Judiciary Committee- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (56)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1615
Act 677
· 16 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1615 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMINATION. | Lundstrum | Notification that HB1615 is now Act 677 |
|
SB3
Act 116
· 5 mentions in transcript
Matched: “…gislature championed earlier this session when it supported Senate Bill 3, now act 116. During the debates and I was”
|
TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION OR PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BY THE STATE OF ARKANSAS AND OTHER PUBLIC ENTITIES. | D. Sullivan | Notification that SB3 is now Act 116 |
|
HB1057
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE LAW CONCERNING COST SHARING FOR DISTRICT COURT EXPENSES. HB1057 R. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POSSESSION OF A FIREAR…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY CERTAIN PERSONS; AND TO PERMIT … | R. Scott Richardson | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1178
Act 993
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…F ACTION FOR UNLAWFUL CREATION OF DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL. HB1178 R. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONTRACTING OF A M…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONTRACTING OF A MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY; TO AMEND THE LAW … | R. Scott Richardson | Notification that HB1178 is now Act 993 |
|
HB1306
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ON OF THE RIGHT TO POSSESS A FIREARM TO A NONVIOLENT FELON. HB1306 Furman CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLAC…”
|
CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP; AND TO PROVIDE CIVIL … | Furman | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1504
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1504 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF MANUFACTURING, MODIFYING,…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF MANUFACTURING, MODIFYING, SELLING, TRANSFERRING, OR OPERATING A ROBOTIC DEVICE OR … | S. Meeks | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1529
Act 827
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1529 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL CREATIO…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL CREATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL; AND … | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1529 is now Act 827 |
|
HB1648
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1648 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTM…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENTS; TO ALLOW A MEMBER OF A MUNICIPAL … | S. Meeks | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1663
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…um TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMINATION. HB1663 K. Brown TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMO…”
|
TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMONY FOR A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN … | K. Brown | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1664
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MESTIC ABUSE WHEN THE VICTIM WOULD BE THE PAYOR OF ALIMONY. HB1664 K. Brown TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS…”
|
TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS AND OTHER TESTING IN AN INVESTIGATION INVOLVING ALLEGED … | K. Brown | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1754
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE CIVIL PENALTIES. HB1754 Gonzales TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND…”
|
TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY … | Gonzales | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1765
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES. HB1765 Underwood TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DOMESTIC BATTERING IN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DOMESTIC BATTERING IN THE THIRD DEGREE; AND TO AMEND THE … | Underwood | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1832
Act 975
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IES TO CERTAIN ANIMALS BY DOGS TO AUTHORIZE TREBLE DAMAGES. HB1832 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND COU…”
|
TO AMEND THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE … | M. Shepherd | Notification that HB1832 is now Act 975 |
|
HB1861
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LANDOWNERS, PRIVATE LEASEHOLDER, AND COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES. HB1861 Duffield TO MAKE OPERATION OF AN ILLEGAL ONLINE CASINO OR S…”
|
TO MAKE OPERATION OF AN ILLEGAL ONLINE CASINO OR SPORTS BETTING A FELONY; TO CREATE … | Duffield | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1871
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1871 Gazaway TO REQUIRE A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR DEFENDANTS…”
|
TO REQUIRE A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR DEFENDANTS WHO REPEATEDLY VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THEIR … | Gazaway | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1877
Act 977
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THEIR PROBATION OR SUSPENDED SENTENCE. HB1877 S. Meeks CONCERNING CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO POSSESSION…”
|
CONCERNING CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO POSSESSION OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL THAT DEPICTS A CHILD; AND … | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1877 is now Act 977 |
|
HB1885
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IMAGE THAT IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE IMAGE OF A CHILD. HB1885 Barnett CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A LAW EN…”
|
CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER INVOLVED IN A DEADLY USE … | Barnett | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB277
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NCIDENT TO BE PLACED ON TEMPORARY LEAVE AND ATTEND THERAPY. SB277 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALIN…”
|
TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PERMIT THE FILING … | J. Bryant | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB314
Act 661
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AL OFFENSE OF GIFT CARD FRAUD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB314 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEXUAL SOLICITATION; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEXUAL SOLICITATION; AND TO AMEND THE PENALTIES FOR THE OFFENSE … | Irvin | Notification that SB314 is now Act 661 |
|
SB342
Act 749
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB342 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN ANIMALS BY DOGS TO AUTHORIZE TREBLE DAMAGES. | A. Clark | Notification that SB342 is now Act 749 |
|
SB364
Act 750
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB364 Hester TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES RELATED TO CONTRACTORS. | Hester | Notification that SB364 is now Act 750 |
|
SB375
Act 662
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB375 Stone TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CAPITAL RAPE; AND TO AMEND A…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CAPITAL RAPE; AND TO AMEND A PORTION OF ARKANSAS CODE … | Stone | Notification that SB375 is now Act 662 |
|
SB435
Act 753
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB435 Irvin TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT UPON A HEALTHCARE WORKER; AND TO DEFINE … | Irvin | Notification that SB435 is now Act 753 |
|
SB446
Act 668
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB446 Gilmore TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READER SYSTEM…”
|
TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READER SYSTEM ACT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE … | Gilmore | Notification that SB446 is now Act 668 |
|
SB457
Act 1001
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB457 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RELEASE FROM PARO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RELEASE FROM PAROLE OR POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION OF CERTAIN PERSONS … | G. Leding | Notification that SB457 is now Act 1001 |
|
HB1033
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…JUVENILE DELINQUENT. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1033 McCullough TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CR…”
|
TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CREATE AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER … | McCullough | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1136
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RIOUS Richardson MEDIA IN THE COURSE OF ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. HB1136 Achor TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING AC…”
|
TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PROHIBIT A COURT … | Achor | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1141
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AND TO CREATE AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND WARRANT. HB1141 R. Scott TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO DECEPTIVE A…”
|
TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO DECEPTIVE AND INJURIOUS MEDIA IN THE COURSE OF ELECTION … | R. Scott Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1148
Act 597
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1148 Vaught TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PRIVACY ACT; AND TO ADDRESS C…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PRIVACY ACT; AND TO ADDRESS CERTAIN IMAGES CAPTURED BY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT … | Vaught | Notification that HB1148 is now Act 597 |
|
HB1430
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ON WHEN A PERSON IS SUBJECT TO AN ACTIVE WARRANT OF ARREST. HB1430 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991. | K. Moore | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1431
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991. HB1431 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; AND TO PROHIBIT THE … | K. Moore | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1433
Act 828
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RSONNEL IN A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP. Page 2 of 4 HB1433 K. Moore TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS EXECUT…”
|
TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS EXECUTING OR SERVING AN ORDER OF PROTECTION … | K. Moore | Notification that HB1433 is now Act 828 |
|
HB1473
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SE OF HARBORING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. HB1473 Pilkington TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH DISCOUNT CARDS. | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1474
Act 484
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1474 Joey Carr CONCERNING THE PREVENTION OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; A…”
|
CONCERNING THE PREVENTION OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO REQUIRE THE DISPLAY OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE … | Joey Carr | Notification that HB1474 is now Act 484 |
|
HB1481
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…GING IN COURSE OF CONTROL OR DISTURBING THE PEACE EX PARTE. HB1481 Long TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHI…”
|
TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT THE PROVISION OF MATERIAL AID AND … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1535
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…L AID AND SUPPORT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS. HB1535 Duffield TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED SENTENCE FOR PERSONS CONVIC…”
|
TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED SENTENCE FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF RAPE OF A CHILD TWELVE YEARS … | Duffield | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1553
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ROXYPROGESTERONE ACETATE TREATMENT FOR CHEMICAL CASTRATION. HB1553 Ray TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBU…”
|
TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS. | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1655
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS. HB1655 Long TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; TO CREATE TH…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HARBORING ILLEGAL … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1676
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…MEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH DISCOUNT CARDS. HB1676 Womack TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE STATE OR A SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE; … | Womack | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1678
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1678 Long TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INC…”
|
TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INCREASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE … | Long | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1752
Act 681
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1752 Maddox TO EXEMPT CERTAIN SAVINGS PLANS FROM THE EXECUTION O…”
|
TO EXEMPT CERTAIN SAVINGS PLANS FROM THE EXECUTION OF A JUDGMENT. | Maddox | Notification that HB1752 is now Act 681 |
|
HB1763
Act 682
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1763 Underwood TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; AND T…”
|
TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL … | Underwood | Notification that HB1763 is now Act 682 |
|
HB1764
Act 831
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1764 Underwood AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF…”
|
AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION. | Underwood | Notification that HB1764 is now Act 831 |
|
HB1780
Act 684
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1780 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RETENTION OF PROPER…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RETENTION OF PROPERTY RELATED TO A FELONY INVESTIGATION. | Gazaway | Notification that HB1780 is now Act 684 |
|
HB1815
Act 687
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1815 Perry TO AMEND THE STATE'S JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL LANDS;…”
|
TO AMEND THE STATE'S JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL LANDS; AND TO RETAIN JUVENILE JUSTICE JURISDICTION BY … | Perry | Notification that HB1815 is now Act 687 |
|
HB1823
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…HE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FUND. HB1823 Duffield TO ESTABLISH THE DISRUPT EXPLICIT FORGED IMAGES AN…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE DISRUPT EXPLICIT FORGED IMAGES AND NONCONSENSUAL EDITS ACT OF 2025; AND TO … | Duffield | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1824
Act 688
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1824 Duffield TO CREATE THE DOG AND CAT RESCUE ACT: DAISY'S LAW.”
|
TO CREATE THE DOG AND CAT RESCUE ACT: DAISY'S LAW. | Duffield | Notification that HB1824 is now Act 688 |
|
HB1829
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1829 Dalby TO AMEND THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; TO PROVIDE F…”
|
TO AMEND THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; TO PROVIDE FOR REMOTE TESTIMONY IN CERTAIN … | Dalby | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1865
Act 976
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1865 Vaught TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES A…”
|
TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES AGAINST A CHILD. | Vaught | Notification that HB1865 is now Act 976 |
|
HB1875
Act 841
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1875 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF AN IGNITION INT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE; AND TO PROVIDE … | Tosh | Notification that HB1875 is now Act 841 |
|
SB302
Act 659
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB302 Gilmore TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF GIFT CARD FRAUD;…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF GIFT CARD FRAUD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | Gilmore | Notification that SB302 is now Act 659 |
|
SB313
Act 733
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB313 Irvin CONCERNING FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND TRE…”
|
CONCERNING FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND TREATMENT; AND TO PROMOTE AND IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES AND QUALITY … | Irvin | Notification that SB313 is now Act 733 |
|
SB321
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…REFUNDS TO BE SUBJECT TO GARNISHMENT BY JUDGMENT CREDITORS. SB321 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRAT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FUND. | J. Bryant | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB325
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…IOLENCE OR OFFENSES INVOLVING THE PETITIONER AS THE VICTIM. SB325 A. Clark TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989; TO AM…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989; TO AMEND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO … | A. Clark | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB326
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THE LAW REGARDING THE CHILD MALTREATMENT CENTRAL REGISTRY. SB326 A. Clark TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989 AND TH…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989 AND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO MODIFY … | A. Clark | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB459
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ND TO AMEND PROCEDURES AROUND REPORTING CHILD MALTREATMENT. SB459 G. Leding TO AMEND THE MINIMUM AGE NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE…”
|
TO AMEND THE MINIMUM AGE NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT. | G. Leding | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
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 8, 2026
Judiciary will come back into session. Chair sees a quorum. Representative Lundstrom, you're recognized to go to the end of the table. Members, we had left off on House Bill 1615 for any questions. If there aren't any questions, we'll move to the people who have signed up to speak for and against the bill. So Representative Lundstrom, if you'll have a seat. Representative McCullough,
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. So it may take me
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
0:29
a second here to get to my question,
but I mean, I'm sure there are folks that go to get marriage license who may be adulterers or liars. They may have felony convictions for theft. There may be a lot of things that they've done that they aren't getting picked out and denied things for, even though some people might think that those are things that would disqualify them. I guess my question is, this bill only targets one particular group of people.
I've never heard of anybody being refused their legal right except for this one instance, really. So why this one group? And maybe following up with, is this even happening in Arkansas? If I could address
Speaker 5
1:25
part of your question, It actually covers beliefs about marriage either way. And so one thing to think of is, let's say that you're a supporter of same-sex marriage
and you're a state government employee, then this bill actually protects you and makes sure that your boss, who is very much against same-sex marriage, cannot terminate your employment, discriminate against you, give you worse terms of employment, that type of thing. And so it actually works both ways for your beliefs about marriage, and that's the way it is defined in the bill on beliefs about marriage. Follow up, please. You're recognized.
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
2:12
why this bill was filed. It doesn't say in there, it doesn't exactly say
Speaker 5
2:22
that, does it? It does. If you'll look at page 2, 13 through 14, belief about biological sex or marriage means a belief based on religious or philosophical premises regarding the sex of two individuals who may enter into marriage. So, you know, when you think about it that way, there are denominations that
are strong supporters of same-sex marriages. So, you know, think of your religious organization that's a supporter of same-sex marriage can't be discriminated against on terms of government contracts and things like that. It works both ways. This is the society that we live in that we need to make room for us all. And conscience and protection of religious liberty, that's the breathing room for a live-and-let-live society. You need a follow-up?
You're good. Representative Clowney, you're recognized for a
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
3:17
question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Following up on Representative McCullough's question, can we
keep going on that section? So you read the bit about marriage, but the next line says that male or man or female or woman refers exclusively to a person's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of birth. That actually is not viewpoint neutral, and as you know, you're both experts at constitutional law, you know that we cannot prioritize, you know, favor one viewpoint over another.
This seems to be pretty blatantly viewpoint discrimination. Can you just explain to me why the language isn't the same as in the previous sentence? In other words, why doesn't it say regarding whether male
or man or female or woman refers to? Do you know what I'm doing? I'm sorry, I may not be
Speaker 5
4:06
articulating that clearly. You are articulating it perfectly. And that was something that I considered as well when I reviewed this bill. But, you know, the difference between those two things,
beliefs about marriage, you have regarding the sex of two individuals who may enter into marriage, but then under B you have that male or man or female or woman refers exclusively to a person's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of birth. There's a debate about whether gender is immutable, but there's not a scientific debate about whether sex means male or female or whether that is immutable.
So that's the difference. You have one that is purely viewpoint, but as far as sex, that's immutable. And that's scientifically settled is that none of us can change our DNA. We have viewpoint differences maybe about what gender means and whether you can change your gender. but as far as biological sex, that's just scientifically immutable.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
5:12
Follow up? But what isn't scientifically settled is that male or man or female or woman
refers to that immutable biological sex. That is not settled, and by putting it in code this way, we are preferencing, we are protecting that viewpoint while not protecting the opposing viewpoint, a different viewpoint. The way that I read it, I agree with you that this protects whatever your position on marriage is, at least in this section. But I don't believe that that's true about the positions that you're talking about in subsection B.
And again, I would just ask, why doesn't it say whether instead of that?
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
6:08
May I respond to that question? So first of all, this bill is not compelling anyone to observe the belief that male or man or female or woman refers exclusively to a person's immutable biological sex. And if it did compel people to express that viewpoint, then I would agree with you that there could be some questions.
There would very likely be questions there. But here it is protecting the one viewpoint. And government legislation, or it is protecting against government compulsion against this viewpoint. And so we see legislation all the time that is protecting certain classes or certain individuals who have faced issues. So, for instance, if you have a bill against anti-Semitism, that doesn't mean you're not allowed to protect against anti-Semitism or certain Holocaust denialism or something like that against people addressing those issues.
And that doesn't mean you have to protect every single expression that is similar. So this is perfectly permissible to protect against discrimination that's targeting a particularly contentious issue. Follow-up? You're
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
7:20
recognized for another follow-up? Thank you. I just don't know what tenet of constitutional law you can point to to say it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against a contentious issue. It's just it's not true that you can choose one viewpoint to protect
while not protecting opposing viewpoints. We cannot, under the First Amendment, do that. So I guess I just, and if we could, then I don't understand why A reads the way that it does, which it does seem to protect no matter one's opinion on the two individuals who may enter into marriage. So maybe I'm not phrasing my question clearly, but it is very clear that B does only protect
somebody that has a very specific and, yes, not unanimous opinion on what male or man or female or woman means. And so I just don't understand the opposition to include the word regarding rather than that. I just haven't heard an answer to that particular question. Why not the word regarding instead of that? Or regarding
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
8:34
weather, excuse me. So I guess what
I said before is essentially my response
is that it's not required in every instance. If you were talking about compelling speech, that would certainly be a concern. But here, that's not what's going on. It is addressing the right of citizens of the state to be able to express these beliefs. Members, any other questions? Seeing
no further questions, we have several people who have signed up to speak.
Everyone has signed up to speak against the bill. And I will tell those of you who have signed up,
I'm usually pretty free-flowing and letting... Anybody who's ever been in this committee knows I pretty much let everybody talk back. I also know we are at a late hour, and I'm going to allocate 45 minutes. You don't have to, not per person, total. Mainly because, as the saying says, sometimes goes,
everybody has said, everything's been said, but not everybody has said it. So just be cognizant of the fact, don't repeat. But we do want to hear those of you who have signed up. So with that, we're just going to start at the top of the list. And I apologize if I mispronounce Cameo or Cameo O'Connell. And if you'll go to the end of the table, it'll be a lot easier for the committee to see you. You'll go to the end of the table, representing Lundstrom, will you make sure that people know how to turn the mics on and off?
And what I would ask for each person who is speaking to identify yourself for the record, and then you may begin what you want to tell us. All right, okay. My name is Camo
Speaker 25
10:32
O'Connell, and I'm currently speaking against the bill. I'm currently in my senior year of high school and taking off class time to be with you here today. I've lived in Arkansas most of my life, and I'm going to school here on a full-ride scholarship. I also volunteer regularly
and teach extracurricular kids' classes. I also go to church here regularly. What I'm trying to say is that I like to be part of my community. I want to be a protective member of society, and I would like to be employed. And I feel like this bill will prevent me from being employed or prevent me from having the same chances at being employed generally because I may be Christian, I may be a caretaker, I may be an academic, and I may be an athlete, but I am also transgender.
and this bill specifically targets my employment because it talks about in a manner consistent with belief about bias biological sex or marriage and then it goes out of its way as previously said to define biological sex in a way that prefers one viewpoint over another and and that and also that coupled with lines on page four lines 9 through 12 and 18 through 21 both discuss proposed protections for a religious organization or person. It includes an individual and then states
that they can make any employment-related decision, including a decision whether to hire, terminate, or discipline a person whose conduct or religious beliefs are inconsistent with that of the religious organization or as in the A part of the section, an individual. And then, or in a manner consistent with a belief about biological sex or marriage, which would include me. It would create a situation where I could be terminated or disciplined because of my sex, gender identity, or sexuality,
and not because of a bad work ethic or a lack of qualifications or problems in the workplace, but because of my sex in relationship to how I look and how I present myself. I want to be employed. I want my employment to be based on the work that I do, on the effort that I put in, on whether or not I can actually do the job, not based upon the beliefs about how I should look or should present myself in a way that doesn't actually influence whether or not I have the skills and am capable of performing that task.
And being denied employment is not the same as later being denied a floral arrangement or a wedding cake because employment is not a luxury good. I need to be employed to support myself, hopefully to support my family. I need to be employed to be independent. And this bill would make it a lot harder for me to do that. Additionally, any bill that sort of allows more people to be unemployed or encourages people to fire or allows them to terminate employees based on more reasons might create
more unemployment, which would be bad for the economy. It would create more state spending on unemployment benefits. It just wouldn't be good for me, wouldn't be good for my future and my independence, and it wouldn't be good for the state. Additionally, like we said, it may not even be able to be upheld in federal court. This might harm the religious person that the bill wants to protect, since if they believe that they're protected when they are not, it could lead to them accumulating more legal issues than they have the means to solve.
So from what I've seen, for me, as someone entering the workforce soon, I fear that this bill could prevent me from being employed in the same manner and having the same chances at employment as perhaps cisgender applicants who may have the same skill set that I do. And I also feel that it creates other issues beyond that, that the language of the bill and the problems that the bill is trying to solve, it doesn't cover it. I don't feel like the pros outweigh the cons here.
So that should be about it. Will you be willing to take a question? I have a question in the queue. Absolutely. Representative
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
14:51
Clowney, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for coming and testifying and for waiting all day to do so. It means a lot, and you did a great job. Quick question. We just heard about, you know, I had some questions about the definition of belief about biological sex. I think you just heard that exchange, and we were told that nothing in this bill compels any speech.
Based on your testimony, would you feel, as if you missed out, if you were discriminated against by the state because you did not have, because you have a different opinion of biological sex than perhaps the one that is stated in this bill, would you feel that you would be compelled to speak other than you truly believe in order to
Speaker 25
15:34
maintain a job? Yes. Thank you. Because, sorry, I also already know that there's people who would want to fire me or refuse to hire me not based upon my skills but based upon my sex and I have already seen that opinion
far more than I should have. Thank you. Members,
any other questions? Seeing no further questions, thank you for coming and thank you for waiting. We appreciate that.
Next we have Kristen Sowell or Sowell, I'm not sure exactly which. If you'll identify yourself, you'll recognize to
Kirsten Sowell
Unverified
16:07
make your statement. Thank you. My name is
Speaker 34
16:10
Kirsten Sowell. I'm a social worker here at Arkansas, and I've been practicing as a licensed certified social worker for nearly 17 years. I'm a therapist who
works with fellow LGBTQ individuals primarily, and I want to express my strong opposition to this bill. As a therapist, I see the harm every day that bills like this cause. They reinforce fear, and create a sense of exclusion rather than inclusion. LGBTQ individuals already face significant challenges and experience these laws as a message that they're not welcome. To that point, I've personally witnessed many of my clients and people I know that have moved out
of state because they don't feel welcome, especially since these bills started in 2021. I do a type of trauma therapy called EMDR, and when I hear people process traumas, it's often because they've been treated as less than just for being themselves. Bills like this reinforce those traumas. Beyond this, this bill, if all social workers, if this came into effect and this was a law,
it would violate our Social Worker Code of Ethics in a variety of ways. One is our commitment to clients. Social workers are ethically bound to prioritize clients' well-being and provide services without discrimination. This bill allows licensed professionals to refuse services based on their religious beliefs about marriage and sex, undermining that fundamental duty. Another way that this violates our Code of Ethics is cultural awareness and social diversity.
Our profession requires us to respect and understand cultural, racial, and social diversity of our clients by permitting service refusal based on gender identity or marital status. This bill promotes exclusion rather than cultural competence. Discrimination. Social workers should never practice or condone discrimination. Yet this bill explicitly legalizes discrimination against LGBTQ individuals, putting social workers in direct
conflict with our ethical obligation to uphold dignity and social justice. And then I would just say that this bill is not just a necessary, it's dangerous. It enableizes legalized discrimination under the guise of religious freedom and puts professionals like me in an impossible position, follow the law or follow the ethics of my profession. I think it becomes more muddied
if somebody doesn't have the same values that I do. As a therapist, I work with people every day whose views may differ than mine, yet I provide them with care, respect, and dignity. What I have found is that most often we have more in common than what separates us. And then as a nation already struggling with division, Let's not pass laws that deepen those divides. Instead, let's focus on policies that bring us together. I urge you to vote no on this bill.
Thank you. Would you take questions if we have any? Yes. Members,
are there any questions? Seeing no questions, Ms. Soule, thank you for your time and for your testimony today. Next,
Gail Choate
Unverified
19:52
we have Gail Schott. If you'll just identify yourself, you're recognized to speak. Thank you so much. My name is Gail Choate, and I'm here today speaking as an educator who is dedicated to
civic participation and helping all Arkansans to realize that they have an opportunity and a responsibility to be a part of this unique form of representative democracy that we have in this country. I want to be clear. Religious freedom is a fundamental right and it is rightly protected under the First Amendment. However, no right exists in isolation. Our country has long
recognized that religious beliefs do not grant the right to discriminate against others in ways that harm or exclude them from full participation in our society. A person's religious beliefs are deeply personal and absolutely protected, but the moment those beliefs are used to justify discrimination in public life, whether in employment, housing, health care, or governmental
services, they move from a matter of private conscience to a matter of public harm. I'm here today to expressly oppose HB 1615. It's a bill that fundamentally contradicts the principles that this legislature championed earlier this session when it supported Senate Bill 3, now Act 116. During the debates, and I was involved in many of them over Senate Bill 3,
We were told over and over that identity should not matter. That race, gender, and background should not play a role in determining opportunities. Only merit should. That was the argument used to justify removing diversity considerations from hiring and educational initiatives. But now with HB 1615, we see the opposite logic being applied. This bill does not evaluate individuals based on their actions, their qualifications, or their ability to contribute to society.
It singles them out solely based upon their identity. This bill does not reward merit. It punishes identity. It creates barriers for people based not on what they have done, but on who they are, disregarding their contributions and their efforts. If merit is truly what matters, then why would we implement policies that judge people based upon identity rather than upon their individual actions?
This bill also undermines personal responsibility, another value we often hear championed in this chamber. By targeting Arkansans based on identity rather than their individual behavior, this bill rejects the very idea that people should be judged on their own merit, The same principle that was used to justify Senate Bill 3, which is now Act 116. We can't have it both ways. If this legislature truly believes that identity should not be a factor in determining opportunity,
then HB 1615 must be rejected because it does exactly what SB 3 was said to oppose. If we're serious about fairness, about merit, about creating a society where people succeed based upon their own contributions and abilities, then we must reject any legislation that penalizes people based solely upon their identity. I urge
you to vote. Do not pass on this bill. Thank you. Ms. Choate, we have someone who'd
like to ask a question. Will you entertain questions?
Of course. Thank you. Representative Springer, you're recognized for
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
23:54
a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and good afternoon, and thank you for being here. Your testimony reminds me of my work with my longtime mentor, John Walker, and he always used the phrase pretext. And it sounds like that you're saying that this bill in itself is a pretextual reason to cover up discrimination, and I'll just read to you what pretextual means.
something is being used as a false or misleading reason or a cover-up to hide the true motive or intention behind the action. So is that what I'm hearing you say? Is that part of your testimony here today? Well it's certainly hard to always
Gail Choate
Unverified
24:33
assume someone's intention or the pretext, but I would say that there's ample evidence to support your correlation of these two
things. Thank you. You're welcome. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further
questions, thank you and thank you for being here today. Thank you for your time. Next we have Reverend
Reverend Marie
Unverified
24:52
O'Connell. Thank you very much. My name is Reverend Marie Maynard O'Connell and I'm here in my capacity
Speaker 45
25:05
as a minister of Word and Sacrament in the Presbyterian Church. Some of you have heard me speak before. I sit here at a really unusual intersection of rights in that I've remained very interested in where religious rights and civil rights engage with one another. And I was before maybe this body in 2017 when we were asking similar questions about religious
rights and civil rights with guns in churches. And in that case, part of the issue was that some churches believe one should not have guns in their church. And the compromise position at that time was to create language so that churches that did not want guns in their churches had to post signage that no weapons permitted. was a way in which these two competing rights were able to coexist. And what I see in this bill is the problematic missing aspect of communication between
the rights. What I'm sensing and what has been named previously is that there are deeply held religious beliefs for and against the existence but also the rights of people who are LGBTQ and that's who this bill is really about. As a minister that is working with this community exclusively, we do need to acknowledge that this community is receiving harm from the religious beliefs of others. I mean, here in Arkansas, I see in my community a very high percentage of people who are living in poverty.
About 22% of LGBTQ families live in poverty. And we already know that prior to the pandemic, one in 10 LGBTQ people were unemployed and 36% of LGBTQ people who are employed reported that they received job discrimination in the last year. When I put that with this bill and the rights of religious people, I'm also reminded of this aspect here, that the state and individuals who are being licensed by the state
as caregivers, therapists, medical workers, may recuse themselves from their duty to care. And the reason why I think that's a real problem is because there's no place in the bill where there is that communicated to the public. What they may, it says here on page 5, line 16, a person employed or acting on behalf of the state government who has the authority to authorize or license marriages, clerks, registers of deeds, deputies may seek recusal
from authorizing or licensing lawful marriages. But also in a previous section, the state cannot prevent people from being licensed for those also deeply held beliefs. But there's nowhere in this that warns the public that there are members operating now as medical professionals or therapists or their elected officials who do not have to do an aspect of their job. I guess my concern here is that it names very specifically that they have to make that recusal request ahead
of time, but the public is not informed of that recusal request. That that member, whether they are employed by the government or as a therapist, doesn't have to care for their LGBTQ clients or people the same way that they might expect. Point in fact, I think my actual point is that that's where the harm occurs, as having been mentioned earlier, and when I deal with my people specifically. They're harmed when they expect to be cared for, and then they're told, I don't believe
that about you. I don't have to care for you that way. And that creates a moment of trauma, as mentioned previously. It happens in churches. It happens in doctor's offices and schools. And I would like to suggest that something missing from this bill is the language of protection for public awareness. That this business or this individual chooses to exercise their religious right to not provide care. Without that, this bill only provides more opportunity for individuals
to be harmed and I'm the one who's working with some of those people. It's deeply distressing to know that they have lived their life in a way where they were trying to do what was right and to be a good person and then to be told that I don't believe in you. I think we can do better in Arkansas. I ask that you do not pass this bill. Thank you.
Reverend O'Connell, if we have any questions will you take those? Yes. Members, any questions? Seeing no questions, thank you for your
testimony today. Next, we have, speaking against the bill, Deanna Nall. It's
Speaker 49
29:56
actually Deanna Nall. Sorry, I've been explaining it for 53 years. It's okay. I am an English professor at an institution here in Little Rock. I'm
Speaker 53
30:06
also an author, but I'm speaking here today as a Christian and a parent. I've lived
Speaker 49
30:15
in Arkansas for 19 years. My husband
and I are active members at Second Baptist downtown. I have my congregation's full support to speak here today, and I have my daughter's permission and encouragement to share this. 20 years ago, on an August morning in 2004, after three devastating miscarriages and a difficult complication-ridden pregnancy our youngest daughter was born. We were so grateful for her life after everything we went through to have her. We still thank God for her every single day. As a person of faith, I believe in the fundamental principles of religious liberty
and the equal treatment of all people. While House Bill 1615 claims to strengthen protections for religious expression, in reality it allows for discrimination under the guise of religious beliefs, which is a dangerous misapplication of religious freedom. The bill plays off unfounded fears that religious organizations will be forced to adopt beliefs contrary to their own. However, in the decades since same-sex marriages became legal, this has not happened. Religious freedom is not under attack, but the rights and dignity of vulnerable individuals are at risk
under HB 1615. This bill seeks to allow individuals and organizations to deny employment and services to LGBTQ people based on their religious beliefs. Such provisions contradict federal law and Supreme Court rulings, creating legal confusion and potential harm to marginalized groups. When we use a phrase like the LGBTQ community, it sounds as though they are a group of people separate from the rest of us. But the truth is they are us. They are our family members,
friends, and co-workers. They are Arkansans who should have the same rights as everyone else. They are my daughter, my daughter who I'm sure the sponsors of this bill would have fought passionately for while she was still in utero. But now that she's 20 and gay, I have to come here today, walk into a room full of strangers to talk about what should be the most private thing about her and to ask elected officials to stop targeting her and people like her with legislation like this. I believe I can speak for a number of parents of LGBTQ children when I say we are tired.
We are tired of trying to convince those in power that our children are worth having the same rights as everyone else. We're tired of trying to convince elected officials that our children are vibrant and valuable members of our communities. We are tired of trying to explain that they just want to live their lives and have the same rights as everyone else. We are tired of people in power refusing to acknowledge that our children are just as fearfully and wonderfully made as LGBTQ adults as they were on the day they were born. We are tired of dreading each legislative session and wondering how our state's lawmakers will come for our children this time.
Will they come after their hair, the way they dress, who they can marry, library books about the kinds of families our children could have someday, or will it be yet another gay wedding cake bill? We are tired. My question today is where does this end? How many bills will our state's leaders need to pass before they feel that people like my daughter have been sufficiently shoved into a corner? Will our LGBTQ children have to climb back into our wombs before elected officials will care about their rights again? Please vote no on House Bill 1615.
Members, any questions? Seeing no questions, thank you, Ms. Nall, for being
here today. We have next J.P. Tribal. I hope I said that right. if you'll identify yourself. I apologize if I
Jp Tribble
Unverified
33:53
mispronounce your name. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. It's J.P. Tribble. I'm an attorney here licensed in the state of Arkansas. I principally oppose the bill in addition to all the members of the public who have spoken
before me. I'm not going to go into the arguments on that in order for economy of time. I'm going to delve more into the legal nuts and bolts of the issues that I see here. One thing that any student of constitutional law or of the constitutional law learns when studying the First Amendment is we have two rights set forth that cover religion.
One is the free exercise clause, and the other is the anti-establishment clause. And there is a constant tension between both of those. The more you provide rights for the free exercise of religion, that can begin to cross the line of establishment of religion with the government. And the more you lean to the side of establishment, that infringes upon a person's free exercise.
It's like a seesaw. And my impression of this bill in its whole is the seesaw is really leaning towards a violation of the anti-establishment clause. And I say that in as much as clerks, judges, justices of the peace, and state employees and so on may take action based on their personally held religious beliefs, irrespective of whether or not they may be discriminatory to other people.
Um, I do have an issue with, uh, the fact that, as was mentioned earlier, I believe it was in, uh, the, one of the attorney's presentation, uh, together with the sponsor, said the bill does not micromanage the process of, uh, recusal for a clerk or anyone in, in the clerk's office regarding issuing licenses to marry or a state official who might solemnize the marriage.
It does say that a person may recuse themselves based on their religious belief, but it does not set forth how. And if you take the county clerk, I know there's a famous case in Kentucky where the clerk refused to issue a marriage license. If she wants to say, I recuse, who is above her to accept or refuse her recusal? And who's the arbiter of that? There's no mechanism. So this bill doesn't merely micromanage the process. It eliminates a process at all. There is nothing
that provides for how that would look. I see that as a huge problem, whether it's a judge or a J.P. solemnizing or a clerk issuing a license or a deputy clerk. Moreover, the bill refers to as a presumable protection in those sections. It says access, and I'm on page 5, would be line 25,
access to a constitutional right shall not be unduly burdened by a governmental entity due to a recusal request by a person under subdivision D1. And that language applies both to clerks and those who would solemnize marriages. Well, when you get into undue burden test, Uh, the question is, what is an undue burden? And, uh, an undue burden is really, we're, we're dealing with debate between the purpose
versus the effect of placing a substantial obstacle, uh, on the person requesting the license or the, uh, service. and an undue burden, you're looking at a significant impediment, not just a minimum of inconvenience. I'm thinking of some rural counties where possibly everybody in the courthouse might be opposed to gay marriage, and somebody wants to get a marriage license, and they can find nobody.
You know, at what point do we determine that there's an undue burden on the person seeking a marriage license, do they have to drive two, three hours to get to Little Rock to do that where there might be somebody willing to provide it? So that's another issue that I see. And another big issue, according to the attorneys who presented, was that this protects people who believe in same-sex marriage or have certain beliefs about gender identity or
sexual orientation. However, she said that a boss cannot terminate employment if you believe in same-sex marriage. However, I believe it is on page four, beginning on line nine, beliefs regarding biological sex or marriage. The state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a religious organization or a person, wholly or partially on the basis that
the religious organization or person solemnizes or declines to solemnize a marriage, etc. And subsection two, makes any employment-related decision, including a decision whether to hire, terminate, or discipline a person whose conduct or religious beliefs are inconsistent with those of the religious organization, based upon or in a manner consistent with a belief about biological sex or marriage. When I read that, it says if a person makes an employment-related
decision, in other words, decides to hire, fire, or discipline a person because their beliefs do not agree with the employer, the state government may not discriminate against them. So if you have an employer who doesn't believe in gay marriage and you have a gay person who's working for them, They can fire the person. They can discipline the person on a daily basis. They can refuse to hire the person, and the state may not take any action.
Presumably, reading the bill, even file a lawsuit. So I don't see how from that language we get to a boss can't terminate employment if you believe in same-sex marriage. The plain language of the statute or the proposed bill reads to the contrary. Another issue is the statement that sex isn't immutable. I recognize there are arguments for and against that.
However, when we consider the intersex population, I think there are medical arguments that whether sex is immutable or not, There's more than just male and female out there. And lastly, regarding the employment issue, I would like to point out that employment discrimination is already prohibited under federal law under the case Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia.
That was a 2020 case before the Supreme Court of the United States. And in the decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch stated that if a person, if a business, an employer fires a person for, fires a man for loving a man, but not a woman for loving a man, that's sex discrimination. And the same thing for gender identity. So I think that this bill directly contravenes the Bustock case. Lastly, I would
close by saying there's a case that was heard by the Supreme Court arguments recently, which is a case, sorry, I can't read my writing. I was writing too quickly, but it was something versus Ohio Department of Youth Services, and that case is poised, should unanimously uphold Bostock, And the argument in that case, it's a reverse sexual orientation discrimination lawsuit where a straight person was bringing a discrimination case against a gay person being favored.
And she is presumed to prevail in that decision. So with that, I think there are a lot of legal issues in this bill. Part of it contravenes Supreme Court precedent, and I don't believe this bill is in the spirit of how we do things in Arkansas, and I would ask each and every one of you for a no vote on this bill. And if there are any questions, I'm certainly happy to answer those.
Seeing no questions, thank you for your testimony today. Thank you. Next we have, and I'm sorry,
I'm not sure of the last name, but Natalie. If you'll come to the end of the table
and identify yourself, you're recognized to make your statement. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank
Natalie Nohienic
Unverified
44:00
you, committee. My name is Natalie Nohienic, and I am here to speak against House Bill 1615. I'd like to tell you a little bit about my personal story.
So when I was seven years old, I started going to this camp called Camp Thurman. It's a small 14-acre Christian camp in Pantigo, Texas. And while other kids knew when they grew up they wanted to be doctors or firefighters, I knew I wanted to be a camp counselor. So you can imagine the excitement I had when I got the job this summer after my freshman year of high school. And those 14 acres changed my life. I loved it so much. I worked there an entire summer, five days a week, 7.30 to 4.30 in the sweltering Texas heat
for a $100 paycheck at the end. So it was safe to say I wasn't doing it for the money. I was doing it because at the time I loved God and I loved serving people. The second summer, it kind of came crashing down in the same camp that held such a deep place in my heart that told me I was appreciated and loved, not just by the other staff, but by God, too, told six of us that we were either fired or not welcomed back because we were part of the LGBTQ community. In their eyes, queer and Christian didn't belong in the same sentence, and they didn't want the kids around us.
At the beginning of each summer, we were asked to sign a contract. I mean, if you didn't sign a contract, you didn't get hired, stating that we were not a homosexual or we wouldn't do any of the other sins high schoolers might do. So when they fired us for being gay, they got to say they fired us due to a breach of contract to protect themselves from being sued. Arkansans shouldn't have to worry about whether or not they'll be hired or fired due to someone's, and to quote the bill in front of you, sincerely held religious beliefs. Now, like most of the people sitting around this table or in this room or in the state of Arkansas, probably.
I grew up reading the Bible. So I know that in 1 Peter 4, 8, it says, above all, love each other deeply because love covers a multitude of sins. Whether or not you think being gay is a sin is moot, God has it written that love covers all of it. God calls Christians to love. Jesus wouldn't sit at a table queer people aren't welcome at because he loves all of his children, not just the straight ones, not just the gender-conforming ones. He loves all of them. And what this bill is doing is it is taking his religion and weaponizing it to justify Christian hate towards queer people.
Changing the protections in place, especially on the basis of religion, is wrong, and it will only hurt people. So with all that said, I urge you to vote no. Thank you. Thank you
for your testimony. I don't see any questions, but thank you for being here today. And the last person signed up to speak,
Speaker 62
46:46
Courtney Frierson. Good afternoon. Thanks for seeing me again. I'm Courtney Frierson.
I am a licensed social worker and an ASEC certified sex therapist and a therapist here in Arkansas. I'm going to make it brief because you have had a long day. I'd just like to ask a question. What are we doing here? I oppose this bill because it doesn't protect religious liberty. It expands the legal right to discriminate. Arkansas law already allows businesses and licensed professionals to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people. The Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 prohibits discrimination
based on race, religion, sex, and disability, but it does not include sexual orientation and gender identity. So right now, a therapist, a pharmacist, a teacher can legally refuse to serve someone for being gay. No law stops them. So what are we doing here? Why is this legislature spending more time to make it even harder to challenge? This bill goes further. It codifies one specific religious belief into state law, and it creates conflicts for professionals like me,
who are bound by ethical codes, two ethical codes, that require affirming, non-discriminatory care. So if my licensing board receives a complaint based on someone's religious disagreement with my inclusive care, who are they supposed to protect? Me or the complainant? That's a legal gray zone, and it's not theoretical. It's coming. Religious freedom is protected by the Constitution, but the First Amendment also protects us from religious coercion. When a state favors one belief system in licensing, education, and public service, that's not neutrality.
That's endorsement. This bill doesn't tolerate discrimination. It protects it. It's already happening. I see it in my personal life and my professional life. I urge you to reject House Bill 1615. Thank you, Ms. Frierson. I don't see
any questions. Thank you for being here today. That is all who we have signed up to speak for or against. Representative Lundstrom, you're recognized to come and close for your bill.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
49:07
Representative Lundstrom, you're recognized. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you for your time. I want to correct a couple of things. First of all, the marriage certificate, this was tried in Kentucky, where a clerk decided even though there were other willing participants that were willing to give the license, she denied the license. Over hundreds of thousands of dollars, now she is on the hook for failure to comply. So that is an important thing. And since this law has been enacted in other states,
there have been zero cases where someone's been denied, and when they have in that Kentucky case, they sure got it back to them. This bill is protecting freedom of speech and freedom of religion of all faiths. Every single person that came down here today would be protected under this bill as they should be. They have the right to believe as they choose to believe. They are my fellow Americans, and I will fight to protect every single right that they have. And with that, I would appreciate a good vote.
Members, Representative Lundstrom has closed for her bill. What are the wishes of the committee? As amended? We have a motion to do pass as amended on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? representing Clowney. You're recognized for
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
50:25
discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I just kind of want to start what I want to say here with something that one of the witnesses said today, Ms. Knoll, who I know and whose sweet daughter I love very much. She said, religious freedom is not under attack. I think the thing that really just has me concerned about this
particular bill is that I just don't under I don't believe that we have gotten an answer to the question who is being persecuted our job is to solve problems we heard today from nine people nine people who I believe this morning we heard that there were nine people signed up so nine people who stayed all day until we were ready to hear this bill to talk about the very real harm not only that they currently experience but the further harm that they would experience were this bill to become law. What we didn't hear was from one person. We heard a lot of abstract ideas
about religious freedom. We did not hear from one person who is for this bill who is currently being persecuted. Not one. I'm going to say this not because I am saying it with any judgment but because I think it needs to be on public record and it's hard if you're not in the room to know it. We know where this bill came from. It came from a special interest group who provided the legislation and who has been lobbying members on the bill. That needs to be known. What is our job
as a committee? Is it to vote out legislation that a special interest group is pushing when we have heard zero actual harm? Or is it to protect people who need our help? We heard from nine such people today that this bill is just further torture and codification of our stance that certain Arkansans are less than. We know that this bill will increase, not diminish, religious persecution. We heard it unanimously at the end of the table today. This bill helps
nobody. This bill hurts real Arkansans. If it helped somebody, we would have heard from them today, and we didn't, I encourage a no vote. Thank
you. Representative McCullough, you recognize for discussion? Thank you, Madam
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
52:50
Chair. I mean, I do believe that in the beginning when we talked about the general RFRA bill, that I do believe that that's been sufficient. We've had no incidences like this. But I really just want to be more common sense about this. When you're a law-abiding citizen in
in Arkansas, and you go to a government office, not a church, you go to a government office and ask for a government service for something such as a marriage license, which is a very meaningful time in someone's life. No matter which way you believe, the people that are getting turned away, if anyone's getting turned away, then there's something wrong here.
There's something wrong. No one's there to ask for an approval or a blessing. They are simply asking for a document that they should have the right to. I do agree with one of our witnesses that said at least if there was a sign you could keep your wedding day, I mean your marriage, going to get your marriage license, at least you could keep from having a horrible confrontation with somebody and having your day that should be happy, you could keep it from being ruined.
Just a legal service. There is no way that this bill is good for everyone. There is no way that this is freedom for everyone, and I'll be voting against. Members, any other discussion? Seeing no further discussion, we have a motion
on the table. All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. No. The ayes
have it. The motion carries. You have passed your bill. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you for your time. Members, we are at the end of our day.
I don't know that anybody sitting here has a bill that's one of these easy bills. Representative Beatty, do you think you have one? No? short. It's short. Okay. Members, here's the plan. We're going to hold up on Senate bills until next Tuesday because we'll have time to hear the Senate bills next Tuesday to work their way through. So Thursday, we have House bills and we have a lot of House bills. We're going to have to
work quickly. And I'm telling you that today, y'all worked quickly this morning. I don't want you to just push it through. If it's not good, let's defeat it and move on down the road. But the point being, we won't be coming back Thursday afternoon because I'm thinking I'm not going to get a quorum of y'all back if we get out at four or five o'clock on Thursday afternoon and not coming back on Friday. I'm just guessing your loyalty to House Judiciary ends when the House is gaveled out on Thursday.
I'm guessing that. So let's work very diligently. If not, the thing we'll have to take up Tuesday morning will be house bills and hope and pray that those folks can get them through to the end. And as you know, before we take off, those of you who sit on the committee, we're going to call those people that are not on the committee if they're in here to present their bill, so we may be the ones to get hung out. So let's be real careful about that, and let's work fastly. any questions on what the plan is.
Next Tuesday night, we may be here longer than 6 p.m., so just be prepared. We're going to get it done. We always do. With that, we are adjourned.
Agenda
CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT
HB1474 Joey Carr CONCERNING THE PREVENTION OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO REQUIRE THE DISPLAY OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE NATIONAL HUMAN TRAFFICKING HOTLINE.
REGULAR AGENDA
HB1504 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF MANUFACTURING, MODIFYING, SELLING, TRANSFERRING, OR OPERATING A ROBOTIC DEVICE OR AN UNCREWED AIRCRAFT THAT IS EQUIPPED OR MOUNTED WITH A WEAPON.
HB1615 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMINATION.
HB1663 K. Brown TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMONY FOR A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED AN ACT OF CIVIL OR CRIMINAL DOMESTIC ABUSE WHEN THE VICTIM WOULD BE THE PAYOR OF ALIMONY.
HB1664 K. Brown TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS AND OTHER TESTING IN AN INVESTIGATION INVOLVING ALLEGED ABUSE UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT.
HB1678 Long TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INCREASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE CIVIL PENALTIES.
HB1148 Vaught TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PRIVACY ACT; AND TO ADDRESS CERTAIN IMAGES CAPTURED BY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.
HB1752 Maddox TO EXEMPT CERTAIN SAVINGS PLANS FROM THE EXECUTION OF A JUDGMENT.
HB1754 Gonzales TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES.
HB1763 Underwood TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL USE OF A COMMUNICATION DEVICE DURING THE COMMISSION OF A HUMAN TRAFFICKING OFFENSE.
HB1764 Underwood AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION.
HB1765 Underwood TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DOMESTIC BATTERING IN THE THIRD DEGREE; AND TO AMEND THE OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION ENHANCEMENT BASED ON PRIOR ACTS.
SB302 Gilmore TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF GIFT CARD FRAUD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB314 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEXUAL SOLICITATION; AND TO AMEND THE PENALTIES FOR THE OFFENSE OF SEXUAL SOLICITATION.
SB375 Stone TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CAPITAL RAPE; AND TO AMEND A PORTION OF ARKANSAS CODE WHICH RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 3 OF 1936.
HB1780 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RETENTION OF PROPERTY RELATED TO A FELONY INVESTIGATION.
HB1815 Perry TO AMEND THE STATE'S JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL LANDS; AND TO RETAIN JUVENILE JUSTICE JURISDICTION BY THE STATE.
SB342 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN ANIMALS BY DOGS TO AUTHORIZE TREBLE DAMAGES.
HB1824 Duffield TO CREATE THE DOG AND CAT RESCUE ACT: DAISY'S LAW.
HB1829 Dalby TO AMEND THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; TO PROVIDE FOR REMOTE TESTIMONY IN CERTAIN INSTANCES IN A HEARING UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; AND TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT FOR A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAM.
HB1832 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND TO AMEND A RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION.
SB435 Irvin TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT UPON A HEALTHCARE WORKER; AND TO DEFINE "HEALTHCARE WORKER" REGARDING ASSAULT AND BATTERY.
SB446 Gilmore TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READER SYSTEM ACT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READERS BY PRIVATE LANDOWNERS, PRIVATE LEASEHOLDER, AND COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES.
HB1861 Duffield TO MAKE OPERATION OF AN ILLEGAL ONLINE CASINO OR SPORTS BETTING A FELONY; TO CREATE THE INTERACTIVE GAMING ACT AND TO INCLUDE NAME, IMAGE, OR LIKENESS DRAWING GAMES AND CASINO GAMING; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB364 Hester TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES RELATED TO CONTRACTORS.
SB313 Irvin CONCERNING FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND TREATMENT; AND TO PROMOTE AND IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES AND QUALITY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES.
HB1865 Vaught TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES AGAINST A CHILD.
HB1871 Gazaway TO REQUIRE A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR DEFENDANTS WHO REPEATEDLY VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THEIR PROBATION OR SUSPENDED SENTENCE.
HB1875 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE MANDATORY PERIOD FOR THE USE OF AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE.
HB1877 S. Meeks CONCERNING CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO POSSESSION OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL THAT DEPICTS A CHILD; AND TO INCLUDE A COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGE THAT IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE IMAGE OF A CHILD.
HB1885 Barnett CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER INVOLVED IN A DEADLY USE OF FORCE INCIDENT TO BE PLACED ON TEMPORARY LEAVE AND ATTEND THERAPY.
SB277 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PERMIT THE FILING OF A NEW UNIFORM PETITION TO SEAL A MISDEMEANOR VIOLATION OF THEFT OF PROPERTY AFTER TEN YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE THEFT.
SB457 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RELEASE FROM PAROLE OR POST- RELEASE SUPERVISION OF CERTAIN PERSONS WHO COMMITTED CRIMES WHEN THEY WERE UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN.
HB1648 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENTS; TO ALLOW A MEMBER OF A MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT BOMB SQUAD TO MAKE ARRESTS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1529 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL CREATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL; AND TO ESTABLISH A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNLAWFUL CREATION OF DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL.
HB1178 R. Scott Richardson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONTRACTING OF A MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SUMS COLLECTED BY DISTRICT COURTS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COST SHARING FOR DISTRICT COURT EXPENSES.
HB1057 R. Scott Richardson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY CERTAIN PERSONS; AND TO PERMIT THE RESTORATION OF THE RIGHT TO POSSESS A FIREARM TO A NONVIOLENT FELON.
HB1306 Furman CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP; AND TO PROVIDE CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR VOLUNTEER SECURITY PERSONNEL IN A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE- HOUSE, Apr 1, 2025 | Agenda | 4 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Carol Dalby Chair
Unverified
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
Speaker 5
Speaker 7
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
Speaker 25
Kirsten Sowell
Unverified
Speaker 34
Gail Choate
Unverified
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
Reverend Marie
Unverified
Speaker 45
Speaker 49
Speaker 53
Jp Tribble
Unverified
Natalie Nohienic
Unverified
Speaker 62
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified