State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (66)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1037
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “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. |
|
HB1753
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…LS, AND COMMISSIONS. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle 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. |
|
HB1041
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1041 R. Scott Richardson TO PROHIBIT DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DE…”
|
TO PROHIBIT DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES IN ELECTION COMMUNICATIONS. | R. Scott Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1365
Act 938
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E ARKANSAS CODE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1990. 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 |
|
HB1614
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
HB1632
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
HB1683
Act 924
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
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 |
|
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. |
|
HB1800
Act 998
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…PROGRAMS. RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE Number Sponsor Subtitle 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
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
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 |
|
HB1846
Act 946
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ignating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. ACT 1 OF 1996. HB1846 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS 2036 COMMISSION. HB1849 Gra…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS 2036 COMMISSION. | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1846 is now Act 946 |
|
HB1849
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…96. 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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 |
|
HB1870
Act 840
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CT; AND TO PROHIBIT GAME WARDEN TRESPASS ONTO PRIVATE LAND. 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 |
|
HB1878
Act 978
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ATE TO PROVIDE A VOTER REGISTRATION LIST TO FEDERAL COURTS. 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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ERS TO CONDUCT EARLY VOTING IN A CITY IN CERTAIN INSTANCES. 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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF ELECTRONIC DATA AND METADATA. 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 |
|
HB1896
Act 716
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
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
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
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 |
|
HB1925
Act 846
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1018 Ray THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT.”
|
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. |
|
SB241
Act 885
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…'S TOTAL SERVICE TIME FOR ANNUAL LEAVE ACCRUAL CALCULATION. 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 |
|
SB343
Act 734
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
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 |
|
SB351
Act 592
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MMITTEE WORKING GROUP. SENATE BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle 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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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: “…THE DISPLAY OF THE NATIONAL MOTTO AND THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. 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. |
|
SB433
Act 573
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OF THE DEATH OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE'S FAMILY MEMBER OR CHILD. 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 |
|
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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 4/2/25 @ 7:18 AM) Added SB508 House Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREQUENCY OF PAYMENT OF A STIPEND FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC … | Irvin | Notification that SB508 is now Act 756 |
|
SB510
Act 594
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ICATION BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR; TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. 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 |
|
HB1024
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…LY VOTING AMENDMENT. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle 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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…PROHIBITING BOOK BANNING IN ORDER TO RECEIVE STATE FUNDING. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…MENT 51; AND TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE. 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. |
|
HB1038
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
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. |
|
HB1042
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RNING PENALTIES FOR MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES RELATED TO VOTING. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NG OF A BALLOT INITIATIVE PETITION AND REFERENDUM PETITION. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ield TO ESTABLISH GOOD FRIDAY AS AN OFFICIAL STATE HOLIDAY. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENTS. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…CANDIDATES FOR THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 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. |
|
HB1415
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ge 4 of 5 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
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ERNING RECURRING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…LAW ENFORCEMENT TO RESPOND TO A REQUEST FOR A FIRE INQUIRY. 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. |
|
HB1621
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…S, ELECTED MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS, AND THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILY. 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. |
|
HB1667
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RKANSAS; AND TO ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME IN ARKANSAS. 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. |
|
HB1769
· 1 mention in agenda
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. |
|
SB184
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EVALUATION OF NECESSITY OF VARIOUS COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS. 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. |
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
This meeting of House State Agencies is hereby called to order. Chair sees a quorum. My watch shows 10 o'clock, so I think we're good. I sent out a notice yesterday that my intention was to hear regular bills this morning, and we want to prioritize House bills. And so we're going to just start at the top of the regular agenda, House Bill 1753, Representative Long.
go ahead right turn your mic on we put
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
0:39
that one on deferred sir put it on
deferred yes okay you've got the next one 1773 that's
the one you're waiting on an amendment on i know that was 1884 was the amendment what about 1773 i'm going to go
to deferred with that one too sir all right Then we have House Bill 1037, Andrew Collins. Representative Collins.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:19
Thank you, Mr. Chair, committee, Andrew Collins. So this bill is real
simple. This is pre-registration to vote currently in arkansas you can register to vote if you're going to be 18 by the time of the next election but actually a lot of states register people who are 17 or even 16. this bill would move it to 17 and it might seem like a small change and and it may be a little unclear why this would even be something that would be beneficial but somewhat to my surprise it actually has a really positive
impact on youth voter turnout. And it's been studied somewhat extensively. And the results in scientific studies that have been published in journals are that it really does increase by a significant amount youth voter turnout. And it does so across party line. It doesn't bring out more of Democrats or more Republicans. It does both. And some of the reasons for that, I think that the principal reason is that when you extend that pre-registration time you increase the chance
that a student is going to encounter an event that will get them excited about politics and government. It may be something that's happening in their school, a civics class, or a history class. It may be something going on in the world that is of interest to them. And if they're 17 years old and want to register, there's really no downside to them registering, and this bill would allow them to do that as a high school senior.
The mechanics of it are very simple. You would register the same way that you would to, you know, if you were anyone else, but the clerk would then put a flag on the, as they do currently, the clerk would put a flag, a suspense status is what they would call it, so that they could not actually vote,
and that would be done the same way that it's done for somebody who is gonna be 18 by the next election, they also get that suspense status, and so they can't vote until they're 18, and at which point the flag is removed,
and they become an active voter. When they're in suspense status, they
don't even show up in the poll book, so there is no possibility that they will be able to vote at that point. And again, this is a well-traveled path. There are, I believe, 22 states, 28 states that do this. Most of
them go with 16, but at the request of the clerks, we did 17, and that's the bill. All right. Representative
Collins has explained this bill. Are there any questions by the committee?
Representative David Ray
Unverified
4:04
Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So this doesn't allow them to vote in, like, say, the
Speaker 21
4:12
primary election. Is that correct? You cannot vote until you're 18, and that's federal law, and that doesn't change with this. All that stays the same. So it just allows them
Representative David Ray
Unverified
4:24
to register? Yeah. Okay. All right. And this would require an amendment in the Constitution? This would. So this would be a, this is the amendment that we, Amendment 51, this would require a two-thirds vote of both chambers?
That's right. Okay. I just wanted to be
clear on the procedure. All right, any other questions
Representative David Ray
Unverified
4:53
by the committee? Seeing no, Representative Ray? I guess I would just follow up, but I mean, everybody can register once they're 18. Why do they need the ability to register when they're 17? I remember it wasn't that difficult. It's easy to register, but why do you need a head start in order to register?
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
5:11
Well, it's for those reasons I mentioned. And again, I was somewhat surprised by this too, but it
really does have a improvement in youth voter turnout when people are allowed to register earlier. They're at a time of life when they're getting excited about politics, they have interest, they're obviously not allowed to vote, and, you know, you've been around kids, you probably understand that they're often excited about things they can't yet do. This is another one of those things. And so when you're a senior, when you're going through a civics class, when things
are happening in the world and you want to register to vote um you can't right now if you're you know younger but under this you could and then of course you would be able to vote without having to a new register once you turn 18. follow
Representative David Ray
Unverified
6:02
up you know one one thing that i worry about and i've seen this happen a little bit in central arkansas where some of the schools have actually let in um partisan or partisan leaning groups uh to register high school students but not let in
anyone from you know a differing political persuasion do you i mean i could foresee this leading to more of that type of behavior if uh if a um you know if if a larger pool of students were allowed to register before they were 18 do you
Speaker 21
6:35
foresee issues like that or no I really don't. I mean, because,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
6:40
again, you can register now if you're going to be 18 by the next election. I don't, you know, think that that kind of partisan-leaning activity should happen,
but I don't think that's affected either way by this
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
6:57
bill. Representative Meeks. Thank you. And I came in a few minutes late, so
forgive me if you've already covered this. Where do the clerks stand on this? Because it seems like we're going to be creating a lot of extra work for them to register 17-year-olds, kind of keep track of all that, and then switch them from the
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
7:19
temporary status to the full status once they reach that age.
Clerks are neutral on this, and they do this already, again, with people who register before they turn 18. So they didn't raise any concerns about that aspect of it. So people already registered before they're 18? Yeah, you can register before
you're 18 if you are going to turn 18 by that next election. Okay. I think we've got a witness who can
Caroline Cole
Unverified
7:43
help answer that question. If you just recognize yourself for the record, you'll be recognized. Thank you. My name
Speaker 44
7:49
is Caroline Cole. I'm a law clerk with the Association of Counties. Lindsay's in a different committee, but she
Speaker 45
7:53
told me that the clerks are okay with this
as long as it's only applied to 17-year-olds. All right.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
8:04
Representative Underwood, you're recognized. My question's for you. Sorry. You said that they're okay with it if it's only applied to 17-year-olds. What's the reason for limiting it to just
Speaker 50
8:17
17-year-olds? I am not sure I can ask Lindsay. I can text her. I'm not really sure the details. Is
Speaker 50
8:27
I'm not sure. I couldn't answer that, but I
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
8:31
can text her and ask. Yeah, we talked about it, and I think maybe there were
some individual clerks who had questions about it at 16, and so we moved it to
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
8:42
17 at their request. Do you know what the questions were that they had for 16? No. Thank you. And if I may, I'm going to switch to something else. You mentioned that there were some studies that increased, I guess, participation, right, at this age.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
8:57
What were those studies that-- - Sure, if you, I mean, you're welcome. There are several. There's one here that was published in the American Journal of Political Science, Holbein at Duke University, Making Young Voters the Impact of Pre-Registration on Youth Voter Turnout. They, if you're interested, they used the state of Florida. They leveraged a discontinuity based on date of birth to estimate the effect of increased pre-registration
exposure. They also implemented difference in difference in lag models to bracket the causal effect of pre-registration. And in both approaches,
they found that pre-registration-- this is a quote-- "increases voter turnout with equal effectiveness
for various subgroups in the electorate." So there's other studies. NCSL has resources that kind of summarize those. But this is one that I just happened to bring the
Speaker 56
9:55
abstract for. Representative Woodridge, you're recognized.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
10:04
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Collins. I don't think I'm opposed to this bill. I'm just trying to kind of satisfy my curiosity on a couple of different things. So I understand, I think, the thought process behind if you're 17 but you're going to be 18 during the next election, you're kind of in the queue, you're ready, you're going to be a voter this cycle. But moving that to 17, for those 17-year-olds that aren't going to vote in this cycle, I guess I don't know, what's the added benefit there? I mean, other than just you're catching a little bit broader group with this net,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
10:34
is that kind of the intent? That's the intent. You're catching
a broader group. You've got, you know, more people who are going to be eligible to do it. You know, I think pretty much every high school senior is going to be 17. So if they've got a class, you know, the civics class, and they all want to get registered together as a class project, they can do that. And you're also getting a full, you know, exposure to more current events. And I think that's the thing that some of this research showed is that current events are part of the big drivers. When there's things happening in the news and people see it and they're excited about politics, that's when it happens.
So to increase that slightly has that increase in turnout. Yeah, and
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
11:12
that makes sense to me. I understand that. And I don't want to hold your bill up for sure. But I would be curious just to know why 17 is the age instead of a junior in high school. To Representative Underwood's point, you know, what is the thought process there? And I think that we may have an answer to some of that. But, again, I'm not opposed to it per se. I just, I am curious of why that's the magic kind of number that we're shooting for. But I think your explanation makes sense, and I appreciate you bringing it.
Representative Rose. Oh, sorry. Hang on just a second. Representative Rose. It looks like there was another response to Representative Woodridge's
Speaker 45
11:49
question. Sorry, yes. Lindsay texted me back and said 16-year-olds are too far removed from being able to vote, and it would just create unnecessary confusion. So that's why 17-year-olds. That's fair. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Rose, you're recognized. I have a question, but it's on a different
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
12:08
vein. And so if somebody else has a question on the age that we're just discussing right now,
I'd be happy to hop out and then
jump back in. Representative Underwood's in the queue. Yeah, I guess
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
12:25
I'll just follow up on that. So the answer to that is it's 16-year-olds are too far removed, but the determination has made that 17-year-olds are not too far removed because they're just one year away from being able to vote rather than two. As much
Speaker 44
12:39
as I understand it, that's the reasoning, yes. I mean, I don't mean to, I
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
12:43
don't understand here. I appreciate you trying to give me an answer on that.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
12:49
Representative Rose. Thank you. Representative Collins, and I'm sorry if I just overlooked it or missed it when you mentioned it. Is there a requirement for parental consent to register? No,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
13:04
there's not either currently. When you're a 17-year-old, you can register to vote. if you're going to be 18 by the next
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
13:14
election without your parents' consent. But we are lowering the age requirement in a sense, right?
It's not if you're going to turn 18 before the next election, it's now if you're 17, period. I guess, you know, I'm not crazy about that component. You know, my dad took me to register to vote. My kids, I would like to take them to register to vote. And I guess as a parent, I don't know how much, it's not like I want to restrict them, but if that's an experience I want to have with them, I guess I would kind of feel robbed of that if someone was able to come into school and I didn't get any kind of notification or anything like that
and they're registered, and I missed out on that moment as a parent and getting to talk with them through that. Do
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
13:59
you see the merit of that concern at all? No, I think you could still take them to register
to vote when they're 17 If this bill were to pass, so I just don't I'm sorry. I don't I don't agree with parental consent To register to vote being something that we should put in place. Okay Thanks, you and
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
14:16
I disagree on that point, but I appreciate what you're doing. Thank you
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
14:24
Representative Underwood you're recognized I think this is my last question, but Will there be any additional cost? Do we have to change any kind of applications or anything like that? Have you had
any conversations regarding that? No, I can't imagine there would be any cost to
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
14:43
this. You know, there's a voter registration application form would be different, but I don't think that there's a production cost of that. That's just something that's available online and elsewhere.
So I don't think cost is a consideration on this one.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
15:02
Representative Hawke, you're recognized. Thank you. Going to the cost thing. I mean, there would be a cost, though, wouldn't it,
for more registration forms, more processing files for our clerks? I mean, it seems like there would be
a little bit more cost if we're now adding another age group in there to then register, though,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
15:22
wouldn't you agree? I mean, there are, I guess, incremental costs
with everyone registering to vote, but I think
that's just what they do. I mean, that's their job. So if we're asking the clerks to register voters, I don't really consider that a cost to the state. It's just their main hours. -
I was thinking more like even at the local level, like if
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
15:43
you're going to a clerk's office to register to vote, you got people processing that. There's just, there's paperwork that has to be done. From what I've heard from like my county clerks and stuff that there would be a little bit of a cost for doing this, to expand this a little bit.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
15:58
That's why, that's the only reason why I'd ask. - The only cost would be more people registering. And I guess, I mean, I think it would be so incremental and almost, I don't know how you would even
detect it. But the benefit of course would be that you've got people registering to vote and voting which, you know, I believe is something that we should strive for. I mean, Arkansas is second worst in voter registration and third worst in voter turnout. And when people are connected to their democracy and have a voice in it, there's all kinds of benefits.
People feel legitimized and like they have a voice in the process. But, yeah, I guess maybe she's here
Speaker 72
16:41
to address that issue. Yeah, I guess I should
Speaker 45
16:44
have stayed up there. I was going to say, you might want to stay there. Yeah. Okay, so Lindsay said, no, there wouldn't be any additional costs because, as Representative Collins explained, they are automatically flagged as ineligible. And there's no additional cost because 17-and-a-half-year-olds are already being allowed to register, and it's the same paperwork. Gotcha.
Okay, cool. Thank you. Yeah.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
17:06
Representative Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Andrews, are you familiar with any municipalities in the country that are lowering the age below 18? I'm sorry. Could you say that again? That's okay. I was wondering if you're familiar with any municipalities in the country that have lowered the voting age below 18 to vote in, like, local elections. I'm not aware of that.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
17:31
This bill would not do that. That may happen. I just
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
17:35
don't know. I was thinking some West Coast metropolitan areas had looked into doing that. Basically, what I was wondering was this the first step that they took was, you know, getting the folks kind of in
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
17:47
the queue to vote. I don't know about any
of that, but I do know that this bill would leave the voting age at
18. It was my intent, and all the other states, the 28 or so states, you know, voting at 18 is the federal standard.
I have no intention to do anything. As far as any kind of next steps, this is the step. If someone else wants to make that step, I'd vote against it, and I'm afraid. Thank you,
sir. Thanks. All right. Representative Collins, this proposes to amend the Arkansas Constitution. Is that right? That's right. And so it would take a two-thirds
vote of each house. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. All right. Representative Underwood, you're recognized.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
18:36
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I keep harping on this, I guess, but you just said, so 17-and-a-half-year-olds can register currently. Is that what you said? If you're going to be 18 by the next election, so approximately. So this will move it to 17, which we think is okay, but 16 is too far removed. I don't think 16 is too far
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
18:54
removed. I did this, you know, sometimes you do incremental changes. This was in response to some people who felt like 16 was too far removed. I think a lot of other states do 16, and it works out great.
But I'm fine with 17 because I'm fine with something that's incrementally better rather than the whole piece. Okay. All right, any other questions by
the committee? Seeing no other questions by the committee, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Wait, we do have someone here who'd like to speak for the bill. Sir,
did you sign up? No, sir, did not. Okay, well, that's our protocol, but without objection,
you're recognized to present your remarks. If you would, state your name. Any organization you may be here representing, then you'll be recognized to present your remarks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the things on this bill right here, I'm the Sling County Clerk. Sorry about that. State your name. One of the things. Did you state your name? Doug Curtis. Okay. Thank you very much. I'll start
Speaker 109
20:03
with that. One of the things on this bill that I really like is the 17, because a lot of times we will go into the high schools and do a voter registration.
A lot of them are not there, will not be 18 by the time the election is there, but they're already registered. And it also creates, once they're registered, they're looking forward to vote. And if you can get them, and I would love to see the young people, because if you look at the demographics of the people that vote, the 18-year-olds to 22-year-old, they just don't get out and vote. So anything that we can do to promote, I don't think it's going to cost, as far as the cost to our office,
it might be just a very small printing cost for the extra voter registrations. But I'm in favor of this bill, and the clerk's self-taught to her is in favor of this bill. All right, thank you very much. Any questions by the committee? Seeing
no questions by the committee, thank you for those remarks. We have no one else signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative
Collins, you're recognized to close for your bill.
I'm closed for the bill, and I'd make a motion due pass. Representative Collins is closed for his bill. He's made a motion
due pass. 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. Roll call. See two hands. Call the roll.
Speaker 112
21:51
Representative Meeks. Yes. Representative Meeks, yes. Representative Wardlaw. Representative Wardlaw. Representative Berry. Yes. Representative Berry, yes. Representative Mayberry. Representative Mayberry. Representative Crawford? No. Representative Crawford? No. Representative Clowney? Yes. Representative Clowney? Yes. Representative Collins? Yes. Representative Collins?
Yes. Representative Evans? Representative Evans? Representative Innit? Yes. Representative Innit? Yes. Representative McElroy? Yes. Representative McElroy? Yes. Representative Ray? No. Representative Ray? No. No. Representative Beatty? No. Representative Beatty? No. Representative Carr? No. Representative Carr? No. Representative Underwood? No. Representative Underwood? No.
Representative Long? No. Representative Long? No. Representative Long? No. Representative Hawk? Present. Representative Hawk? Present. Representative Rose? No. Representative Rose? No. Representative Wooldridge? Representative Wardridge? Representative Waldridge? Representative Beck? Present. Representative Beck? Present. Sorry, Representative Collins, the bill's failed.
All right, next we have House Bill 1041, R. Scott Richardson.
Not seeing him present this morning. Representative Wing, you and I talked last night, I believe you had a bill that he wanted to
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
23:42
present quickly yes sir thank you mr. chair if I'm right we have a procedure here that we will need to vote we'll need a motion to expunge the vote of the amendment that we passed on Monday because we since we pulled the bill down we have to represent that amendment so and we have a new amendment to join in
to that all right see a motion representative rose to expunge the vote on the amendment
on house bill 1870 is there any discussion on that motion seeing none all those in favor say aye all those opposed all right the motion to expunge the amendment has passed my understanding is we have a new amendment staff is going to going to pass out that amendment and once the amendment has
been passed out and everyone's had an opportunity to review it, Representative Wayne, you'll
be recognized to present the amendment. All
right, everyone should have a copy of the amendment.
Everyone should have had an opportunity to review it at this point. And so, Representative Wing, with that, I'm
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
25:29
going to recognize you to present the amendment. Okay, the bulk of the amendment that you received is the same amendment that you passed on Monday. The only addition to that is one new line, which is page 2, line 24, right after— and this was to clear up that concern that we discussed on Monday, and I appreciate Representative Collins for bringing that to our attention so we were able to make it crystal clear here.
this phrase voter, so after it says, once after verifying that someone has been disqualified or potentially disqualified as a registered voter, and then we insert the phrase, but is ineligible to be a voter under Arkansas law, then when it continues on, the Secretary of State shall forward that information to the clerks. And so that's what that amendment does. Happy to answer any questions. All right, Representative Wing has explained the amendment.
Are there any questions by the committee? Seeing none, Representative Meeks has made a 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. The amendment's
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
26:35
been adopted. Representative Wing, you're recognized to present the bill as amended. Thank you very much. And committee, we've discussed this bill already. So with that amendment, I believe we've resolved any concerns that revolve around this issue. We just hope to make sure that we've got an opportunity to get some more data and help our voter rolls. Representative Wing, are you closed for the bill?
Closed for the bill. Representative Wing has, actually we're not to that point yet. Representative Wing has
explained this bill as amended. Are there any questions by the committee? Representative Rose? Motion of the proper time.
Okay, seeing no questions by the committee, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Rose, let's hear your motion. Motion to
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
27:14
pass as amended, actually not as amended, I guess. Motion to pass with the amendment, yeah, that's correct, sorry. - So
Representative Rosen made a motion do pass as amended. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.
- Aye. - All those opposed, the ayes have it.
Congratulations, Representative Wingy. You passed your bill as amended. - Thank you, committee. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. All right, continuing on, Representative McElindon, I have not seen her this morning,
but she and I have talked. She has several bills she intends to present this morning. Representative Meeks, we have House Bill 1846. Are you prepared?
Yes, sir. Representative Meeks, you are recognized.
All right, thank you colleagues. So I had actually hoped that
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
28:42
this was going to be the last bill that I would ever present. This was going to be sort of my last gift, if you will, to the state of Arkansas before I was termed out. Unfortunately, as you all know, this time of session, those kind of plans hardly ever work out. So I wanted to go ahead and run this bill to make sure that it does get considered. So what I'm looking for is what is something that we as
a state can do for the next generation. I had someone, or a former congressman told me, that the difference between a politician and a statesman is a politician is somebody who only looks for the next election, whereas a statesman is looking for the next generation. And that's what I'm hoping to do with this bill. As you all know, or may not know, our 200th birthday as a state is coming up in 2036, which is about 10 years away.
The current freshman class, we don't have any freshmen on this committee, but the current freshman class, they will become the senior class by the time this rolls around. And so this will be kind of my gift to them from the senior class to the freshman class because they'll be the ones overseeing this project. So what this bill does in a nutshell is it sets up the 2036 Commission and the purpose of this commission is to begin making plans for our state's 200th birthday. Again, coming
up in less than a decade. Some of the basic stuff that I'm hoping that this commission will do is develop, you know, programs that can go to our schools to encourage kids about our state history. I don't know if any of you have had the chance to go over to the state archives. We have a lot of history over in our state archives, but nowhere to display it. And so my hope is we can develop programs so those artifacts can go around the state
to encourage our students about our state and our state's history. I'd love to see teacher exchange programs. But the biggest thing that I'm hoping to do with this is if I were to name a national monument, y'all could tell me where that was located at. So for example, if I were to say the arch, y'all would know it's St. Louis. If I said the Space Needle, Seattle, if I said Mount Rushmore, back 100 years ago, we used to build these great monuments.
This Capitol building was built back 100 years ago. We don't do any of that kind of stuff today. And so what I'm hoping to do here is, this is kind of my big dream for the state of Arkansas. What are we going to do with our modern generation for our 200th birthday that's still going to be here for our 300th birthday? And I don't know what that is. And that's the point of this commission. What I would love to see happen is, you know, send out a challenge to all the East Labs across the state and let high school students come up with a plan.
Architecture firms, let them come up with a plan. What could we do as a state, dream big, to create something that our generation is going to leave for the next generation? A lot of states that I visit, they have state museums, and maybe we would build and create a state museum. Because like I said, we have a lot of wonderful archives in our state, but we've got nowhere to display it. If I were to ask you all, have you ever seen the state's original constitution from 1836, or even know where it's at?
I mean, we all know where the U.S. Constitution's at. Have any of you ever seen it? It used to be on display down in the basement. It's not there anymore. When I asked them about it, they said it was locked away in a closet somewhere. Wouldn't it be great if we had somewhere to be able to display that? And again, I don't know if that's what this project would be. But what I want to do is I want to open it up. Let's dream big. What can we as a state do in our generation to leave a legacy for the next generation?
And so what this commission does is it's housed in the Department of Heritage. It has someone from the Department of Education, the governor, speaker, pro tem, each appoint two people to this commission. They will be housed in the Department of Heritage. I've spoken with the Director of Department of Heritage. They're good with this bill. They're ready to get started on this should the committee pass that, decide to pass this. And so with that, I will try to answer any questions from the committee.
All right. Thank you, Representative Meeks. Representative Hawke, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
33:46
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Meeks, I mean, I love the idea. the Party Planning Commission. I think that's
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
33:53
what we could name it. But, you know, I really take issue, I guess, with the paying of per diem on this because when we've got the Department of Tourism or Heritage, isn't this kind of their job in the first place? Like, isn't this kind of the stuff that they do to promote Arkansas?
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
34:12
So the bill states they won't be compensated. So this would just be the expenses incurred by doing this because, you know, if we go to a meeting, we get expenses for that, right? And so I just felt it was reasonable that if we're going to ask citizens to come and participate in this, that they be given, you know, time of travel. The rest of what they're doing would be on a voluntary basis. And kind of to your point where, you know, doesn't the Department of Heritage already do this?
To some extent, yes. But what I'm hoping to do is I want the Department of Education to be involved because I want to, you know, like I said, my hope is that we'll be creating educational materials that can go to schools to promote our state. I'm hoping when the governor and the pro tem and all that, that they would appoint, you know, business leaders, architects to try to bring as many people together to be, have a voice in getting ready for this. And like I said, it's more than just a celebration.
You know, we could say, okay, two years out, we're going to start planning fireworks and all that stuff. That's great. I want this to be and go way beyond that. So, for example, in what I was talking about, if we wanted to build a state museum, for example, if that's what, you know, should this go through, you can't do that in two years, right? That takes years of planning and construction and so forth. And so if we're going to create some grand, again, a blank slate because I don't know what that could be, it will take this amount of time.
And, again, they could study this and find, you know what, this is just not a good time to do it. Maybe for our 250th birthday, maybe that generation will be in a better place to do it. But I want us to look
at what can we do to leave for the future. What was done for the 100th, do you know? With
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
36:06
the Capitol. The capital. Yeah, no, but what I'm saying, like, was there any, outside of that, was there any big celebration? Oh, I'm sure there was. I mean, because I just look at this, and I think that, you know, anytime you're planning something of this magnitude, there's going to be tax dollars involved.
I know that it's not in here, but we're already, with the bills that are in place currently, you know, we've got a lot of things on the agenda to spend taxpayer dollars. And I think that if we do this now, wouldn't you agree, like, we're basically saying that we're mandating you to spend taxpayer dollars in 2036 for this celebration, essentially. I mean, I like the idea. I'm not saying I don't like the idea. I just think that we're kind of mandating them to do something that you're not going to be here, and some of us may not be here, and we're telling somebody they've got to do something at that point.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
36:57
Well, the commission has come up with the idea. Any tax dollars that would be spent would still have to come through the General Assembly. And this last week, I read an article where it's one of those top five destinations in the U.S. to go to. And I was actually surprised that Arkansas was on that list of top five states to go through because it was a hiking kind of deal. And when I scroll down through the comments, all the comments related to our state, as you can imagine, we're not glowing, right?
There's nothing to do in Arkansas. There's no reason to come to Arkansas. And so, you know, people can say, hey, while you're in Arkansas, you know, go visit Crystal Bridges. While you're in Arkansas, go to the Clinton Library or whatever. Wouldn't it be great if we gave people a reason? You've got to go to Arkansas to see this, right? To give people a reason to come to our state. You know, unfortunately, for too much of the country, Arkansas is flyover country.
What can we do to change that? And that's what I'm hoping this would be as a catalyst for. And, of course, that's going to require investments. You know, when they built the arch in St. Louis, that required a huge investment. But it has paid off for generations and generations and generations. You know, people go to St. Louis just to see that. People drive, you know, why else would you go to South Dakota? People drive there just to see that, see Mount Rushmore. And they've got a great motorcycle rally, too. Yeah, exactly.
Yeah, and I got to be there during that. So what I'm seeing this is not only is it something for us to leave to the future, but it's also a, could be a potential economic driver for the state. So, you know, if we were to look back, you know, kind of using that mentality, this Capitol never would have been built 'cause we could have built a nice square building and been done with it, right? That's what we do a lot with our architecture. They're square buildings, they're very utility focused,
but nothing beyond that. And I'm thinking, again, what could, and again, they may look at this, they may study this, and they may say, you know, we can't come up with anything, now's not a good time, just the economy's not good. But every year as a state, we generally have $100, $200, $300 million surpluses. What if we took $100 million, and again, I don't know what the project would be. What if we took $100 million, we coupled that with private partnerships,
got sponsorships, built something magnificent for the state, and left a legacy that was still gonna be here in 100 years? -
Makes sense, thank you. Representative Meeks, I love your idea. I think you're right. I think you're right on. I think this is something that we should do. I'll only support your bill if you promise to prohibit postmodern brutalism architecture and require classical Greek architecture.
Is that something that you would consider? Yes. I don't anticipate being
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
40:10
appointed to this commission, but if I was, Mr. Chairman, I will definitely agree to that. All right.
Very good. This postmodern architecture is killing the soul of humanity. Yes, indeed. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you,
Representative David Ray
Unverified
40:26
Mr. Chairman. Representative Meeks, I love your passion and vision for where this could go. You know, I was in, I traveled last
year to Anchorage for a work trip and got a chance to see the Museum of Alaska that they have in Anchorage.
And I think your idea about ultimately building some sort of state museum would be a really neat addition. I know it's a minor thing, but it does give me some heartburn that this includes per diem. I know that we just have a million of these type things, and it all adds up. And it's just I don't think it's necessary to pay people for per diem on this because this is such a good idea. I think there are tons of talented Arkansans
that would be willing to volunteer their time to serve on something like this, and we just have so many of them. That would
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
41:22
be my feedback. - Okay, so having heard that from a couple of you,
what I'd be willing to do is, should we pass this out, and I get it down to the Senate end, I'll be happy to amend
that out. All right. I haven't heard anything about classical Greek architecture yet, but we'll come back to that. Representative Hawke, you're recognized.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
41:47
And this is for the chair, really, I think. Question. Being that we're short on time, and Representative Ray and I both have issues with the per diem, I know we are hearing constitutional amendments this afternoon. Could we have Representative Meeks amend this, and we just get that done before we start that? Because it seems like it'd be pretty simple. And then that way we could pass it out this afternoon, today, rather than passing it and going to the Senate, if he's open to doing that. Yeah, I thought that if the chairman is
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
42:14
willing to do that, I think it'd be a cleaner way to do it.
It's Representative Meeks' bill. I'll leave that totally up to him. I personally think that that's a good idea. I also think you should
consider an amendment about banning post-modernism architecture. So just please consider that. Hopefully that one
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
42:33
is a given. So, Mr. Chairman, I'll go ahead and
I will pull the bill down. I will get an amendment prepared and be ready to present that this afternoon. Thank you, colleagues. All right, thank you very
much. Next, we have House Bill 1849, Representative Gramley.
Zach Gramli
Unverified
42:57
Chair, if it pleases the committee, I'll do two for one today. If you'll allow me to run SB 510, I will defer 1849. the same bill, identical language. Always appreciate a good deal. Yes, sir. You're
Speaker 104
43:09
right, you guys. That's what I like to hear. So
Zach Gramli
Unverified
43:23
to be clear, we're going to be presenting Senate Bill 510, which is identical language,
the House Bill 1849. Fort Smith has a really novel issue in the state, but not nationally. There's a lot of these issues that are easily fixed in other states. But we actually have tribal land in the state of Arkansas. It was recognized in, I think, February of this year. It's a parking lot that is right outside the Pecola Casino. The casino itself is in Oklahoma, but the parking lot itself is in Fort Smith. And what has happened is it's created a gray area in who actually has jurisdiction here
Because it's tribal land, so tribal nations should have jurisdiction to be able to really patrol their parking lot and make sure that it's safe. But they'd be entering into Arkansas and into Fort Smith. And on the other side of that, we have tribal land where Fort Smith would like to be able to enter in and protect citizens and enforce the law and stuff like that. And so what this bill does is it really allows the conversations to happen between Fort Smith and a tribal nation to allow them to have a clarity on what happens and how to respond to a situation.
Like I said, these agreements are very common in other states. They're just not common here because we haven't acknowledged tribal land in this state before. So, again, Fort Smith is really asking for this. They really need it just so that we can know how to respond appropriately to incidents. All right. Representative Gramlich has explained the bill. Are there any questions by the
committee? Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, you know, this seems fine.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
45:09
I did get some correspondence regarding some significant concerns. Do you know of any concerns regarding
this bill? I haven't heard of any concerns. And like I said, to
Zach Gramli
Unverified
45:18
be clear, like, you would expect these conversations to already be happening. This just, like, allows it. Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other questions by the committee? Seeing no other questions by
the committee, we have no one signed up to
speak for or against the bill. Representative Gramlich, you're recognized to close for your bill.
I'm closed for my bill, and I would appreciate a good vote. Representative Gramlich is closed for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee? I think I saw Representative Rose actually first with the motion. Representative Rose makes a motion. Do pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All
those opposed, the ayes have it. Congratulations. You passed your bill. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Committee. We got
Speaker 157
46:02
two for one, right? Yeah, thanks for making a deal. All right. You're up. No, no. What's next? You got another one? 1849 was identical language, so we passed 510, so I don't need to run 1849.
Oh, I got you. So you
got a deal. It's just the chair
not even understanding what's going on, so it's my fault. Oh, yeah, it's fine. Thank you. Good job. All right. Next, my understanding, Representative McKenzie is here, 1867. You're not going to
Speaker 167
46:34
run that? Is that correct, Representative McKenzie? 1896. Right, so 1867, we're passing over.
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
46:41
I'll move to Toronto. Okay. Britt McKenzie, District 7, State Representative, Rogers, Arkansas.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm extremely happy to be here today to present House Bill 1896. It's a dense bill, and it's got a lofty name, which is called the Junk Fee Elimination Act of 2025. Probably like a lot of you, over the interim, you find things that you fixate on as a legislator. You find, you know, a constituent brings an issue to you, you come back during session, you try to resolve it. During the interim, I was made aware of an issue. And I don't, you know, this is the quiet part out loud.
I'm on a recorded thing, but it's important to say. During the interim, DF&A announced that the department was going to have a renewed processing payment fee for anyone that did a transaction, either at a state level or through a county-based revenue office for the purposes of, like, a DMV. It was going from 3% to 1.9%, which is a, I believe the governor even put out a press release because that was a very large decrease and a savings to taxpayers. Within 10 days, I got notification from a constituent that they had gone to register their car, to get it tagged and titled,
and that it was still online, not in person. It was the updated services that DMV provides, that they were assessed a 3% transaction fee. Also confused because they understand that this information had come out and what the really there there was. I elevated this, like probably anyone else in this room would do, to the governor's office and said, hey, could you help me get some information on this? I got word back in about five days that that processing fee had not taken place in the back end of our Internet technology services. And that for over two weeks, citizens were charged the incorrect processing fee of 3 percent, returning $40,000 back to all of our constituents across the state.
That led me down a very long rabbit trail that I will avoid to talk to you about today. But it uncovered for me something that I think a lot of us wouldn't understand, is that back in 1995, when the Internet was this weird thing that government, even still today, can't get right, but thought of something maybe as a hindrance, well, let's go create a board or a commission, and then they'll figure out how we need, the government needs to play, the state government needs to play a role in the Internet. They created what's called the Information Network of Arkansas, which was a public-private board,
the purpose of which was for that board to provide oversight to what a role in statute is called the network administrator. That person, that role, not person, sorry, that company or entity is supposed to, basically, in a very, very clunky analogy, supposed to make sure all the pipes and wires behind the walls here connect technologically, so that if the Secretary of State, as you go to incorporate your business, the information that you put into it then connects to the data consolidation that happens on the publicly accessible Secretary of State website.
And so forth, so on, and now replicate 30 years later, that times 30-something agencies, over 100 boards and commissions, and then every locality or municipality that exists that has a processing fee or information that is required to give back to the state it's a very large portion of what our state government does and how our constituents interact with them. You'd be surprised to know that that network administrator role obviously is important because it's the conduit to which our agencies communicate with our constituents. That is a
single entity, a company based out of Texas, and in the process of doing so has created and promulgated rules that allow for them to be the sole source vendor of a lot of the contracts that are asked of them or information that's brought to them as the network administrator, hey, you know, parks and tours, and we'd like to do X, well, we can help facilitate with Y. It does not go, so anytime an agency commissioner board goes to the network administrator for help or for services, it doesn't go through standard Office of State Procurement processes.
There is not a standard RFP process. There is not a two-bucket, five-point procurement board that's impaneled or RFP members that are brought to help on an objective basis evaluate contracts for the purpose of competition. So why this eliminates junk fees, and that's a very lofty term, I understand that, but it does it in two parts. This is not sexy. This is not really going to be an awesome boon for general revenue. These are fees that our taxpayers and our constituents face directly out of their pocket and into the pocket of a service provider.
So anytime that we can promote transparency and promote competition, it's going to be the benefit of our constituents. The second is it's going to help promote, like I mentioned previously, a standard procurement process through the Office of State Procurement so that any new bid that comes through, any new website, any new widget, any new data collection that takes place has to get the same level of attention and scrutiny that the Department of Education would for a service contract or DHS would for any type of a provider or insurer.
I believe this is really, this promotes a little bit, a lot of transparency. So what the bill does, it will abolish the Information Network of Arkansas board. That board is, just in my humble and my humble opinion, is outmoded. It has prescriptive board members from associations that I believe were really relevant in 1995 that thought it would be important for these entities to be, you know, close to this new thing called the Internet, members of the Bar Association, the State Library Board, independent insurers.
The Secretary of State is technically the chairman of this board, as well as, I believe, the director of the business division, the Secretary of State, has a prescribed seat on the board. So, without updating that board, it really isn't a true reflection of the constituencies within state government that use them best, as well as associations that may not have as much sway or influence or significance in how we judge the Internet. So let me be quick about this.
What this will do is this will put things back to the way things are supposed to be. Promote legislative oversight so that we can, in the interim through Council, promote transparency in the procurement process as individual agencies come to us for requests or supplemental appropriation requests or contract approvals or claims relevant to information technology services. And I'm really passionate about this because I've spent a lot of time working on it. But just to add some significance, there were 1.7 million transactions, credit card transactions
that took place in fiscal year 2024. $7.3 million were collected in credit card fees. So this isn't an insignificant amount of money. And none of these contracts were used to compete against one another. They're pretty standard, and there's a large national debate going on about exchange fees in that the market standard of 3% actually incorporates about 80% of profit. Because the ability for banks and independent processors to make these transactions happen
in a fluid way has become much more efficient, and they're larger clearinghouses now. So we have the opportunity to really do something great here, which is promote transparency through putting contracts as they start to go out to build out services within our state government, go through the standard procurement process, and then hopefully, and again, through competition breeds excellence, put these contracts through that procurement process so ultimately we can drive down that processing payment fee on our constituents and we all have a little bit more money in our pocket.
It's dense. I understand that, but I'd be happy to take any questions. Representative
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
54:34
Meeks. Thank you, and I appreciate you bringing this bill. I've been aware of the information network of Arkansas for quite a long time and have been kind of confused as to what they do and so forth. Only question I have is we're transferring their duties over to DIS or now the Office of State Technology. I'm guessing you visited with them, no problems, they're ready to absorb whatever those duties
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
54:57
are. Initially, this bill was a repeal of
the Information Network Act of 1995, but we worked, TSS helped write this bill. Sorry, I don't know what they're called now, but they helped write the bill so that it was in concert because there is a title transfer of current appropriation. There's a million dollars that we all appropriate to INA each year for the purposes of that contract and enticements to state agencies to be a part of Tyler. So, and the reason I actually really know about this is because as an alternate for two terms now on communications, we get a quarterly report of updates on the transaction fees.
But it's, as you can probably attest, there's no volume there. There's nothing behind it. It doesn't go in so far as to say, did we even think about recruiting a third party or a white label service to promote an efficiency? It just says, hey, it's 3% plus $1 for this one county for this revenue office. Yeah. All right. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. Yeah. Representative Collins.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
56:04
Thank you, and thank you for this interesting idea. Is there anybody at this point that you're aware
of who's not for this or opposed to this? One
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
56:13
would think that the network administrator who has a large percentage, over 50 of the services
to our state agencies would be opposed. I met with them yesterday, and they were supportive of it. They believe, because this is niche. This isn't like Visa or MasterCard can swoop into Arkansas and give us a better rate on all of it and move on with our day.
Doing work with the government is particular, and that's why a lot of the larger processors and banks try to avoid it, because of the laws that we pass on them in terms of requirements, IPP, data termination, stuff like that, or sorry, PII and data termination. So the current incumbent believes that they can compete in the world because they've been doing it from a seat of incumbency for 30-ish years. So to my knowledge, you know, and I've talked to the Secretary of State, they're one of the larger contracts.
You know, I'm not going to say they're in favor of it, but they are neutral on the bill in that they are currently in the process of evaluating their contracts with some of these companies anyway.
Okay. Yeah. Thanks. Seeing no other questions, I don't think anyone has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against the bill? All right, seeing none, Representative McKenzie, are you prepared to close for your bill? I'm prepared to close. Thank you, committee. I
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
57:34
know this was like very riveting and it kept you at the edges of your seats, but this is going to be good.
Your constituents will see the benefit from this, so I'd
appreciate a good vote. All right. Do we have a motion? I see a motion from Representative Collins. Is there any discussion on the motion? Motion to pass, I'm assuming. No
discussion on the motion? All right. All those in favor, say aye. Any opposed? Thank you, Mr. McKenzie, you've passed your bill.
All right, we're going to back up and pick up HB 1800. Please identify yourself for the committee and you're good to go. - Thank you. Mindy McElindon, House District
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
58:35
10. All right, so this is HB 1800. We're bringing this back.
Y'all had some questions, which I think we have addressed them all, they've been engrossed into the amendment.
What we have done is we have ensured that—let me start back here. HB 1800 basically says that if you have a client or someone is paying you that is outside of the U.S., that you just need to make that clear to Arkansas citizens. And so for people who are lobbyists, if you are representative of a non-U.S. entity, then you will need to go ahead and amend your form on the SOS website and acknowledging that, yes, indeed, you have a client who is from outside the U.S., that you'll identify where their residence is, where your office is in the U.S.,
and then what your duties are. So it's very simple. We cleared out a lot of the requirements that we had before and made it very simple. And then if you're in an organization that is being paid, you will file that with ethics just like you would if you had a BQC or something like that. And so that will sit with ethics, and it will be the same disclosures. Funding sources, expenditures, affiliations, and those kinds of things. And that is really the sum total of this bill. Again, we cleared up a lot of the questions that we had last time in terms of cost to the SOS.
That is something that they can absorb within their budget. It looks like it won't be that much money to amend the website, and ethics is comfortable
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:00:09
holding the organizational filings. Happy to take any questions. All right, Representative Ray. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. And I apologize, I was not here when you presented the bill the first time. So is this just applied to, like, representing the interests of foreign governments? Or if you represented, like, Volkswagen or Husqvarna, you'd have to register that as well?
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:00:28
You're just registering it. And it's just an expansion of your current form that you're filling out as a lobbyist, just acknowledging that their headquarters are in another country, so that if anyone is interested of why
Volkswagen is lobbying Arkansas legislature, they can say, oh, well, they're from Germany, you know, at least I have an understanding of it. We
just want some transparency to the fact that there is someone outside of the U.S. who is impacting Arkansas. Okay. All right.
Seeing no other questions for the committee. Is there anyone, no one signed up to
speak for or against the bill? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against the bill? All right, seeing none, Representative
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:01:15
McElhinney, are you ready to close for your bill? I'd love to. So again, I appreciate you letting me bring
this back. This bill prioritizes transparency, accountability, and helps to protect Arkansas's democratic process. And with that, I ask for a
good vote. I have a motion to pass by Representative Crawford.
Did you have a question, Representative Carr? No, I didn't. All right. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:01:48
You're recognized, Representative Ray. Yeah, and I'm sorry, I
didn't think of this question before we moved into the discussion, so maybe another member of the committee can answer my question. What about, I'm just trying to think through this, what about a foreign company that has a U.S. division? I just don't know, maybe that's not a big concern, I just, something that I thought of and mentioned it, thought someone may have an answer to it.
Representative Collins? I don't have an answer
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:02:24
to it, but you reminded me, Representative Ray, something I've said in here. I
tried to quote you and I butchered it, but I think it applies here, and I think I'll not butcher it this time. Transparency is for government, privacy is for people, and I think this bill really goes the other way. And I'm opposed to the bill because it's just a lot of undue disclosures that is going to chill people from participating when
there's no real basis for it.
So I appreciate a no vote, thanks. Seeing no other discussion on the
bill. All those in favor say aye. - Aye. - All those opposed? - No. - The ayes have it, congratulations. Representative, you passed your bill. Did you want to go ahead and do 1837 while you're there? - Sure.
Is there an amendment? Okay, we have an amendment,
pass that out. Give everybody a moment to take a look at it and you'll be recognized to present your amended.
All right, Representative, you're recognized to present your amendment. Thank you. Representative Mindy
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:04:16
McElhinden, House District 10. So this amendment, we brought this bill last week and this amendment just clears up some of the issues that we had, some of the
questions that we had on the foreign ballot measures. And so with that, I would ask
for a good vote. We have a motion to adopt. All those in favor say aye. Aye. The ayes, all those opposed?
All right. So, you're recognized, so go ahead and present the bill as amended. Thank
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:04:47
you, Chairman. So, again, we brought this bill last week. We had a couple of questions
on the bill. Representative Collins specifically had questions about Section 5 of the bill. And so, they were good questions. We went back and looked. It's on, I'm sorry, Section 3, on page 2, if you're following along. And we went back and clarified that. And one of the big clarifications was to change the word funds on Line 11 to donations. To be clear that if you're receiving income or interest from a foreign
organization, that that was not part of this, nor was it intended to be captured. And so it truly is receiving a donation from a hostile entity that is then expected, expecting you to pass that along and influence the ballot measures in the United States. We also added a couple other things just to make sure that we had clarified language while we were amending. And one of those things was to make sure on page five that we did, if you were a ballot question, that if you received donations
in excess of $10,000, that that was the trigger there. I don't think it was as clear as it could have been. And I also want to point out that there is a little bit of question from ethics about exactly how donations should be defined. And that is something that ethics will be clarifying within the rules promulgation to make sure that it is encapsulating exactly what we want it to say. And with that, I'll
Speaker 190
1:06:04
take any questions. Representative Rose. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:06:15
I had a quick question. On page, I think it's page six, page five, page six, there's some retroactivity that can take place here. Is there any chance that this could penalize an individual
or an organization, say, that made a contribution that at the time, say today, that is legal, and then after the fact, we can now go back four years and then penalize somebody for something that was legal at the time?
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:06:56
No, I don't think so, because at that time, they would not have been considered a hostile entity, right? so they wouldn't be on the list prohibited. So when they
Speaker 220
1:07:08
gave the donation, it was not prohibited.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:07:15
Okay, follow-up, Mr. Chair. And I'm not sure if I'm looking at the right version of the bill. Thank you. I think it's page 5, line 10,
11, 12, 13. But it says prohibited sources within the four-year period
immediately preceding the date the contribution was made. Correct. So is that, would that, could that be a month from now, then you can go back four years? Correct. So if you, yes and no, if
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:07:41
you gave to a prohibited source, say four years ago, if they weren't a prohibited source then, then it wouldn't be captured. Okay. So if they're designated one now, it doesn't go back. No. They're
Speaker 223
1:07:50
not bad guys four years ago. If you did the right thing then, it doesn't count, yeah. Okay, all right, that was, thank you.
All right, any other questions by the committee, Representative Collins,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:08:09
you're recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank
you for the amendment. I think that is a very helpful improvement. I just wanted to clarify something you said. You referred to receiving contributions from hostile countries. this this one just it doesn't have to be a hostile i'm sorry that is correct it does not it's just foreign funding your thank
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:08:28
you for that correction so any country it applies equally
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:08:31
to all countries correct okay thanks 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 mackalindon you're
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:08:52
recognized to close for your bill well thank you again
for Thank you for letting me bring this bill back and for letting me clarify some of the language in the bill. I think that it's just really important that this bill seeks to amend existing laws to make sure that we
are banning foreign funding from ballot measures and so there's no undue influence and that the will of our Kansans is what is coming forth in our ballot
measures. And with that, I'm closed. Representative McElhinney has closed for her bill.
What are the wishes of the committee? Representative Wray? Motion do pass. Representative Wray has made a motion. pass as amended. Is that right, Representative Ray? Yes. All right. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, we have
a motion do pass as amended. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it. Congratulations,
you've passed your bill. Representative McElhin, do you have another bill? I have one more. I have an electric vehicle bill,
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:09:42
If I can present that. Let's go ahead and do that. All right.
Thank you. All right. Representative McElhin is House Bill 1683. Yes, sir. All right. You're recognized. Thank you. Mindy McElindon, House District 10. So House
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:10:15
Bill 1683 is a critical measure to ensure that Arkansas taxpayers do not support industries that are built on forced labor. Representative McElindon? Yes, sir. My understanding is you have an amendment on this bill? Do
I? I probably do, yeah. Okay, we've got one that was brought to the committee, so we're going to pass that out and give everyone an opportunity to review it.
Unknown speaker
1:10:40
Got ahead of ourselves a little bit, I think. Sorry about that. I'm excited. No problem. I have one. Thank you.
All right, Representative McElhin, and first we have an amendment. So before we go into the presentation
of the bill, you're recognized to present your amendment.
Speaker 236
1:11:25
Thank you. So this amendment, I just make a couple of
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:11:29
quick changes, adding in good faith provides and knowingly provided at the recommendation of the Auto Alliance. We worked closely with them to make changes in the bill, and they had asked those changes. The last change, I worked with Representative Collins just to clarify some enforcement issues.
And I think we made some good changes there. All right. Representative McElhinden has explained her amendment. Are there any questions about the amendment by the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee, is there a motion to adopt the amendment? I see a motion to adopt the amendment. Representative Berry, is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. The amendment's been adopted. Representative McElhinney, you're recognized to present your bill,
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:12:13
House Bill 1683, as amended. Thank you. So, House Bill 1683 is a critical measure to ensure that Arkansas taxpayers do not support
industries that are built on forced labor.
This bill specifically prohibits governmental entities from procuring electric vehicles or the components if they are manufactured using forced labor. This is not a hypothetical issue. This is an issue that is happening right now. a significant portion of the world's cobalt, a mineral essential for electric vehicle batteries, is
mined using children as young as four years old, according to a congressional commission. In the Congo, these children spend up to 12 hours a day in dangerous gravel mines and perilous mine shafts, not by choice, but because the demand of cobalt has skyrocketed, driven largely by a global push for more batteries.
Likewise, in China, where over 60% of the world's lithium and cobalt are refined, Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities are subjected to forced labor under state-imposed labor transfer programs. These programs involve coercion, mass detention, constant surveillance, and workers forced into mining and refining operations for critical minerals. I am a firm believer in a free market. An educated market can and should regulate itself. But there are more lines we must never cross. One of those lines is allowing children to be exploited for the sake of electric vehicle production, especially when ethical alternatives exist.
Just as the diamond industry took steps to eliminate blood diamonds, automakers are working to source minerals responsibly. Leading manufacturers are shifting towards battery technologies that reduce or eliminate the need for cobalt. For example, Tesla uses a lithium-ion phosphate battery in some of their models, which require absolutely no cobalt. General Motors is transitioning to a nickel-magnesium-cobalt-aluminum, as well as the LFP batteries, which significantly reduce cobalt as well. and Rivian is another that is investing in ethical sourcing
and developing battery technologies that minimize these reliances. Federal guidelines already encourage this shift. By 2025, at least 60% of battery components must be manufactured or assembled within North America, and critical minerals must be sourced from U.S. or other free trade partner countries. This transition is already
underway, and House Bill 1683 ensures that Arkansas leads by example. As legislators, we are entrusted with taxpayer dollars. have a duty to spend them wisely and ethically. This means ensuring that we do not fund industries
that exploit and enslave children. House Bill 1683 upholds Arkansas's commitment to human rights and moral responsibility. The Auto Alliance has engaged extensively in discussions on this bill and remains neutral. The governor's office supports this bill. And with that, I would
Thank you, Representative McElindon. Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:14:55
you, Mr. Chair. Representative McElindon, I'm off for this shift. I guess my question is, why
does this bill target EVs in particular?
In other words, these batteries show up in a number of other things, laptops, tablets, smartphones. Why are we targeting
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:15:10
EVs with this bill? It's a great question. One, it takes a lot more of the core minerals for the EV batteries than for other batteries. And two, because I think it is a great place to start
putting a stake in the ground. Thank you.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:15:26
Representative Collins, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, of course, Representative, we talked about this, and this amendment does contain one of the things we talked about.
So, I mean, I still have a lot of questions about the way that this is set up with these civil fines. And I guess the first question is, was there going to be another amendment that would address some of these issues,
or is this the only amendment you're intending to make here? So this was the only amendment. I spoke
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:15:58
with the AG's office extensively after you and I chatted and you chatted with them, and we felt like that that covered the bulk of what they wanted to say.
We actually, and I didn't mention this, but we actually deleted, for your reference, on page four, lines 26 and 27. felt like that addressed some of your concerns as well and then the other issues as we talked about who could bring those it looked like it looked like it was written well enough in the bill you will know when we made the the adjustment on lines 19 through 21
we actually changed that civil penalty to up to $5,000 leaving that more in the hands of the courts and of
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:16:40
the governmental entity that was aggrieved. Okay, so then, so now we're, answer me, I guess, this.
Are we going to be doing this through a court or doing this by an administrative
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:16:50
fine? I think they can do it either
way, as I understand it. So you could come back and, I guess, reprimand, for example, an employee. You could fire that employee. You could send a letter. If you don't get a response, I think then you could take it to court. I don't think it's any different than any other violation that someone does. And I think it's, as I understand it, I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it from speaking with the AG's office this morning, that this is how this would
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:17:17
be handled. Well, I, you know, I think it is a little unusual to me because you're talking about a civil penalty on a government agency. And, you know, we have sovereign immunity. Is this intended to waive sovereign immunity? I don't think that it is. Well, how will then there be a civil penalty on a government agency and government employees acting in their governmental role? Well, for
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:17:46
example, under the employee, the amendment states that they have actually acted
outside of their role. And so I think that waives that. Is that not correct? It says they shall be found to be acting outside of the course and scope of his or her employment and is personally liable for
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:18:03
the civil penalty. Well, but I believe there's also a fine on the government entity itself. Would that go through the Claims Commission or would that be, you're saying
that would be through a court? I'm saying it could be through a court, yes.
But there's no private right of action because you struck that. So who's supposed to be bringing these
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:18:26
actions? Whoever is aggrieved. So for example,
If it's a state agency or if it's a city agency that buys it, then the city could
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:18:36
bring that course of action. So a city would be suing
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:18:39
a state agency in court? A city would be suing the city agency, right? The city manager
who made that decision, that's who would be suing. It's whoever is
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:18:50
aggrieved by that. And then they would sue, but they wouldn't get any damages
because the fine would be paid
to the state. So why would anybody sue if they don't get
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:19:02
damages? Because they don't want forced labor with small children. And so they were
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:19:10
being ethical and moral. Okay. And then
to just stay on this a little bit, you also have a civil penalty against the manufacturer or seller of these EVs or their components.
how would that be done if that could be an administrative fine? What agency is going to assess a fine against a seller? What jurisdiction would they have? So, again, if they knowingly
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:19:32
gave false information, then I assume that that would go to the AG's office, who would
then reach out to them and bring a lawsuit of some sort. Like, I feel like the AG is very comfortable with this language. I am not a lawyer, so I'm a little bit out of my depth. But having spoken with them and having them looked at this when I was crafting the bill, as well as yesterday after we spoke, and then again this morning.
I feel like they're very comfortable with the parts of the bill, and I wish I could give you more detail. Unfortunately, Alexandra was sick this
morning and unable to make the committee meeting, but I feel like they are very comfortable, and so I will lean on
them and their expertise. Okay. All right. Any other questions by the committee?
Representative Beck, you're recognized. And this, I may have missed this in the bill, but I was looking, the use of the word vehicle, could this apply to a drone or something?
Speaker 186
1:20:30
I do not believe so. Because we buy a
lot of drones and I suspect that. I was reading the definition, the legal definition of drone, of a vehicle, and it says it's operated on land, but then it goes into a thing. It also says that it's something that has
a motor to propel it. So we'll just say it doesn't apply.
It does not. All right. Any other questions by the committee? Seeing no other questions by the committee, we
do have one person signed up to speak for the bill, Samantha Vick.
Ms. Vick, if you would identify yourself, state the name of any organization you may be here representing, and then you are recognized to present your remarks. Thank
Samantha Vick
Unverified
1:21:28
you. Good morning, Chairman Gosway and members of the committee. My name is Samantha Vick. Sorry, I'm going to push
this closer. My belly won't let me scoot in anymore. I'm sorry. Okay, thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you, members of the committee. My name is Samantha Vick. I am a senior state government relations manager for Heartland Impact. We are a nationwide nonprofit think tank. I am primarily here on this issue because I have worked on this legislation in other states and very happy to speak for it with Representative McElinden. To first understand this issue, the core principle of it
is to understand what rare earth minerals are. Despite their name, they're not rare in abundance. They're rare in the ways in which they are found. So they're found in very small ores that have to be picked apart. They're not found in major veins like a lot of other minerals that we have in the United States or that we typically mine, like lithium. So the circumstances that surround rare earth minerals create extreme difficulty in mining and refining them. This manifests in problems with environmental damage, sustainability, and the labor used to produce such labor-intensive
products. I will mirror but be brief with some of my comments because it's basically everything Representative McElindon said. The mining of these rare earth minerals is frequently done among children in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uyghurs in that region of China. At this time, China has a dominant hold on the market with 60% of global production and 85% of processing capacity. According to the International Trade Administration, the Democratic Republic of
the Congo was the world's largest cobalt mine in 2022 with the production of 41% of the world's cobalt. It's universally understood that this cobalt is mined by children. Concerns about these aforementioned points prompted the federal government, with bipartisan support, to pass the weaker forced labor prevention act as well as restricting the application of tax credits for electric vehicles. By prohibiting the procurement of EVs and prohibiting government contracts from procuring electric vehicles that may be made through forced labor, Arkansas can follow suit
with federal guidelines and use the power of Arkansas's purse and the power of state contracts to lead with a clear conscience. Additionally, this legislation fits perfectly into Governor Sanders' expressed wishes to create more distance between Arkansas and China. The forces of the free market can and will absolutely mold around legislation such as this. We have seen companies such as Tesla Ford and Rivian, as Representative previously mentioned, increasingly adopt lithium iron phosphate batteries as opposed to nickel magnesiate cobalt batteries that are
Speaker 265
1:24:11
commonly used. As a pro, these batteries are also safer, more affordable, and have improved lifespans
compared to the other cobalt batteries. They are
Samantha Vick
Unverified
1:24:20
also made without the morally compromised components that are featured in the cobalt batteries. It's proven that economic and political stipulations work, and they nudge manufacturers and consumers into decisions that can be very effective. Just last week, we saw Hyundai Motor Group announce a $21 billion investment in the United States with pending threats of tariffs looming. This is exactly how the free market is designed to work. This is exactly how rules like this and stipulations are designed to work. And all of the companies associated that do create electric vehicles can find ways to work
around this, such as the ways that Tesla, Ford, and Rivian have. At the end of the day, there's no price too high for the prevention of child or slave labor. Arkansas has an opportunity to be a leader in the abolition of this movement in the country. And through this policy, you can ensure that Arkansas taxpayer dollars are not being used to pay for electric vehicles that even partially use oppressive labor. On the topic of why this is a good starting point, so many fleets are used for so many governmental purposes. And this is a good place to start. And if any one of you do want to
sponsor legislation or work on legislation that eventually gets to what's in our laptops and phones, I'd be happy to come down and do the same thing again when that happens. But
thank you so much. All right. Thank you very much, Ms. Vick. Are there any questions by the committee? Representative Collins. Thank
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:25:46
you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for being here. Does your organization have a position on climate change? Do you accept the scientific consensus that climate change is real and primarily caused by humans?
Samantha Vick
Unverified
1:25:57
The organization with which the C4 that I work for is associated with understands that climate change is something that humans have contributed to, but there are also larger standards and larger cycles in the world that have indicated that we get to this point and other science and data that follows that. I'm not sure how that's particularly
Speaker 266
1:26:24
relevant to this topic, but yes, that is.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:26:28
Well, I'll follow up by saying that I think I'm starting to understand why it's relevant. Your organization, in my understanding, is a leading
advocate of climate change denial. And here we have a bill that only targets electric vehicles and makes it more difficult to sell them and use them in our state. And, you know, if I were an organization that, you know, wanted to put forth an agenda, this would be a crafty way of doing it.
So I appreciate your time, and I understand what's going
Samantha Vick
Unverified
1:27:09
please, Chair? Yes, you're recognized. Thank you. This legislation does not particularly prohibit the use of electric vehicles. It actually just incentivizes the market to use more concise and clear conscious means to do that. Should we have universal electric vehicles that don't rely on cobalt mined by small children, my organization would absolutely be for that.
So that's the content of this issue. Again, the United States has cut its carbon, its carbon dioxide, more than most other countries without a lot of the stipulations. Canada has a lot of EV mandates, and they also have carbon taxes, and the carbon emissions compared to Canada in the last 10 years has substantially gone down. So this is not real, not, yes, I'll just leave it at that before I can. And if I could comment on
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:28:00
that too. I just want to be clear, this is not a climate bill.
This is a bill to protect children. And so I
don't actually appreciate the implication that just because it is an electric vehicle versus a coal-powered vehicle, that that is a climate issue. It is truly, as I said in my presentation, that is truly about let's not exploit children for the purpose of having more electric vehicle batteries when we have options. And so I just want to bring that back to the actual purpose of what this bill is and why I brought it.
All right, any other questions by the committee? Seeing none, thank you, Ms. Vick, for your
comments. Appreciate you being here. Seeing no further questions by the
committee, no one else signed up to speak for or against the bill, Representative McElhinney, you're recognized to close for
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:28:54
your bill. Thank you. Thank you so much for your tolerance of me bringing three bills today. Again, I just want to
reiterate that this bill, the goal of this bill is to be sure that we are having ethically sourced vehicles just like the diamond industry eliminated blood diamonds. We need to be
looking to source minerals responsibly and this is something that Arkansas can do to step forward into that. We can lead by example. We as legislators are entrusted with taxpayer dollars to
spend them wisely and ethically and I think this means ensuring that we do not fund industries that exploit and enslave children when especially when we have other options and with that I'm close for my bill. Representative McElhinden has closed
for her bill. I will remind you there is an amendment on the bill. What are the wishes of the committee? Representative Crawford? I make a motion do pass. As amended? As amended. Representative Crawford has made a motion do pass as amended. Is there
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:29:55
any discussion on the motion? Representative Crawford, you're recognized. Representative McElhinden, thank you for bringing this bill. I think anytime we can protect children
across Arkansas or across the world, it is something that we as legislators should stand up and champion, and thank you for doing this. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other discussion on the motion? Seeing
no further discussion on the motion, we do have a motion due pass as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All
those opposed. No. The ayes have it. Congratulations, Representative McElhinney. You've passed your bill.
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, committee. All right. I believe we have Representative Painter
here hiding in the corner. Representative Painter, is this House Bill 1898? If it's okay with you, Mr. Chair, I have a couple of people from ABC that would like to join me. Of course. This is House Bill 1898, correct? Correct. All right. Representative Painter, you're recognized. Representative Stetson Painter, District 3, Baxter County and Fulton County. And if your guests would introduce themselves and the name of the organization they're here representing.
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
1:31:05
David Potter, DFA, Regulatory Enforcement Division.
Speaker 274
1:31:09
Christy Bjornsson. I'm the Director of the Alcoholic Beverage Control and Arkansas
Tobacco Control. All right. Representative Painter, you're recognized
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
1:31:17
to present your bill. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. HB 1898, this bill establishes the regulatory division as an agency with DF&A, creates structure, and gives certain oversight authority to the administrator and enforcement director. Both these positions and all agent positions already exist in appropriation and have been for several years.
It combines ABC enforcement and ATC enforcement into the Regulatory Enforcement Division. These agencies have been working together since 2020, sharing their workload. The Regulatory Enforcement Division will comprise of existing agents. No new positions or appropriations are needed. Outlines what areas of law and the rule of the Regulatory Division will oversee and who they report findings to, which is current practice. Also ensures that existing law enforcement, ABC, ATC language is applied to Regulatory Division agents so they have the proper authority to carry out their mission.
Why this is important, provides licensee permit holders and industry stakeholders clarity by knowing who they're interacting with in the field and who to call if they need assistance. It creates an identity and unification for agents who work for both ABC and ATC and allows them to refer themselves with a clear name and with clear responsibilities and have a chain of command. It provides structure for the agency if the legislature adds additional responsibilities for regulation. What this bill does not do, it does not add additional personnel or positions, it does
not require additional funding, change any special revenues, or increased general revenue. Folks
from Arkansas Chiefs of Police Association, Sheriff's Association, Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training, and Arkansas Grocers and Retails are all supportive of this bill. And if you guys have any questions or make any statements, you can. Thank you, committee. I appreciate your time in
Speaker 279
1:33:14
hearing this. This is an in-house bill where it organizes us internally and it gives us some structure moving forward so that we're better positioned to take on any additional responsibilities
that this body may pass our way. It also provides some clarity for our retailers, any of our stakeholders that they know that they're dealing with an agent from the regulatory division. We've currently been very successful with merging ABC and ATC as much as we can. added more to our plate we're doing more now than we ever have we're about to reach 4,000 compliance checks for sales to minor compliance we're doing more inspections and more active in this field than ever and so this actually just
helps us in solidifying who we are as an agency and so I would be happy to answer any questions. Ms. Bjornsson
did you have any remarks? No I would really
Speaker 274
1:34:11
just kind of echo what director potter said i am the director of both abc and atc our
Speaker 276
1:34:16
agents work together and if we think of this from common sense think about grocery store convenience stores you can generally or a consumer can generally go in and buy both tobacco products and alcohol products so this kind of does just create unification within what already exists inside of dfa
all right any questions by the committee representative rose you're recognized thank
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:34:37
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Painter, do you know, do all of the agents who are currently under these divisions, do they already have full law enforcement
authority across the state? If it's all right, Representative, I'm going to let
Director Potter answer that question. Yes, sir,
Speaker 279
1:34:52
they do. Both agencies are full law enforcement agencies. Tobacco Control has been a law enforcement agency since over 20 years, and I believe ABC has been one since the 1950s, and they currently have state law enforcement authority.
And language in this bill mirrors existing statute,
Speaker 280
1:35:07
and I've brought those statutes as well. So if this passes, what happens to both of you? How does your position change? We
Speaker 279
1:35:17
remain, sir, of course our appropriation has been going through for a couple years. Director Borenson will still remain in her position,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:35:28
and I will remain in my position. I was looking at the language that is stating that personnel assigned as agents of the regulatory
enforcement division, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, will be considered full-time law enforcement officers by standards. It's on page three. Is there anything in this bill that says that those individuals have to already be considered law enforcement or will have
had to have passed any kind of training being given
Speaker 280
1:35:58
any kind of law enforcement certification? Yes, sir. There is actually an ABC
Speaker 279
1:36:03
statute, which I've got both of which here. It is a requirement that these agents are fully certified law enforcement officers.
It is a requirement. And we do adhere to the standards of training.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:36:16
So and I appreciate that. You said it's in statute under ABC. Is it in this bill that anybody who is given that position will have to meet
Speaker 280
1:36:31
those same standards? We would be subject to CLEST, and that is our overarching
Speaker 279
1:36:37
governing body that requires that we do our annual trainings, which we far exceed, and do that.
So we are governed by CLEST as far as law enforcement certification. So CLEST would
Speaker 280
1:36:49
oversee that we would be compliant with this section. Does that answer
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:36:55
your question? No, and maybe I'm not asking it well. I think you're answering
well, and maybe I'm not asking well. Page 3, line 7, says personnel assigned
as agents. And then, if you go down line 13, be considered full-time law enforcement officers by CLEST.
But it doesn't say that CLEST will certify. This is saying that they will be considered. So simply being assigned as an agent, it seems like this is saying that once they're assigned, then CLEST has to recognize them. No, sir, that's actually existing language out
Speaker 279
1:37:35
of the tobacco statute. So that's taken directly from the law enforcement statutes of tobacco control. So it's your
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:37:42
position, which would give me great comfort, that no matter what,
somebody being assigned as an agent or being given one of these positions, they will have to already be qualified as a law enforcement agent
Speaker 280
1:37:57
through CLEST. Yes, sir, that is correct. And CLEST does have the ability, if we do not meet
Speaker 288
1:38:02
minimum standards, to decertify officers or so forth. Okay. All right. Thank you. Yes, sir. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized.
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
1:38:17
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm just trying to understand.
You have an agent that was overseeing tobacco and knew all that. You had an agent that was overseeing marijuana and knew all that. You had one who was overseeing alcohol and knew all that. Does that mean now you have one agent that would do all three things and would have to become that more knowledgeable of
all that? Or I'm trying to simplify this from my little brain. Yes,
Speaker 279
1:38:48
ma'am. That's a great question. When we all merged together, currently we were able to do more.
And so the goal was that our same agents that are out doing compliance checks for sales to minors would be able to do alcohol, would be able to do tobacco. tobacco. What that is, over the last few years, what we've done is we've merged into five internal divisions, ones that specialize in medical marijuana, ones that specialize in sales to minor compliance. We have investigations division and an intelligence analyst position. So those same agents rotate between those divisions for cross-training. So yes, ma'am, the goal is to have agents that do everything. So
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
1:39:27
one agent going to, as you mentioned,
in the supermarket that perhaps sells alcohol, but also sells the tobacco product, you now
have just one person going there and checking on all of it? - Yes, ma'am, that's correct. - Okay, thank
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:39:49
you. - Yes, ma'am. - Representative Wildridge, you're recognized. - Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this just basically streamlines the process, gives you more eyes out there in the field. We're looking for more bad actors. we're taking away those opportunities to sell to minors,
regardless now of a division, right? We're just putting more eyes out there in the field? - That is exactly correct. - I
have a motion at the proper time, Mr. Chair. - All right. I do, I guess, have a couple of questions. Mr. Potter, so what is your position, beverage control?
Speaker 279
1:40:21
- I'm the regulatory enforcement director, and by statute, I'm the alcoholic beverage control enforcement director. And then Ms. Bjornson,
Speaker 274
1:40:31
what's your position? I'm the Director of Alcoholic Beverage Control and Arkansas Tobacco Control.
So what's the distinction between your two positions? Well,
Speaker 276
1:40:40
Director Potter's a cop. I do not carry a gun. I'm an attorney. So we have an administration side of ABC and ATC, and we have an enforcement side of ABC and ATC. Medical marijuana was tasked to ABC as well. So our enforcement agents are all the same body of certified law enforcement agents. Some do focus on medical marijuana versus tobacco or alcohol. But since transformation, the agencies under DFA have kind of been operating in sync with each other,
and we think that's going well. So this really just
creates an identity for us. Okay, interesting. And then why is enforcement of alcoholic beverage
control, tobacco control, why is that under DFA? What's the justification for that? I believe it's with the licensing and the taxing
Speaker 305
1:41:27
and everything like that, but I wouldn't, that was in play a long time before I
Speaker 279
1:41:32
came around, sir. I wouldn't want to speculate too much. Well, it kind
of seems like you guys, of course, are doing a law enforcement type function.
You know, we've got Department of Public Safety, we have other things. I know we did transformation, I'm old enough to remember that, was around here when we did that. And I'm guessing if you weren't already there when transformation took place, they put you guys under DFA. I'm guessing there's good reasoning
Speaker 274
1:42:01
for that. That is correct. It is by understanding that we were combined at the time of transformation because ABC's regulatory framework is
Speaker 276
1:42:07
so similar to what tobacco control was already doing. So I think when that happened in 2018, we just never really got a name.
So unfortunately, the enforcement division has kind of failed to give a concise identity. Sometimes people are like, well, you got a tobacco agent in here, and I sell alcohol, and it kind of just gets confusing for
permit holders. Gotcha. All right. Very good. All right. Any other questions by the committee? All right. Seeing no questions by the committee, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Painter, you're recognized
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
1:42:40
to close for your bill. I am closed. I appreciate the questions from the committee and respectfully ask for a motion to pass. Representative Painter has closed for his
bill. Representative Woodridge, motion do pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the ayes have it. Congratulations, you passed
your bill. All right, I see Representative Alyssa Brown. Actually, I don't see
her. There she is. I had seen her earlier. She's been patiently waiting. And my understanding is she has a Senate bill to present. We're looking down upon Senate bills today, but we're going to make an exception in this case.
Speaker 307
1:43:31
Thank you so much Mr. Chair. Alyssa Brown, District 41. I do have
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:43:37
a guest. And then can I let my guests introduce themselves for the record?
And you may, Representative Brown, to be clear, which Senate bill are we
hearing? Senate Bill 433. Senate Bill
433. All right. You have a guest, if you would state your name and any organization you're here representing.
Stephanie Taub
Unverified
1:44:05
Good morning, Mr. Chair. My name is Stephanie Taub. I am Senior Counsel
Timothy Barton
Unverified
1:44:10
with First Liberty Institute. All right. My name is Timothy Barton. I'm the President
of Wall Builders. All right. Good to see you both here this morning. Representative Brown, you are
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:44:23
recognized to present Senate Bill 433. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:44:26
Thank you, Committee. Members, SB 433 is just amending the current National Motto Display Act to also include the Ten Commandments. And with that, I will let my guests make some remarks.
Speaker 314
1:44:40
Good morning. And thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this Senate bill and to give a legal analysis of the bill and its constitutionality. I'm senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, a nationwide nonprofit law firm dedicated to defending religious liberty for all Americans. Past few years, my firm has had several victories at the United States Supreme Court, including two key cases addressing the Establishment Clause. We successfully represented the American Legion against the American Humanist Association to defend a World War I war memorial shaped like a cross.
We also represented Coach Kennedy against the Bremerton School District. That case clarified how lower courts should analyze questions of whether government displays or other actions with religious elements are constitutional under the First Amendment. So I've been asked to give a legal analysis of this bill. It provides that a display of the Ten Commandments will be posted in classrooms and other government buildings in the state along with the national motto, which is currently being displayed.
So the question is, how will courts analyze whether this is constitutional under the Establishment Clause? To do that, I'll give a very, very brief history of Supreme Court opinions on the subject. In short, the analysis has changed significantly over the past several years, with the Supreme Court moving from what was called the Lemon Test to what today is known as the History and Tradition Test. The Supreme Court began applying the Establishment Clause to the states in the mid-1900s. in the 1970s, the Supreme Court created a test called the Lemon Test. It looked at the purpose,
effect, and entanglement with religion. It was heavily criticized as arbitrary, difficult to apply, and not consistent with the original meaning and understanding of the Constitution. So in practice, in effect, under Lemon, even long-standing practices or displays were often declared unconstitutional if they had religious elements, sometimes cultivating an extreme intolerance for mentions of religion in public life and sometimes misleading government to infringe
on the free exercise of religious rights. So the Supreme Court has addressed the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments displays and has come out different ways over the years. The cases that applied the Lemon Test, the court found it unconstitutional. And when the court looked to the history and tradition, it found the Ten Commandments to be constitutional. Very brief summary. Recently, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that the Lemon Test is no longer good law. And instead, courts should look to history and tradition to see whether a practice is deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition.
So Mr. Barton is an expert on history and we'll speak to that in just a moment. So in short, we believe that if this bill is challenged in court, courts will ultimately conclude that the posting of the Ten Commandments is constitutional. And one point to note is that the Supreme Court has mentioned in the American Legion case that the Ten Commandments has, quote, historical significance as one of the foundations of our legal system. So thank you for the opportunity to speak to this issue today, and I welcome your questions.
Speaker 317
1:47:54
Hey, Mr. Chairman, committee, it's my pleasure to be with you. I am from Wall Builders. We are an organization that focuses on American history. We have what's considered the largest private collection of original documents from early America, and I've brought several of them with me, recognizing the Supreme Court has acknowledged that the history and tradition is the current standard, with the idea being that if there's something we've always done in America, it's probably fine to keep doing it. And when you look at the history of education, the very first education law in America was passed in 1647. That was known as the Old Deluder Satan Act, the very first textbook printed in English
in America. was a New England primer. The first one was printed in 1690. This is an original from 1777. This is one from Massachusetts. It has John Hancock's face on the opening page. Very cool textbook. But what's worth noting about this, this was a first grade primer used, again, in public schools starting in 1690 all the way through the early 1900s. And in the end of this little textbook, there's 43 questions dealing with the Ten Commandments. You literally, as a first grader could not make it through first grade without having learned what the Ten
Commandments were. And surrounding questions adjacent to it, when you go to things like McGuffey's Reader, one of the more famous readers in American history, more than 100 million copies of McGuffey's Readers were sold. In multiple of McGuffey's Readers, depending on the age level and the grade level, there were inclusion or includings of the Ten Commandments. For example, in the back of this one, the very last thing in this McGuffey's Reader is a copy of the Ten Commandments for students to read, and even people like Noah Webster noted for his dictionary, this is his history of the United States. And in his history of the United States,
it actually includes the Ten Commandments in it as well. The reason I bring this up is the Ten Commandments, we can go from literally the pilgrims all the way through public education, even in Arkansas. When Dwight Eisenhower was president and he came and worked to desegregate schools in Arkansas, the Ten Commandments were posted on classrooms in Arkansas. This has been a longstanding history and tradition of our nation. It wasn't until 1980, in a case Stone v. Graham, when the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Ten Commandments no longer met the religious litmus test of the Lemon decision, but that's now been overturned. And so from a historic
standpoint, there is no question that the Ten Commandments were utilized in education. To go further, when you look at American law, the foundation of American law from all the early colonies, we could talk about the influence of Blackstone or Montesquieu, even John Locke. But what is interesting is in all of the original 13 colonies, the Ten Commandments were enshrined in civil code in every one of the colonies. So even from a legal standpoint, the Ten Commandments have been a foundation in America with the laws that we do coming forward. And as we look at where
we are today, just from a moral thought, we are seeing kids having a very hard time navigating in world and culture because we've removed some basic moral standards. If we ask basic questions, are there rights and wrongs? Of course, we would say, well, yes, of course there's rights and wrongs. But if we ask, well, what standard are we using to determine rights and wrongs? This is where there's a lot of confusion in culture. Is it subjective? Is it up to the individual? In fact, when we look at some of the major problems with young adults, with teenagers, there's no doubt that violent crime is a major issue. One of the leading causes of death is gang
violence is gun violence. And there's a level of irony when for the last several decades we have believed or told students it was inappropriate to display the Ten Commandments, which have very things like thou shalt not kill. The notion that students can be arrested and go to jail for violating the Ten Commandments when they're not able to see the Ten Commandments seems incredibly inconsistent. But coming back to the history and tradition, there's a long-standing history and tradition from an educational standpoint, but also from a legal and a moral code standpoint
when it comes to the Ten Commandments. So we would encourage that this is something following the history and tradition standard from the U.S. Supreme Court is absolutely within the realm of history and tradition. And I close and I'm open
for any questions. All right. Thank you, Mr. Barton. Representative Brown, did you have any additional remarks? I think that covered it. All right. At this time, we'll open the floor to questions by the committee. Representative Clowney, you're recognized for a
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:52:09
question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Brown and Senator Dotson, I apologize because this is not necessarily your
doing, but I feel like I'm hallucinating right now because I sat through a very long committee meeting yesterday with, I'm sorry, I have forgotten your last name. It's Ms. Taub. Ms. Taub, representing your organization, fighting for religious freedom. And I want to be very clear that what we're doing here is not talking about whether students can see the Ten Commandments in their classroom. We are talking about a state mandate that every classroom must display the Ten Commandments. I'm a historian and a lawyer, so I actually really enjoyed the background there. But the Supreme Court has been very clear.
It is coercive for public schools to promote religious messages to students. The Supreme Court has been clear in that. The Kennedy decision had a lot of differences from what is before us right now. but I think what's very important is that we are promoting a religious message with this bill of one religion, only one religion, and we are doing it to a captive audience, very different than we saw in that case. Supreme Court precedent is far from settled on this,
but more than precedent, more than all of that, I think we really need to take a step back and ask ourselves if what we're fighting for is religious freedom, which is what we heard so much about yesterday. We are mandating that every classroom in Arkansas post this document from one religion and only that one religion on its walls to a captive audience. Nothing about that sounds like freedom. Can you please respond to that? Yes,
Speaker 314
1:53:47
if I may respond. So respectfully,
representative, I do disagree with your interpretation of the law. I do agree with a of your points. One is that the case law is not necessarily settled in how the courts will look at this case in light of the new history and tradition test. So I agree that the history and tradition test has been implemented with greater frequency over the years and was clearly overruled lemon in the Kennedy versus Bremerton test. So these issues are working their way through the the courts. But overall, these questions are very context-specific, and so we firmly believe that
an interpretation of the Establishment Clause that is so hostile to religion that does not even permit long-standing historical practices with legal significance to be displayed, that is an incorrect
Speaker 319
1:54:39
reading of the Establishment Clause. Yes, and if I can add, I think it's
Speaker 317
1:54:48
interesting this is understood that there would be conflict on this, but it's interesting how much we have strayed away from historic understanding where the founding fathers unequivocally said in the
declaration, we owe these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with their inalienable rights. The reason government exists is to secure these inalienable rights. And so if the idea is that it would be wrong to have any religious content in front of a school, then it would seem that your position would say students shouldn't read or study the declaration either, because if the very notion of American government, the thing that as representatives, and I'm so grateful that y'all are here working to protect your citizens and your constituents, but the reality is the reason that you are here is trying to protect
their God-given rights. And if we can't acknowledge there's a God, there can be no God-given rights, which means the very nature of why government exists fundamentally would be different than what the declaration laid out from the founders' principles. The same founding fathers that wrote, wield these truths to be self-evident, are the same ones that promoted and encouraged the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments, to be the moral code and the moral foundation, and are the same ones that did textbooks that included 43 questions on the Ten Commandments. So it doesn't seem that it's inconsistent with any of the founders' ideals, number one, and certainly number two,
it wasn't inconsistent with the history and tradition of education until 1980, when the Supreme Court made a brand new decision, and not basing it on any original constitutional ideas, but only on the current precedent of that time. I never, ever said and wouldn't say that
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:56:20
we should not be able to use the word God in school or talk about the history and tradition ever. What you're talking about is what is allowed in schools. What the bill is doing is what is mandated in schools. Those two things are very, very different.
This bill mandates, it doesn't allow, it mandates in every classroom, a durable poster or framed copy shall be displayed. That is very different than what we're talking about, and I just don't want my words to be misrepresented on the record, so I wanted to clarify. Representative Collins, you're
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:56:53
recognized. Okay, to the gentleman, I forget your name, but did you say that someone can be arrested for violating the Ten Commandments? I'd like to know more about
Speaker 326
1:57:03
what you meant by that. Absolutely. You can be arrested for killing somebody. You can be arrested for stealing.
Yeah, I think that those are laws, those are statutes that you can be arrested for. Correct, and the origination
Speaker 317
1:57:17
of those statutes were derived from the Ten Commandments, which one of the things I addressed at all of the original 13 colonies, when those laws were first brought in, and you can go back to William Blackstone, who was one of the most cited individuals in American law, but you can look at John Jay, the original Chief Justice, you can look at James Wilson, one of the justices who was one of the first leaders of the first law school in America, And they explained to their students that this is the basis of our moral code, the basis of our legal code.
And so those things, where did those ideas come from in American law? It certainly was influenced by the
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:57:50
Ten Commandments. So I think it's interesting because it really gets to the sort of the meat of this whole thing. I think we're confusing, maybe you're confusing, correlation or even causation with identity, right? So you're saying that you can be arrested for violating the Ten Commandments because one of the commandments is the same as a criminal statute. Well, that's just not right. You're arrested for violating the criminal statute. And similarly, your whole point is that the Ten Commandments were, you know, observed by the founding fathers and they were part of American life.
And I'm sure that's true. But that doesn't mean that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of our law. That's the Constitution. And so I just think that this whole concept is you're bringing two things together and saying because they're similar or because they're in the same situation that we can establish religion as we would with this bill. So I guess that's not necessarily a question. I do have a question for Representative Brown. What is the purpose of posting the Ten Commandments?
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:58:53
What's your purpose? My purpose is to make sure that we have a
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:59:00
full, complete education for our children. and to uphold the historical document that
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:59:05
is the Ten Commandments. That's my purpose. Do you think that there's any possibility that by having it in large font on a placard in a room, a classroom that has other classroom rules and other things that are typically, you know, held to be established in the educational context,
that we're not just teaching about what the Ten Commandments are, but we are, in fact, saying these are the Ten Commandments that are to be honored and respected by students in this classroom.
No, we're not saying that. You don't
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:59:39
think that anyone could infer that? I don't think so. Again, this is a historical document that we're posting. When I was in D.C. this summer, there was multiple government buildings that I stood at, our Supreme Court, and I was on the U.S. House of Representatives floor, and I looked up there, and there's a depiction of Moses holding the law.
Also, every day as members, we stand on the house floor and we take a pledge of allegiance to one nation under God. We have the In God We Trust motto in those same classrooms. We're not telling every student they have to believe in this God, but we are upholding what those historical documents mean and that historical national motto. So if we're not going to allow the Ten Commandments, then why do we allow In God
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:00:25
We Trust on our money? The same principle applies. Do you know if any educational
organizations, superintendents, teachers have a position
on having yet another item in their classrooms being mandated? I've
Speaker 307
2:00:38
only heard positive feedback from this bill, from teachers. Thanks. Representative
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:00:51
Rose, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Barton wanted to give you an opportunity to maybe elaborate a little
bit on this. It was said earlier that this was specifically focused on just one religion.
And I just thought that that might be inaccurate because there are multiple religions that actually hold the Ten Commandments to be foundational in
their tenets of faith. So I just wanted to give you
Speaker 317
2:01:14
an opportunity to speak on that. Yeah, I appreciate that. It's something that multiple religions have a very high and favorable view of Moses, but But there are then, inside of even some of those religions, there are several, whether it be Jews or Christians specifically, that both uphold the Ten Commandments. And then even inside of Christianity, there's multiple different denominations, whether it be a Protestant or a Catholic, et cetera.
And so this is something that is a little more broad-reaching than was identified. And even as was pointed out, the U.S. Supreme Court, whenever they're in session and their doors are closed, on the back of their two doors are the Ten Commandments. And the idea that this might be a problem for schoolchildren to see, what is literally on the doors of the U.S. Supreme Court, if you go to the Jefferson Library of Congress, there's a depiction of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, as was mentioned, even in the U.S. Capitol and the House of Representatives. And the floor, there's Moses. So this is something that is far more universal than just one specific religion,
but also it's something that's very deeply rooted in American history and
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
2:02:19
tradition. Thank you very much. Representative Annette, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I do apologize for, I didn't hear all of the testimony before because I was running a bill on Agriculture Committee. I have a question. How is this mandating the Ten Commandments different from indoctrination?
We've done a lot of bills in the past session about what is a Doctrination and all these things and the Learners Act and other bills. So can you explain to me how's this different if we have this displayed in the classroom? How's this different from
that? I think it would be the same thing as looking at the fact that if students take a trip to Washington, D.C.,
Speaker 317
2:03:07
most students do in their 8th grade, this is the very thing they will see on significant numbers of government buildings, and we would not consider that indoctrination for them at the U.S. Supreme Court to see display of the Ten Commandments, for them to go to the Library of Congress and see display of the Ten Commandments.
I don't think from a history and tradition standpoint, showing students what has historically traditionally been significant in American education and American law, that would not be indoctrination to teach American history any more so than it would be to teach the Declaration of Independence that teaches the principles that there's a God who gave us rights and government exists to protect those rights. That's not indoctrination as much as understanding the American framework for our thought, our belief, and our structure of even governmental systems.
Representative Bennett, you have a follow-up? I'll come back. Okay. All right. Representative Clowney, you're
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
2:04:02
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And again, I feel like the argument is being framed, the argument against this bill is being framed as we
somehow want to shield children's eyes from the Ten Commandments. That is not true. Nobody on this committee has said that. The argument is about what we mandate be in every classroom, what message that sends. And so I want to come back to Representative Collins' point about what message it sends to have this in every classroom. Representative Brown, he asked you the purpose for the bill, and you said that it was to create a complete historical document.
So, with the Ten Commandments displayed in every classroom, do you consider that historical document complete?
I don't remember saying that I was referencing a complete education. When we don't teach true history and show the historical documents, then we're limiting the education for our children. So, I think that's what I
was referencing right there. Okay, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to misquote you. I guess my question is, is there anything else that needs to be part of that complete education that is posted?
Does the Ten Commandments take care of it? You know, I think that's my concern, is that there aren't other things that are posted that way in classrooms to provide a complete education. Does this check the box for you? Is it now done, or will there be other things that
are also added to make the education complete? It's a good point. Senator Dodson said there always could
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:05:27
be more. Yeah, you can add in. Mr. Chairman, if I may. You're recognized. Senator Jim Dodson, Senate District 34, for the record.
So I think we're debating this specific bill, and obviously this is adding to the current statute that just talks about the National Model Display Act. I can't begin to tell you what future bills might look like. I see more filed every day right now. So as far as debating this particular bill, I think the question on this is this is appropriate, in our opinion anyway.
We may have a different opinion on that, but this is appropriate and is part of that display that should be done. we'll have that debate on anything else as they come up and there may be some things that I agree that should be in the future and I reserve the right to to bring those forward for consideration in the future if that's the case and there may be some things that are put forward that I disagree with and I also reserve the right to say no to those so but as far as this particular bill is concerned
That's what's before us here, and I think that's what we should be considering
specifically. All right. Representative Mayberry,
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
2:06:59
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question comes with
page 3, line 13, and I'm just concerned because if I understood the way that In God We Trust was done, it's always provided by a volunteer organization.
You've raised money to get these framed copies of In God We Trust, and it looks like this now will open it to public funds, and I just want some clarification on that. Maybe I'm misunderstanding it, but we've added in the words that it
can be used, you know, public funds could pay for it, which then makes me wonder if it could be challenged more. And I want to make sure that this, you know, can be held up if there is a challenge. So those words to me are a little concerning, and maybe I'm just reading it wrong.
Speaker 344
2:07:53
I'll let the attorney speak to the legal defensibility
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:07:57
of it. But as far as, if you look at that section on line 11, it says may replace. So we're talking about not the initial donation of frames, but one of the things over the last several years, as you notice, we're adding to the existing National Model Display Act that has happened is some of these donations have taken place. They've been displayed, but things get damaged. And so if something needs to be replaced, here's the question.
you have to, oftentimes there's not a fund where people have donated money, they've just donated the framed copies of something. So can the school or entity fix a frame? Or can they not? Can they rehang it? So those are the, that's kind of what the question that this particular section contemplates is just to make it clear that they may replace Or they may do it with private funds.
So there's two different options there. Okay. And
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
2:08:59
that is actually how I was interpreting it, that the donation was made and then this is to replace it. There's something wrong. But again, I just kind of worry that that, does that cross over into whether it
could be held up in court? Because now you're using public money for it. Thank you
Speaker 319
2:09:19
very much for the question. understanding our position is that if the government action, the underlying government
Speaker 314
2:09:25
action on the merits is constitutional, then it is constitutional
to spend taxpayer funds on. So the main reason that this issue comes up in the context of the Establishment Clause is due to legal questions surrounding who has standing to sue, and so who has standing to bring a lawsuit, and that is a different question from the underlying issue of whether the bill is constitutional on the merits. So I think it will ultimately turn, the success of any lawsuit will ultimately turn on the history
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
2:09:55
and tradition test. I guess my question kind of then is, if by taking that part out, our In God We Trust
has been able to remain up there, and I just am concerned by putting that line in there, it opens it up to some challenge, and I'm just trying
to make sure that there is less of an ability to challenge it. That's all. Can I
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
2:10:22
mention one part on that, Mr. Chair? Yes. To answer your question, Representative Mayberry, I did go ahead and pull up the original In God We Trust bill, and so it reads at the bottom, the copies or posters that we mentioned at the beginning,
the section of code. So the copies or posters authorized under this section shall either be donated or shall be purchased solely with funds made available through those contributions? So we do already have that language in the earlier code that was mentioned. It just wasn't quoted in
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
2:10:54
this bill. Well, but that's not public funds. Sure. So it just said funds, and this specifically says public funds.
So I'm just raising the awareness. I want to make sure that it's not challenged.
The God we trust has not been challenged. We still have them and all that. And that's what my
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:11:28
concern is. Senator Dodson, do you have a response to that? Well, that question was contemplated. So when the bill was, actually, I re-asked that question after it came out of the Senate
and had some legal opinions on it saying it's defensible either way. What a court may or may not do is completely unpredictable. So, but they feel like all the attorneys I talked to regarding this particular language said they feel like it's defensible either way. If it's going to be struck down, it will probably be for some reason other than that line.
Representative Ennett, you're recognized. Don't have a question anymore. Okay. So Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:12:29
Mr. Chairman. So kind of on the plot of discussion here, but on the point of public funds going to this, if you go back again to the founding era, there are plenty of quotes where the founding fathers say that religion and morality should be encouraged by government as long as it doesn't violate the rights of consciousness.
Because the founding fathers, even in the Arkansas Constitution, it says religion, morality, and education being necessary for good government. Religion comes first to create the morality. Morality creates opportunity for education. Education then leads to good government. There's a process there. So getting to kind of my question or my point here is, and Mr. Barton might could elaborate on this. Representative Collins had mentioned, you know, our laws are based on the Constitution.
But there have been studies on where did that actually come from? what is the principles that those are built on? And if you go back and you look at those principles of law, and again, our founding fathers reiterated this time and time again, you end up going all the way back to an argument could be made that our Western society, our republic, go all the way back, it's built on what's found in the Ten Commandments. That is the foundation that the rest of society is built on.
So I'm wondering if you might elaborate on, hey, am I correct in that, and elaborate on that? Because if that's the case, if the Ten Commandments is the foundation of our society, then I think it's right that that foundation should be known and seen by our kids. And then the second question, I would say on the indoctrination piece, when we read the Ten Commandments, the mentions of God, obviously it's the first couple commandments, Thou shalt have, you know, shall not use the name of the Lord in vain, all that.
There's nothing in there that says, hey, if you don't accept Christ as your Savior, you're not going to heaven. There's none of that. It's kind of like in the national motto. God is, we all understand it comes from Christian and Jewish religion, but it's not, there's nothing in there that's saying that you have to follow this religion or else you're condemned, right? So I'm wondering if you
Timothy Barton
Unverified
2:14:44
might elaborate on those two points. Yes, sir. To the first point about the Constitution being influenced with a religious
Speaker 317
2:14:50
and moral foundation, there was a group of professors who did a research study back in the 1970s and 80s.
Their finding was released in a book called The Origins of American Constitutionalism. What they identified, they went through 15,000 representative writings from the founding era, and they identified that 34% of all quotes from the founders' writings came from the Bible. And the majority of the quotes in those Bible quotations came from the book of Deuteronomy, where Moses has repeated the law, the commands, and the Ten Commandments. And there's no question, the greatest influence historically on the Founding Fathers was the Bible. And again, this was documented by professors at the University of Houston and LSU working together.
And this is something that has held up to lots of thoughts and challenges and reaffirmed as people have redone those studies and surveys. With it coming forward, you have guys like George Washington in his farewell address, considered the most significant political address ever given by any president, where he says that of all of the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are the indispensable supports, meaning that you can't be politically prosperous if you remove religion and morality. And the Founding Fathers were very clear that the foundation of our moral code was the Decalogue,
as they called it, which is the Ten Commandments. So those things are absolutely correct in your understanding. As far as where those ideas came from, the number one influence in the Founding Fathers was the Bible, Again, documented by secular historians and professors, and even the Founding Fathers themselves, they identified the basis of that moral foundation came from the Ten Commandments. Representative Meeks. Yeah, good,
thank you. All right. Any other questions by the committee?
All right, seeing no other questions by the committee, we do have individuals signed up to speak for and against this
bill. Believe Joshua Irby to speak against the bill Mr. Irby if you would identify yourself for
the record state the name of any organization you may be here representing And then you are recognized present your remarks
Speaker 354
2:16:59
Joshua Irby of Bryan Arkansas just representing myself and my family and friends and their opposition to this bill
Speaker 355
2:17:07
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak before you today on this important issue. As previously stated, I stand in opposition to SB 433, which mandates the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools. While faith is a vital part of American life, government-imposed religion is not. This bill represents an unconstitutional overreach, undermining the very freedoms it claims to uphold. History warns us that when government entangles itself with a religion, neither emerges stronger both are compromised. John Adams cautioned nothing is more dreaded than
the national government meddling with religion. If the state can dictate religious displays today what stops it from regulating religious practices tomorrow? The founders understood this danger and the Treaty of Tripoli signed in 1797 unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate it affirmed the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion. This shows that true faith flourishes when it remains independent of government influence. Both the U.S. and Arkansas constitutions explicitly prohibit government favoritism in religious matters.
The First Amendment's establishment clause ensures no government neutrality in religion, while the Arkansas Constitution states in Article 2, Section 24, no human authority can, in any case or manner whatsoever, control or interfere with the right of conscience and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishment, denomination, or mode of worship above any other. Mandating the Ten Commandments in public schools is a clear violation of these principles.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, building a wall of separation between church and state is absolutely essential in a free society. James Madison, the principal architect of the Constitution, warned the same authority which can establish Christianity and exclusion of other religions may establish with the same ease any particular sect. Proponents argue that the Ten Commandments are foundational to American law. Yet several commandments, Thou shalt have no other gods before me, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,
remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy, are explicitly theological, not legal. In closing, faith is strongest when it is freely chosen, not imposed by the state. History proves that when government takes hold of religion, it does not protect it. It manipulates, weakens, and eventually destroys it. Roger Williams, a great Puritan preacher and founder of the First Baptist Church, along with being the founder of Rhode Island, stated, when church and state are joined, it is church that suffers most.
Today, SB 43 allows the state to dictate religious expression. Tomorrow, it may dictate religious practice. No government has the rightful power to decide which faith deserves recognition or how it should be observed. If we allow the state to seize that authority, we risk trading away the very religious liberty our founders fought to secure. SB 433 does not defend faith. It puts it in the hands of politicians. I urge this committee to reject this dangerous overreach and uphold the constitutional principles that ensures faith remains where it belongs.
with the people, not government. And if I may, I do have one rhetorical question to ask this committee. Would any of you want the state to dictate morality to your children, or is that a responsibility that will remain with you and your family? If so, I ask you to reject this bill.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Herbie. We do have a question by at least one committee member. Representative Rose, you're
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:20:50
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Remind me your name, I'm sorry.
Joshua Irby, sir. Irby? Yes, sir. Mr.
Irby, you referenced President Madison in your presentation just a minute ago, and I think it was alluding to separation of the church and the state, something along those lines. Oh, yes, sir. I was curious if you would comment, were you aware that Madison attended church services in the U.S. Capitol while he was
president of the United States? Yes, sir. I'm aware of that. and that the U.S. Capitol was the site of a church during a long period of time
Speaker 354
2:21:26
in the history of the United States. - Yes, sir, I'm aware of
that. - Okay, that's all, thank you. - All right, seeing no other questions by the
committee, Mr. Irby, thank you for being here and thank you for those remarks. - Thank you, sir. - Next we have signed up to speak for the bill, Tony
Rose. Ms. Rose, if you would state your name and any organization you may be here representing and you're recognized, present your remarks. Thank you so much.
Tony Rose
Unverified
2:21:57
My name is Tony Rose. I'm with the National Association of Christian Lawmakers, and I also coordinate all the distribution for the National Motto posters throughout the United States. So we've placed about 50,000 of those in classrooms around the country. So thanks for the opportunity. I know I'm between you and lunch, so I'll be brief. Every bill that this body produces has a kernel of genesis in our value system
that was generated from the Judeo-Christian values that formed our country. So what we're doing with almost every piece of legislation is it's a uniquely American point of view of what is right, what is fair, what is consistent with our laws, our Constitution, and what will sustain a just society. At the seat of our American government, you will find the Ten Commandments in dozens of locations, more than 50.
Those of you that have been to Washington, D.C., as Tim referred to, will find it in dozens and dozens of locations that he mentioned. It's everywhere. At the seat of the Arkansas government, we have a monument to the Ten Commandments on our very own grounds. The Ten Commandments have a longstanding history and tradition, the basis of many rulings, including the display of the national motto that both justify and legalize its display.
Our NACL member Dodie Horton in Louisiana passed the Ten Commandments law there, which will be and is now being implemented by 66 of the parishes there. The claim that there should be no signs of anything biblical in our schools may suggest that our civics education may be lacking in regarding to the genesis of our founders and Congress's influences. Something I hope that our legislator might correct on the floor today.
You know, Clayton Christensen of the Harvard Business School once said, you can't hire enough police to manage a free people without a moral foundation. Since you've taken moral foundations of our government out of our schools, the Bible, the Ten Commandments, prayer, nothing has improved. How terrible would it be for people, students, administrators, teachers,
to see every day on the wall, do not kill, do not lie, do not steal, do not be jealous of what other people have. The NACL and the American History and Heritage very much support this bill, and we very much hope for a good vote on this. Thank you so much for your time, and if you have any questions, I'll answer them. Thank you, Ms. Rose. Are there any questions
by the committee? Seeing no questions about the committee, thank you for being here, and thank you for those remarks.
Thanks for your time. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill, Reverend Brittany Stilwell. Stilwell, if
you would just state your name for the record, any organization you may be here representing, and then you'll be recognized to present your
Speaker 362
2:25:55
remarks. Hi, good afternoon. I'm Reverend Brittany Stilwell.
I am an associate pastor at Second Baptist
Speaker 363
2:26:01
Church, downtown Little Rock. And just Monday, I delivered a letter to your inboxes on behalf of over 50 faith leaders in Arkansas asking that you vote no to Senate Bill 433. And since delivering that letter, we've had several more faith leaders of many different religions sign on. I'm a pastor who works primarily with students. and I'm extremely opposed to this bill. But I'm here today, first and foremost, to talk to you
as a Christian. I take the Ten Commandments very seriously, and I'm having a hard time listening to them be talked about as a moral code only. They are holy words given to us by our Creator and are worthy of careful study and deep contemplation. Speaking of them as purely a moral code and having them posted in public spaces cheapens their words and turns them into a kitschy symbol of a shallow faith. Different faith traditions interpret the Ten Commandments
differently. There are multiple versions of the Ten Commandments, and there's much theological debate about the correct translation and interpretation of the commandments. The text of the display mandated by SB 433 is a cobbled together version, and it fails to reflect the belief of many Christian and Jewish communities. The version that I read from my Protestant Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, begins, I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. The Ten Commandments are
part of a broader story of a liberating, redeeming God. When we separate the commandments from the story, they are on the verge of becoming idolatrous and thus go directly against the second commandment which reads, you shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above or anything that is on the earth beneath or anything that is in the water under the earth. Taking all of these commandments out of their context diminishes their meaning and importance. I'm also here to speak as a student pastor who works with children and youth in our
congregation, and I'm particularly concerned about the posting of the Ten Commandments in our public schools. My students don't need to learn about the Ten Commandments from a state-compiled interpretation printed on the walls of their schools. We discuss it in depth as part of their faith formation at church with the reverence they deserve and within the greater context of God's redeeming work. If we want students to understand and honor these words, they should be introduced, discussed, and taught with a faith community, not posted on the walls of a seventh grade math
Speaker 366
2:28:47
classroom. I was discussing this bill with one of my students, a senior in high school, and
Speaker 363
2:28:54
he said, I have grown up in church and I am a Christian, but I believe that posting the Ten Commandments and any other religious symbols are harmful to the development of my faith and the faith of my peers. I think we can say with confidence that no one in this room wishes to cause youth harm, especially when it comes to their faith. We want them to experience the life-giving power of scripture. Posting government-translated commandments in public spaces, especially public
schools, demeans this sacred book that many of us hold so dear, and in the words of my student, is harmful to their faith development. So please vote no to SB 433, and thank you for your time. All
right. Thank you. I'm sorry. Reverend Stilwell, we do have a question by the committee.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:29:46
Representative Rose, you're recognized. Thank you. You said the letter that you submitted was signed by how many?
Speaker 363
2:29:54
I think we're looking. There's several more that have been added on. I think we're in the 50s or 60s at
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:30:00
this point. Okay. And you said they were faith leaders? Yes.
Speaker 363
2:30:03
How do you define that? There are rabbis, imams, and lots of different pastors and leaders of faith organizations of different ecumenical backgrounds. Did you reach out to the Catholic Diocese of Little Rock? They've
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:30:14
been included in all of our communications to sign on. I'm
Speaker 363
2:30:17
unclear if they, if, I can't remember off the top of my head, I don't have a list of names if they have.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:30:24
Did you reach out to the Arkansas Baptist Convention?
Speaker 363
2:30:27
They've been included in all of our communications as well,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:30:33
yes. Did you reach out to the Arkansas District Council, the Assemblies of God? I also think it
Speaker 363
2:30:38
should be noted that several Baptists have signed on. Did you
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:30:41
reach out to the Arkansas District Council of the Assemblies of God? Again, we reached out to a broad faith network.
Speaker 363
2:30:47
Okay. So just anybody who's signed on, you're considering to be faith leaders? We reached out to several, like, several different religious traditions and organizations. So Cooperative Baptists, the Arkansas Baptist Association, all the different kinds.
So, yes, faith leaders from many different backgrounds. So, I
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:31:00
guess to clarify this more, you reached out to pretty much everybody that you could? Everyone
Speaker 363
2:31:05
within our interfaith network that we can, will talk to us.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:31:08
And only about 50 or 60 signed on? Again, this
Speaker 370
2:31:11
popped up pretty quickly, so we had to move fast, and they've been signing on since we sent
the email. All right, thank you. All right, any other questions by the committee? Representative Meeks, you're
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:31:24
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just curious your opinion on something. And you'd stated that the Ten Commandments should be taught in church and all that.
And I don't disagree with that. I'm a fellow Christian. But there are a large number of students who don't go to church. They're not involved in any religious activities. And so would you rather them have zero exposure to this or have it in their classroom so they can at least have some exposure? But isn't their
Speaker 363
2:31:55
exposure to this left up to their parents and how their faith is formed in their families? I'd rather our families have the ability to decide how their children's faith is formed.
A moral code talking about the laws that make up our Constitution in our schools, that makes absolute sense to me. But
Speaker 362
2:32:14
teaching children whose parents don't want them exposed to this doesn't feel very
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:32:18
fair. Okay. Well, I'll just say atheism is a faith, too. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
All right. Any other questions by the committee? Representative
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
2:32:29
Woodridge, you're recognized. I do have one. I think Representative Meeks' question kind of triggered it for me. I guess I would ask you as a pastor, would you feel the same about like the distribution of the Bible? If
a parent didn't want a child to have access to the Bible, would you not want them to have
Speaker 363
2:32:47
access to it either? I would want faith. I think the faith development of our students is part of our family's prerogative. And so I would want families to be involved. I don't, it's
Speaker 372
2:32:55
not for them not to have access to a Bible, but I don't believe the public schools should be the ones providing that
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
2:33:03
access. Understood. I think just to follow up, I think that, I guess I would agree with Representative Meeks. You know, I think that obviously that would be great too, if it were
initiated at the family. And I don't think that we can legislate morality from here, but I think that anything we can do to try to increase access to or spread that gospel, I guess, would be something that I would want us to do as a person of faith. And I guess I'm a little bit shocked that you as a pastor would not have that same view. But anyways, to each their own. May I respond? Of
Speaker 363
2:33:31
course. I do have that same view. I just don't believe that it belongs in the public school system. So there's many opportunities for that to be shared. Character development, morals absolutely can be taught in the public schools, but it can be done so without
Christian scripture. Understood. Any other questions by the committee? Seeing no other questions by the committee, Reverend Stilwell, thank you for being here and thank you
for those remarks. Thank you for your time. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill Reverend David Freeman.
Speaker 382
2:34:14
My name is David Freeman. I am the senior pastor of First United Methodist Church in Little Rock, Arkansas. My remarks are focused not on SB 433's effects on civic life, but on its negative effects I believe it will have on our religious life. As a devout Christian and pastor, I believe the Ten Commandments are foundational to our faith and to our Christian ethics. I believe they should be studied and followed, and I believe God's grace is sufficient when they are not followed.
The third commandment is you shall not take the Lord God's name in vain. The intent of this commandment, as I interpret it, is not about refraining from using God's name as a curse word, as it is most often interpreted. It's about using God's name improperly or for one's own vain purposes, as in using the name of God to manipulate or control others, to say that God commanded you to do something when God did not, or things like saying God sends hurricanes to punish certain people for sin, or to use the name of God to justify any personal or political action.
It is a commandment against anything that co-ops the name of God and God's teachings. Placing a copy of the Ten Commandments in every classroom or government space, I believe, causes the state of Arkansas to break this third commandment. It is a distortion of the name of God because it is being instituted by the government. It seems the state of Arkansas is co-opting the name of God and its teachings for its own purposes, not the purposes and calling of the Lord God. Passing this legislation would ironically break the very commandments it seeks to promote.
And while the creators of this legislation and others like it are well-intentioned, perhaps trying to promote Christian values and undergird support for the Christian faith. The majority of people receive these actions as manipulative. They see it as a way of directing faith upon them. It's well studied and documented that more people are turned off by the Christian faith as it is aligned with government and political processes than anything else. Again, the irony is that these attempts to strengthen Christianity's influence in society
are actually doing more harm to it. And as one who wants to preserve this faith, I implore you to vote no on SB 433. Thank you for your time. All right. Thank
you, Reverend Freeman. Are there any questions by the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee, thank you for being
here. Thank you for those remarks. And then last, it appears we have signed up to speak against the bill, Holly Dixon.
Ms. Dixon, if you would, of course, state your name, any organization you're here representing, and then you're recognized
Holly Dixon
Unverified
2:37:13
to present your remarks. Good day, and thank you. My name is Holly Dixon. I serve as Executive Director of the Arkansas Civil Liberties Union, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting and preserving our constitutional rights and civil liberties. What this bill is is an invitation to drag every public school and public agency into court
to try to upend 50 years of precedent. It opens them all up to the possibility and even likelihood of being sued. One of the most sacred rights that we have in this nation is to control our own and our family, our children's religious upbringing. Please do not confuse the national motto, In God We Trust, with the Ten Commandments.
They are two very different matters that are analyzed separately under the law. The Louisiana law that was mentioned earlier, that has been implemented in, I forget, 40 or 50 parishes, has been enjoined by the courts in Louisiana. It is likely that would happen in Arkansas as well, but it is also likely it would not be enjoined
unless and until someone's rights had been violated and specific jurisdictions end up seeking to defend this law in court. The Ten Commandments on
Speaker 387
2:38:51
the Capitol lawn has been challenged in court, and that challenge is still pending. The court has
Holly Dixon
Unverified
2:39:03
not ruled that that monument is or is not constitutional, so I would urge you to consider getting input from a court about the Ten Commandments on the Capitol lawn
before proceeding with a bill that mandates their placement into classrooms and all public buildings. I appreciated the question about public funding. I agree. I don't think that's going to be determinative. On the question of constitutionality, it would be considered evidence and a factor that the court would consider in analyzing this bill. And so, just in short, please vote no on this bill on behalf of the state of Arkansas and all of its people.
Thank you. All right. Thank you, Ms. Dixon. Do we have any questions by the committee? Representative Meeks, you're recognized.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:40:01
Thank you, Ms. So, are you implying that we should go to the courts and get their opinion before we file any kind of bills or legislation? Because that's kind of what it seems like you said, that we should go to the courts to get their input on this.
Holly Dixon
Unverified
2:40:15
I mean, that's not how our system works. Oh, no. We don't have to go to court, nor would they give an advisory opinion. But we have 50 years' worth of precedent saying that mandated display of Ten Commandments in the classroom is unconstitutional.
We know what the courts have said. What this bill does is ask the courts to come in and upend that law and use Arkansans as guinea pigs in the effort to upend established law. regarding
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:40:42
the Establishment Clause. Okay, so we're going to disagree. I think there's 150 plus years
of precedence to support the display of the Ten Commandments, and only in the last 50 years, and then that was overturned by the current court saying that what they did 50 years ago was wrong.
Can you quote for me the exact language of the Constitution that would make this unconstitutional? Can you give me the phrase within the Constitution that you think makes
Holly Dixon
Unverified
2:41:14
it unconstitutional? It has been the opinion of
Speaker 387
2:41:17
federal courts that laws just like this that are enjoined in Louisiana violate both the free exercise and
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:41:24
the establishment clauses of the First Amendment. Okay, so the establishment clause, Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
So how is displaying the Ten Commandments a violation of that? because Congress shall make no law, not the Arkansas legislature, or prohibit the free exercise thereof. And we might just have to disagree on this. I'm sorry
Holly Dixon
Unverified
2:41:50
I didn't mean to interrupt you. I was just going to add that the 14th Amendment applied the Constitution to the states. So the Constitution does restrict the federal government, state, local governments. It applies to the government.
I did appreciate the comment earlier as well, reminding us that the Arkansas Constitution actually has greater protections for religious liberty than does the U.S. Constitution, which would also affect the analysis here. All right, any other questions by the committee? Seeing no further
questions by the committee, thank you Ms. Dixon for being here and thank
you for those remarks. Thank you. All right. We have no other individuals signed up
Speaker 167
2:42:55
to speak for or against the bill. Representative Brown, Senator Dodson, give me
just one second here. All right,
Representative Brown, so before you begin, I understand that you have an amendment.
Yes. Is that correct? Yes. And so in order to ensure the orderly presentation of this bill and an amendment, at this point, because we've advanced this far, I'm told by staff who has checked that in order for you to present an amendment at this stage, you would have to pull the bill down, and we would have to begin the presentation and the process again, and you could present your amendment at that time.
I don't know if you want to do that, it's your bill and any decision, you know, as to how to proceed is certainly your decision. But if you want to offer that amendment, you'll have to pull the bill down and we'll have to start the process anew in order for you to present that amendment. So if you'd like to move forward with a vote, then I certainly am, you're certainly welcome to do that. And Senator Dotson, I guess
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:44:21
technically this is your bill and so you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.
Obviously, at this point, we're kind of at the mercy of the committee, and I would like to kind of ask the committee how they would like to proceed. The amendment that we're talking about is in response to Representative Mayberry's question regarding that line 13 on page 3, which would strike that line out of the bill. and it also adds a couple other co-sponsors if we were going to do an amendment that wanted to be on the bill. So that's what the amendment in its entirety does.
I know committees in the past have taken up amendments at this point, but that's entirely up to the committee and the chair how they want to proceed with that.
- Senator Collins, I appreciate that. And, of course, you guys do things kind of your own way down in the Senate. But we try to be a little more orderly down here. You may recall from your service in the House. Ten years of it, yes. With that being said, I'm happy to, again, we had staff call and check with upper administration staff, if you will.
So what you would have to do, and also just check with our parliamentarian, in order to do this properly, you would have to pull the bill down, start the presentation over, make the amendment then, and then we can go through the process again. Now, given that it's already been presented, that may not take very long,
but that would be the orderly way to do it, is what I'm being told. So I do see some microphones lit up. Representative Ray.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:46:15
If I might make a suggestion just for consideration, if they want to pull the bill down and represent it, I have House Bill 1891 on the agenda that would literally take 60 seconds to present.
They could pull the bill down, I could present that, one minute later they could bring their bill back and
amend it. Okay, I'm going to leave that question whether or not to pull the bill down. I am open to, you
know, we go into session at 1.30, I am open to allowing you to represent it this morning before we go into session, but the decision to pull the bill down lies solely with Senator Dotson and Representative Brown, so Senator Dotson, hang
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:46:53
on one second, Representative Rose. Just a quick discussion point for the committee, or for you, Mr. Chair.
The presentation, they've already presented the bill, so in theory it would simply
be them presenting the amendment, the amendment being approved, and then asking for a vote on the bill that's already been presented. Is that correct? We're going to go through
the same procedure that we do with any bill from the beginning to the end. How
they choose to present it, the extent that they choose to make comments will be solely to Senator
Dodson and Representative Brown. All right, thank you. Representative Beatty.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:47:32
Well, I just want to say that looking at that language, line 13, I'm assuming that that was on page three of the bill. Correct. You know, my concerns, it has or in there, so it makes it not mandatory, it's permissible. And I don't share the same concerns that Representative Mayberry. So unless you just feel that that's a necessary adjustment to your bill, I'm happy with your bill as the way it's been presented.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:48:02
All right, Representative Meeks. Yeah, I'm just going to echo Representative. I'm happy with the bill the way it is, ready to take a vote. I'll throw it down there again for food for thought for you. As you know, you can always call for a vote. If it fails, you could bring it back, do the amendment. and then have a second vote, if that would get you the extra votes you need to get it through. So we could proceed as is, and if you fall one or two short and that would get you your one or two, then we can come back and add the amendment
and get those last one or two for you. So again, your bill, but just another way you could handle it. Representative Underwood. - Well, I think that a lot of people kind
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:48:42
of shared what I was gonna share, but I would say I agree with Representative Beatty. I don't have concerns with the bill if the sponsors are wanting to know that, if they wanna be forward with it now, If they choose to pull it down, I would also echo, I think, what Representative Rose said. I think we've already heard the presentation. I think we
could move that along quickly, obviously. That's at the Chair's discretion. All right.
Representative Brown, you have an amendment here with you. It's
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
2:49:09
been sent over by the Bureau. Yes. After hearing some of the concerns from the committee, I think we're good to go ahead and move forward and close on the bill and take a vote
on it without the amendment. Okay. all right uh representative brown you're recognized to close for your
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
2:49:26
bill thank you i know we've taken a lot of um your time here today committee so would appreciate a good vote representative
brown has closed for her bill what are the wishes
of the committee representative rose motion do pass representative rose has made a motion do pass is there
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:49:46
any discussion on the motion representative collins are recognized thank you mr chair um so you know i am uh fan of the Ten Commandments. I, you know, am a Christian. And I actually, a couple years ago, put it up in my house on my refrigerator when my oldest son got old enough to read. And I can tell you why I did that. And it was to establish the religion in my own household and
indoctrinate my kids in something I think is really important. I wanted them to read those Ten Commandments, internalize them, believe in what they say, and adhere to them, and I think this bill attempts to do the exact same thing in every classroom in this state. It is clearly an establishment of religion. It would clearly prevent the free exercise of religion, and I I just, the arguments to the contrary are very unconvincing.
And I think that's why courts have clearly found that things like this do just that. They are clear constitutional violations. But beyond that, this is another mandate obligating our schools to occupy more real estate with things, Which, you know, again, I am a supporter of the Ten Commandments in my home, certainly with my children, in our church.
We talk about them quite a lot, but in a public school classroom, they
should not be posted, should not be mandated, and I'm a no on
Speaker 84
2:51:31
this bill. Thanks. Representative Ennett,
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
2:51:34
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I find it highly hypocritical when you all are talking about Christian values and morality. And our forefathers were not of moral character.
They were slave owners. And I hate to say that, but that's true. So for us to be mandating these things in our public school is just, I don't understand why we're doing this. You mentioned true history. We can't talk about true history no more because if we did talk about true history, we wouldn't be talking about our forefathers, how moral they were. And for that reason, I'm going to vote no. All right.
Is there any other discussion on the motion? Representative
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:52:21
Rose, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. I'll be voting for this. I think it's a good bill. And I appreciate what Representative Ennett just said. Slavery is awful, was awful. And to that point, Ten Commandments were brought down by Moses who freed Egypt from slavery. And I think that that is echoed in those Ten Commandments that that is what's right. And I'll be voting for this. Thank you. Representative Meeks, you're recognized.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:52:51
I'm sorry, Representative Meeks, did you have? Okay. Yeah. I'm going to take exception to my colleagues. I think our founding fathers were very moral. Did they have faults? We all have faults, right? But John Jay, who was the original Supreme Court Justice, says it is the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to countenance and encourage virtue in religion. Fisher Ames, who most of you probably have never heard of, he was one of the people who actually came up with the wording for the First Amendment. So if anybody should know what it means, he says our liberty depends on our education,
our laws, and habits. It is founded on morals and religion. Benjamin Rush, again, another one of our founding fathers, said that he thought it was important that we do a form of religion that weighs the virtues of responsibility for students, whether it was Christianity or any other, than to have them devoid of any religion, because what we've been pushing here in America is atheism. Atheism is a religion, and ever since we took God out of the schools, we see all the problems that have come in.
You look at the statistics. When the Supreme Court took God out of the schools, all the problems and violence started flooding into our school systems. And so until we get back, I mean, our founding fathers built our system. They understand the foundations that make it strong. And if we don't firm up those foundations for the next generation, then we risk losing our country. So I'm fully supportive of this bill and look forward to voting for it. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized.
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
2:54:32
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate y'all being willing to put that amendment on there.
And I'm going to be voting no simply because I want it to fail so we can put that amendment on there because I think it will make it a stronger bill. And I think if we look beyond what's happening right in this section, at the very end of session, we could make this bill a whole lot stronger. And I would fear that if this moves forward, that then we're putting at risk
what we already have out there within God we trust. And
that because this refers to public funds being used for that. And I think it's been voluntary funds. And so we're talking three extra minutes to let this end, pull it down, and then put the amendment on there. I just think it makes it a much stronger bill, and I don't really see why we can't do that.
So I'm a no, and that's the reason why. Representative
Beatty, you're recognized. Well, I wasn't going to
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:55:45
say anything, but in light of some of the comments that have been made while we've been sitting here, what I find hypocritical is that we can sit here, some of the very members and some of the folks that have spoken against the posting of the Ten Commandments on the wall of our schools are the same individuals that fault and take issue with some of the filth and trash that we have available that our children can access in our school libraries.
So that's hypocritical to me. I'd much rather have the Ten Commandments on the walls that those children can read and see good moral lessons that are there and virtues and qualities that we should all aspire to as Christians or just as common citizens. So I'll be voting for this, and I thank you for bringing this bill. All right, any other discussion
on the motion? Seeing no other discussion on the motion, we have a motion due passed by Representative Rose.
All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed. No. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you've passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. All right, we have Senator Irvin here.
And I do want to kind of caution everyone. Representative Beatty asked me what time we would be taking a break, and I said one. But Senator Irvin texted me
and asked me if she could run her bill this morning, and I told her yes, and so she came over here specifically to run this bill.
Well, that was my expectation and intention, Representative Beatty. I'm not sure how long this presentation is going to take. We only have 30 minutes before the House goes into session, and I know we all would like to get something to eat, the chair included. I'll make it super fast. And we've got, we are coming back this afternoon. So I'll say this, if it looks like this is going to take a bit, then Senator Urban, would you be opposed to coming back this afternoon?
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:57:51
Not opposed. Okay. But I will
make this very fast. All right. Thank you. Members, this is Senate Bill 343, and I'm Senator Missy Irvin, District 24. You're recognized. Thank you. So, members, I brought with me today
all of the documentation that has to be done by hand as it relates to vehicle fleet management.
And so, if you'll see, this is incredibly inefficient. And I actually started this process of trying to get the state of Arkansas to utilize fleet management software in 2011 when I was first elected. And the reason why was because Governor Haley Barber was really great in this arena of government efficiency. And he had directed the state of Mississippi to do that. And I worked to try to get something into the language, which is what is now in code.
What we're trying to do with Senate Bill 343 is actually what is actually happening at the federal level with DOGE is that they are looking at all the government inefficiencies and then figuring out how we utilize technology to make government processes more efficient. And so fleet management is a software and it's, I would say, a very good spend of taxpayer dollars to try to eliminate our people having to do this right here by hand in all the different agencies.
So passing this bill will allow the people in the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Health, Department of Human Services, Department of Education, to focus on exactly what they're supposed to be focusing on instead of this bureaucratic inefficiency of hand, filling out hand reports on their vehicles for management. To me, we should be following good business practices that we know work, FedEx, CPS, and many other logistics companies utilize fleet management software for their vehicles.
Again, it's really for efficiency and saves money for those companies or they wouldn't be doing it. And that's exactly why this bill is in front of us. It was part of the report and recommendations from Arkansas Ford that Governor Sanders initiated. And so I'm just really excited to see this come to full circle on work that I started in 2011. And I'm happy to answer any questions. I think the Department of Transformation and Shared Services are here.
But they've done a lot of good work on this bill. But I just wanted you all to see firsthand what we're dealing with and why we're trying to do the bill so we can get rid of this and we can get this all inputted very quickly on management software. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. All right.
Do we have any questions by the committee? Representative Beatty, you're recognized.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:01:19
Thank you, Senator, for bringing the bill. Well, I'm looking over the fiscal impact on the bill and just wondered if maybe there were any type of estimates. This $858,000 that we'll spend, that's per year? Is that my understanding that this will be an ongoing annual expense? Yes. And basically they state that it would just be offset by reduction in mileage reimbursement by having visibility to actually allocate vehicles where needed. Is there any estimate on will that number and when that number will exceed that $858,000 cost and expense on these vehicles?
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
3:01:56
It is a question that Department of Transformation Services can specifically address. One of the reasons, Representative Beatty, I ran the bill in 2011 because at that time there were news reports that there were state vehicles over in the casinos in Tunica during the day. And so, I did not believe that it was good resources of taxpayer dollars for our state employees to be at the casinos during the day and state vehicles being in those parking lots. So, that was one of the reasons I ran the bill.
The mileage is an issue and then tracking them. Senator Payton did a great job of line of questioning as far as tracking these vehicles so that we can get a maximum return on our value and sell them before they depreciate too much. And we're not doing that right now. That's going to be a hard number to get an estimate on how much savings we would have if we turn those vehicles over quicker so we can get more money from them. That one I probably couldn't give you an estimate on.
But the mileage issue is another big issue that we can make sure that these vehicles are being utilized effectively and efficiently versus paying state employees to use their own vehicles for mileage. And so we just really don't have a lot of ability to track that right now when you're doing this all by hand. But if they have a specific answer, I can have them come to the table. But that's my initial. I think we can track that and give you the data and the information once we put this in place if you vote for the bill.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:03:34
Just to follow up, and I had read the bill before. I haven't read it because
I wasn't expecting to hear it today. So my question is, within your bill, is there a reporting requirement to come back and report the savings on an annual basis that will be realized by the state? Yes. There is reporting? Yes. Good deal. All right. Representative Rose, you're recognized.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:04:04
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Irvin, thank you. When we discussed this bill previously, Representative Clowney and TSS
were at the end of the table, and they were going to come back with a number of vehicles. I know there's a fiscal impact statement, but I was curious if we were able to make good
on that so we can know how many vehicles that these tracking devices would be either added to or the subscription would pay, you know, how many vehicles this would
Speaker 414
3:04:33
incorporate? Leslie Fiskin, I'm Secretary of Transformation and Shared Services.
Speaker 415
3:04:37
You're recognized. Thank you. There are approximately 2,500 vehicles that are being utilized in the executive branch that are just for the general state employees. There are 1,500 that are in law enforcement, so it's the 2,500 approximately. Is there any anticipation that
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:04:59
number of growing or shrinking? Do you have a rough estimate? Right
Speaker 415
3:05:05
now on the estimate, we're hoping, honestly, to decrease the number based on the utilization.
Those are the 300 vehicles we're looking right now that have been underutilized. And so we're estimating that we're going to be able to do a better job collectively of, you know, utilizing our resources and vehicles better, which would lead to a decreased number in the need of the
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:05:28
actual number. Okay. And so just to clarify, the 2,500 vehicles and then the
optimism is that it's going to decrease from there. You're going to be able to service out some vehicles and not need them anymore. So it would start at $2,500, kind of at a max, and hopefully go down from there on the number of vehicles that would have the device or the technology that's roughly the anticipated $20 a month.
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
3:05:52
That's correct. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Mayberry. Thank you. I think many of my questions just got answered. I'm the one that actually asked for the fiscal impact because there seemed to be lots of discussion, and I was just trying to, we're not going to solve this problem. Very thankful we got the fiscal impact. Great information here, ready to see this through. Thank you. Thank you.
Representative Long, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:06:26
So the other day, the figure of $20 per unit was thrown out. Is that still the thought that it's going to be like $20 per vehicle? Yes. And is there any other cost besides the subscription per vehicle? No. Okay. Well, as a former state employee, we would spend more than an hour each month filling out the paperwork. And I got paid more than $20 per hour.
So I think just on the savings there, we'll pay for that. And anything that we save as far as getting the tires rotated, the oil changed, monitoring people that are not doing what they're supposed to be doing during the day will just be profit, basically. So I'll be voting for it.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
3:07:15
Thank you. Mr. Chair, if I could speak. Thank you, Representative Long, for your insight. What I have learned, too, is about safety for our state employees, particularly those in DHS or DYS and DCFS that are going out for some of these visits on child welfare issues
or foster care, they're in state vehicles, especially if they're transporting children in our state vehicles, which happens, we want to make sure that that oil's changed, that there's air in the tires, just exactly what you said. So it's a huge benefit for the safety of our state employees that are utilizing them as well.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
3:07:59
Thank you. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Irvin, can you repeat what
you said earlier about, you said something about selling vehicles before their value depreciates too much.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
3:08:10
Can you repeat that? Yeah, it was just really, if you're not able to track them, not knowing if what we're doing here is 100% accurate or not, we don't know sometimes how old these vehicles are. And so, you know, there's a time limit, there's a time frame where you can actually need to be able to turn those vehicles over in order to get money from those vehicles, get your maximum resale value, Evan. And it's also a safety issue when it comes to mileage, you know that, I'm sure.
But so I think those are things that you're going to be able to be very easily able to track when it's
Speaker 33
3:08:52
in a database and software system. Yeah, I
Representative David Ray
Unverified
3:08:57
guess I'm a little bit concerned about the practice of some of our agencies because you can go on, for instance, govdeals.com, and you can see state vehicles that are being sold. And my personal view is that sometimes agencies sell vehicles too soon
when they still have plenty of operable life on them and then replace them with a new vehicle, which is, as we all know, the most expensive way to purchase a vehicle. So I would like to hear from the department if they could summarize all of the ways. And I'm a big supporter in general of finding ways to save money through vehicle fleet management because I know a lot of other states have done this.
And I was not here, unfortunately, the first day this bill was heard, but I did not hear anything in that presentation when I went back and watched the video that gave me any confidence that the agency had a plan to save money and could delineate the ways in which they would save money or had any idea of how much money might be saved. So I would just like to hear from the agency an outline of the plan, how this is going to be utilized, the ways in which they anticipate saving money, and perhaps even an estimate
of how much money could be saved through better utilization of our state vehicles. Go ahead.
Speaker 415
3:10:33
Yes, I think following up on what Senator Irvin has said, I think those are good, valuable questions. Part of the problem for us as a department is that we are not able to drill down and give you a specific number based on the fact that we're dealing with antiquated processes and paper.
But our goal is, you know, clearly we've identified, I'm talking about safety, the efficiencies and the best use of these vehicles. With our department, we also have state surplus. M&R is a part of our department. And so we're clearly planning on working hand in hand with our M&R. And our department is the one that is selling those vehicles. So once we have this information that's in from a technology standpoint that we literally will have that data at our fingertips, we can do a better job on making sure we are saving money and we are timing it right to sell vehicles when it's time to sell them and to keep them when it's time to keep them.
We also have identified, we know that we are reimbursing state employees $7.5 million a year for mileage reimbursement. And so that, for us, is the clear number that that number is going and can decrease, including we have, you know, some of the employees that we're talking about that are taking care of our most vulnerable citizens, these young children in remote areas with, you know, in DYS, that if they are, if some of those employees are being reimbursed mileage, that we can
take some of our very safe underutilized vehicles and make sure that those employees have those to take care of themselves and children's safety. At the same time, we'll be saving the state money. So once we're able to assimilate that data, we could put that together. Representative Beck, you're
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I was just kind of, I'm struggling a little bit with the numbers.
There's a company that's going to come in and do this. I'm assuming that we would say that that company had done this at other places, similar sized fleets and all of that. And the fact that they can't give us some type of a projection that shows that this is how the money would be saved, you know, that bothers me. But beyond that, the question I have is that using the $858,000 number times using $2,500 in the fleet,
that doesn't equal $20 a month, by the way. And there's like about $210,000, I mean, excuse me, $110,000 using the $20 a month. That's going somewhere else, according to this projection. I can just tell
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
3:13:41
you, in my research in 2011, when the state of Mississippi did this, under the leadership of Governor Haley Barber, there was drastic savings.
And I could go back and pull my file from 2011. There were tons of savings that the state of Mississippi was able to realize because of the inefficiencies that Representative Long just pointed out of our state employees being paid more money than what the technology would allow. But again, you're paying for the technology and the software and the ability for the government to upgrade its processes
away from manual to a technology-based solution. And so that's really what we're aiming for, and I mean, in my world, we as state government have put forward and supported, you know, contracts with think tanks that have been in the multi-millions of dollars when you're just getting ideas at the end of the day. This is actual, real, actionable systems upgrade utilizing computers and technology that we're spending state dollars on.
And I would argue that this is a good use of state taxpayer dollars to make us more efficient where we can save that money. But again, there's no mandate for this to do this until the bill passes so that
they can negotiate or, I guess, you know, talk
to those companies to get that, if I'm understanding your question correctly. Yes, but these companies are doing this for fleets right now,
and they have, they're demonstrating,
they should be able to demonstrate, or they have a horrible marketing group if they don't have something that says, hey, listen, usually on a fleet your size, we would say 20% of your overall maintenance costs or something like that, some number that you could kind hang your hat on. And I think that doesn't require any commitment from the state at that point to get those type of numbers. The other question that I would have is once you get those numbers, you might possibly look at what about leasing a fleet, right? You know, let them handle all this money and then it's their cars that we're utilizing. And then
finally, the only other question that I'll ask you guys to address is this. There was a lot of concern in this committee about tracking government employees and that you would be tracking where they're at and how that information would be handled and I haven't heard you guys address that and that was one of the concerns that left this committee last time.
Speaker 415
3:16:42
Thank you. For currently Representative Beck for tracking employees, I know in the previous committee meeting we had talked about as a state employee, you know, when we log into our computers every
morning that, you know, it states that everything that we're doing is, you know, subject to the state reviewing everything, all of our emails, all of our communications, and that's really, that also applies to through the system that we have right here. All of this is tracking employees. It's just through paper. So if I took a vehicle right now and I wanted, you know, to drive to Searcy and I stopped in North Little Rock on the way, I have to log in exactly where I'm leaving, where I
stop, what I'm doing at that stop, and then where I start again. So if I stop to get gas in North Little Rock or I stop at Chick-fil-A, I have to log that. So right now, we have all of this. This bill does not provide for any more details than what's already in the law and what's required by law. It just would be from a technical standpoint. And all the information that we're not sharing any of that data with anybody other than if it's subject to, you know, it's all subject to a leg audit.
We have the manual right here that's 45 pages. And that information is subject to FOIA. And those laws apply right now to all this information behind Senator Irvin. Thank
you. Representative Rose. And I will note that we've got about five minutes before the House floor begins. So we're going to have to wrap this up pretty quickly. Representative Rose. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:18:21
Chairman. First, I want to say Senator Irvin and Representative Clowney, both presenting this bill, I thought did a very admirable job.
What I will say is in this committee, you need to be able to, to the department, to provide us with details when you're talking about efficiencies or cutting or adding or subtracting.
And both times we've heard this bill, it has not, that has not happened. And Ms. Fiskin, I really thought the questions that Representative Ray asked were very pointed
and were very pretty much exactly what we need to know on whether we should support this or not. And if we want to get away from cost, I'm fine with that. Let's say what are the savings before cost? In your report on the fiscal impact, it references 73,000 hours that will be saved. Can you tell us what the average salary is of those positions and what that roughly translates into an hourly rate
and what that would look like in terms of savings annually and then how that will look year after year? And then we can also talk, I understand that we can't say the cost is something specific because it hasn't been negotiated yet, but like those are things, And I don't know how all the other committees are, but this committee, you go around the table. If we pass something out here and there's all these questions, our colleagues are going to be frustrated. Why didn't this get brought up in committee? And so the second time we've done this, and it's just kind of, it's very vague and very broad.
And that's difficult to convince many of
us to be a yes on, no matter how good the senator or the representative
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
3:20:10
do in presenting it. Okay, so doing the math at 73,000 hours at $35 an hour
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
3:20:16
is $2.55 million. And is that what TSS says is the
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
3:20:20
average salary of all those employees? Well, I'm using that as a number because Representative Long said that he got paid more than $20 an
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
3:20:34
I mean, I can do the math for you real fast. But $35 obviously is below $100,000 per hourly, $100,000 salary per year. And then you may have minimum wage people, but generally speaking in state employees, I don't think you would have many of those. So, I mean, just at $35 an hour is $2,555,000, which far exceeds the cost of what is on your fiscal impact of the implementation of the technology.
Speaker 415
3:21:11
Can I follow up? And as a follow up to that, that's why we have employees. If you check out a state vehicle, if you're authorized to check a state vehicle out, there are approximately 10,000 employees in state government that can do that. And they range from the minimum wage all the way to employees making over $100,000. So we calculated about hours because we can't determine an exact average. I think the $35 an hour is a good ballpark. But for us to submit information to DF&A, that's what we are required to do.
And as a follow-up, I'm sorry, we haven't had all of the details. Part of this goes back to just we're working with paper. But outside of this bill that would impact this bill also is, you know, we've learned from McKinsey and working with them, our fleet is an average of 10 years old. And so by working on reallocating the employees that are getting 7.5 in mileage and to utilize those vehicles better, that will lead to between $500,000 and $1 million of savings. I
hate to interrupt, but we are required to recess at 1.30.
We cannot continue any longer. These are the rules of
the House. So this committee will stand and recess will come back this afternoon to finish the presentation this bill Thank you all very much. We'll stand in recess. Thank you
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 INITIATED ACT 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.
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
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Representative David Ray
Unverified
Speaker 21
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Caroline Cole
Unverified
Speaker 44
Speaker 45
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
Speaker 50
Speaker 51
Speaker 56
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Speaker 72
Speaker 109
Speaker 112
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
Zach Gramli
Unverified
Speaker 104
Speaker 157
Speaker 167
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
Representative Rick Beck Chair
Unverified
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
Speaker 190
Speaker 220
Speaker 223
Speaker 236
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Speaker 186
Samantha Vick
Unverified
Speaker 265
Speaker 266
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
Speaker 274
Speaker 279
Speaker 276
Speaker 280
Speaker 288
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
Speaker 305
Speaker 307
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
Stephanie Taub
Unverified
Timothy Barton
Unverified
Speaker 314
Speaker 317
Speaker 319
Speaker 326
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
Speaker 344
Speaker 354
Speaker 355
Tony Rose
Unverified
Speaker 362
Speaker 363
Speaker 366
Speaker 370
Speaker 372
Speaker 382
Holly Dixon
Unverified
Speaker 387
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Speaker 84
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 414
Speaker 415
Speaker 33
Speaker 418