the state right now are tied there's nothing we can do so if you want retail development and you want to you want a tool that will help grow your communities and grow your districts and and provide quality of life then this is the amendment that I would encourage you to support and vote for. So with that I'll entertain questions. Representative Collins. Thank you
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:36:02
Mr. Chair. So when we talked last time I believe that you were saying that the exemption on taxes was for any tax that would be property or income or sales or other and I don't want to mistake what you said but I believe that was our conversation. And so then I just happened to look in between that meeting and this one at the fiscal impact prepared by DF&A and in particular the legal analysis and then their suggested amendments. I'm not too worried about the amendments, but what I'm going to ask you is
it says that it may benefit from an amendment to clarify that the tax exemption is only an exemption from the ad valorem property taxes and not other taxes imposed by the state. So that suggests to me that they're reading, which, of course, is not dispositive, but they read it as just property taxes. So are they right or are they wrong or are we going to let the Supreme Court figure it out or what? I think
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:36:56
some of the intent there is primarily the property tax in those areas as far as the abatement of those taxes.
Right now, you can't abate those property tax. You can't do a payment in lieu of tax on a retail development. It's always got to be a job creation or economic development project, and retail doesn't provide for this. So that's one of the ways I look at this,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:37:20
yes. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 196
2:37:25
Are there any other questions in the committee?
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
2:37:32
Representative Lyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, Representative Beatty, I think this may have come up last time, but I don't remember for sure if it did.
I'm sorry that I don't remember. But if they chose to do away with the property tax, where does the school funding come from in those situations?
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:37:52
The school funding would still be protected on that side. My understanding is that the school taxes are provided for, so there would be no reduction in the school taxes. That's my understanding. Okay. Thank you. Representative Berry.
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
2:38:12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is there any
limit to how small a business this could help someone? Representative Berry, I don't think there's
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:38:25
like a de minimis amount on the size or quality of this business. I think what it would come down to is what your leadership, what either the governing body, be that the quorum court, be that the city or municipality, what they would want to target as far as what they would want in their community, because it's going to give you the tools to attract and to tailor and customize incentive packages to locate these businesses in your community.
So I think that's going to be up to the folks that decide what they want in the community. But this bill doesn't specify a de minimis amount or size of a business. This is all about providing the tools and the resources for our counties and for our small communities and our cities to attract the investment and assist with the development in their communities. As small as maybe
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
2:39:27
five to ten employees, maybe.
There's no limit, there's a possibility. Right, I mean, you know, in economic development,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:39:33
it all ties back to the jobs that are going to be created. And, I mean, you come in and put a billion dollars in, or two billion, or five billion, and it's going to go back to the jobs that are created. You may get a little bit on the property tax and ad valorem that's coming in, but the state incentives are all tied to job creation. And basically this deal could be as simple as your city decides they want a restaurant in town and they want to work to get a restaurant or a hotel or something along those lines in your community.
This gives them the resources to utilize and try to attract that private investment into their community. And right now we don't have anything. Okay, thank you. All right, seeing no other questions, we have no
one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to
speak either for or against the bill? Seeing none, Representative Vega, you recognize a close for your bill? Well, I think
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:40:34
the bus is pulling up for all of the folks that are going to speak in favor of this bill.
They just haven't made it into the room yet. But what I would say in closing is, you know, if you want real change and you want to make a real impact in your communities and throughout this state and see some of this investment in Arkansas that you're seeing in neighboring states, this is the resolution to rank number one. I think if you went back and you talked with your mayors, your county judges, or even your constituents in your community that always complain, why can't we? Why can't we?
Well, we can't, 'cause we're bound by the Constitution. It doesn't allow us the authority to do this. This is important to your community, important to your constituents, and so I would encourage you to consider that when you're ranking. A lot of these resolutions are good. This will have the biggest impact on the quality of life in your communities. So I'd ask you to rate this as one, and let's move from there, 'cause it's gonna have a great impact, and we'll see great things come from this. And with that, I'm closed and thank you.
Thank you Representative Beatty. Next up we have Representative Ray, HJR 1016. Please identify yourself with the
committee and you are good to go.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:42:09
All right. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. David Ray, House District 69.
All right, so House Joint Resolution 1016 is very simple and straightforward. All it does is it eliminates the cure period from our initiative process. As most of you know, a cure period, by definition, is a period of time for initiative proponents to collect additional signatures if they fail to get the required number by the initial deadline. So in Arkansas, if you get 75% of your signatures that are found to be facially valid, then you get an extra 30 days to circulate petitions. I'm going to give you three quick reasons why I think this is a horrible idea to have a cure period and why we should refer out this amendment to get rid of it.
Number one, a cure period is unfair. Think about it this way. When you were in school, you undoubtedly had to write a term paper, and there was a due date for that paper. When the due date comes, you turn in the paper, and it's either completed or it's not. Under a system like this, if you had a 10-page paper and the teacher determined that you'd completed at least seven and a half pages, you'd get another 30 days to finish your term paper. That's ridiculous.
You either finished it or you didn't. You either got the signatures or you didn't. There should not be a due-over. Secondly, Arkansas is really an extreme outlier on this process. There's 26 states that have an initiative process. There's only two that offer a cure period. That's Arkansas and Ohio. Ohio's cure period is 10 days. So literally, not only are we an outlier among the states that have this, of the two states that have it, ours is three times as generous as Ohio's.
And then lastly, I think this is the big one. I think the cure period really creates a perverse incentive that leads to a lot of the mess that we have currently with our initiative system. If there were no cure period, then canvassers and sponsor groups would have virtually no incentive to obtain duplicate or invalid or even fraudulent signatures. And that's because, as they're being reviewed, the Secretary of State's office would cull them from the total. But because of the cure period, sponsor groups are really incentivized to hit that 75% mark no matter what so that they can get the additional 30 days.
And I'm not going to go through and reread the story that I cited last time from the Democrat Gazette. But, you know, we know from experience that groups try to game the system in this manner so that they can qualify for the cure period. So I think it's very important that we do away with the cure period. And with that, I'll be happy to take any questions. Are there any questions from the committee?
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
2:45:09
Representative Barry, you're recognized. Just a statement, I guess, Mr. Chairman. All my adult life, I have wondered why we had a cure period. It never made sense to me. All I can say is
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:45:27
I agree wholeheartedly with what you just said, Representative Berry. Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:45:37
I support what you're trying to do here.
I guess my only concern is if we were to refer this out, how
do you think the public would perceive this as
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:45:49
far as trying to actually get it passed? That's a great question, Representative Meeks. You know, we referred out an
amendment in 2020 that included a repeal of the cure period, and it failed, unfortunately. I think the reason it failed was because it had five different provisions in it, and that just made it
really complicated. I think it would have a much better chance if it were referred out as a standalone measure.
Okay, are there any other questions? Seeing none, we have no one has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Is there anyone in the room that would like to speak for or against? Seeing none, you recognize the
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:46:31
close for your bill. I'll just close for that resolution by asking the members of the committee, if you agree with that idea and support it, to please rank it as highly as you are comfortable ranking it.
And I'm closed. Thank you. And I think you can just keep your seat.
Next up is HGR 1017, and please identify yourself for the committee, and you're good to go. Thank you,
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:46:57
Mr. Chairman. David Ray, State Representative, District 69. So House Joint Resolution 1017 would require—this
is a proposed constitutional amendment that would require future initiated acts and constitutional amendments to receive a majority of the votes cast in that election like it currently is, But it would also require a majority of counties to vote in the affirmative in order for these measures to pass.
So we have 75 counties. That means at least 38 of the 75 would need to vote in the affirmative for the measure to pass. I do want to point out this would apply both to citizen-initiated and legislatively referred measures. You know, the reason I brought this is twofold. Number one, I think when we're passing matters of statewide importance, you know, whether it's abortion amendments, casino amendments, marijuana amendments, there really should be some genuine consensus.
There shouldn't just be one region of the state driving that. There shouldn't just be, and this shouldn't just be driven by urban areas. There should be a real cross-section of the state that supports it. And so I think that would make it, this amendment would help with that tremendously because there's no way to pass, there's no way to win a majority of counties if you don't have some genuine consensus. And secondly, I think this would give a voice to a lot of our rural counties.
You know, under our current system, it would be very difficult, but it is mathematically possible to win the majority of a statewide vote from only eight counties. So you could have a measure where literally eight or 10 counties are basically, you know, dictating for the other 60 plus counties what the statewide policy is gonna be, even so far as amending the state constitution. So I think this would just be an important safeguard for our initiative process,
and it would improve the system greatly. I'm happy to take any questions. Representative Collins, you're
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:49:20
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can't remember if it was you who in our ranked choice voting discussion talked about the importance of one person, one vote, and the idea that, you know, and it may have just been a sponsor, but the idea that, you know, one person's vote in one part of the state
is just as important as another person's vote in another part of the state and this it seems to me like really would go against that because someone's vote in central arkansas and pelaski county would be less important than someone's vote in another part of the state under the reverse of your logic that a few counties can in you know results in something having an overall majority so um Also, I think one person, one vote is in the Constitution, the federal Constitution.
How does this square with that idea?
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:50:10
You know, that was Representative McCollum, I believe, that made that remark in the committee. But I'll tell you what I was thinking. One of the things I was thinking about as I put this proposal together, Representative Collins, was sort of how our federal legislature is put together. You have the House of Representatives that is based solely on population, And then you have the Senate, where each state has equal representation.
And in order for bills to become law at the federal level, they have to pass both the House and the Senate. And so, in a similar way, if you required a majority of the popular vote on a statewide measure, and you required a majority of the counties to also affirm that, you would sort of be getting at a similar function. That's part of what I had in mind as I put this together.
And I don't think the way our federal system, our federal legislature makes laws is undemocratic. I just think it has checks and balances that our founders were wise to put in place. And I was sort of drawing on that same
idea when I put this together. Okay, thanks. Any other questions by the committee? Seeing
no other questions by the committee, we do have someone signed up to speak against the bill.
Rebecca Zimmerman. There we go. Ms. Zimmerman, if you'll state your name and any organization you're here
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:52:02
representing, you'll be recognized to present your remarks. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I'm Rebecca Zimmerman, the Community Engagement Director at Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. Arkansas Advocates believes that families should have a say in major decisions impacting them. That is why we support the ballot measure process and ask that you do not refer HJR 1017.
For over 100 years, Arkansas has not only been a representative democracy, but also a direct democracy, a right of the people enshrined in our Constitution. Though the state legislature has passed a series of legislation to restrict this right, voters have again and again rejected legislatively referred amendments to the same effect. Issue 3 in 2020 failed with nearly 56% of the vote, and in 2022, Issue 2 failed with 59% of the vote.
It is likely that this measure, too, will fail when put to the people for their consideration. We hope that if that is the case, that the legislature will reconsider their attempts to restrict ballot access and align with the will of the voters on this issue. should not be denied the right to pass measures because of burdensome restrictions. The merits of the measure should be the deciding factor. We are thankful, however, that Representative Ray included legislatively referred amendments
as well as citizen amendments in this resolution, but we ask that you do not move forward with HJR 1017.
Thank you, Ms. Zimmerman. Are there any questions by the committee?
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:53:36
Representative Rose, you're recognized. Ms. Zimmerman, thank you for your testimony today. Have you or
your organization done any polling on
this? On this specific measure? No, sir. So your
estimation that it would not pass is based solely on your opinion? It's based on the results of the past similar measures. For instance, issue three that was passed, or it was issue two in 2022 would have had a similar effect.
It would have increased the voting threshold to pass the measure to 60% of the voters. This would have a similar impact to increase in the counties. Okay, I'll defer to
Representative Ray in his closing on that, but you guys haven't done any polling or anything recently. You're just basing on opinion and past performance of something similar. Is that correct? Yes, sir. All right, thank you. All right, seeing
no one else sounded to speak for or against the bill,
Representative Ray, you're recognized to close for your
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:54:38
bill. - Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The only thing I would say in
response to that is, I believe it's really, really important that we reform our initiative process. There's a lot of problems with it. And I know that previous efforts have been unsuccessful at the ballot box. That really does not deter me from continuing this effort because I do believe it's very important for the state.
And I think it's just our responsibility to continue explaining to the voters why these reforms are necessary. And so anyway, with that, I'm closed for the bill. And if you support this idea, I would just ask that you rank it in the rankings as high as you're comfortable ranking it.
Thank you. - All right, next we'll move to HJR 1018.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:55:38
- All right, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, if it's okay, I have a handout for the committee and also have some folks that are here
to help me present, if that's okay. - They're welcome to join you at the table and staff is handing out the information. Representative Ray, you're recognized.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:56:23
State Representative David Ray, House District 69. You want to go ahead and
Speaker 380
2:56:28
introduce yourselves? Jack Tomczak. Jack Tomczak, the Vice President of Outreach for Americans for Citizen Voting.
Speaker 382
2:56:35
Becky Arps, the Director of Research for Americans for
Chris Arps
Unverified
2:56:38
Citizen Voting. Chris Arps, President Emeritus of Americans for Citizen Voting.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:56:44
All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colleagues, House Joint Resolution 1018 is a proposed amendment that would ensure that only United States citizens can vote in our state and local elections.
I start from the very simple premise that Arkansans should decide the future of Arkansas and Americans should decide the future of America. And yet, we have four states in
the United States, plus the District of Columbia, that allow for non-citizens to vote in their state and local elections. Additionally, there's 21 municipalities across the country, including some of the major cities like Oakland, San Francisco, and even our nation's capital, that allow for non-citizens to vote in state and local elections.
Most states, when they establish their state constitutions, they use language such as, quote, every citizen of the United States who is 18 years and
older to vote has the right to vote. Arkansas's Constitution uses the phrase, quote, any citizen instead
of every citizen. There are other states that say all citizens. This language protects our rights as citizens to vote, but it's insufficient to present non-citizens from being legally allowed to cast votes at the state and local level.
Because whether you say every citizen, any citizen, or all citizen, none of those phrases are sufficient because they constitute a floor rather than a ceiling. Using a floor that says any citizen can vote leaves room, as we've discovered in other states, for people to be added to that list. And so by moving to the only citizen language, we're setting a ceiling for eligibility, that only citizens may vote and nobody else. It's exclusive, unambiguous, and absolute.
So I think almost certainly each of you have voters in your district that have contacted you concerned about the issue of illegal immigration. Our voters want us to do something about this problem. And while our immigration crisis can only truly be solved with enforcement at the federal level, I think states can and should take measures to help and to safeguard our elections. This is part of that. Closing the door to non-citizen voting will send a strong message to our constituents that we're serious about addressing this issue.
And the truth is, we live in an age where radical ideas gain steam really quickly. Ten years ago, if you had asked me, will we ever have a national movement to defund the police, I would have told you that was crazy. If you had asked me ten years ago if half of the members of Congress would be okay with biological men competing in women's sports, I would say, no, we would never reach that point. But here we are. And so similarly, with the issue of non-citizen voting, I think we're in a position where we can nip this in the bud.
I don't want to wait 10 years and look back and have this issue become mainstream and wonder, could we have addressed it or done something about it? This is part of a nationwide movement. There are 20 states where their constitutions dictate citizen-only voting. Fifteen of those 20 have adopted this amendment. Two years ago, our neighbors in Missouri and Oklahoma adopted this constitutional amendment.
And on that same day, voters in Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Wisconsin also adopted it. Two years prior to that, Ohio and Louisiana adopted it. And two years before that, Alabama, Colorado, and Florida adopted it. So, and then lastly, I believe very strongly that if we refer this amendment out to the voters, the voters of Arkansas will approve it. Every state that has had a chance to weigh in on citizen-only voting has approved it with at least 63% of the vote.
In some states, such as South Carolina, it received as much as 86% of the vote. And the average passage rate was 73.5%. The last thing I'll mention on this is the organization that these fine folks are with conducted a poll earlier this month and found that 70% of Arkansans would vote for this bill. And I think that number would actually be even higher because there were some undecideds in that poll. And I think at least half of them would probably end up voting yes
once they learned more about it. And with that, I'll allow them to fill in any gaps that I missed. Otherwise,
Speaker 380
3:01:31
we'll take questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members, Representative Ray. Again, I'm Jack Tomczak with Americans for Citizen Voting. And we're a nonpartisan group that helps citizens and legislators pass these citizen-only voting amendments. In the interest of time, I will not repeat all the great things that Representative Ray just said. The states that we work in, some states, there is a municipality would need state legislative approval to legalize non-citizen voting.
Arkansas is not one of those states. Your home rule cities have the power to determine voter eligibility for municipal elections, and they could legalize non-citizen voting tomorrow if they wanted to. South Dakota's another state like this, and they've already passed this bill this session. Another state that was like this is Oklahoma. And last session, the bill that we had had died in committee because nobody there quite understood that part of it.
So once we fully explained that, in the last week, they suspended the rule six times, got it through both bodies on the ballot, and passed it 81%. So now in Oklahoma, the municipalities who have home rule authority can't legalize non-citizen voting, and hopefully Arkansas makes that same choice. Vermont, four years ago, Vermont didn't have any cities that allowed non-citizen voting. Now they've got three.
Speaker 384
3:03:04
It'll be more next year and the year after and
Speaker 382
3:03:12
the year after. Thank you. Hi, I'm Becky Arps, Director of Research for Americans for Citizen Voting. Thank you, Chair, members, and for Representative Ray. I'll be really quick. The Arkansas Constitution does not reserve the right to vote to only U.S. citizens. The state statute is focused on registration. I think in your handout there are the relevant statutes and parts of the Constitution.
If a city or county in Arkansas wants to allow non-citizen voting, they'd maintain their own voter rolls, so it doesn't really matter about the registration. Home Rule says that cities or counties have a wide latitude as long as it doesn't violate state constitution or statute. As stated, it doesn't. In fact, published constitutional lawyer Joshua A. Douglas in his University of Kentucky Law Review article, The Right to Vote Under Local Law, has determined that there are no clear impediments to an Arkansas municipality allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections.
The California Constitution says, like Arkansas, any person may vote who is a citizen. San Francisco City Council voted to allow non-citizen parents to vote in school board elections. It was challenged in court. When challenged, the court found that nothing in statute or constitution prohibits expanding the electorate. You've probably seen in the news recently that the highest court in New York State has said that allowing non-citizens to vote was unconstitutional. It's been challenged four times and only once has it has allowing non-citizens to vote deemed unconstitutional.
You really don't want to put that to a vote of your courts. Let's address this. Really, let's let the citizens of Arkansas address this before it comes an issue. Happily take any questions.
Chris Arps
Unverified
3:05:08
Good. My name is Chris Arps. I am President Emeritus of Americans for Citizen Voting. I want to thank the chairman and members of the committee
Speaker 387
3:05:18
and Representative Ray. While I'm associated with Americans for Citizen Voting, both through having served as president
and through my wife's work as director of research, I come before you today as a concerned African-American. We have traced my family back to the first freed slave, Steve Arp. That was the original name. The S was added to his name after the Civil War. He is my great-great-grandfather. He was able to help found a church in Wynonna, Texas in 1870, but he wasn't able to vote. My great-uncle Melly served in World War II as a Buffalo soldier. He won two bronze stars. When he came back home from the war, he was unable to vote.
When my dad turned 18 in 1962 in the state of Texas, he could not legally vote. It wasn't until, of course, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that any of my family were able to vote across the country. Now, I'm sitting here before you testifying in the great state of Arkansas. We have come so far, and we are closer now than we have ever been to Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream that all people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. Little Rock, of course, was part of the front line of that civil rights fight.
That's why I find it so incredibly frustrating that there are cities in the United States allowing non-citizens to vote in their local elections. These are people that were not born here. These are people that have come here, and they have not made the commitment to this great country of ours. They have not taken the steps needed to become citizens. I think we could all agree that our immigration system could use some help. Instead of band-aiding the system, we should work together with our federal legislators to fix our immigration system.
It doesn't make sense to give a right that was so hard-fought by so many people that haven't been willing to take those extra steps. We have fought long and hard as a country to accomplish the dream that all U.S. citizens would be granted their citizenship rights. It would be a shame in less than a generation to devalue those rights by giving them to people that haven't made the commitment to this country. This isn't about who or isn't president. This is about trying to disenfranchise people that look like me.
This is about the value of United States citizenship. This is about how voting is an important right of United States citizenship. This is about giving the people of Arkansas the opportunity to enshrine in their Constitution that something so precious as voting is reserved for only citizens of the United States, both those born citizens and those who have decided to become part of this country by choice of naturalization. Thank you all for your time, and
Chris Arps
Unverified
3:08:01
I'll entertain any questions if you have any.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
3:08:04
I think that concludes our presentation. We'd be happy to try and answer any questions
from the committee. All right, any questions by the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee, Representative Ray, you're ranking as
Representative David Ray
Unverified
3:08:18
to close for your amendment. I just appreciate everyone's time and attention. I thank the members of the committee for choosing this amendment as
their top choice on the first round of voting, and I would just ask that if you support this common sense idea as much as I do, that you would rank it as high on your list as you're comfortable ranking it.
And with that, I'm closed. -
All right, I think it's time to
rank. All right, and just once again, we have five constitutional amendments. you'll put a number one by your top preferred, most preferred constitutional amendment.
You'll rank that as your number one choice. Put a one, your second choice two, third choice three, fourth choice four, fifth choice five, they'll be assigned points. But we're gonna rank them by putting a one next to your preferred, most preferred choice. Number one priority.
Don't forget to sign your ballot. Thank you.
We're going to be in recess for a brief period of time. We'll be back soon.
Unknown speaker
3:11:48
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right, if everybody would start to take their seats. We think we have a verdict. Defendant please rise.
All right, we're back from recess. has tabulated the results and we do have a clear favorite
I suppose these are the
rankings HJR 1018 the citizens only voting amendment has ranked number one
HJR 1017 number two HJR 1016 number three HJR 1014 number four HJR 1009 number five which means representative ray if you would like to present this if you'd like to present hjr 1018 right now in order to for us to take a
vote to vote it out of committee and to the house floor then you're recognized
Representative David Ray
Unverified
3:21:57
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. David Ray, District 69. I'm not going to present the full bill again because we've done that twice, but I will attempt to answer any questions. This is the citizen-only voting amendment. If there are any questions
outstanding before we take a vote, I'd be happy to try and answer those. All right. Any questions
by the committee? Seeing none, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Ray, are you closed for your bill? I'm closed for the bill, and I move do pass. Representative Ray has
made a motion do pass on HJR 1018.
Is there any discussion on that motion? Seeing none,
all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the ayes have it. Congratulations, you've passed your resolution. And with that, we have concluded our business for the night. Thank you very much for all the great work, Representative Ray.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
3:22:46
Question? Yes. Is there any, do we know if the Senate, when the Senate plans to vote on their amendment, or if they are planning to
vote? I don't know the answer to that
right now. Okay. But we'll find out and try to follow up with you offline.
With that, we've concluded our business for the night. Thank you all so much for your excellent work. See you again Monday morning. Thank you. We're adjourned.
Agenda
CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1614 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRANT PROGRAMS.
RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1800 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURE FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE; TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE BY REPRESENTATIVES OF A NON-UNITED STATES ENTITY; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1990.
HB1365 K. Brown TO REMOVE RACIAL AND GENDER QUOTAS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERSHIP FOR CERTAIN BOARDS, COMMITTEES, COUNCILS, AND COMMISSIONS.
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1753 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO OPT-OUT OF THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 1993; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, § 5.
HB1773 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR BALLOT QUESTION COMMITTEES AND LEGISLATIVE QUESTION COMMITTEES.
HB1037 A. Collins AN ACT TO CREATE THE PREREGISTRATION TO VOTE ACT; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, § 19.
HB1041 R. Scott Richardson TO PROHIBIT DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES IN ELECTION COMMUNICATIONS.
HB1837 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DISCLOSURE FOR MATTERS REFERRED TO VOTERS; AND TO BAN FOREIGN FUNDING FOR BALLOT MEASURES; TO AMEND PORTIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATEDACT 1 OF 1996.
HB1846 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS 2036 COMMISSION.
HB1849 Gramlich TO ALLOW FOR THE CROSS DEPUTIZATION OF MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, STATE, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ON FEDERALLY-RECOGNIZED TRIBAL LAND WITHIN THE STATE.
HB1867 B. McKenzie TO ESTABLISH THE NO GOVERNMENT TRESPASSING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT GAME WARDEN TRESPASS ONTO PRIVATE LAND.
HB1870 Wing CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION LISTS; AND TO ALLOW THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO PROVIDE A VOTER REGISTRATION LIST TO FEDERAL COURTS.
HB1878 McGruder TO ENSURE EARLY VOTING ACCESS FOR ARKANSANS RESIDING IN POPULATION CENTERS; AND TO REQUIRE A COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS TO CONDUCT EARLY VOTING IN A CITY IN CERTAIN INSTANCES.
HB1883 Long TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF ELECTRONIC DATA AND METADATA.
HB1884 Long TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MARKING AND COUNTING OF PAPER BALLOTS.
HB1683 McAlindon TO PROHIBIT THE PROCUREMENT BY A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY OF AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE OR A COMPONENT OF AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE THAT WAS MANUFACTURED IN WHOLE OR IN PART USING FORCED LABOR.
HB1632 Wardlaw TO REQUIRE REIMBURSEMENT TO THE ARKANSAS STATE GAME AND FISH COMMISSION FOR FREE OR DISCOUNTED HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES.
HB1891 Ray TO ALLOW A PERSON FILING AS A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OR JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS WHO IS AN APPOINTEE IN THAT POSITION TO USE THE TITLE OF THAT POSITION AS A PREFIX WHEN FILING AS A CANDIDATE.
HB1896 B. McKenzie TO CREATE THE JUNK FEE ELIMINATING ACT OF 2025; TO ABOLISH THE INFORMATION NETWORK OF ARKANSAS; AND TO TRANSFER ANY REMAINING DUTIES OF THE INFORMATION NETWORK OF ARKANSAS TO THE DIVISION OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS.
HB1898 Painter TO CREATE THE REGULATORY DIVISION AND THE REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT DIVISION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION; AND TO ALLOW PERSONNEL OF THE REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT DIVISION TO BE DESIGNATED AS AGENTS.
HB1925 Beaty Jr. TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOTS; AND TO REQUIRE AN OATH FOR AN ABSENTEE BALLOT.
HB1929 McAlindon TO CREATE THE RECOGNIZING JUDEA AND SAMARIA ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT STATE AGENCIES FROM USING THE TERM "WEST BANK" IN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MATERIALS.
HB1934 McAlindon TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FORWARD ENGAGEMENT COMMITTEE ACT; AND TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS FORWARD ENGAGEMENT COMMITTEE WORKING GROUP.
SENATE BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
SB351 J. Dismang TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE; TO AMEND PORTIONS OF INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1990; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996.
SB343 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING STATE-OWNED MOTOR VEHICLES; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC PROPERTY; AND TO AMEND THE AUTOMOBILE AND PICKUP TRUCK ACQUISITION ACT FOR THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.
SB12 B. King TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING REDISTRICTING BY THE BOARD OF APPORTIONMENT.
SB357 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY ACT; AND TO APPLY MILITARY SERVICE CREDIT TO A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE'S TOTAL SERVICE TIME FOR ANNUAL LEAVE ACCRUAL CALCULATION.
SB241 J. Scott TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY ACT; AND TO GRANT PAID LEAVE TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES IN THE EVENT OF THE DEATH OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE'S FAMILY MEMBER OR CHILD.
SB433 J. Dotson REGARDING THE DISPLAY OF THE NATIONAL MOTTO AND THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.
SB376 A. Clark TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC MEETINGS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967.
SB445 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE LICENSURE OF ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS.
SB471 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CANDIDATES FOR NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS; AND TO ALLOW CERTAIN CANDIDATES FOR NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS TO USE THE TITLE OF THE NONPARTISAN JUDICIAL OFFICE ON THE BALLOT.
SB479 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER ASSISTANCE; AND TO REQUIRE A PERSON ASSISTING A VOTER WITH A DISABILITY TO PRESENT IDENTIFICATION.
SB491 K. Hammer TO REQUIRE A VENDOR THAT CONTRACTS WITH THE OFFICE OF STATE PROCUREMENT FOR SERVICES FOR THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION TO SUBMIT DATA FOR VERIFICATION BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR; TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB510 J. Boyd TO ALLOW FOR THE CROSS DEPUTIZATION OF MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, STATE, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ON FEDERALLY-RECOGNIZED TRIBAL LAND WITHIN THE STATE.
SB508 Irvin TO AMEND THE FREQUENCY OF PAYMENT OF A STIPEND FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFIT ADVISORY COMMISSION AND THE STATE EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFIT ADVISORY COMMISSION.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HJR1009 K. Brown AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO BE KNOWN AS THE ARKANSAS VICTIMS' BILL OF RIGHTS; AND TO PROVIDE RIGHTS FOR VICTIMS OF MISDEMEANOR AND FELONY OFFENSES, INCLUDING VICTIMS IN THE ADULT AND JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS.
HJR1014 Beaty Jr. A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
HJR1016 Ray A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REPEAL THE PROVISION OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 5, § 1, ALLOWING THE SPONSOR OF AN INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM PETITION TO CORRECT OR AMEND A PETITION.
HJR1017 Ray A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROVIDING THAT A PROPOSED STATE-WIDE INITIATED ACT OR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT SHALL BECOME A LAW WHEN APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST IN THE ELECTION AND A MAJORITY OF THE COUNTIES OF THE STATE.
HJR1018 Ray THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT.
reconvene
DEFERRED BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1024 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; AND TO REPEAL THE LAW PROHIBITING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
HB1028 A. Collins TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE LAW CONCERNING OBSCENITY AND THE PROCESS FOR CHALLENGING MATERIALS INCLUDED IN A LIBRARY; AND TO REQUIRE A LIBRARY TO HAVE A POLICY PROHIBITING BOOK BANNING IN ORDER TO RECEIVE STATE FUNDING.
HB1035 A. Collins TO CREATE THE ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 2025; TO ALLOW ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION; TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51; AND TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
HB1036 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO ALLOW VOTER REGISTRATION DURING EARLY VOTING AND ON ELECTION DAY; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51.
HB1038 A. Collins TO CREATE THE NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING ACT OF 2025; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE VOTING; AND TO REPEAL VOTER QUALIFICATIONS FOR ABSENTEE VOTING.
HB1039 A. Collins TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOTS; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS.
HB1040 A. Collins TO CREATE THE WATER IN LINE ACT OF 2025; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PENALTIES FOR MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES RELATED TO VOTING.
HB1042 A. Collins TO CREATE THE DIRECT DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2025; TO REPEAL THE ENSURING ACCESS FOR ALL ARKANSANS AND VOTER PROTECTION ACT OF 2023; AND TO AMEND THE PROCEDURE FOR THE FILING OF A BALLOT INITIATIVE PETITION AND REFERENDUM PETITION.
HB1043 A. Collins TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING OF NONCANDIDATE EXPENDITURES PERTAINING TO APPELLATE JUDICIAL ELECTIONS; AND TO ADOPT NEW LAWS CONCERNING APPELLATE JUDICIAL CAMPAIGNS.
HB1162 Duffield TO ESTABLISH GOOD FRIDAY AS AN OFFICIAL STATE HOLIDAY.
HB1058 Unger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FOR PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; AND TO PROHIBIT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FROM GIVING ADVANCE NOTICE TO ENTITIES OF REQUIRED INSPECTIONS.
HB1059 Unger TO PROVIDE THE OPTION FOR A FREE LIFETIME HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSE TO A COMMERCIAL TRUCK DRIVER WHO IS A RESIDENT AND PROVIDES CERTAIN INFORMATION RELATED TO HUMAN TRAFFICKING.
HB1078 Long TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR A RUNOFF ELECTION FOR CANDIDATES FOR THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
HB1281 McAlindon TO AMEND REPORTING FOR A CANDIDATE FOR CERTAIN MUNICIPAL OFFICES AND FOR COUNTY OFFICE; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996.
HB1415 L. Johnson TO REQUIRE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO RESPOND TO A REQUEST FOR A FIRE INQUIRY.
HB1494 Hawk TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS GUIDANCE OUT OF THE DARKNESS ACT; AND TO REQUIRE STATE AGENCIES TO PUBLISH FEDERAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS ONLINE.
HB1459 L. Johnson CONCERNING RECURRING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
HB1461 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE EVALUATION OF NECESSITY OF VARIOUS COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS.
SB184 D. Sullivan TO TRANSFER THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ARKANSAS EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION COMMISSION AND THE STATE LIBRARY BOARD TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.
HB1667 Bentley TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC MEETINGS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967.
HB1769 Barnett CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER STANDARDS; AND TO REQUIRE A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION OR ASSESSMENT TO BECOME OR BE EMPLOYED AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
HB1621 Wardlaw TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO EXEMPT PERSONAL INFORMATION OF ELECTED CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS, JUDICIAL OFFICIALS, ELECTED COUNTY OFFICIALS, ELECTED MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS, AND THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILY.
HB1631 Wardlaw TO ADDRESS THE ISSUANCE OF HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENTS.
HB1069 S. Meeks TO OBSERVE STANDARD TIME YEAR ROUND IN ARKANSAS; AND TO ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME IN ARKANSAS.
HB1720 Vaught TO CREATE THE BABIES AT WORK ACT; TO ALLOW STATE AGENCIES TO PERMIT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO ARE PARENTS OR LEGAL GUARDIANS TO BRING THEIR INFANTS SIX MONTHS OR YOUNGER TO WORK.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS- HOUSE, Apr 2, 2025 | Agenda | 5 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Chair
Unverified
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 12
Representative Rick Beck Chair
Unverified
Speaker 26
Speaker 28
Speaker 29
Speaker 41
Speaker 55
Speaker 43
Speaker 57
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 76
Representative David Ray
Unverified
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Speaker 104
Speaker 36
Speaker 45
Speaker 128
Representative Stan Berry
Unverified
Speaker 153
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
Speaker 223
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
Speaker 270
Speaker 273
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
Speaker 287
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
Speaker 293
Chris Madison
Unverified
Speaker 167
Speaker 217
Leslie Abbott
Unverified
Speaker 323
Speaker 142
Speaker 332
Speaker 331
Speaker 338
Speaker 339
Speaker 341
Speaker 345
Speaker 348
Speaker 351
Speaker 352
Laura Abbott
Unverified
Speaker 196
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
Speaker 380
Speaker 382
Chris Arps
Unverified
Speaker 384
Speaker 387