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
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 8, 2026
Today, here's going to be the order of what we're going to 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 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. Thank you.
Representative Dalby, you're recognized to present the concurrence for an amendment on
House Bill 1597. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, 1597, you'll remember that was passed out here concerning the administration of oath of office. It was brought to our attention between here and the Senate that it would be a good idea to add in their federal judges to give oaths and retired federal judges. So we made that addition down on the Senate end, and I presented that amendment in the Senate.
They adopted it, and now I'm asking for us to concur in that, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Are there
any questions from the committee? Seeing no questions, I don't believe we have anybody signed up to speak for or against. Representative Dalby, are you prepared to close for your
concurrence? I am closed, and I move that we concur in Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1597. We have a motion
to concur with the Senate Amendment. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? The ayes have it.
Congratulations. You have concurred with the Senate Amendment. Thank you. With the Chair's permission,
if we can turn to Senate
Bill 320. You're recognized 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 two- to three-year process. 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 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, 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 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
Dolly, 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 our Lieutenant Governor, Leslie Rutledge, also, when she was Attorney General, worked 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 with that, I'm closed, and I make a motion to do pass on Senate Bill 320. We have a motion to
do pass for Senate Bill 320. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? The ayes 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. 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. Judge Hale, if you wouldn't mind, just for the record, identifying yourself. And Representative Dalby, you're recognized to present your
bill when you're ready. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm Butch Hale, District Judge of 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, specialty court legislation is something that 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 Specialty Court Advisory Board, I think you still do, don't you? Yes, I still do. And as well as I do and other members of the legislature. and this is really, I would call it more of a cleanup type bill and moving some things around
and I'm just going to 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 specialty court program's graduate cases. It's being replaced by a standalone 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 three district court, specialty court judges
to the specialty court program advisory committee because now our district judges 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 a participant's supervision from his or her jurisdiction to another specialty court,
and that's being replaced in Section 7 as 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 we don't want them to get lost in the cracks, So that's why we allowed that transfer. Section 4 clarifies that 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 has a defense attorney assigned to them. And so we're trying to 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 Record Sealing Act to remove a provision accepting 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 statute addressing the transfer of specialty court participants. Section 8 through 16 are technical changes, and Section 16 specifically clarifies 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 Tippi McCullough
Unverified
8:37
Representative McCullough, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Dalby, on page 2, on line 35, this is section 3, I think, where a domestic violence specialty court program is crossed out and replaced with family treatment court program. Could you explain to
me that change? 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 worked on that last session. You'll have to, sessions run together, but I think it was last session 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. That sounds good. Representative Dalby, you're recognized to close for your bill. I'm closed for my bill, and I
make a motion to do pass. We have a motion to do
pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? The ayes have it. Congratulations. You passed your bill. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. 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 Hurstville to come sit with me. Yes, absolutely. Thank you. As Judge Hurstville's coming, he's from Saline County. As 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're doing a lot. With that, I would, I
Speaker 36
10:58
guess you better identify yourself. Sure. Good morning. I'm Judge Robert Hurstfeld. I'm a circuit judge from Saline County. I also serve as the chair of the 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, amend the law concerning adoption and guardianships. 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. The proposal, this bill is also striking redundant paragraphs
while retaining the same opportunity for notices. We are getting rid of things like habitual drunkenness. That's not a word that we use in this point in time, so we're trying to simplify the language on that. It's dealing with some language on bonds and guardianship cases, some of which are typically overcomplicated, and I would ask Judge Hurstville to explain what's going on in that realm
Speaker 36
12:16
and why we're trying to change that. Sure. Related to the bonds, the current law in Arkansas is that bonds are possible but not required in guardianships, and it references back to the decedents of states 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 remains in the guardianship statutes, and 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 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 to me is a big item in here is how we're treating adults who may need guardianships, giving them the same rights as a minor,
and to have some clarification on how all of that can be done. And I would ask that Judge Hirschfield speak to that
Speaker 42
13:32
part of the bill. Sure. A few years back, y'all
Speaker 36
13:37
passed the Arkansas Wards Bill of Rights, clarifies and gives special rights, it defines special rights for adults who need a guardianship and when you have a minor child who has other disabilities or other issues
going on where it would be convenient for the parents and obviously in the best interest of the ward for them to continue having a guardianship after they're no longer a minor, 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, 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 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. Representative Shepard, you're recognized for
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
14:51
our question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So my question relates to the provisions related to adoption that are, I think, in the first couple pages.
And it looks like that it's changing the requirement that a child's consent is required if over the age of 12 Right now, that can be provided by written consent. It looks like this would make it where the child has to appear in court to give their consent. And I guess my question relates to the second part of that is 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 they can waive the total requirement
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
15:40
of consent or they can waive the requirement that the child actually appear in court to give consent? Thank you
Speaker 36
15:49
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 we put this in here is because there's two different statutes that relate to a person consenting.
A person 12 or older is required to consent unless there's a good reason for the court to say 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 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 sign something in court, which is extraordinarily awkward,
especially when it's an 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. And so I can appreciate where that might be concerning, but it's not changing anything about that. It's just saying they don't have to sign it in front
Speaker 48
17:17
of the judge. Well, but it does, I mean, the process, at least what
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
17:22
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 they
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
17:31
do have to appear in court. Right. But I just wanted to be clear on what is actually required and what could potentially be waived. And so you've clarified that for me. Sure. So thank you. Representative Springer, did you have
a question? Good morning, and thank you, Mr.
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
17:51
Chair, and thank you all for being here. I, Representative Shepard, asked the question that I wanted to add.
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, Representative Dalby, you're recognized to close for
your bill. I'm close for a bill and make a
motion do pass. We have a motion do pass on the table. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? The ayes 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, B-O-D-Y, 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 life insurance proceeds,
carrying out the pay on death provisions of financial institutions, those kinds of things. And so what this bill is, excuse me, what this bill is going to do is it's using a deleting antiquated Arkansas statute regarding a person declaring errors outside of a will or appropriate legal action 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 Hirschfield to explain further. Sure. Thank you, Representative Dalby.
Speaker 42
19:45
This is a very rare, rarely needed area of the law. But when you need it,
Speaker 36
19:51
you really need it. I've been a probate judge for 16 years. I've had two cases, which is two 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 was 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 those cases I did it as closely as I could to the law but I was out there on my own 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 don't like going on my own there may be other judges who do
and referenced other states, particularly Georgia and a few others in the area, to come up with some clean, clear procedures where any interested party would have the opportunity to carry this out and it would give notice to anybody else, 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 make other arguments. So it's a, like I said, a rare bill, a rare
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
21:19
use, but when you need it, you really need it.
Chair
Unverified
21:24
We'll be happy to entertain any questions. Representative Andrew, you're
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
21:33
recognized for a question. This one's really got me curious. So during World War II, we lost many, many Arkansans who were lost at sea or bodies
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
21:41
blown to bits. So how have we handled this when we clearly know somebody's dead, but there just is no body?
Speaker 36
21:50
Probably not very well. There are current statutes in the probate decedent's estate code where you can open.
The first thing you do in any decedent's estate case, generally speaking, is the judge makes a finding that someone is deceased. You do that with a death certificate in 99.999% of the cases. Previously, well, and if there was somebody lost in action, presumably there would be 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. it. They include sending a letter to their old address and the possibility of hiring a private detective and literally, I'm paraphrasing, but literally calling the police. That's not good enough for anybody to have faith that it's good for their family and what's going on. 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 some finality, having clear procedures to make sure that people, that assets move appropriately, but also that if somebody is not deceased, it gives it, it's a, 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? Seeing
no other questions, we have nobody else signed up to speak for against the bill.
Are you ready to close for your bill? I'm closed. Make a motion to do pass. We have a motion to do pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. All opposed? The ayes have it. Congratulations. You passed your
bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. Thank you.
Members, let's turn to House Bill 1844, Representative Tosh is here and has a guest to come to the end of the table with him. We'll recognize the state trooper. Representative Tosh, you're recognized to identify yourself and have your guest to identify themselves, and you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
24:57
I'm Representative Dwight Tosh, District 38. And with me at the end of the table is Lieutenant Colonel Mike Kennedy, Deputy Director, 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 on this committee and probably in this room, you know, we watch the news and keep up with it.
And we realize that those that are fleeing from police officers has reached an all-time high. According to the state police, just last year alone, just for that agency, there was over approximately 600 high-speed pursuits. And, you know, there's a campaign that's been put forth that the Arkansas State Police here in our great state, that if you run from our state troopers, that they are going to put you in the ditch.
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've realized is when these individuals decide to flee from law enforcement officers and they turn those 5,000 or 6,000 or 7,000 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 they've started using 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 basically a missile now that's uncontrolled and unoccupied. So the law enforcement officer's 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 where it's going to end up. So by the person abating or exiting the vehicle, it allows that individual 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 is the bill that I ran during the last session, increased it to a Class D felony,
if you exit that vehicle while it's still moving, we're going to enhance that penalty, and now that Class D felony will 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, Colonel, do you have anything you want to
add? That was a good summary, Kevin. Thank you, sir. We'll leave it there. All right, we'll leave it there.
Chair
Unverified
27:58
I'm going to answer any questions you might. Yeah, Representative Collins, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
28:05
So I see here in this bill where you have it as a C 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
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
28:18
B or an A? Okay, for example, the bill that I ran last time, If you're fleeing and 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 double yellow lines in curves on the shoulder, et cetera, then that would be a class C felony. Then if there's injuries involved, then it moves up to a Class B felony. So that's the different classifications. And if you fall into one of those categories in a high-speed pursuit and then you exit the vehicle, whatever it would have been originally before that, if you exit, that would raise that level of one classification.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
29:12
You need a follow-up? I'll take, yes, please, a follow-up. Okay, so I'm just refreshing myself
on this, on the current statute. So we already have something in there that if you injure somebody in the course of fleeing, then it's already a heightened class. And so if you injure them then by letting the moving vehicle continue, I guess that's going to be a double enhancement, basically.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
29:43
No, not necessarily. No, that's not true. What that does, Counselor, what it says is that if that vehicle causes an injury, it's still going to fall under the classifications into current law now. All this bill is doing, it says if the driver exits that vehicle, if they exit the vehicle, if it's going to be a Class B or Class C felony, if they exit the vehicle to evade arrest, then it's going to go up one level, which would increase it to the next classification of the felony.
Okay, 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
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
30:29
Tosh, you're recognized to close for your bill. Madam Chair, I'm closed with the bill. I think this bill is extremely important. I mean, like I said, 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 that. And with that, I'm closed and I make a motion for a due 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. Aye. All opposed, say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations. You have passed your bill.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
31:12
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee members.
Members, let's turn to House Bill 1848, representing Hudson. You're recognized. Go to the end of the table.
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
31:37
Present your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ashley Hudson, District 75. Colleagues, House Bill 1848 is the exact
same bill that I presented previously on the presumption of joint custody in domestic violence situations.
The reason that it has a new bill number is because I had an adventure in procedure. 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, but was not engrossed. And so when we came to the end, after it passed the second time, we had this amendment hanging out that no one could do anything about. And there was no way to strike it without overcomplicating everything.
So I just refiled a clean version of the bill 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 no
questions, we have no one who has 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 do pass on the table. Is there a discussion of the motion?
Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you've passed the second revised version of the first
bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Committee.
Members, let's turn now to House Bill 1830. Representative Shepard is going to the end of the table to present House Bill 1830.
If you'll identify yourself, you'll be recognized to present your bill. Thank you, Madam
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
33:30
Chair. With the Chair's permission, I'd like for Justin from the AG's office to join me.
Sure. Justin, we'll always welcome you to our committee. You are recognized. Thank you,
Speaker 88
33:39
Madam Chair. Justin Brasher, Senior Assistant AG with the Arkansas AG's office. Did you say 1830? Yes, 1830.
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
33:53
Okay. Members, this bill comes from the Attorney General's office. As you can see, it's
pretty short and straight forward. 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 the situation sometimes arises particularly with some of the deceptive trade practices,
litigation that the AG brings, consumer protection type litigation that the AG brings, 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 this litigation can be very expensive. We're talking millions of dollars expended on the front end in order to maintain and successfully prosecute these actions.
Well, the fact of the matter is, with this prohibition in place, 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 costs and expenses in the litigation. And so the Attorney General's office is basically faced with a decision to make, which would be to staff up the office to be able to handle these in-house, which is likewise probably cost-prohibited because this litigation, oftentimes whether it's been related to 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, there would have to be many more attorneys hired. There would have to be large amounts of money expended in order 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, removes that restriction, which should allow, hopefully, for the AG to continue to utilize law firms that really have specialties in these areas that can do so in a manner that, with it being a contingency arrangement, no out-of-pocket to the state, and with a better likelihood of success.
I'd be glad to take any questions, and likewise have a representative from the Attorney General's office
here today as well. Members, are there any questions? Representative
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
36:48
Collins, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Representative Shepard, I
guess 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 basing a fee on a penalty or a civil fine, I think that's going to incentivize the outside counsel or potentially, theoretically, the Attorney General's office to seek higher penalties or fines to increase the fee. 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 operating under color of the attorney general
incentivized effectively to use government to get as high of a civil fine or penalty as possible. Can you address that particular issue, not about a contingency fee in general, but about it being based on a percentage of a penalty or civil fine? So I think there would be
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
38:00
two points to that. Number one, if this prohibition remains in effect, it may reach a point where the attorney general is not able to take on cases to right 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 who would be the client as 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 in a way that is overly punitive, although part of the point of fines is punishment, right, to punish for behavior
that is contrary to the law. And then on top of that, 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 guess I would go back to the main point, which is 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.
Speaker 91
39:25
And just to add to that, thank you, Representative, there are two 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. The $10,000 is still the cap on what that fine 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 be is also not changing.
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 Shepard 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.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
40:19
Follow-up, please. Certainly. I understand that. I understand both your points. I guess I have two follows, but I'll first say, in response to yours,
so the civil fine of $10,000, 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 incentive could still exist? It might not be seeking a
higher fine, but more counts to increase the overall fine. Thank you, Representative. in reference
Speaker 91
40:52
to what Representative Shepard 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 seek more than one count. One more follow-up? You're the only one
in the queue. You've got one more. Okay. I mean, Representative Collins, you can beat a horse
deader than anybody I know, so go
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
41:38
for it. Or I could just not ask a question if y'all would prefer. All right. Representative Shepard, isn't it true,
Representative Shepard, or is it not true? I don't know. Could it be structured in a way that you could allow a contingency fee, but you could still pay a flat fee or an hourly billed fee
as opposed to a percentage of what's recovered? That would get rid of the incentive problem, but still allow contingency fees and allow them
Speaker 48
42:09
to pursue what they're trying to pursue.
I mean, I guess a contract could
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
42:14
be negotiated 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 given area, maybe just one law firm that really has the experience to efficiently litigate these cases. And so the challenge that we have, and I failed to mention 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 because ultimately, at the end of the day, if we're not able to, there's going to be potential violations of the ADTPA
that would go, they would be unanswered. I mean, if there's nobody to represent or if it's cost prohibitive, then the AG's not going to be able to maintain those cases. Thank you. Any other questions? Representative Collins, are you good with
anything else you need? You good? I know I poked at you, but do you need another question? Okay, you're good. All right, members, any other questions? Seeing no further
questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for against the bill.
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
43:46
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 based on the fact that there are these challenges that exist in order to be able to hire firms that can help the state to successfully litigate these issues. And with that, I'm closed and would move 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. Aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes 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, Representative
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
44:34
Shepard, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a follow-up bill 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. I think this has been an area where it's been somewhat of a gray area,
But in looking at the other bill and kind of looking at all the laws that 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, consistent with how settlement funds are treated, which is that they, well, ultimately, 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 counsel, 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, bringing it in line clearly with how settlement funds are 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 bill. Representative Shepard, you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
45:58
Likewise, this bill comes from the Attorney General's office, has the support of the governor. Again, just a matter of clarity and consistency. And with that, I'm closed and would move 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, please say aye. All opposed, say no. The ayes 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, if you'll identify yourself, you'll be recognized to present House Bill 1749. Thank you, Madam Chair. And with your permission,
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
46:56
if I could have Caleb Hollinger join me at the table. Sure. Welcome
to the House Judiciary. If you'll identify yourself, we're ready to go.
Speaker 101
47:05
Thank you, Madam Chair. And members of the committee, my name is Caleb Hollinger, and I'm a trust and estates attorney at the Friday Aldridge & Clark Law Firm here
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
47:16
in Little Rock. Rep. C. Brown, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. As you 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. This bill is to implement the Uniform Trust Decanting Act, which has been brought to us by the Uniform Law Commissioners, Uniform Commission on State Laws, the same folks who bring us to the 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. When it comes to decanting, all I know about decantings, it's something that butlers do on British costume dramas, and it's something to do with wine. But trust decanting, I have learned, is usually used in terms of where we have, say, a irrevocable trust that cannot be changed because by its nature that 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 already do under 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.
Speaker 101
48:37
And with that, I'll turn it 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 decanning act in Arkansas that was passed during the last legislative session. If you're wondering, you can find it at 2873-818. And so what the UTDA will do, it's not going to supersede or supplant our existing law.
Rather, it's another option for the trustee to decant an irrevocable trust. I'll highlight just briefly some of the key distinctions. And really what you'll find with this trust is that individual trustees 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. 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. And additionally, the UTDA sets forth a procedure for the trustee to petition the court or any beneficiary to approve or disapprove of the decanting, which is not in our existing act. But with that, I'm 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,
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
50:05
Madam Chair. I'm closed. I make a do-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. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations. You have passed your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Committee. Representative Gassaway, we're turning to you for House Bill 1777.
Thank you. Sorry for that delay, Representative Lundstrom had a bill on our
committee agenda today, House Bill 1615.
And due to the schedule that she's trying to run bills, as we often happen in this late part of the session, 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 1st. So you can mark that down and we'll do that. I apologize for the delay. Representative Gasolay, you're recognized to present your first bill. Thank
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
52:21
you, Madam Chair. State Representative Jimmy Gasolay, 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 devious 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, of 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. And the point there is, is if you're trying to bribe a child to get them to engage in sex that 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 no questions, we have no one who has
signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Gassaway, you're recognized to close for your bill. Close for the bill. Make a motion to 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. Aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. While I have you captured down at the end of the table, Representative Gasway, let's go to House Bill 1778. Members, if you'll turn to House Bill 1778. Thank you,
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
54:32
Madam Chair. Committee, State Representative Jimmy Gasway, District 31.
This amends the stalking statute to add, in addition to placing a person in imminent fear of death or serious bodily injury to a 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. That will be a course of conduct under our stalking statute if this bill passes that would allow someone to be charged with stalking. So that's what the bill does and I'm happy to answer any questions. Members, any questions? Seeing no questions, we
have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Gassaway, you're recognized
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
55:38
to close for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm closed
for the bill. Make a motion to do pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is
there any discussion of the motion? All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes 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 Gassaway, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
56:09
State Representative Jimmy Gassaway, District 31. This is a porch pirate bill, if you will, and I know that we have had bills for this specific course of conduct in the past. However, this bill came to us from Dan Shue. Many of you are familiar with him, the president of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association, who apparently is not here today. But what this bill would do is it amends the theft of property statute to add an enhancement for the offense classification for theft of a postal package.
So while we have already a statute that defines 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 potentially subject you to an enhanced sentence. And so that's what the bill does. I'm happy to answer any questions. Members,
any questions? Representative Collins, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
57:14
Thank you, Madam Chair. So it looks like this is moving the theft of a postal package from a
D to a C felony. That's right, isn't it? That's correct. It's just a strike and move. Okay. Now, we did, like you mentioned, we did do this recently. We increased it up to a defelony, I want to say, maybe either two or four years ago. So I guess if the idea is that that enhancement has not, or that increase of the penalty has 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
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
57:59
more penalties? Yeah, I'm not sure that deterrence is necessarily the goal here. From what
I've been told, this is to help law enforcement with stings. Apparently, 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 ability to enhance the penalty.
I don't know. I mean, maybe that has a deterrent effect, but that's what I understand the purpose to be.
Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Gasly, you're recognized to close for your bill.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
58:40
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm closed for the bill. Make a
motion to do 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 ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. All right, members, let's turn to House Bill 1780. House Bill 1780, Representative Gassaway,
you're recognized to present House Bill 1780. Madam Chair, before we begin, I seem to
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
59:12
recall there may have been an amendment on this. Is that an amendment that's been sent to the committee, or is it... It's not. It may have already been engrossed.
Okay, I'm being asked to hold this one because there is an amendment, and apparently that's not been delivered yet.
Okay, well then we'll move this one until April the 1st. Okay, thank you. All right, I
believe members on the committee that takes care of the bills.
I think that's all you have, Representative Gasway, I think, unless I'm missing something. Is there anything you see that I'm
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:00:02
missing? I have the license plate reader bill, which is a Senate bill, but we can come back
and do that another day if we need to. I'll tell you what, 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 the committee's good with that. Movers, if you'll turn to House Bill 1662, we have Representative McKenzie in the room.
Representative 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 Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:00:36
Representative, District 7, Rogers, Arkansas. 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. Oh, now, we are a warm and fuzzy group. No, it's a very serious, regal and august body. I try not to touch the subject matter. No, you're fine. I'm here today to present 1662. This is a measure crafted as part of Governor Sanders'
packet 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 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 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 those who reside in our country and of our citizens.
Across our state and nation, we have long established protections within political, legislative, educational, and research functions to shield them from undue influence by foreign entities. This bill aligns with the practice 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. 1662 makes a clear and targeted step. It prohibits lobbying on behalf of a covered forward entity. This bill defines that covered forward entity as an individual, foreign government, or party listed on the U.S. consolidated screening list or entity list,
homiciled in nations like the People's Republic of China or the Russian Federation under their influence control or operating as their subsidiaries. This is not a vague or overbroad category. It zeroes in on those entities with documented ties to adversarial foreign powers that could undermine our state's interest. This bill establishes a straightforward rule. No person receiving monetary benefit for lobbying can do so on the behalf of these covered foreign entities. To enforce this, it sets graduated penalties. I won't go into that in the exercise
of time. They're pretty clearly listed as well as escalated from first to third offense. These penalties are designed to deter violations while ensuring accountability, protecting Arkansas's 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 business 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 focuses solely on paid lobbying efforts tied to specific foreign entities. I'll end there, and we can open up for questions.
Members, any questions? Representative Collins, you're recognized for
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:03:59
a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I mean, I think you said at the outset that lobbying is a protected
First Amendment activity. You know, generally speaking, people who are in this country, even if they're not citizens, are entitled to constitutional protections. I guess, what is it that you feel like justifies the abridgment of speech for individuals who are here?
And if we can cast aside one constitutional amendment's protection, why not cast aside all constitutional amendment's protection? You know, I guess where's the line to be drawn here? I appreciate the
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:04:37
question, Representative Collins. It's a nice tie.
I 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. We can't walk into a movie theater and yell fire.
There are limits. Absolutism of our core fundamental protections do have reasonable limits. Those limits exist to protect the welfare of our people. So that's in the instances where we've seen 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 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 land-grant institutions,
use of promotional items to infiltrate information technology systems, 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 federal designation list, has not changed, and they are a foreign adversary. So allowing for their companies that do have the golden share rule, which I don't know if you're familiar as any company that is licensed, I believe is the term, because we organize or we form our businesses.
they license their businesses, gives a golden share to the party control. That party control has ultimate say on the decisions of those underlying businesses. That's been made abundantly clear in the ByteDance TikTok scandal that we've seen. The CCP has that ultimate control. The divestment has not occurred. So that party can control those businesses licensed out of Beijing in our country. Therefore,
we should be able to regulate how they affect our legislative process.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:06:28
Follow up, please. You're recognized. But here, and I understand that there are exceptions to the First Amendment for exigent circumstances, can't yell fire, et cetera, but here, your standard to deny someone
their speech is who they are, and anything they say in the 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 they might be saying.
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:07:10
And 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 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 a mutable characteristic affiliation with the CCP isn't an immutable characteristic. It is their characteristic. They opt in. They have a knowing and willing alignment to their party government, their government's party. So 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 political speech. Thank you. Representative
Hudson, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:08:08
Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative McKenzie, I'm struggling a little
bit with your definition of the entities that would be considered a covered foreign entity, which seems to include or does include subsidiaries and would include subsidiaries that are wholly owned and run in the United States, likely with boards that are made up primarily of U.S. citizens whose employees work in the United States.
um, and, and are excluded simply because there may be some investment, um, from somebody in the, in China. Um, how do you square that with also trying to balance the constitutional rights of those individuals? It, I mean, it's
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:08:56
a, it's, again, political speech is regulated currently. We, even if they, if this
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:09:02
bill weren't to go into effect, their speech is currently regulated What we're saying now is that because of, again, a tie, a specific tie that, again, you say subsidiary, I say 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 under the influence of the CCP through the
golden share that the party requires on companies that are formed out of China.
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:09:33
you recognize for a follow-up. Thank you. And, you know, I appreciate that. And, you know, I do have a bar card. I didn't get mentioned in it, but I do. 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 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, 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 Chinese nationals, these are American citizens who we are telling we are going to criminalize their speech, which they're making as part of their job? A lot of questions
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:10:56
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.
So I think, like, I forget the exact SCOTUS decision. Was it McCullough, which was the standard bearer on viewpoint? I think it set up actually a few more standards in which this would be considered, for viewpoint to be considered. infringed. 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 contracts with these entities. What we're now saying is that we recognize what the federal
government has declared, 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. Representative
Springer, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair, and
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
1:12:08
I do not have a mark hard. You and me both.
I wanted to make sure I understood that you, Did I understand you to say that this would be monitored, this monitoring activities would be monitored? And I
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:12:27
guess my question would be by whom and
how? Ethics Commission is currently the administrative state that I guess would investigate or observes our lobbying registration. Currently, lobbyists have to register. I think Secretary of State actually facilitates the official registration, But the Ethics Commission is
ultimately what is what the investigatory or administrative body of our registered lobbyists.
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
1:12:52
Follow-up. You're recognized. Is there anyone here from the Ethics Commission? I don't see anyone in the room. So the Ethics Commission is going to have complete control on how this is going to be monitored and reported, is what you're
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:13:10
saying? No, what I'm saying is that they are currently responsible for investigating. any violations of our ethics statutes relevant to lobbying. And I don't know if you're aware, but typically it's by reported.
So they can monitor. I'm not saying they've got a guy behind a desk who's constantly watching people's movements or activities or bank accounts, but often this is the interpersonal. It's I understand so-and-so is working for an entity. They aren't on their current registration list. I'm going to make a, send a note to
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
1:13:45
the Ethics Commission. Follow-up. You're recognized. Last one. So this
is going to be based then on persons making reports to the Ethics Commission.
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:13:54
Part and part. Yeah, I don't speak for the Ethics Commission. I'm saying that they do monitor. They're the administrative arm of the
lobbying registration, and then others do make
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
1:14:04
recommendations or notices to them. Well, I guess I'm not quite understanding how the Ethics Commission is going to
monitor this. Okay, thank you. Representative Gasway,
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:14:15
you're recognized for a question. Okay, so I'm just really trying to understand this. So my understanding is the bill applies only to entities that are controlled by, influenced by the People's Republic of China or the Russian Federation.
Is that right? The CCP and PRC are technically different. The PRC is the government. The CCP is the party.
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:14:39
Okay, so both. Correct. And the Russian Federation. Correct. No other foreign entities. Not as defined in here. We have other foreign entity definitions that we often use. Access of Evil List, I mean, we've used them in different bills. It's just these two currently. Okay.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:14:54
And then let's say that there is a company, TikTok, for instance, does business in the United States.
Correct. For now. And I understand, but for now, they are doing business in the United States. 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
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:15:35
trying to get some clarity. The former, in a different way, 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 differentiator. This law defines those entities that we know are going to regulate, and
then it enforces on the people that are going to contract with them. So a person who's
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:15:58
contracting with them to represent them in lobbying activities, for instance what will they have to do if this bill passes not work for them okay they just will
not be able to work for them as written in the bill correct okay that's what i was trying to get okay thank you
members any other questions seeing no further questions we have one individual who signed up to speak for the bill sherry watson is watson in the room not seeing ms watson we have no one else who has signed up to speak for or against. Representative McKinsey, you're recognized. Close for your bill.
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:16:36
Thank you, Chairwoman. In 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 constitutional 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 is 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. that I'm closed. Members, Representative McKenzie is closed. For
bill, what's the wishes of the committee? If a motion do pass on the table, is there any discussion of the motion? All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. No. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Thank you,
committee. Members, we now turn to House Bill 1729. Representative Birch, you recognized to come 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
1:18:11
Madam Chair. Rebecca Burks, District 11, Lowell, Arkansas.
Speaker 145
1:18:15
Madam Chair, my name is Adam Flock. I'm a partner with the law firm of
Chair
Unverified
1:18:21
Reese, Moore, Pendergraf. Welcome to House Judiciary. Representative Burke, you're recognized. Thank you, and thank you
Representative Rebecca Burkes
Unverified
1:18:26
for allowing me to present 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 Pendergraft to help with the bill. The bill is 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, high 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 see 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
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:19:59
for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I mean, this makes sense. It seems like it's in keeping with
what we did last session. I did want to, sorry, let's just turn to the side. 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
Representative Rebecca Burkes
Unverified
1:20:22
not the intent? You have to demonstrate under the Homestead Exemption Act that it is your home. So you can't
not have more than one home under the Homestead Exemption Act. Would you like to
Speaker 149
1:20:35
add anything? Sure, yes. Representative 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 to do for tax
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:20:48
purposes when they go to sell that home. Okay, so either, one more follow-up please, 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. Okay, thanks. Members, any other questions? Seeing no additional questions,
we have no one who has signed up to speak for against the bill. You're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am closed. Members, Representative Burtz, it's closed for the bill.
What are the wishes of the committee? We have a
motion to do pass. Is there any discussion of the motion to do pass? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations. You
have passed your bill. Thank you very much. Members, we are at the end of our list. Representative Gasway has indicated that he does have a quick amendment coming over on House Bill 1780.
You think they'll be here fairly quickly because I've got several members that are getting ready to bolt ahead to
Speaker 155
1:22:14
another committee. Well, I'll tell you what,
it's a simple amendment. Let's push this over to April the 1st, and you can
engross it that way, and then we won't have to take it up as an amendment. Will that work? Okay, 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 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. He's reminding me, Tuesday, April the 1st. Kobe's worried that I'm trying to come back for spring break. He doesn't want to sit here with us spring break. So with that, thank you so much for your time today.
Unknown speaker
1:23:08
We are adjourned. Transcription by CastingWords
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
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