Judiciary Committee- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (59)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB320
Act 518
· 9 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “can turn to Senate Bill 320. Uh,”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989. | Irvin | Notification that SB320 is now Act 518 |
|
HB1597
Act 456
· 5 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “…, and I move that we concur in Senate Amendment number 1 to House Bill 1597. We have a”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE OATH OF OFFICE. | Dalby | Notification that HB1597 is now Act 456 |
|
HB1835
Act 691
· 5 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “…you, Mr. Chair. Next, if we could turn to House Bill. 1835. House Bill 1835, uh, we have Judge Butch Hale here that I was glad he was a…”
|
CONCERNING SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS; AND TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING DRUG COURT, MENTAL … | Dalby | Notification that HB1835 is now Act 691 |
|
HB1838
Act 713
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…OURT, VETERANS COURT, AND DWI/BWI SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS. HB1838 Dalby TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROBATE ACTIONS; AND TO A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROBATE ACTIONS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ADOPTION AND … | Dalby | Notification that HB1838 is now Act 713 |
|
HB1839
Act 692
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ADOPTION AND GUARDIANSHIP. HB1839 Dalby TO AMEND THE PROCEDURES FOR THE DECLARATION OF LEGAL…”
|
TO AMEND THE PROCEDURES FOR THE DECLARATION OF LEGAL DEATH OF A MISSING PERSON. | Dalby | Notification that HB1839 is now Act 692 |
|
HB1844
Act 822
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1844 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF FLEEING BY…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF FLEEING BY MEANS OF A VEHICLE OR … | Tosh | Notification that HB1844 is now Act 822 |
|
HB1148
Act 597
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…GIBLE FOR THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. 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 |
|
HB1504
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE OATH OF OFFICE. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1504 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF MANUFACTURING, MODIFYING,…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF MANUFACTURING, MODIFYING, SELLING, TRANSFERRING, OR OPERATING A ROBOTIC DEVICE OR … | S. Meeks | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1615
Act 677
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NCREWED AIRCRAFT THAT IS EQUIPPED OR MOUNTED WITH A WEAPON. HB1615 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMINATION. | Lundstrum | Notification that HB1615 is now Act 677 |
|
HB1662
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…um TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMINATION. HB1662 B. McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTI…”
|
TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY. | B. McKenzie | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1663
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY. 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 … |
|
HB1678
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NG AND CASTRATION, STERILIZATION, OR MUTILATION OF A MINOR. 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 … |
|
HB1729
Act 679
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1729 R. Burkes TO AMEND THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ACT; AND TO PROV…”
|
TO AMEND THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ACT; AND TO PROVIDE THAT A HOMESTEAD OWNED BY A … | R. Burkes | Notification that HB1729 is now Act 679 |
|
HB1749
Act 680
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1749 M. Brown TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM TRUST DECANTING ACT.”
|
TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM TRUST DECANTING ACT. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1749 is now Act 680 |
|
HB1754
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MPT CERTAIN SAVINGS PLANS FROM THE EXECUTION OF A JUDGMENT. 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. |
|
HB1763
Act 682
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES. 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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EVICE DURING THE COMMISSION OF A HUMAN TRAFFICKING OFFENSE. 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 |
|
HB1765
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
HB1777
Act 683
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ARKANSAS CODE WHICH RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 3 OF 1936. HB1777 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD; AND TO INCLUDE … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1777 is now Act 683 |
|
HB1778
Act 832
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…BRIBE A CHILD IN THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD. HB1778 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF STALKING TO INCLUDE PLACING A PERSON … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1778 is now Act 832 |
|
HB1779
Act 833
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E DEFINITION OF COURSE OF CONDUCT WITH RESPECT TO STALKING. HB1779 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO THEFT OF PROPERTY; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO THEFT OF PROPERTY; AND ENHANCE THE OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION FOR … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1779 is now Act 833 |
|
HB1780
Act 684
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…S RESIDENCE AND LEFT WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF THE RESIDENCE. 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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE RETENTION OF PROPERTY RELATED TO A FELONY INVESTIGATION. 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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IES TO CERTAIN ANIMALS BY DOGS TO AUTHORIZE TREBLE DAMAGES. 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
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Duffield TO CREATE THE DOG AND CAT RESCUE ACT: DAISY'S LAW. 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 … |
|
HB1830
Act 689
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IDE OVERSIGHT FOR A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAM. HB1830 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE … | M. Shepherd | Notification that HB1830 is now Act 689 |
|
HB1831
Act 690
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EMENT OF CONTINGENCY FEE CONTRACTS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. HB1831 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF SETTLEME…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. | M. Shepherd | Notification that HB1831 is now Act 690 |
|
HB1832
Act 975
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1832 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND COU…”
|
TO AMEND THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE … | M. Shepherd | Notification that HB1832 is now Act 975 |
|
HB1848
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1848 Hudson TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN AWARD OF JOINT CUSTODY BETWEEN PARENTS … | Hudson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB314
Act 661
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…; AND TO RETAIN JUVENILE JUSTICE JURISDICTION BY THE STATE. 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 |
|
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 |
|
HB1033
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…MMERCIAL BUSINESSES. 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 … |
|
HB1057
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…REFUNDS TO BE SUBJECT TO GARNISHMENT BY JUDGMENT CREDITORS. 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 … |
|
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. |
|
HB1178
Act 993
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ON OF THE RIGHT TO POSSESS A FIREARM TO A NONVIOLENT FELON. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…MEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH DISCOUNT CARDS. 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 |
|
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: “…ROXYPROGESTERONE ACETATE TREATMENT FOR CHEMICAL CASTRATION. 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. |
|
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. |
|
HB1511
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS. HB1511 Beaty Jr. TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE … | Beaty Jr. | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1529
Act 827
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…D THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S SUBPOENA POWER. HB1529 S. Meeks AN ACT CONCERNING DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL OF A SE…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL CREATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL; AND … | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1529 is now Act 827 |
|
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: “…FENSES INVOLVING THE PETITIONER AS THE VICTIM. Page 3 of 4 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. |
|
HB1648
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…R SECURITY PERSONNEL IN A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP. 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. |
|
HB1655
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…FENSE OF UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL. 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. |
|
HB1668
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1668 Bentley TO CREATE THE VULNERABLE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT; AND…”
|
TO CREATE THE VULNERABLE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT; AND TO AUTHORIZE A CIVIL ACTION FOR SOCIAL … | Bentley | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1676
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…S UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. 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. |
|
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 |
|
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 agenda
Matched: “…HE LAW CONCERNING COST SHARING FOR DISTRICT COURT EXPENSES. 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: “…FICIENCIES AND QUALITY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES. 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. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
start in on, so if anybody in the audience is wondering where we are or how we're going about business. We have a concurrence, which is my concurrence, and since I'll be at the end of the table and my vice chair has bills. He needs to go run elsewhere. We're going to go ahead and move through my bills so that he can take the chair and then he can go and run his bills and then we'll, I have told Representative Tosh after I run my bills that he can run his because he has a special.
guest with him, and then we'll start in from there. So that's kind of our order.
Uh Representative Dalby, uh, you're recognized to present the concurrence for amendment on House Bill
1597. Thank you Mr. Chair. Members, 150 I mean 1597, you'll remember that was the passed out of here on the concerning the administration of oath of office. It was brought to our attention between um here in the Senate that we would be a good idea to add in there, uh, federal judges to give oaths and
retired federal judges, so we made that, um, addition down on the Senate end and I presented that amendment in the Senate in the Senate, they. adopted it and now I'm asking uh for us to concur in that, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions from
the committee? Seeing their questions, I don't believe we have anybody signed up to speak for or against Representative, you prepared to close for your concurrence? I
am close, and I move that we concur in Senate Amendment number 1 to House Bill 1597. We have a
motion to concur with the Senate amendment. Is there any discussion on the motion, saying none, all in favor, please say aye. I'll oppose. I have it. Congratulations. You
have concurred with the Senate amendment. Thank you. Uh, with the chair's permission, if we
can turn to Senate Bill 320. Uh,
you're reckon to present Senate Bill 320. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, I've mentioned this to you several times. This is the recodification of the juvenile code section. There is no substantive changes. This is
a work that came out of really about a 2 to 3 year process from, um, there is a committee over at the Supreme Court that has a number of different stakeholders. Justice Rhonda Wood chairs that committee, and this is the work of that committee. We kind of held it up because this is a Oh a 5. 100 page 400 page bill that I filed a 235 page amendment to that is engrossed and the reason why that was is BLR realized
that once it got run over on the Senate side, uh, that the numbers all didn't match up. So they've matched the numbers up and it is engrossed in the bill. I'll be happy to answer any questions and I have people here from, um, The administrative Office of courts, if you have any specific questions on Senate Bill 320. Are there any questions from the committee? Seeing no
questions, we have nobody signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Daley, are you ready to close for your bill? I am close for my
bill, and I would be remiss if I didn't also mention that um our, our lieutenant governor, uh, Leslie Rutledge also when she was attorney General, worked on, on this is very passionate about it. She wanted me to let the committee know that she was glad to see it, as is the Attorney General, our current Attorney General. So That I'm close and I make a motion that to do pass on Senate Bill 320. We have a motion to pass for Senate Bill 320. Is
there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. All opposed. I have it. Congratulations, you've passed your bill.
Thank you, members. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Next, if we could turn to House Bill. 1835. House Bill 1835, uh, we have Judge Butch Hale here that I was glad he was able to. come to the committee, I think most of you are familiar with Judge Hale and with the chair's permission, if you'll allow him
to come and sit beside me. Yes, absolutely, if you wouldn't mind, just, uh, for the record identifying yourself and Representative Dalby, you recognized to
present your bill when you're ready. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. I'm Butchell. I'm district judge of Sir Sherwood. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee, as you
well know, if you've been on this committee for any length of time, especially court legislation is something that, um, I often bring, I think it's a great way for judicial economy
in our system. This specialty court legislation of which Judge Hale sits on the special court advisory board. I think you still do, don't you? Um, and as well as I do and other members of the legislature and this. It is really, I would call it more of a cleanup type bill and I'm moving some things around and I'm just gonna go quickly through the sections, and then Judge Hale, if any of you want to get into the weeds, we can certainly get into that section
one of this bill is going to repeal one of the statutes providing for sealing a special court programs, graduate cases, it's being replaced by a stand-alone statute for record sealing for all specialty courts, and that's in section 7 of the bill. Section 2 is changing the names of the entity with authority to appoint 3 district court specialty court judges to the specialty court program. Uh, advisory committee because now our district judges are, are doing a lot more and as you
know, Judge Hale is a district judge, but we've now got the 70 state district judges and more of them are setting up specialty courts, so it's important that they're on the advisory. That's what section 2 is doing. Section 3 is repealing current statute allowing one specialty court judge to transfer participant supervision from his or her jurisdiction to another special court and that's being replaced. In Section 7 is a standalone. They'll still be able to transfer and that was important. We did that last session to
allow that transfer because people move, we want them to keep that program alive. It's a great thing and and we don't want them to get lost in the cracks, so that's why we allowed that transfer. Section 4 clarifies the attorneys serving a part-time capacity on behalf of the state may still enter into contracts with the AOC to provide defense counsel services for program participants. Those of you who have served on this committee are well aware that anybody that's in the specialty court program as a defense attorney assigned to
them. And so we're trying to make catch cast a wider net to have more folks available for defense attorneys, so that's what that section's doing. Section 5 is simply a technical cleanup. It includes a provision clarifying the definitions of pre-adjudication as it relates to specialty courts. Section 6 amends the comprehensive. Records Sealing Act to remove a provision excepting the Arkansas Drug Court Act from provisions of it. Section 7 creates this
new section of the comprehensive Records Sealing Act pertaining solely to specialty court programs. And the rest of it is the same as existing law. Section 7, as I mentioned earlier, is also providing a new statue address from the transfer a specialty court participants. Section 8 through 16 or technical changes in Section 16 specifically clarifies the, the BWI and the DWI treatment courts may utilize probation services as part of their treatment
programs. That is what the bill does, and we're here to answer any questions you may
have. Any questions from the committee, Representative McCullough, you're
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
8:42
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Representative Dalby on um on page 2, on line 35. Um, this is section 3, I think, where, where a domestic violence specialty court programs crossed out. And replaced with family treatment court program. Could you explain to me that change?
It's still the same. It is still
the same court. But it kind of widens what can come into that court. Domestic violence would still be there. All of those things, you know, we, we worked on that. at last session, you'll have to uh sessions run together, but I think it was last session that, that we put that specialty court in, but now we're calling it a family treatment court because there are a lot of things that come within that besides just domestic violence, but it does not, it's not getting rid of that, it's still there. Just a new name.
Any other questions from the committee? Seeing no other questions, the only individual we had signed up to speak for this bill was Judge Hale, so Judge, if you have anything you want to add. All right, that sounds good. Um, Uh, you're recognized to close for bill. I'm close for my bill
and I make a motion to do pass. We have a motion
to do pass any discussion on the motion? Seeing their discussion on paper, please say aye. All
opposed. I have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank
you, members of the committee and thank you, Judge Hale for coming today. May I be excused? Yes, you may. Thank you. Representative Dalby,
are you wanting to run? 1838 I think is the next one up, and if I could ask Judge Hirstfeld to come sit with me. Yes, absolutely. Thank you.
As Judge Hirstfield's coming, he's from Saline County, um. As uh I, I just want to say on the record I appreciate the work that our judiciary does, and these judges because, you know, they take time out of their dockets to serve on these special programs to look at things and so I did want it to be on the record how much we do appreciate them. They do, they're doing a lot, uh, with that, I, I
would, I guess you better identify yourself. Sure. Uh, good morning. I'm uh Judge
Speaker 36
11:04
Robert Hirstfeld. I'm a circuit judge from Saline County. I also to serve as the chair of the uh Uh, judicial council committee on domestic relations and probate and I also teach a class on probate at Bowen Law School. Members with that
on House Bill 1838. It is to amend the law concerning probate actions, men the law concerning adoption and guardianships, um.
This basically this bill is changing some terms, institution for treatment of mental or nervous diseases to mental health facility. So we're cleaning up some old language in this, um. The proposal, this bill is also striking redundant paragraphs while retaining the same opportunity for notices, uh. We are Getting rid of things like habitual drunkenness. That's not a word that we, we use in this point in time, so we're trying to simplify the language on
that, um, it's Dealing with some language on bonds and guardianship cases, some of which are typically overcomplicated and I would let Judge Hurstfield to explain what's going on in that realm and why we're trying to change that. Sure, related to the bonds, the current law in
Speaker 36
12:24
Arkansas is that bonds are possible but not required in guardianships and it and it references back to the decedents of estates part of the
law as far as how to handle that. However, when that was changed a few years back, all of the other extensive language on bonds, uh, remains in the guardianship statutes and it's and if you, if you don't know what you're looking at or you're looking at it for the first time. It's extraordinarily confusing and so we just took that. extraneous language out in the proposal to make it simple and clean, to make it, this is where you go and this is what you look for because if you try to read it straight through, it's, it's impossible to know what you're supposed to do.
So that's going to simplify that, which I think anybody who practices in this realm will be very grateful for. The second really big thing that I, that To me is a big item in here is how we're treating, uh. Adults who may need guardianships, giving them the same rights as a, as a minor, uh, and to have some clarification on how all of that can be done, and I would ask that Judge Hersfield speak to that part of the bill. Sure, a
Speaker 36
13:42
Arkansas Awards Bill of Rights gives and clarifies and gives special give special rights to define special rights for adults who need a guardianship. And right, and when you have a minor child who has other disabilities or other issues going on where they, where it would be convenient for the parents to uh and for the and obviously in the in the best interests of the ward for them to continue having a guardianship after they're no
longer a minor, uh, it's unclear in the current statutes, what procedures and notices they're entitled to. This would change and clarify the law to make sure that they get the same notices that they When they're turning 18 that they would if they were 35 or 55 or whatever, uh, to make sure that their rights are clear, that they have opportunities to understand, be presented with the information and also make sure that they know that because guardianships once they're open, they're, they stay open until they're no longer necessary, that they always have the
opportunity on their own or with an attorney to come back and ask the court for help. That
pretty much summarizes this bill and we'll be happy to answer any questions. Uh,
Representative Shepherd, you're correct in ask for
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
14:56
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, so my question relates to uh the provisions related to adoption that are thinking in the first couple pages and it looks like that um it's changing the requirement, um, that.
They miners, a child's consent is required if over 12, if over the age of 12 right now that can be provided by written consent. It looks like the, the, this would make it where the child has to appear in court to give their consent and I guess my my question relates to the second part of that is it, it states that the court may waive the requirement for the minor's consent. Upon a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the waiver is in the minor's best interest. Is that meant to be,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
15:45
they can waive the total requirement of consent or they can waive the requirement that the child actually appear in court to give consent.
Speaker 36
15:54
Thank, thank you for the question. I anticipated that. All of that is current law. The current law is that the person who is being adopted must appear in court unless they're excused by the judge. The reason I We put this in here is because there's two different statutes that relate to person
consenting, a child, a person 12 or older is required to consent unless there's a good reason for the court to say they don't, we don't need their consent. That is the current law. This does not change any of that. There's a separate statute that says it must be in writing. When you read them together. As you're supposed to, of course, because it's and in probate court, the Arkansas Supreme Court has said that they're strictly construed. It reads right now that a child or 12 year old or even an adult who's being adopted must appear
in court and and sign something in court. Which is extraordinarily awkward, especially when it's an agreed, agreed adoption. All this is doing is saying instead of having to sign it in front of the judge in court, they can do what would be natural and say of course I agree, this is wonderful. And so it does not change any substantive rights they are required by statute to be present anyway unless excused, uh, and, and so that. can appreciate where that might. be concerning, but it's not changing anything about that.
Speaker 48
17:21
It's just saying they don't have to sign it in front of the judge. Well, but
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
17:27
it does, I mean the process at least what what I've seen is that you would go ahead and have the minor consent, they would sign a written consent oftentimes that might be attached to the petition for adoption and then
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
17:36
they do have to, to appear in court, um, but I just wanted to be clear on what, what is actually required and what could potentially be waived, um, and so, uh, you've clarified that for me, so thank you. Representative Springer, did you have a question?
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
17:54
Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you all for being here. Uh, I, Representative Shepherd asked the question that I wanted to
ask. Thank you. Seeing no further questions from the committee, the judge was the only person we had signed up to speak on this bill, so having no one else, you're recognized to close for your bill. I'm close for on a bill
and make a motion to pass. We have a motion to pass
on the table a discussion of the motion. See no discussion, all in favor,
please say aye. All opposed. I have it. Congratulations, you passed
your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the
committee. And then the last bill we have from the judicial council this morning is House Bill 1839, if I may present that, Mr. Chair. You're recognized members 1839 is an act to amend the procedures for the declaration of a legal death of a missing person and for other purposes. And this is simply the summary of this is if a death certificate cannot be issued and there's no
BODY, not nobody, but no body. There are no established legal procedures in Arkansas determining the death of an individual outside of opening a full probate of an estate situations where having a legal procedure would be valuable for Arkansas citizens would include the distribution of a life insurance proceeds carrying out the pay on death provisions of financial institutions, those kinds of things. And so what this bill is, is, excuse me, with this bill is going to do is
it's using uh deleting Antiquated Arkansas statute regarding a person declaring errors outside of a will or appropriate legal action, uh, is in conflict with law and decedents of states, and so we're trying to get all that in line and with that, I would ask Judge Hersfield to explain further. Sure. uh, thank you, Representative Dalby. This is a very rare,
Speaker 42
19:48
rarely needed area of the law, but when you need it, you really need it. Um, I've been a probate judge
Speaker 36
20:00
for 16 years. Uh, I've had two cases, which is 2 more than many judges have ever had where there was somebody who was missing. It was relatively obvious that they were deceased, but there was no body, there was no death certificate and the family who needed the insurance proceeds and also there is a retirement account they were trying to Receive as would have been their due, did not have a procedure in Arkansas law. To seek relief and we created
for the for those cases, I Did it as closely as I could to the law, but I was out there on my own, um, and we ran publications, we did all the things that are effectively in here, but judges don't like Doing it on their own. We like to have clear guidance and so I spoke with the other probate judges. We referenced, I, I don't like going on my own. There may be other judges who do, um, and referenced other states, particularly Georgia and a few others in the area, uh, to come up with some clean, clear
procedures or any interested party would have the opportunity to Carry this out and it would give notice to anybody else. Uh, you know, for an insurance company, if the question is whether the person is deceased, they have the right to. Appear at the hearing and be notified of that and decide and make other arguments and so it's, it's a Like I said, a rare bill, a rare, a rare use, but when you need
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
21:24
it, you really need it. We'll be happy to entertain any questions.
Chair
Unverified
21:32
There was a you can ask for a question. This one's
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
21:38
really got me curious. So, so during World War II, we, we lost many, many Arkansans who were lost at sea, your body's blown to bits. So how have
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
21:46
we handled this when we clearly know somebody's dead, but there just is no body. Probably not very well. There, there are
Speaker 36
21:55
current statutes in the probate decedents Estate code where you can open the first, the first thing you do in any decedents
estate case generally speaking, is you, the judge makes a finding that someone is deceased. You do that with a death certificate in 99.999% of the cases, uh, previously, well, and if there was somebody in in lost in action, presumably there would be uh paperwork from the Department of Defense. If they're missing. And been missing for years, that is a real problem, and there is no easy solution until we have a good procedure. There are some
Old fashioned procedures you may have seen through the bill that are not adequate. They include sending a letter to their old address, uh, and the possibility of hiring a private detective and literally, I'm paraphrasing but literally calling the police. That's not good enough for for. Anybody to have have faith that it's good for their family and what's going on and, and obviously in something. Anybody who's trying to declare someone dead has gone through a tragedy and it's an ongoing tragedy, so bringing in some
finality, having clear procedures to make sure that people that, that assets move appropriately but also that if somebody is not deceased, it gives it. It, it's, I believe. A fair and clear and open way of finding out the truth and doing what's appropriate. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Any other questions from the committee? Say no other questions, uh. We
have nobody else signed up to speak for or against the bill.
Are you ready to close for bill? I'm closed. Make a motion do pass. We have a motion to pass. Any discussion on the motion, saying no all in favor, please say aye. I'll oppose. I have it. Congratulations, you're pastor Bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee.
Members, let's turn to House Bill 1844 representing Tasha is here and has a, a guest to come to the end of the table with him. We recognize the state trooper representing Tasha recognized to identify yourself and have your guest. They found themselves in your recognized to present your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Representative Wata District 38,
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
25:01
and with me at the end of the
table is Lieutenant Colonel Mike Kennedy, Deputy Director of Arkansas State Police. Colleagues. During the last session, I ran legislation that increased the penalty for fleeing from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class D felony. And I think all of us here in on this committee and probably in this room, you know, we watched the news and keep up with it and we realize that those that are
fleeing from police officers is reached an all-time high. According to the state police just last year alone, just for that agency that was over approximately 600 high speed pursuits. And you know, there's a campaign that's been put forth that uh the Arkansas State Police here in our great state that if you run from Uh, our state troopers that they are going to put you in the ditch and uh and in coordination with that, that the prosecutors
are going to put you in jail. They're going to prosecute. One of the things that we realized is when these individuals decide to flee from law enforcement officers. And they turned those 5 or 6 or 7000 pounds of steel, rubber, and glass into missiles. Their targets are any innocent person that is traveling down that highway, whether it be your spouse, your children, or whoever it may be. These people have total disregards for the safety and well-being for
others. But one of the tactics that uh That they've started using is, is right before the law enforcement officers as they're closing in on them and they're trying to get them off the highway is that they will exit that vehicle. And then when they do that, they are leaving a, a, uh, basically a missile now that's uncontrolled and unoccupied. So the law enforcement officers' first priority and that trooper's first priority has to be to get that vehicle off the
road because like I said, it's uncontrolled and they'll tell him. The word's going to end up. So, by the person evading or ex in the be here quite louds that individual in more time to be able to put distance between himself and the officer to be able to escape. So what we're doing with this legislation, we're simply enhancing the penalty. If you're fleeing, which, uh, is the bill that I ran during the last session, increased it to a Class D
felony. If you extend me here while it's still moving, we're going to enhance that penalty. And now that class D felony would be a class C felony, and that's what this bill does for those that exit the vehicle while it's still moving to try to evade and escape the officer. So with that, uh, I don't have
anything you want to add. That was a good summary. Thank you, sir. We'll leave it there. I
Chair
Unverified
28:03
answer any questions you might representing Collins you recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, um,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
28:11
I see here in this bill where you have it as a sea felony if it was under a certain subdivision of the section but
also a B or an A. What are the situations where it would be a B or
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
28:23
an A. OK, for an example, the bill that I ran last time, if you're fleeing and uh It's just exceeding the speed limit, you're not really, you know, passing on double yellow lines on the shoulder. That would be a class D felony. However, if you become extremely reckless to the point that you
are doing those things that I just mentioned where you're going down the wrong way on a one-way street or you are passing on hills or you're passing on WL lines in curves on the shoulder, etc. then that would be a class C felony. Then if there's injuries involved, then it moves up to. Class B felony. So that's a different classifications and if you fall into one of those categories in a high speed pursuit, and then you exit the vehicle or whatever it would have been originally before
that, if you exit that would raise that level of one classification.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
29:20
You need a follow up? Um, I'll take, yes, please, um, a follow up. So, OK, so and I'm
just refreshing myself on this, uh, on the current statute. So we already have something in there that if you injure somebody in the course of fleeing, then it's uh already a heightened class and so if you injure them, then by letting
the, the moving vehicle continue, I guess that's gonna be a double enhancement basically not necessarily, no, that's
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
29:50
what it says is, is that if they, if that causes an injury, it's still gonna fall under the classifications into current law now all this bill is doing is says if the driver exit that vehicle, if they exit the vehicle if it would if it was going to be a Class B or Class C felony if they exit the vehicle to evade arrest, then it's going
to be, uh, it'll go up one level which would increase it to the next classification of the felony. OK, thanks. Members, any other
questions? Seeing no further questions, the only person we had signed up was
at the end of the table already. So we welcome you always here, Representative Tasha recognized clothes for your bill. Um, Madam
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
30:34
Chair, I'm, I'm closed with the bill. I think this bill is extremely important. I mean, like I said, uh, this is getting to be a real issue, and I
applaud Arkansas State Police for getting these individuals off the highway as quickly as possible, and every time they try a new technique, we need to pass laws to counter that technique, and this law will do just, will do just that. And with that, I'm closed and I make a motion for do pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass on the
table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. All opposed say no. The eyes have it congratulations. You
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
31:16
have passed your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Committee members. Members, let's turn to House Bill 1848 Hudson, you recognized to go to the end of the table. present your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ashley Hudson, District 75. Colleagues,
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
31:47
House Bill 1848 is the exact same
bill that I presented previously on uh the uh presumption of joint custody and domestic violence situations. The reason that it has a new bill number is because I had an adventure in procedure, um, you may recall that we brought this twice, the first time I pulled it down, but there had been an amendment at that time. The amendment was inadvertently carried over. Um, but was not engrossed and so when we came to the end after it
passed the 2nd time, we had this amendment hanging out that no one could do anything about, um, and there was no way to strike it without um overcomplicating everything, so I just refiled a clean version of the bill, um, with the amendments put in that we that you all previously heard and passed and this is that clean version. Happy to answer any questions unless it's about procedure, in which case I don't want to get into it. Members, are there any questions? Seeing their questions, we
have no one who's signed up to speak
for or against the bill you're recognized close for your bill. Thank you, I'm closed and make a motion to pass. Members, we have a motion to pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion, seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed say no. I have it. Congratulations, you've passed the 2nd revised version of the first bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee.
Members, let's turn now to House Bill
1830 represented Shepherd going to the end of the table to present House Bill 1830. You'll identify yourself, you'll be recognized to present your bill. Thank you Madam Chair, with the chair's permission, I'd like for,
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
33:35
uh, Justin from the AG's office to join me here. Sure, Justin, we'll always welcome
you to our committee. You are recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Justin Brasher,
Speaker 88
33:44
senior assistant AG with the Arkansas AG's office.
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
33:52
You said 1830, yes, 1830. Members, this bill comes from the Attorney General's office, as you can see, it's Pretty short and straightforward, um, basically what is being done in this bill is eliminating the prohibition on contingency fees based on civil fines or penalties that may be awarded in litigation that the AG brings. Basically,
uh, the situation, the situation sometimes arises, particularly with uh some of the deceptive trade practices, litigation. the AG brings consumer protection type litigation that the AG brings, um. Oftentimes, This type of litigation is handled by larger national law firms, and this is pretty standard practice across the United States. The fact of the matter is it's litigation can be very expensive. We're talking
millions of dollars expended on the front end. Uh, in order to maintain, um, in, in order to maintain and successfully prosecute these actions. Well, the fact of the matter is with this prohibition in place, uh, it's becoming harder and harder to find law firms that are willing to take on these types of actions because it's getting to the point where they may not even be able to recoup their, their costs and expenses in the litigation. And so the attorney General's office is basically faced with, with a um
Decision to make, which would be uh to staff up the office to be able to handle these in-house, which is likewise probably cost prohibited because this litigate litigation, uh, oftentimes whether it's been related to uh foreign actors or otherwise, is very specialized. It's very time consuming. It's very expensive. And so if this were to be done in-house, uh, there would have to be many more attorneys hired. There would have to be a large amounts of money expended in order to, uh,
To pursue these actions. The other alternative, which has been the practice and I would say is also largely the practice across attorney General's offices across the United States is that you hire outside counsel and you enter into a contingency arrangement. And so this bill just allows uh removes that restriction, which should allow hopefully for uh the AG to continue to utilize law firms. that really have specialties in
these areas that can do so in a manner that with uh with, with it being a contingency arrangement, uh, no out of pocket to the state and with a better likelihood of success. I'd be glad to take any questions and likewise, uh, have a representative from the attorney General's office here today as well. Members,
are there any questions? Representing college, you recognized for a question. Thank
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
36:53
you, Madam Chair. Um, so Representative Shepherd, I guess, um, this concerns me a little bit because we're talking
about basing a contingency fee on the penalties or civil fines awarded, which I think again reminds me of a bill that we talked about last week where If we're For basing a fee on a penalty or civil fine, I think that's going to incentivize the outside council or potentially theoretically the Attorney General's office to seek higher penalties or fines to increase
the fee. Um, I'm not as worried about that for the Attorney General's office, but I would be a little bit concerned about an outside law firm, uh, operating under color of the Attorney General. Um, incentivize effectively to use government to get as high of a civil fine or penalty as possible. Can you address that, um, that particular issue, not about a contingency contingency fee in general, but about it being based on a percentage of a penalty or a civil fine. So I think there would be two points
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
38:04
to that. Number one, if we, if this prohibition remains in effect, there may not be, it, it may reach a point where the Attorney General is not able to take on cases to write. Wrongs that have been done to the citizens of Arkansas. And so first and foremost, that's what we're trying to address, but then secondly, you still have the attorney General who is overseeing this litigation and it was, would be the client is the state of Arkansas. The Attorney general is still very much involved in that litigation
and so you do have the benefit of having an attorney general. this attorney general and attorney generals in the future, who would be making sure that this is not utilized to Uh, in a way that is uh Overly punitive, although part of the point of of fines is to be is punishment, right? To, to punish for behavior that is contrary to the law, and then on top of that, you still have, you still have the litigation process, you still have judges
and potentially juries that ultimately are overseeing these matters and not to mention the right of appeal and so I think we have a number of layers that help protect against that, but I I guess I would go back to the to the main point, which is we're reaching, we are getting to a point where we may not be able to maintain these actions, and that would be to the detriment of the citizens of Arkansas. And just to add
Speaker 91
39:31
to that, thank you, representatives. There are 2 statutory caps that are still in place here. One is there is
still a statutory cap on every civil violation under the ATTPA that is found that $10,000 is still the cap on what that find that can be assessed is. That's not changing. Also, the percentage, the contingency fee that is negotiated in the agreement between the Attorney General's office and the outside counsel, the percentage that that fee can B is also not changing. There's, it's in the code, it's a sliding scale. It's pretty complicated. It ends up sitting somewhere
between 20 and 25% depending on the amount that's recovered, but that percentage is also not changing, so on top of what Representative Shepherd was talking about. There are those two statutory caps also in place in order to not incentivize the sort of behavior that you're referencing. Follow up,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
40:24
please. I understand that. I understand both your points, I guess I have two followers, but I'll first say in response to yours, to the civil
fine of $10,000 but isn't it true that you could have many
counts, and it would be more than $10,000. It could be millions of dollars based on how many counts, so I guess would you be concerned about the, the Incentive could still exist. It might not be seeking a higher
fine but more counts to increase the overall time. Thank you, Representative, and in reference to
Speaker 91
40:57
what Representative Shepherd said, we would still have to prove each one of those counts in court, a judge or a jury or whomever would still have to decide that whoever we were proceeding in
the action against actually committed those violations, and so, yes, it's $10,000 per count, and there are oftentimes more than one count or many counts, and that is currently the practice even right now, so that wouldn't. Necessarily change anything that's already going on, but yes, we can, we can seek more than one count. One more follow up. You're the only one in
the queue. You've got one more. I mean, representing Collins, you can beat a horse deader than
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
41:40
anybody I know, so go for it. I could just not ask a question if you would prefer. Um, all right. Representative Shepherd is no pressure,
no pressure. Isn't it true, Representative Shepard, that this, I mean, or is it not true? I don't know. Could it be structured in a way that didn't, you could allow a contingency fee, but you could still pay a flat fee or an hourly bill
fee as opposed to a percentage of what's recovered that would get rid of the incentive problem,
Speaker 48
42:12
but still allow contingency fees and allow them to pursue what they're trying to pursue. I mean,
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
42:19
I guess the, I, I contract could be ne go ti ated in a number of different ways, but I think that as a practical matter, what actually occurs in these instances is that you have law firms, a handful of law firms maybe in any particular uh given area, maybe just one law firm that really has the experience to efficiently, uh um litigate these, these cases and so uh the the challenge that we have and,
and I failed to mention, uh. What was also brought up is that there are a number of other statutes that exist that further constrain the recovery and the ability to pay a contingency fee and so this seemed like a fairly minimal change to be made to allow for the Attorney General to be able to enter into contingency arrangements that law firms actually would be willing to enter into, uh, because ultimately at the end of the day, if we're not able to,
there's going to be potential. violations of the ADTPEA, uh, that would go, uh. They would, they would be unanswered. I mean, if there's nobody to to represent or if it's cost prohibitive, uh, then the AG is not gonna be able to maintain those cases. Thank you. Any other questions? Representative Collins, are you good
with anything else you need? You could I, I know I poked at you, but do you need another question? OK,
you're good. All right, members, any other questions? Saying no further questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
43:53
the bill. You're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I failed to mention, I mean, this is a bill that comes from the Attorney General's office, but it also has the support of the governor as well, uh, based on the, the fact that we, that there are these uh challenges that exist in order to be able to to uh hire firms that can help the. to successfully litigate these issues, and with that, I'm
closed and we move do pass. Members, we have a motion to do
pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed say no. I have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill while I have you down at the end of the table. Let's turn to House Bill 1831 members House Bill 1831 representing Shepherd,
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
44:39
you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, this is a follow-up bill, um, that also comes from the Attorney General's office. This relates
to the use of settlement and you've seen that we include civil penalty funds. Uh, I think this has been an area where there's, it's been somewhat of a gray area, but when in looking at the other bill and kind of looking at at all the laws that uh potentially affect recoveries and particularly with regard to civil penalties, the thought was we wanted to clarify that and we wanted those funds. To be treated in the way um in, in consistent with how settlement funds are treated, uh, which is that they, um,
That the Well, ultimately we just include, we include the civil penalty recovery to the same extent and under the same laws as settlement funds, those funds ultimately are subject to quarterly report to legislative council, so the legislature has oversight and is able to keep track on what is going on and how those funds are being used, so it's a matter of clarity and also just consistency, uh, bringing it in line clearly with how settlement funds are, uh, received and handled.
Members, are there any questions? Seeing no questions from the committee, we have
no one who's signed up to speak for or against the billing Shepherd, you recognized clothes for your bill. Thank you,
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
46:02
Madam Chair. Likewise, uh, this bill comes from the Attorney General's office, has the support of the governor, again, just a matter of, of clarity and consistency and with that I'm closed and we move to pass. members, so we have a motion to do
pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion, seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye.
All opposed say no. The eyes have it. Congratulations you have passed your bill. Members at this time, I'm going to ask Representative Matt Brown. If you'll go to the end of the table, and members, if you'll turn to House Bill 1749. House Bill 1749 Representative Brown, you'll identify yourself, you'll be you're recognized to present House Bill 1749. Thank you, Madam Chair. And with your
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
47:01
permission, if I could have Caleb Pollinger, uh, join me at
the table. Sure. Welcome to the House Judiciary. If you'll identify yourself. We're ready to
Speaker 101
47:09
go. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Kayle Hollinger, and I'm a trust and estates attorney at the Friday Eldridge and Clark Law firm here in Little Rock. Crown
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
47:21
you recognize. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you committee, um. As y'all know, I'm an attorney, but this is probably a question where you're asking a surgical question to a podiatrist. That's why I've got the expert on trust here with me, um, this bill is to implement the Uniform Trust
Decanting Act, which has been brought to us by the uniform uh I I forget the name is the uniform law commissioners uniform mission on state laws, the same folks who bring us to UCC and other uniform laws that we've adopted in the state and all over the country and if we enact this law, I think we're number 16 or 17 on the list of adopting this law. Uh, when it comes to decanting, I know decanting is it's something that butlers do on British costume dramas, and they do the wine, but trust decanting I have learned is usually used in terms of where we have say a revocable, irrevocable trust
that cannot be changed because by its nature they cannot be changed, but there's some problem with the trust. Maybe there's a defect in it when it was drafted. Maybe something has happened such that the provisions of the trust really can't be carried out or implemented and so decanting is a process where we could take the assets of that trust and pour them into another trust that is set up to fix the problem or carry out the wishes of the settler of the trust and so this act gives us the, well, I think it's something you can argue in the common law in Arkansas, but this act gives us the guardrails of, hey, here are the rules by which
it will be done, and these are kind of the provisions that govern what you can and cannot do. And with that, I'll turn
Speaker 101
48:42
over to Mr. Hollinger to hopefully do a much better job of explaining this than I have. Thank you, Representative Brown, as Representative Brown mentioned, we do have a decanting Act in Arkansas. It was passed during the last legislative session, if you're wondering, you can find it at 2873818. And so what the UTDA will do. It's not going to supersede or supplant our existing law, whether it's another option for the trustee to decant an irrevocable trust.
Um, I'll highlight some of the briefly some of the key distinctions, um, that what, and really what you'll find with this trust is that individual trust These would probably prefer to use our existing act where corporate trustees, be it trust companies, banks, particularly with a multi-state footprint would prefer the UTDA because there are additional safeguards that are imposed, um, for example, notice, there's a notice requirement that if the trustee wishes to decant he or she or it must give notice to
all the beneficiaries, uh, and additionally, the UTDA sets forth a procedure for the trustee to petition. court or any beneficiary to approve or disapprove of the decanting, um, which is not in our existing act. But with that, um, happy, more than happy to answer any questions. Members, do we have any questions? Seeing no questions,
the only person we had to sign up was Caleb, and he's here with us. We have no one else who has signed up
to speak for or against the bill. Representative Brown,
you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
50:10
closed. I make a due pass motion. I appreciate a good vote. Members, we have
a motion to do pass on the table. Is there a discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor,
please say aye. Any opposed? Say no. The ayes have it congratulations. You have passed your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Representing guest wife, we're turning to you for House Bill 1777.
just Members, sorry for that delay, uh, Representative Lindstrom had a bill on our committee,
uh, agenda today, House Bill 1615 and uh due to the schedule that she's trying to run bills as we often happen in this late part of the session, uh, we're going to move House Bill 1615 to Tuesday, April the 1st. It'll be the first bill out of the box on Tuesday, April the first. So you
can mark that down and we'll do that. I apologize. it's a delaying Gasaway, you're recognized to present your first bill.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
52:26
Thank you, Madam Chair. State Representative Jimmy Gazzola, District
31. Colleagues, this bill, House Bill 1777 amends the sexually grooming of a child statute to include an additional course of conduct. Which would include bribing a child to engage in sexual intercourse, sexually explicit conduct or deviant sexual
activity. The current statute. provides for the course of conduct of disseminating to a child. sexually explicit material to essentially entice or induce the child to engage in sexual intercourse or some other sexually explicit conduct and this simply adds to the sexually grooming a child statute, another course of conduct, as I said, just a moment ago, bribing the child. To engage in that type of conduct. This is something that
I have seen in cases that I've personally prosecuted and so we define bribe as to offer or bestow any property gift or service or to withhold any property gift, good or service with the purpose of garnering acceptance, cooperation, or compliance in the purpose, the point there is. He is a if you're trying to bribe a child to get them to engage in Uh, sex that is should be a crime, and that's currently not in the law and so we're adding
it. That's all the bill does, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Members, do we
have any questions? Seeing their questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill representing Gassaway. You're recognized to close for your bill. Clothes for the bill. Make the motion to pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. And he opposed, say no. The eyes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill while I have you captured down at the end of the table representing
Gasway. Let's go to House Bill 1778. Members, if you'll turn to House Bill 1778. Thank you, Madam
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
54:37
Chair. Committee, State Representative Jimmy Gazaway District 31. This amends the stalking statute. To add Uh, in addition to placing a person in imminent fear of death or serious bodily injury to family or household member, we
add also placing a person in imminent fear of unwanted sexual intercourse or deviant sexual activity or other sexual contact or placing the person in imminent fear of unwanted sexual intercourse, a deviant sexual activity or other sexual contact against his or her family or household member. If a person is threatening someone that they're going to rape them or rape their family members, etc. And that will be a course of conduct under our stalking
statute. If this bill passes, uh, that would allow someone to be charged with stalking, so that's a What the bill does, and I'm happy to answer any questions members, any questions? Seeing their questions, we have
no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill representing Gasaway, you're recognized clothes for your pill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm closed to the bill.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
55:44
Make a motion to pass. Members, we have a motion to pass on
the table. Is there any discussion of the motion. All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The eyes have
it. Congratulations, you have passed House Bill 1778. Let's turn to House Bill 1779, members, if you'll go to House Bill 1779 representing Gasway recognize Thank you, Madam Chair. State
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
56:13
Representative Jimmy Gazaway, District 31. This is a a porch pirate bill, if you will. And I know that we have uh had bills for this specific
course of conduct in the past. However, uh, this bill came to us from Dan Shu. Many of you are familiar with him. Uh, the president, the prosecuting attorneys Association who's apparently is not here today, but what this bill would do is it amends the theft of property statute to add an enhancement. Uh, for the offense classification for theft of a postal package. So while we have already a statute that defines, uh, basically theft of a postal
package, a porch pirate statute, if you will. We add to the theft statute that if the Property that you take in the course of your theft is a postal package that will Uh, potentially subject you to, uh, an enhanced sentence. And so that's what the bill does. I'm happy to answer any questions. members
any questions? Representing colleges are recognized for a question. Thank you, ma'am.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
57:21
Sure. So, um, it looks like this is moving the theft of a postal package from A
D to C felony that's right, isn't it? I mean, I. That's correct. OK. Now, we did like you mentioned, we did do this recently. We, we increased it up to a de felony. I want to say maybe either 2 or 4 years ago, um, so I guess if the idea is that that enhancement has not or that increase of the penalty is not successfully deterred the behavior. Why do we think that increasing it again is going to deter the behavior as opposed to
another approach. Rather than just more penalties. Yeah, I'm not sure that deterrence
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
58:04
is necessarily the goal here, from what I've been told this is to help law enforcement
with stings. Apparently, they, uh, you know, where there's kind of rampant theft of postal packages, law enforcement has set up stings to catch some of these people that engage in that activity, and they want the uh I guess the ability to enhance the penalty.
don't know. I mean, maybe that has a deterrent effect, but OK. That's what I understand the purpose
to be members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill representing Gao. You're recognized the clothes for your bill. Thank
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
58:45
you, Madam Chair. I'm closed to the bill. Make a motion to
pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass on House Bill 1779 Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The eyes have
it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. All right, members, let's turn to House Bill 1780. House Bill 1780 represented Gassway, you recognized to. Present
House Bill 1780. Madam Chair, before we begin, I seem to recall there may have been
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
59:17
an amendment on this. Is that an amendment that's been sent to the committee, or is it? I'm not sure it may have already been engrossed.
OK, I'm being asked to hold this one because there is an amendment and apparently that's not been delivered yet. OK, well
then we'll, we'll move this one to April the first. OK, thank you. I believe members on the committee that
takes care of the bills, I think that's all you
have represent Gasway, I think. Unless I'm missing something, is there anything you see that I'm missing? I had the license plate reader
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:00:07
bill, which is a Senate bill, but we can come back and do that another day if we need to.
Listen, I tell you what we've got, we've got some non-members here to run a couple of bills and let's take them up
and then if we have time, we may bring that one up if, if the committee's good with that. Members who you'll turn to House Bill 1662, we have
Representative McKenzie in the room. McKenzie, if you'll go to the end of the table, identify yourself, you'll be recognized to present House Bill 1662. Britt McKenzie, State Representative, District 7,
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:00:41
Rogers, Arkansas. Um, hello, Judiciary Committee. I hope this is the first and last time I'm in front of you this session. I'm here to present we are warm and fuzzy group, you know it's a very serious regal and august body. I try not. No, you're fine. um. I'm here today to present, uh, 1662, um, this is a, a measure
craft as part of the governor of Governor Sanders' pack of legislation organized to protect our natural state from the encroachment of the CCP and the People's Republic of China. This bill was written with careful consideration to protect the integrity of our legislative process, lobbying, as as we all recognize is a protected exercise of the First Amendment, a vital form of political speech that allows individuals and organizations to petition their government. But like most of other types of political speech, it is not limitless. It is subject to reasonable regulation to safeguard our democratic institutions, the rights
enshrined in our Constitution, including speech, are all guarantees for uh for those who reside in our country and our and of our citizens. Uh, across our state and nation we have long established protections within political, legislative, educational and research research functions to shield them from undue influence by foreign entities. This bill aligns with the practice, uh, addressing a specific vulnerability in our system while respecting the foundational principles we hold bare, so two columns what this bill does and what it doesn't
do. Uh, 1662 makes it clear, makes a clear and targeted step. It prohibits lobbying on behalf of a covering forward entity. This bill defines that covered for entity as an individual, foreign government or party listed on the US Consolidated screening list for or entity list, domiciled in nations like the People's Republic of China or the Russian Federation. Under their influence, control, or operating as their subsidiaries. Uh, this is not a vague or overbroad category. It zeros in on those entities with documented ties to adversarial foreign powers that could
undermine our state's interests. This bill establishes a straightforward, straightforward rule. No person receiving monetary benefit for lobbying can do so on the behalf of these covered foreign entities to enforce enforce this, it sets graduated penalties. I won't go into that in the exercise of time there uh pretty clearly listed as well as escalated from 1st to 3rd offense. These penalties are designed to deter violations while ensuring accountability, protecting Arkansas from foreign influence
peddling in our legislative halls. I want to be. clear on what this bill does not do. It is not an outright lobbying ban, far from it. It preserves the rights of individuals, businesses, and organizations within Arkansas and the United States, as well as other foreign countries to engage in lobbying as a legitimate form of political expression. This legislation does not infringe upon the First Amendment rights of our citizens or residents. It does not target domestic entities or restrict their ability to advocate for their interests, nor does it impose blanket prohibitions on foreign nationals or entities engaging in non-lobbying activities such as public
advocacy or dealings that don't involve paid influence over our legislative process. The bill's scope is narrow and precise. It does not create a dragnet to penalize innocent interactions with foreign parties. It says it focuses solely on paid lobbying efforts tied to specific foreign entities. Um, I'll just, uh, I'll end there and we can open up for questions. Members, any questions? Representing college, you recognized
for a question. Um, thank you, Madam Chair. So I
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:04:06
mean, I think you said at the outset that lobbying is a protected First Amendment activity,
um, you know, generally speaking, people who are in this country, even if they're not citizens are entitled to constitutional protections. Um, I, I guess what is it that you feel like justifies the abridgment of speech for individuals who are here and I and And if we can cast aside. One constitutional amendment's
protection. Why not cast aside all constitutional amendments of protection, I, you know, I guess where's the line to
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:04:42
be drawn here? Um, I appreciate the question
Representative Collins. It's a nice tie. I wanted, wanted to do two things here. So money is speech as we know through this CU versus FEC decision, so I'm glad that we can agree on that point. Um, we can't walk into a movie theater and yell fire. There are limits, absolutism of our our our core fundamental protection. do have reasonable limits. Those
limits exist to protect the welfare of our people. So that's in the instances where we've seen um uh either Supreme Court decisions or existing jurisprudence. It's within limits for the exigent need or health, safety, and welfare of the people. The CCP, the People's Republic of China, is a is a known adversary. We've seen the other packet of bills that are targeting other things that they're doing, not only seed production at our our land grant institutions, uh, use of promotional items to infiltrate information technology system. the threat of the CCP and their
reach into our state government is real and them being listed on our entity list, which is the the federal designation list has not changed, and they are a foreign adversary. So allowing for their companies that that do have the golden share rule, which I don't know if you're familiar is any company that is um licensed, I believe is the term, because you know we organize or we form our businesses, they license their businesses, gives a golden share. To the party the party control. That party, that party control
has ultimate say on the decisions of those underlying businesses. That's been made abundantly clear in the the bite dance, um, TikTok scandal that we've seen the CCP has that ultimate control. The divestment has not occurred, um, so. That party can control those businesses licensed out of Beijing in our, in our, in our country.
Therefore, we should be able to regulate how they affect our legislative process. You're recognized. But
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:06:33
here, and I understand that there are exceptions to the First Amendment for exigent
circumstances, can't yell fire, etc. but here your, your standard to deny someone their speech is who they are and
anything they say in the, you know, context of lobbying our government would be Forbidden. And so I believe, I mean, if it's based on the person who the person is, how is that not discrimination based on viewpoint because, you know, it limits to this person as opposed
to the emergency content of what
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:07:15
they might be saying and I'm, I'm not as well schooled as our chairwoman Dalby or yourself in terms of having a bar card, but viewpoint discrimination, I think requires a few more um um. Specific instances of which the right is being infringed. Political speech is not being taken away. Political speech through organized lobbying is going to be regulated. Viewpoint would also be that uh immutable characteristic affiliation with
the CCP isn't immutable characteristic. It is their characteristic. They opt in. They have a knowing and willing alignment to their party government. The government's party, so I, I understand and respect. I do think we have. Some fundamental disagreements. I don't believe this rises to the level of viewpoint discrimination. I think this is a healthy
regulation on an already regulated form of our our political speech. Thank you. Representative Hudson, you're recognized
for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh,
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:08:14
Representative McKenzie, I'm, I'm struggling a little bit with your,
your definition of the entities that would be considered a covered foreign entity which seems to include or does include subsidiaries. Um, and would include subsidiaries that are wholly owned and run in the United States, um, likely, you know, with boards that are made up primarily of US citizens whose employees work in the United
States, um, and, and are excluded simply because there may be some investment from somebody in the in China, um, how do you square that with also trying to balance the constitutional rights of those. individuals It comes to, I mean, it's a,
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:09:01
it's again political speech is regulated currently. We even if they, if this bill weren't to go
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:09:07
into effect, their speech is currently regulated and limited. What we're saying now is that because of again a tie, a specific tie that uh again you
say subsidiary, I say American form or American recognized organization that has roots or has its origin in a foreign country that is an adversary that is on our entity list that we know to be. Um, under the influence of the CCP through the golden share that the party requires on companies
that are formed out of China for a follow up. Thank you. And, and, and, you know, I appreciate
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:09:39
that and, and, um, you know, I, I, I do have a bar card. I didn't get mentioned in it, but, but I'm sure, um, and I wanted to mention that
only because when I tell you that this is the very definition of viewpoint discrimination, it is because what you're saying is that these lobbyists or these employees or these really contractors, um, are having their speech policed and prohibited simply based on the fact that they are disfavored. It has nothing to do with the content of their speech. It has nothing to do with the context of their speech. It is simply because they are, according to
you, um, speaking on behalf of an entity that you have disfavored, which is under Citizens United, the very definition of viewpoint discrimination. And so I, you know, my question is, how do you believe that we pass this and don't find ourselves in an immediate constitutional quandary, given the fact that we are discriminating against these speakers based upon their viewpoint and given the fact that these are not, these are not Chinese nationals. These are American citizens who we are
telling we're going to criminalize their speech as which they're making as part of their job. A
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:11:01
lot of questions packed in at the end there, and I apologize
for not recognizing your bar card, but I would say that, and again I don't believe Citizens United viewpoint was the main takeaway. It was the existence of speech money equating to speech. Um, so I think like, uh, I forget the exact SOA's decision was it McCalla, which was the, the standard bearer on Viewpoint. I
think it's set up actually a few more standards in which this would be considered for viewpoint to be considered, uh. uh, a French or infringed. Um, we regulate this speech currently. We regulate how much they make. We regulate how they make it. We regulate the way in which they make it. They cannot have contingent-based um uh contracts with these entities. What we're now saying is that we recognize what the federal government has declared that that the companies who may be a subsidiary who take their orders from or at the direction of the
CCP are a foreign adversary do pose an imminent and exigent. threat to our people, and it's incumbent upon us to not let them sully our legislative process, so. Thank you for
the question Represent Springer, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair,
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
1:12:13
and I do not have a bar card. You and me both. I wanted to make sure I understood that you, did I understood understand you to say that this would be monitored this monitoring activities would
be monitored and my, I guess my question would be, by
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:12:32
whom and how Ethics commission is currently the administrative state
that that um Uh, I guess would investigate or observes our lobbying registration currently lobbyists have to register. I think Secretary of State actually facilitates the, the official registration, but the ethics commission is ultimately what is what the investigatory
or um administrative body of our registered lobbyists. Follow up. Recognized. Is there anyone here
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
1:13:00
from the ethics commission, I don't see anyone in the room. So, so who, who, so the ethics commission is going to have complete control on how this is going to be monitored and reported, is what you're saying. No, what
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:13:15
I'm saying is that they are currently responsible for investigating, um, any violations of our ethics statutes relevant relevant to lobbying, um, and I don't know if you're aware, but there have typically it's by reported. So who like um they can monitor.
I'm not saying they've got a guy behind a desk, you know, constantly watching people's movements or activities or bank. accounts, but often this is the, the interpersonal. It's, I understand so and so is working for an entity, uh, they aren't on their current registration list. I'm going to make a uh a um send a note to
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
1:13:50
the ethics commission. Follow up last one, so this is gonna be
based then on persons making reports to the ethics commission and and yeah, I don't speak for the
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:14:00
ethics commission. I'm saying that they do monitor. They're the administrative arm of the lobbying. administration and then others do make
recommendations or notices to them. Well, I
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
1:14:09
guess I'm not, I'm not quite understanding how the ethics commission is going to monitor this. OK, thank you.
Representative Gasway, you're recognized for a question. OK,
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:14:20
so I'm just really trying to understand this, uh, so my understanding is the bill applies only to Entities that are Uh
Controlled by, influenced by the People's Republic of China or the Russian Federation. Is that right? Uh,
the CCP and PRC are technically different and these the PRC is the government, the CCP is the the the party. OK,
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:14:44
so both correct and the Russian Federation. No other foreign entity, not as defined in here. We have other foreign entity definitions that we often use, um, Axis of evil list. I, I mean we've used them in different bills. It's just these two currently, OK, and then. Let's say
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:14:59
that there is a company, TikTok, for instance,
does business in the United States, correct. For now. I understand, but for now they are doing business in the United States. Uh, they do have policy concerns in the United States. And they need someone to. Navigate those issues for them here, so they hire a lobbyist. Would this prohibit them from hiring a lobbyist or would this just impose additional registration and reporting
requirements on them with the ethics commission. You've probably
already answered this, but I'm just trying to get
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:15:40
some clarity. The former in a different way, it would, it would inhibit an individual lobbyist from taking TikTok as a client. Obviously, the law captures all of us. Who is it relevant to is the is the differentiator. This law defines those entities that we now are going to regulate and then it enforces on those entities on the people
that are going to contract with them. So a person who is contracting with them to represent them in lobbying
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:16:06
activities, for instance, what will they have to do if this bill passes? Not work for them. OK, they just will not be
able to work for them as written in the bill, correct? OK, that's what I was trying to get fair enough. OK, thank you. Members, any other questions?
Seeing no further questions, we have one individual who signed up to speak. for the bill, Sherry Watson, Watson in the room. Not seeing Miss Watson, we have no one else who's signed up to
speak for or against representing McKenzie, you recognized clothes for your bill. Thank you, Chairwoman. In
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:16:41
closing, I urge you to support House Bill 1662 as a prudent and necessary measure. Lobbying remains a significant part of our democratic process, a protected use of our First Amendment in political speech, but it is not an unbounded privilege. Just as we regulate campaign contributions, disclosure requirements, and other forms of political engagement, we can and must regulate lobbying to prevent exploitation by foreign entities. Our constitution rights, including speech, our sacred promises to our citizens
and residents, not carte blanche for foreign governments to manipulate our system. We already protect our elections, our universities, our research institutions from foreign interference, extending that protection to lobbying as a logical and consistent step. This bill strengthens Arkansas sovereignty, preserves the integrity of our legislative process and ensures that the voices shaping our laws are those of our people, not foreign adversaries. I respectfully ask for a favorable consideration and a vote. With that, I'm closed. Members represent McKenzie is
closed for bill. What's the wishes of the committee? I have
a motion to pass on the table, is there a discussion of the motion. All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The eyes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Thank you, members, we now turn to House Bill 1729, Representative Burke she recognized comes to the end of the table and present House Bill 1729. If you'll identify yourself and
have your guest identify himself, you'll be recognized to present your bill. Thank you,
Representative Rebecca Burkes
Unverified
1:18:16
Madam Chair. Rebecca Burke, District 11, Lowell, Arkansas. Madam Chair, my
Speaker 145
1:18:20
name is Adam Flock. I'm a partner with the law firm of Reese Moore Pendergraph. Welcome
Chair
Unverified
1:18:26
to House Judiciary. Representative Burke, you're recognized. Thank you and thank you for allowing me to present
Representative Rebecca Burkes
Unverified
1:18:31
House Bill 1729 to amend the Homestead Exemption Act. I'm thankful to be joined by business and estate planning tax attorney Adam Flock with the law
firm of Reese Moore Pendergraph to help with the bill. The bill's designed to extend the homestead exemption to a home owned in a limited liability company under current law, certain types of property, including Homesteads are exempt from bankruptcy in certain judgments. The purpose behind this policy is to allow individuals who are struggling financially to maintain their home and other certain assets while they work to get a fresh start. Courts in Arkansas are clear that the Homestead Exemption Act is to be construed liberally in favor of a homeowner because of the easy
access to online property records, some people might prefer to own their home in an LLC for privacy reasons in Arkansas, if you own your home in your own name or in the name of a trust. where you are the trustee, it is very easy to look up where you live. Domestic abuse victims, target individuals such as prosecutors or judges or law enforcement might want privacy from these online records and owning the home in an LLC affords them this opportunity. You might also recall that last session we passed a law allowing
individuals who own their home in an LLC to take advantage of the homestead tax credit. However, under current law, if they choose to do this, they lose the homestead. exemption in the event of a bankruptcy or other certain judgments, and that's why we need House Bill 1729. With that, we're happy to answer any questions. Members, are there any
questions? Representative Collins, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and um,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:20:04
I mean this makes sense. It seems like it's in keeping with what we did last session. I did
want to, sorry, just turn to the side. Um, I did want to ask, is there anything in here or in current law that would prevent. A member from taking multiple homesteads under this exemption, I mean, just to prevent that abuse, which is obviously not the intent. You have to demonstrate under
Representative Rebecca Burkes
Unverified
1:20:27
the Homestead Exemption Act that it is your home, so, so you, you can't not have more than one home in under the homestead exemption Act. Would you like to add anything? Sure, yes, um, Representative
Speaker 149
1:20:42
Collins, that's correct. So, you know, this is part of the creditor protection bill, so as part of that, they would have to prove that this is actually their primary. residents the same, they would have
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:20:53
to do for tax purposes when they go to sell that home. OK, so either one more follow up please, um, either member would be entitled if it's a two-member LLC and they're a married couple. Either member would be entitled to the protection they could both theoretically make the same proof of residency and then if they for some reason
were being separately pursued, they could both make the same showing that they had the same home, and that would be. allowed under this. Correct. OK. Thanks. Members, any
other questions? Seeing no additional questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. You recognized clothes for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am closed. Members see Burt's closed for Bill with the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to do pass. Is there any discussion of
the motion to pass, seeing no discussion, all in favor of the
motion, please say aye. Any opposed, say no. The eyes have it, congratulations, you have passed your bill. Thank you very
much. Members, we are at the end of our list representing Gassways indicated that he does have a quick amendment coming over on House Bill 1780. Um You think they'll be here fairly quickly because I've got several members that are getting ready
to bolt to head to another committee. Uh told
Speaker 155
1:22:19
her For introduction and she had Well, I
tell you what, it's a, it's a simple amendment. Let's push this over to April the
first, and you can engross it that way and then we want her to take it up as an amendment. Will that work? OK, members with that, we have, believe it or not, worked through our list. Thank you so much. We have a lot left on our list. We're not going to come back after session today, but let me give warning
Tuesday, expect to come back after session on Tuesday. We've got uh We've got a House member bills that we've got to get through on Tuesday or they're not going to have a chance probably to get through and we've got a growing list of Senate bills. First, not the, he's reminding me Tuesday, April the first, Kobe's worried that I'm trying to come back for spring break, and he doesn't want to sit here with his spring break. So with that, thank you so much for your
Agenda
CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT
HB1597 Dalby TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE OATH OF OFFICE.
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.
HB1662 B. McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY.
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.
HB1668 Bentley TO CREATE THE VULNERABLE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT; AND TO AUTHORIZE A CIVIL ACTION FOR SOCIAL TRANSITIONING AND CASTRATION, STERILIZATION, OR MUTILATION OF A MINOR.
HB1678 Long TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INCREASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE CIVIL PENALTIES.
SB320 Irvin TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989.
HB1729 R. Burkes TO AMEND THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ACT; AND TO PROVIDE THAT A HOMESTEAD OWNED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
HB1148 Vaught TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PRIVACY ACT; AND TO ADDRESS CERTAIN IMAGES CAPTURED BY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.
HB1749 M. Brown TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM TRUST DECANTING ACT.
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.
HB1777 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD; AND TO INCLUDE BRIBING OR ATTEMPTING TO BRIBE A CHILD IN THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD.
HB1778 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF STALKING TO INCLUDE PLACING A PERSON IN FEAR OF SEXUAL ACTS; AND TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF COURSE OF CONDUCT WITH RESPECT TO STALKING.
HB1779 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO THEFT OF PROPERTY; AND ENHANCE THE OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE THEFT OF A POSTAL PACKAGE DELIVERED TO A PERSON'S RESIDENCE AND LEFT WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF THE RESIDENCE.
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.
HB1823 Duffield TO ESTABLISH THE DISRUPT EXPLICIT FORGED IMAGES AND NONCONSENSUAL EDITS ACT OF 2025; AND TO CLARIFY THE RIGHTS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL AFFECTED BY NONCONSENSUAL ACTIVITIES INVOLVING INTIMATE DIGITAL FORGERIES.
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.
HB1830 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE PROCUREMENT OF CONTINGENCY FEE CONTRACTS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
HB1831 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
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.
HB1835 Dalby CONCERNING SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS; AND TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING DRUG COURT, MENTAL HEALTH COURT, VETERANS COURT, AND DWI/BWI SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS.
HB1838 Dalby TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROBATE ACTIONS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ADOPTION AND GUARDIANSHIP.
HB1839 Dalby TO AMEND THE PROCEDURES FOR THE DECLARATION OF LEGAL DEATH OF A MISSING PERSON.
HB1844 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF FLEEING BY MEANS OF A VEHICLE OR CONVEYANCE; AND TO INCREASE THE PENALTY FOR A PERSON WHO JUMPS FROM A MOVING VEHICLE OR CONVEYANCE WHILE FLEEING.
HB1848 Hudson TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN AWARD OF JOINT CUSTODY BETWEEN PARENTS IS IN A CHILD'S BEST INTEREST WHEN THERE IS DOMESTIC ABUSE.
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.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE- HOUSE, Mar 20, 2025 | Agenda | 4 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Carol Dalby Chair
Unverified
Representative Kendon Underwood Chair
Unverified
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
Speaker 36
Speaker 42
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 48
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
Speaker 77
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
Speaker 88
Speaker 91
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
Speaker 101
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
Representative Rebecca Burkes
Unverified
Speaker 145
Speaker 149
Speaker 155