State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (66)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HJR1003
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…ON TO THE PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. HJR1003 A. Collins THE ARKANSAS GOVERNMENT DISCLOSURE AMENDMENT. HJ…”
|
THE ARKANSAS GOVERNMENT DISCLOSURE AMENDMENT. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1005
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “HJR1005 Long AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREATE TH…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS. | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1069
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1069 S. Meeks TO OBSERVE STANDARD TIME YEAR ROUND IN ARKANSAS; A…”
|
TO OBSERVE STANDARD TIME YEAR ROUND IN ARKANSAS; AND TO ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME IN … | S. Meeks | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1070
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1070 John Carr TO CREATE THE BALLOT DRAW STANDARDIZATION ACT OF…”
|
TO CREATE THE BALLOT DRAW STANDARDIZATION ACT OF 2025. | John Carr | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1422
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1422 Long TO CREATE THE ONLY CITIZENS VOTE ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW…”
|
TO CREATE THE ONLY CITIZENS VOTE ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DRIVER'S LICENSES … | Long | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1560
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Howard M. Beaty, Jr. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1560 McGrew TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS; AND TO REQUIRE PRICING INFORMATION FOR LIGHTING … | McGrew | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1574
Act 453
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ORMATION FOR LIGHTING COMPONENTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS. HB1574 Vaught TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CANVASSERS; AND TO REQUI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PAID CANVASSERS; AND TO REQUIRE DOMICILE IN ARKANSAS. | Vaught | Notification that HB1574 is now Act 453 |
|
HB1604
Act 943
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1604 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED CONTRACTS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED CONTRACTS BY STATE AGENCIES; AND TO PROHIBIT THE USE … | McAlindon | Notification that HB1604 is now Act 943 |
|
HB1621
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…STATE AGENCIES TO PURCHASE PROMOTIONAL ITEMS MADE IN CHINA. HB1621 Wardlaw TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO EXEMPT PERSONAL INFORMATION OF … | Wardlaw | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1631
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1631 Wardlaw TO ADDRESS THE ISSUANCE OF HUNTING AND FISHING LICE…”
|
TO ADDRESS THE ISSUANCE OF HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENTS. | Wardlaw | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1632
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1632 Wardlaw TO REQUIRE REIMBURSEMENT TO THE ARKANSAS STATE GAME…”
|
TO REQUIRE REIMBURSEMENT TO THE ARKANSAS STATE GAME AND FISH COMMISSION FOR FREE OR DISCOUNTED … | Wardlaw | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1637
Act 457
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1637 Ray CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT AND PRESENTATION OF FISCAL I…”
|
CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT AND PRESENTATION OF FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE FISCAL IMPACT OF STATEWIDE … | Ray | Notification that HB1637 is now Act 457 |
|
HB1667
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1667 Bentley TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | Bentley | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1683
Act 924
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1683 McAlindon TO PROHIBIT THE PROCUREMENT BY A GOVERNMENTAL ENT…”
|
TO PROHIBIT THE PROCUREMENT BY A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY OF AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE OR A COMPONENT … | McAlindon | Notification that HB1683 is now Act 924 |
|
HB1690
Act 583
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1690 Pilkington TO TRANSFER THE NUCLEAR PLANNING AND RESPONSE PR…”
|
TO TRANSFER THE NUCLEAR PLANNING AND RESPONSE PROGRAM FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO THE … | Pilkington | Notification that HB1690 is now Act 583 |
|
HB1693
Act 458
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1693 Hawk TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DAMAGED OR DEFECTIVE BALLO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DAMAGED OR DEFECTIVE BALLOTS; AND TO ALLOW THE STATE BOARD … | Hawk | Notification that HB1693 is now Act 458 |
|
HB1694
Act 996
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1694 Hawk TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES TO ELECTRONIC…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES TO ELECTRONIC FILING FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS. | Hawk | Notification that HB1694 is now Act 996 |
|
HB1706
Act 829
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1706 McCollum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO PROH…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO PROHIBIT RANKED CHOICE VOTING. | McCollum | Notification that HB1706 is now Act 829 |
|
HB1707
Act 524
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1707 Hawk TO REQUIRE CERTAIN CANDIDATES TO FILE REPORTS WITH THE…”
|
TO REQUIRE CERTAIN CANDIDATES TO FILE REPORTS WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE; TO AMEND PORTIONS … | Hawk | Notification that HB1707 is now Act 524 |
|
HJR1001
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1001 A. Collins A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE CITIZEN…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE CITIZENS' REDISTRICTING COMMISSION AND TO REPEAL THE BOARD OF … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1002
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1002 J. Richardson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL THE EXCEPTION TO THE PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY … | J. Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1006
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS. HJR1006 B. McKenzie AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION PROVI…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION PROVIDING THAT A GOVERNMENTAL BODY SHALL NOT USE STATE … | B. McKenzie | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HJR1007
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH A LOBBYIST FOR LOBBYING PURPOSES. HJR1007 Cavenaugh A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE A PROCEDURE…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE A PROCEDURE FOR THE RECALL OF CERTAIN ELECTED OFFICIALS. | Cavenaugh | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1008
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TE A PROCEDURE FOR THE RECALL OF CERTAIN ELECTED OFFICIALS. HJR1008 S. Meeks AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNI…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING THE TAXATION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AND REAL PROPERTY … | S. Meeks | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1009
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1009 K. Brown AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO BE KN…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO BE KNOWN AS THE ARKANSAS VICTIMS' BILL OF … | K. Brown | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1010
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1010 Unger A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT BY A TWO-T…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT BY A TWO-THIRDS VOTE, THE SENATE MAY REMOVE MEMBERS … | Unger | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1011
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1011 S. Meeks A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE CONSIDER…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE CONSIDERATION OF BILLS OTHER THAN APPROPRIATION BILLS DURING A FISCAL … | S. Meeks | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1012
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TION BILLS DURING A FISCAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. HJR1012 R. Scott AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEA…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE REAPPRAISAL AND REASSESSMENT OF … | R. Scott Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1013
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 79, CONCERNING REAL PROPERTY TAXES. HJR1013 Pilkington A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTA…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN VACANCIES SHALL BE FILLED BY APPOINTMENT BY THE … | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1014
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1014 Beaty Jr. A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DE…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL … | Beaty Jr. | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1015
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1015 Lundstrum A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY BY REQUIRING A JUDICIAL CANDIDATE TO DECLARE HIS OR … | Lundstrum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1016
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1016 Ray A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REPEAL THE PROVISION OF A…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REPEAL THE PROVISION OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 5, § 1, ALLOWING … | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1017
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1017 Ray A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROVIDING THAT A PROPOSED ST…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROVIDING THAT A PROPOSED STATE-WIDE INITIATED ACT OR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT SHALL BECOME … | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1018
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…N THE ELECTION AND A MAJORITY OF THE COUNTIES OF THE STATE. HJR1018 Ray THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. HJR1019 S. Meeks AN…”
|
THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. | Ray | Approved by the Governor |
|
HJR1019
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE STATE. HJR1018 Ray THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT. HJR1019 S. Meeks AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REMOV…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO GREYHOUND RACING FROM ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, … | S. Meeks | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1020
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…GREYHOUND RACING FROM ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 100. HJR1020 K. Brown A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE VICT…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE VICTIM’S BILL OF RIGHTS; AND TO PROVIDE … | K. Brown | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
SB293
Act 487
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB293 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE REQUIRED POSTINGS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE REQUIRED POSTINGS AT A POLLING SITE; AND TO AMEND … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB293 is now Act 487 |
|
SB304
Act 372
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NDMENT 51, SECTION 13. SENATE BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB304 M. McKee TO ALLOW A CLASS OF REGISTERED VOTERS THAT HAVE CH…”
|
TO ALLOW A CLASS OF REGISTERED VOTERS THAT HAVE CHANGED THEIR COUNTY OF RESIDENCE TO … | M. McKee | Notification that SB304 is now Act 372 |
|
HB1024
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…IZATION ACT OF 2025. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1024 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; AND TO REPEAL THE LAW PROHIBITING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1028
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…S; AND TO REPEAL THE LAW PROHIBITING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. HB1028 A. Collins TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE LAW CONCERNING OBSCEN…”
|
TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE LAW CONCERNING OBSCENITY AND THE PROCESS FOR CHALLENGING MATERIALS INCLUDED … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1035
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…PROHIBITING BOOK BANNING IN ORDER TO RECEIVE STATE FUNDING. HB1035 A. Collins TO CREATE THE ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 2…”
|
TO CREATE THE ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 2025; TO ALLOW ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION; TO … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1036
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…MENT 51; AND TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE. HB1036 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO ALLOW VOTER REGISTRATION DURING EARLY VOTING AND … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1037
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51. HB1037 A. Collins TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING PERSONS WHO MAY…”
|
AN ACT TO CREATE THE PREREGISTRATION TO VOTE ACT; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1038
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ORITY GRANTED BY ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, § 19. HB1038 A. Collins TO CREATE THE NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING ACT OF 2…”
|
TO CREATE THE NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING ACT OF 2025; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1039
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NG; AND TO REPEAL VOTER QUALIFICATIONS FOR ABSENTEE VOTING. HB1039 A. Collins TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOT…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOTS; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1040
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EE BALLOTS; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS. HB1040 A. Collins TO CREATE THE WATER IN LINE ACT OF 2025; AND TO…”
|
TO CREATE THE WATER IN LINE ACT OF 2025; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1041
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RNING PENALTIES FOR MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES RELATED TO VOTING. HB1041 A. Collins TO PROHIBIT DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES I…”
|
TO PROHIBIT DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES IN ELECTION COMMUNICATIONS. | R. Scott Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1042
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES IN ELECTION COMMUNICATIONS. HB1042 A. Collins TO CREATE THE DIRECT DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2025; TO R…”
|
TO CREATE THE DIRECT DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2025; TO REPEAL THE ENSURING ACCESS FOR ALL … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1043
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NG OF A BALLOT INITIATIVE PETITION AND REFERENDUM PETITION. HB1043 A. Collins TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING OF NONCANDID…”
|
TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING OF NONCANDIDATE EXPENDITURES PERTAINING TO APPELLATE JUDICIAL ELECTIONS; AND TO … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1058
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ield TO ESTABLISH GOOD FRIDAY AS AN OFFICIAL STATE HOLIDAY. HB1058 Unger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF I…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FOR PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; … | Unger | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1059
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…GIVING ADVANCE NOTICE TO ENTITIES OF REQUIRED INSPECTIONS. HB1059 Unger TO PROVIDE THE OPTION FOR A FREE LIFETIME HUNTING AND…”
|
TO PROVIDE THE OPTION FOR A FREE LIFETIME HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSE TO A COMMERCIAL … | Unger | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1064
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…PROVIDES CERTAIN INFORMATION RELATED TO HUMAN TRAFFICKING. HB1064 D. Whitaker TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE VOTING; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE VOTING; AND TO ALLOW PERSONS OVER SIXTY-FIVE YEARS OF … | D. Whitaker | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1078
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ICENSURE BY ENDORSEMENT FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS. HB1078 Long TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS; AND…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR A RUNOFF ELECTION FOR … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1162
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TO ADOPT NEW LAWS CONCERNING APPELLATE JUDICIAL CAMPAIGNS. HB1162 Duffield TO ESTABLISH GOOD FRIDAY AS AN OFFICIAL STATE HOLI…”
|
TO ESTABLISH GOOD FRIDAY AS AN OFFICIAL STATE HOLIDAY. | Duffield | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1187
Act 858
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NS OVER SIXTY-FIVE YEARS OF AGE TO VOTE BY ABSENTEE BALLOT. HB1187 Vaught TO AUTHORIZE A LICENSURE BY ENDORSEMENT FOR MARRIAGE…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE A LICENSURE BY ENDORSEMENT FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS. | Vaught | Notification that HB1187 is now Act 858 |
|
HB1243
Act 994
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…POSE TERM LIMITS OF MEMBERS FOR THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS. HB1243 Underwood TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTR…”
|
TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES; TO AMEND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTING AND PROTECT … | Underwood | Notification that HB1243 is now Act 994 |
|
HB1281
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NTEGRITY; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996. HB1281 McAlindon TO AMEND REPORTING FOR A CANDIDATE FOR CERTAIN MU…”
|
TO AMEND REPORTING FOR A CANDIDATE FOR CERTAIN MUNICIPAL OFFICES AND FOR COUNTY OFFICE; AND … | McAlindon | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1352
Act 937
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…DE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996. Page 4 of 5 HB1352 Beaty Jr. TO AMEND VARIOUS LAWS CONCERNING ACTIONS RELATED…”
|
TO AMEND VARIOUS LAWS CONCERNING ACTIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN FOREIGN ENTITIES. | Beaty Jr. | Notification that HB1352 is now Act 937 |
|
HB1415
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AWS CONCERNING ACTIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN FOREIGN ENTITIES. HB1415 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DUTIES OF THE ST…”
|
TO REQUIRE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO RESPOND TO A REQUEST FOR A FIRE INQUIRY. | L. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1459
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TATE AGENCIES TO PUBLISH FEDERAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS ONLINE. HB1459 L. Johnson CONCERNING RECURRING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GE…”
|
CONCERNING RECURRING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. | L. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1461
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ERNING RECURRING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. HB1461 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE EVALUATION OF NE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE EVALUATION OF NECESSITY OF VARIOUS COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS. | L. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1470
Act 582
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EVALUATION OF NECESSITY OF VARIOUS COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS. HB1470 Beaty Jr. TO REPEAL THE LAW CONCERNING THE REVIEW OF INFORM…”
|
TO REPEAL THE LAW CONCERNING THE REVIEW OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PLANS. | Beaty Jr. | Notification that HB1470 is now Act 582 |
|
HB1494
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…INQUIRY BY THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE FOR ARSON. HB1494 Hawk TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS GUIDANCE OUT OF THE DARKNESS AC…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS GUIDANCE OUT OF THE DARKNESS ACT; AND TO REQUIRE STATE AGENCIES … | Hawk | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1549
Act 489
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…LAW CONCERNING THE REVIEW OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PLANS. HB1549 R. Scott TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2025.…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2025. | R. Scott Richardson | Notification that HB1549 is now Act 489 |
|
HJR1004
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…CANDIDATES FOR THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. HJR1004 Ladyman APPLYING TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS FOR AN ARTIC…”
|
APPLYING TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS FOR AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION OF THE STATES FOR … | Ladyman | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB184
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…O CREATE THE ARKANSAS CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2025. Richardson SB184 D. Sullivan TO TRANSFER THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ARKANS…”
|
TO TRANSFER THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ARKANSAS EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION COMMISSION AND THE STATE … | D. Sullivan | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
was announced on. Wednesday we are going to hear a constitutional amendments today. And so at the top of the list we
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
0:20
have HJR 1001. Representative Collins. Representative Collins, if you would. State your name and district
for the record, and then you'll be recognized.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
0:43
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Andrew Collins, District 73. Um, so this joint resolution would be for an amendment to create a citizen's redistricting commission. Redistricting, as we know, is currently done in two different ways depending on whether it is federal or state, federal redistricting is done by the legislature, state redistricting is done by the Board of apportionment, which is made up of Governor, Secretary of State, and the Attorney General. Um,
this is a political process in both cases, and really the main purpose of this proposed constitutional amendment would be to take politics as far as possible out of the redistricting process and make it more of a technical process, uh, with other priorities besides political gain. So I'll first talk about the reason I have brought this and then I'll talk about how it works and then of course happy to answer any questions, so. Basically when maps are fair,
electoral power reflects the population, which is kind of the the way it should be in my opinion, and it representative democracy. Gerrymandering or drawing district lines in a way that skews for a certain purpose beyond that goal of reflecting the population empowers and disempowers different groups, um, including political factions, but also including racial minorities, and that goes against the principle of representative democracy.
Political partisans such as those on the board of apportionment and those in the legislature, and it's no knock on anyone to say that we're political partisans. We clearly are. Um, it is in our self-interest, it's rational to empower our party and disempower the other party, whichever party has control of that process, there is an inclination to do that. So if the goal really is fair maps, but partisans are tasked with the execution. The task
is bound to fail. Um, the, the upshot of all this when we have
Partisan redistricting, we tend to get more extreme government. That's for a few reasons, but one of the reasons is that a partisan drawing of maps results in as few competitive seats as possible, as many seats as possible, comfortably held by the majority party and as few as possible held by the minority party often what happens is a large number of people from the minority party are stacked.
Our pact, as they say, into one district and then the majority parties districts are held by a comfortable but not overwhelming margin, maybe a 60, 40 or something like that. And that is, you know, turned out to be the case here in Arkansas where we had in the most recent election the Democratic governor candidate get about 35% of the vote, but only 19 seats held in the legislature, and that's not out of step with the voting patterns that pretty much matches the voting patterns of the state
when we do have democratic districts they are often 80-20 democratic or 70/30 or 9010, um, and again I don't fault. anyone personally for this, but this is the rational outcome of a partisan process. Same goes on the federal level. Racial gerrymandering, as you may know, is illegal. We have the federal Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, but partisan gerrymandering is legal and because there's often a correlation between party and
race, the ostensible basis for partisan gerrymandering works as a loophole to effectively discriminate against minority voters. Um, by making it more of a technical process by taking politics far as far out of it as we can. I don't believe we can totally extricate politics from the process. We can make it more reflect the will of the people and ultimately let the districts see what the districts are supposed to be, which is a tool to elect people who reflect the people. So the way that this works, and
this is directly taken from what was proposed in 2020 and approved um by the Attorney General and and adopted through the process, so it's been vetted, um, the way it works is that it would create a commission of 9 citizens, and it would do federal and state redistricting. So no public official party official lobbyist or relative of any of those people could serve on the commission. The Secretary of State would advertise for applicants and then a panel
appointed by the Chief Justice of retired appellate judges would winnow the pull down to 30 of the majority party, 30 of the minority party, and 30 other or unaffiliated. Then there would be a process of striking, so the governor, the Senate majority leader, the Senate minority leader, same in the house could strike up the two applicants from each pool, and then that panel would randomly draw 3 applicants from each pool, creating the 9. Um, then they would be tasked
with with redistricting, and this is all set up according to a timeline. The criteria criteria would be set out in in uh the Constitution in order number one, that the districts will be contiguous. 2, that they shall not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race or language which tracks with the Voting Rights Act and the Federal Constitution. 3, that they shall not divide cities or counties except as necessary. For they shall be compact and
number 5, if all of the preceding criteria are met that they shall promote competition among political parties and that is again designed to give voters a choice and designed to um. Help avoid some of the extremism that has resulted in our government from a lopsided and political redistricting process. 21 states do this already with some sort of a commission. 7 have a purely independent commission. They don't really
track on blue state, red state lines, but they do kind of track on regional lines, the Western states intended to adopt this a little bit more. And at this point I'll um stop and have to take any questions. Representative
Collins has explained his resolution. Are there any questions about the committee? Seeing no questions. Well,
we do have a question, Representative Hawk, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Collins, can
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
7:25
I take you to page 3 line 14.
Didn't we just pass a bill that talked about not picking boards and commissions based on racial diversity, and my, my only question would be, In order for this to pass, it would have to get amended though, wouldn't it, just to comply with the bill that just passed. Appreciate the question, but this would be the Constitution, so this would be
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
7:45
supreme over that law. All right, any other questions by the committee?
Seeing no further questions by the committee, do we have anyone sign up to speak for or against this resolution, all right? Mr. Kwame Abdul Bay. Always good to see you. You know how this process works. State your name and any organization you're representing and then you'll be recognized to
Speaker 19
8:25
present your remarks. I'm Kwame Abdul Bay, the elections coordinator for the Arkansas Public Policy Panel. Uh, my comments are gonna be brief. Uh, I'm here in support
of this constitutional amendment, uh. In the last redistricting, uh, go around, uh, I worked. throughout the state at all 75 counties working to make sure that uh citizens were involved in the process of redistricting since it only happens every decade, um. Citizens don't really have the knowledge base to stay involved in that process, uh, but, uh,
when we have a method that is fully transparent. I like uh the transparency. What's that's gone out. Can you hear me? OK. I like the transparency piece uh that is in here, uh, that's vitally important. The only thing that I would do to improve this is to have more uh citizen involvement with drawing the maps and making sure that uh communities of interest are more involved in the uh the decision
making of the maps and to I would like to see that uh smaller districts are completely within inside larger districts like House districts are inside of Senate districts such like such as that, but as it stands, it's, it is a much better improvement for what we currently have and for that reason I support this and I ask that you give it a 5. All right.
Uh, Mister, are there any questions for Mr. Bay? Abdul Ba saying no thank you.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
10:18
For your remarks, is there anyone else sign up to speak for or against? We have no
one else signed up to speak for or against the resolution Representative Collinger recognized to close for your resolution. I'm closed. Appreciate it.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
10:32
All right. Thank you, Representative Collins. I think you've got the next one also, House Joint Resolution 1003. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, uh,
this one is a government transparency proposed constitutional amendment. So this is another one that uh has a recent um antecedent and that was this past year there was a um Constitutional amendment that was pursued through the popular process very similar to this and um it also was vetted by the attorney general and past muster, so the benefit of um either of these is that they are pre-approved and we don't have
to worry about the language, although,
you know, one never knows anybody can have a fresh take on things, but
there have been improved at some point in the past. Um, so what this one does is it it creates government transparency or establishes government transparency as a right in the Constitution, a right for the people of Arkansas. It states that it is it's what government transparency is. And then it describes a special
procedure for any law that affects government transparency. So like with the previous one, I'll, I'll briefly state why I'm proposing this and then what it does and how it works. Um, Arkansas, as we've talked about many times in this committee, especially has a long standing strong commitment to government transparency. It's really one of the best features of our law, and of course it reflects our motto regnant populace, the people rule, um, without it, our democracy
becomes threatened and we all know the axiom that democracy dies in darkness, and it's a very real thing to consider because if we don't have that trans transparency if we let it erode, um, there's really no check. There's no public check and government has every incentive to self-perpetuate itself. And that's really why this is necessary because we are right now letting the fox guard the hen house when it comes to government transparency, uh,
it's a natural inclination for government officials to want to be left alone to do their business without uh prying eyes without check, and we have to prevent against that with strong laws with a strong constitution and with the people empowered to check. That and so that's what this does and here's how it works, um, just taking you through the bill, it's actually pretty the resolution's pretty short. The title is very long, but that was
through the process of working through with the Attorney General, the title needed to be 460 some odd words, um, section 2. Recites a statement of legislative intent of the Freedom of Information Act, and it is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner so that the electors of the state should be advised of the performance of public officials and of the decisions that are reached in public activity and in making public policy, really can't state it better than that. It was in our Freedom of Information Act and
is the intent of this as well. Government transparency is then defined in Section 3 as the government's obligation, not many people's obligation, but the government's obligation to share information with citizens or deliver information to citizens. And then Section 4 describes the procedure for a law that affects government transparency. It would be handled differently from other laws that we passed with the 50% margin, although some of our laws, as you know, require a higher threshold. This
would require a referral by a 2/3 majority of both houses, um, and then it would either be approved or rejected by the people by a popular vote at the next election. The law would not become effective until approved by the people. There could be in the case of uh it being necessary for the preservation of public peace, health, and safety, and emergency clause voted on by 9/10, which would be a super super majority of both chambers,
um, and in that case the bill would still be referred to the people, but it would become effective immediately after passage of that emergency clause and then a down vote by the people would cause it to become ineffective, and then you would just ratify it. Section 5 says that the legislature cannot refer an amendment to this amendment. So again, keeping the fox from guarding the hen house, they would allow the people to amend this amendment and would also allow an initiated act regarding transparency in government
because again there's different motivations here. People have every motivation for more transparency. Government has every motivation for less transparency. That's why there's a different standard in this proposal. Section 6 waives sovereign immunity for failure to comply with government transparency, which means that a citizen of the state could sue the state of Arkansas and its courts if it violated this right of government transparency and attorneys' fees would be recoverable. This is important to make sure that challenges can happen if those incentives are
not present, challenges won't happen. The Claims commission is simply a different animal, political animal that is not really suited for this again, the claims commission. Making decisions on government transparency, you have some of the same people who would be affected by government transparency law, making a decision on it, and that is not ideal. Section 7 and 8 and 9 are really administrative inconsistent provisions are null and void. Section 8 says that it's
severable, Section 9 is the effective date. That's all unless uh happy to answer any questions. All right, Representative Collins
has explained his resolution. Are there any questions by the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee, do
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
16:42
we have anyone sign up to speak for or against the bill. We do have Mr. Kwame Abdulbay to speak for the bill. Mr. Bay, welcome back. Thank you, Kwame Abdul Bay with the Arkansas Public Policy
Speaker 19
16:56
Panel, uh, basically I just wanna say that uh I. Worked with the foyer amendment collecting signatures and everything, uh, this bill goes in the right direction for securing uh the state model that the people actually do rule and I asked the committee to give it a 5. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr.
Abdulbay. Are there any questions by the committee? Alright, seeing none, Representative Collins, you're recognized to close
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
17:39
for your resolution. In closing, I just want to say one, point of clarification, so you may remember that there was
a constitutional amendment and an initiated act that people were gathering signatures on at the same time. This is only the constitutional amendment, the initiated act, of course, could be passed by the legislature. Some of those things that were in that initiated act are being proposed by the legislature to that process can take place on its own, doesn't need this
amendment. Appreciate it. All right. Thank you, Representative
Collins. Next we have House Joint Resolution 1005 Representative Long. Represent Long. My understanding is we have a
handout that you'd like the committee to receive. Is that correct? All right. Staff is gonna pass that out, so just give them a moment
to pass that out before you get started.
All right, looks like everyone has the handout. Representative Long, if you identify yourself in the district you represent,
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
19:04
you'll be recognized to present your resolution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Wayne Long, House District number
39. Taxpayer bill of rights, um, amendment was first passed in Colorado back in 1992. I remember thinking at the time when it passed, we need this in Arkansas. Now 33 years later, I bring you how strong resolution 1005.
This movement does 4 simple but important things. Our revenue stabilization Act has served us well since 1945. It's kept us from getting into trouble with debt, deficit spending. But we need to remember that it is only an act. It could be repealed by a future General Assembly. This amendment would create a constitutional requirement of a balanced budget. This amendment also caps increases in government spending expenditures at 3% or uh CPI consumer price index,
whichever's lower. I think 30% is a very reasonable number since we've been at or below that number for several years without any problems. The amendment also raises a threshold to 3/4 vote by the General Assembly to increase any taxes or fees. Colorado did not include fees in their amendment, so a lot of their taxes were shifted to fees. The amendment also requires budget surpluses to be refunded to taxpayers. Obviously this would benefit Arkansas taxpayers, but unseen
benefit is that Arkansas would be the most stable and predictable budgeting process in the country. Big misses lack stability. I think this amendment would make Arkansas in a very attractive side for businesses looking to relocate. You'll see in the handout that Arkansas, if Arkansas had implemented Tabor back in 1992. As Colorado did, our current budget would be about half of what its current size is. Since the 1970s, uh, state budgets have almost doubled across the nation.
We can't go back in time. But you know the old saying, when's the best time to plant a tree? 20 years ago. When's the 2nd best time? Today. Until now, Colorado has uh taxed their bill of rights that was considered the gold standard for fiscal fiscally limited government. Today we can change that with the adoption of this amendment, Arkansas could be the new gold standard setting in stone responsible government spending and not just for us but for our
children and grandchildren. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to, uh, invite Mr. Lee Shock, a senior vice president of of ALEC, American Legislative Exchange Council, um, to join me at the end of the table and um offer some comments. All right, Mr. Schalk, you're welcome to
join Representative Long. If you would state your name and the organization you're here representing, and
then you'll be recognized to present your remarks. Well, thank you, Chairman Gazaway and members of the
Speaker 31
22:06
committee. My name's Lee Schalk. I'm a senior vice president of policy at the American Legislative Exchange Council, also known as ALEC and just want to thank you for the opportunity to share ALEC's nonpartisan research and analysis today regarding the House Joint resolution to amend the Arkansas Constitution to create the Arkansas taxpayer Bill of Rights. Founded more than 50 years ago in 1973, ALEC is the nation's largest nonpartisan voluntary membership organization of state
legislators dedicated to the principles of limited government, free markets, and federalism. The ALEC Center for State Fiscal Reform provides policymakers with dependable economic and fiscal policy research to produce better outcomes for all Americans. This includes the annual publication Rich States, Poor States, which ranks the economic competitiveness of the states, resources such as the microsite fiscal rules.org, which is referenced on the handout you have in front of you and other
reports such as what states can learn from Colorado's taxpayers' Bill of Rights. Because the proposed Arkansas taxpayer Bill of Rights has a number of similarities with Colorado's. I'd like to share the impact that this amendment to the Colorado Constitution has had over the past 32 years and counting. In short, Tabor has protected Colorado taxpayers and helped to make Colorado an attractive place for businesses and new residents. Despite the state of Colorado
shifting to become a predominantly blue state over the last 3 decades. First, the main problem that needs to be addressed. While most agree that the federal government has a spending problem. We don't often hear about the overspending issue at the state level. Even after accounting for changes in inflation and population growth, we've seen state government spending increased by more than 90% over the past four decades. The problem is there's little
focus on efficiency, effectiveness, or outcomes. Failing initiatives and programs are given more money year after year with little accountability or expectation of deliverable results. Revenue shortfalls lead to cutting programs, raising taxes, or accounting gimmicks. State spending growth is far outpacing population inflation, and private sector growth. Today with Elon Musk and the the Department of Government
efficiency dominating policy discussions in Washington states should take that cue and consider that one of the most effective tools to control the growth of government revenues and expenditures is a properly designed tax and expenditure limit, or tell. These policies limit government spending and taxation while stabilizing budgets over the business cycle. While more than 30 states, including Arkansas currently have some version of Atel in place. Many lack enforcement
mechanisms are easily overridden, are full of exemptions, or allow high rates of spending growth. The Colorado taxpayer Bill of Rights was approved by voters in 1992 as a constitutional amendment, and it's considered the gold standard of state tells. Colorado's Tabor limits the amount of revenue the state can retain and spend to changes in inflation and population growth. If Colorado state lawmakers want to spend surplus revenue,
increase taxes, or increased debt. They're required to submit the proposed measure to the ballot and when the approval of a majority of voters. Ballot measures must clarify how the funds will be raised and allocated and 32 years of abor, very few statewide tax increases have been approved. For example, in 2013, Colorado voters decided on Amendment 66, which would have raised personal income taxes. That measure was soundly defeated 66% to 34% despite its proponents raising $10 million.
November 2022 marked 30 years of Colorado's abor, returning billions of dollars to and providing important protections for hardworking taxpayers, but perhaps most importantly, Tabor has helped the state maintain a serious economic advantage even as Colorado has drifted left politically. As former state representative Patrick Neville put it, Tabor is the only thing keeping us from becoming East California. In fact, Tabor is credited for very recent state income tax reductions.
Colorado lowered its flat personal income tax in 2022 from 4.55% to 4.4% and again last year to 4.25%, while also refunding $1.7 billion in excess revenue to taxpayers. Coloradans have been refunded a total of $9.4 billion over the last four years alone. This is money that would have otherwise gone to the growth of government. Back in 1992, critics condemned
taper and said it would cause businesses to flee Colorado and the economy to collapse, but Tabor has helped to make Colorado one of the most competitive and fastest growing economies in the nation over the 32 years since its implementation. Not only has Colorado's Tabor kept government spending in check, but it has signaled a long-term commitment to state fiscal responsibility. As Americans vote with their feet in search of economic opportunity, Colorado has been one of the biggest recipients of
inbound domestic migration, attracting nearly 340,000. New residents on net over the last 10 years at AEC, we're encouraged to see that Arkansas is considering its own abor. And I hope that our nonpartisan research and analysis is helpful. Happy to answer any questions the committee may have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Shaul. uh, Representative. Uh, longer you
have anything you'd like to add?
Chair
Unverified
28:22
Before we move to questions, OK, Representative Meeks, you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Um, so
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
28:29
just, uh, two questions real quick. Um, any surpluses that we had, we would have to return all of that to the taxpayers. Is that correct? And then how would that be handled through a tax
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
28:41
credit or how, how is that done?
That would actually be sit back as a just a rebate. Um, and that's only after the um revenue stabilization fund is
fully funded and also the um um I'm trying to blank the emergency fund, so emergency fund fills up first, excess money then falls into revenue stabilization fund, any money left after that would go back to as refunds. OK, so, uh, Arkansas
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
29:07
has one of the, you know, the best bond ratings in the country because we've been fiscal conservative and we have a, you know, a rainy day fund, if you will, or savings account. So if this were to pass, we wouldn't be able to to grow that any
Chair
Unverified
29:23
without a vote of the citizens I understanding that correctly? the emergency. currently is
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
29:27
set up at 20% of the previous year's budget. So as our budgets have went up over over time, that has increased, but it is basically 1/5 of our, our uh budget is set aside for emergencies and then the same thing applies to the revenue stabilization fund. It's also 20%, so I, I think basically you know the thing that's got us to good ratings, we would still have be fully funded, uh, and I
think also probably the the the bonding. companies were looking at at our um Projections as far as uh just stability like I mentioned earlier, um, With basically a 3% maximum increase in expenditures, uh, I think businesses will find that attractive and move here, of course, pay taxes, and then we start looking better and better to everyone. And then my last one and your, your guest may
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
30:19
be able to help this if we have a
hyperinflation rate like we've experienced in past years that uh drives growth, um, anything beyond 3%, we could not do. In order to try to match that inflation rate. Is that correct? We, we'd be stuck at 3% regardless of, you know, we've got the whatever cuts or whatever we need to make to Yes,
Speaker 37
30:47
sir. OK. Representative Rager recognized.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
30:55
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Representative Long, I want to thank you for bringing this um proposal to us. I think it's whether we end up referring out this proposal or a different proposal in a in a different session. I think it's important. That at some point we make a serious attempt to pass some sort of taxpayer bill of rights because I think in the absence of some sort of statutory or constitutional limitation on the growth of government spending,
you're just relying on the willpower of politicians to do that, and I just think that's um you're if you're waiting on politicians to limit spending, you're going to be waiting a long, long time. Um, I do have a couple of questions for you about your proposal, um. One is section, so in section 3, yours requires a 3/4 vote, uh, that's obviously a really high threshold is is Colorado's also a 3/4 vote or um
Speaker 38
31:56
there's 2/3 didn't didn't look into that,
Representative David Ray
Unverified
32:01
sir. OK. Um, did you give any consideration to 2/3 versus 3/4. Uh yes, sir, and, in fact,
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
32:07
uh, it seems like within the last 10 years or so, I think we had something on the ballot that went with the 2/3 and it was turned down by the voters. I think they were, well, you know, basically it's like lowering the threshold on some uh taxes and it was raising it on others and
basically I think mine would be a little bit more attractive to the taxpayers because it is basically raises everything. the 3 4s. OK, um, the
Representative David Ray
Unverified
32:34
other thing I want to ask you is you mentioned you, obviously your, your proposal includes fees, um, and I know
obviously there's, there's some folks who You know, when they don't wanna, when people, when some politicians don't want to raise the tax, they just call it a fee. That's what they were doing in Colorado to get around that, but there is a, there is a functional distinction between a
tax and a fee, um, you know, taxes primarily designed to raise revenue, whereas a fee is specifically designed to recoup the cost of administering a specific service, um, Given that there's a real distinction between those two, can you kind of walk me through your, your thought process on why you chose to include fees at the advice of the folks that I talked
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
33:20
to that were involved in the Colorado amendment they said that that was a mistake they
made but not including the fees because like you said, it basically it was just a matter of shifting costs or taxes into fees, uh, the 3/4, you know, vote is a fairly high threshold, but we do it all the time. 34 votes, uh, I don't think it'd be a real problem, uh, doing it for legitimate fee increases that I, I just I just really don't think we want to go with
really a lower amount than that and at least
that's, that was my, my thinking
Representative David Ray
Unverified
34:01
at the time. Fair enough, um. I want to ask you about section 4 because this is where um This is where the language is that limits the increase in state spending. So you're, your proposal is 3% uh limited to a 3% increase or um CPI I guess whichever is uh. Whichever is lower. Yes, sir. OK. Um, I know
Colorado's, I think, is CPI plus growth of population growth and um now Congressman Westerman had proposed something similar to that back in 2010. Yes, yes. So can you walk me through your thought process as to why you went with this, with this different standard and why do you why do you think it's better? Of course, you know, anything we do and
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
34:51
pass it out um we have to explain it to the voters. And uh I thought this was just a little bit easier to explain, basically just a flat 3% or CPI
rather than getting into trying to explain uh the um Uh, the the um Colorado method, which when I first uh did one of these means, um, in our first session, uh, at that time, I looked at just what would the increase be this year. That was back when inflation was uh quite a bit higher and don't remember precisely, but it was somewhere between 8 and 9% and it's like, whoa, that's I don't have an 8 or 9% growth in government and
we made it that year, I think with about 2.97%. Right uh increase in expenditures and did just fine, uh, don't, didn't really think that was. Much of a limitation to, you know, go with 8 or 9%, so I'll just wipe that off
and went with the 5%. OK,
Representative David Ray
Unverified
35:54
and then um last question I think is on the, on the taxpayer uh refund. So
I, I don't, I, I could be wrong. I'm not seeing any um Instructions for how that would be paid out. Would it be on like a pro rata basis. Or how would, how would the amount, would you give every taxpayer the same amount or would it be proportional to how much that taxpayer paid an income tax or How, how would that work? or would that be? Or would that be under section, would that fall under Section 7 law, you know, the General Assembly would enact laws
necessary to that was my intention was we would we
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
36:39
would debate that here that and decide how best to proceed. OK. Um, I think that's all the questions
Representative David Ray
Unverified
36:44
I have for right now. I just again want to thank
you for putting this idea on the table and, and getting the conversation going. Thank you for the questions. Representative Long, I have a couple of
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
36:58
questions that generally I like what you're trying to do here, um, as Representative Meeks noted, however, it doesn't appear that there's any exceptions for a hyperinflation type incident.
Uh, like we just experienced, did you think about maybe including some kind of exception. Yes, sir. I, I,
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
37:19
I'd given it some thought, but like I said, um, when I, I looked at what It would have been that particular year, it was between 8 and 9% growth could have been uh allowed and um Um, yeah, we, we did less than 3 and we made it through it just fine. Uh, so that was, that was my thinking at the time. What
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
37:40
about other states other than Colorado? Are there any other states that have done this other than Colorado, uh North Carolina do something similar to this. Colorado kind
Speaker 31
37:49
of stands above the rest as having the most successful taper. I think North Carolina did kind of
Speaker 46
37:54
a watered down version, but there are, yeah, there
Speaker 31
37:57
are 3031 states that have some form of a tax and expenditure limit. OK. And has there been any,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
38:03
did you have any discussion with DFA as to how this might impact the
ability to continue to provide services, uh, at the current level that we we're at.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
38:16
Well, of course I I talked quite a bit with uh Representative Blaine Jean, um, and, uh, you
know, since he's been in charge, he's, he told me basically he always shot for 30% or less, and so that, that's where I came up with a 30% number. It's like, uh he
uh He seems to have been able to manage the budget quite well and uh uh you know,
I thought it was a reasonable
Speaker 60
38:47
number. Representative Beatty, you're recognized. Representative Long, um, again, uh, Tabor, good idea,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
38:52
and, and your touting Colorado's program. Have there been any adverse effects to Colorado based on their abor as far as public services, uh, and the service provided to the residents of Colorado based on the taper that they've enacted. Not, not that I'm aware of,
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
39:10
um, they, there has been some moves
to repeal it or water it down over the years, but uh apparently Colorado residents is really enjoy receiving that refund check each year and they voted down all those changes, so, um, I think they must be pretty satisfied with the services they're receiving, and they definitely are satisfied with getting that, uh, that rebate check. Follow up So you're
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
39:34
not aware of any issues with public services provided, uh, that have decreased or diminished as the ranking of the state based upon
the enactment of Tabor in Colorado. No, sir, residents enjoy getting that refund check definitely like that and like I said, you know, if if there was a
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
39:51
substantial reduction in services to the point where people didn't like it, I think they may have been open to watering it down, but they chose not to. All right, sir, thank you. All right, seeing no further questions by the committee, Representative Long,
would you like to close for your resolution? I'm closed for a resolution. We appreciate a good
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
40:15
vote. Thank you. Thank you, Representative
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
40:19
Long. Next we have House Joint Resolution 1006, Representative McKenzie. You are recognized. Brit
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
40:31
McKenzie, District 7, Rogers. Hi committee. Representative Clowney is going, do you wanna admonish her and make her sit back down.
OK, see you. Uh, hi guys, um, I'm here today to present uh how strong resolution 1006. Uh, it's an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution providing that uh government bodies shall not use state or local funds to enter into a contract with the lobbyists for lobbying purposes. It's a, it's a fairly simple in the grand pantheon of looking at these constitutional limits very simple in its construction, um, and the summary of that is that it prohibits the use of public funds for lobbying contracts. It bans governmental bodies from using state or local funds to hire external lobbyists to lobby on their behalf to the General
Assembly, or constitutional officers are using those funds to pay dues, um, this includes membership due to restrictions. It prevents governmental bodies from using state or local funds to pay dues to organizations that lobby on their behalf. If those organization's employee registered lobbyists, and it allows for internal lobbying, um, it permits government bodies to employ individuals, including registered lobbyists within those organizations to directly lobby on their behalf without contracting external entities. Um, why is this constitutional amendment needed. It protects taxpayers first and foremost.
New paragraph, uh, it prevents state agencies from spending public funds um on lobbyists to push agendas that may not align with taxpayers' interests. It restores public trust and allows agencies to directly lobby instead of hiding behind contract lobbyists, and it limits government overreach, um, and the ability of agencies to grow unchecked by using agencies or external entities or governmental entities by using hired guns to advocate for for person more personnel or programs. It's also popular with
voters. Now this in a private bogan. I apologize, then a private pulse uh conducted in the state of Arkansas, supported by over 73% of Arkansas voters. across party lines, reflecting widespread opposition to taxpayer funded lobbying. Texas is on track to do this to, to do a bill similar to this as well as a number of bills and constitutional amendments across the country that are in a similar vein. some key objections. I'm not going to get ahead of the committee in its infinite wisdom that I've already heard in the presentation of this that I'd
like to just go ahead and get in front of now. Agencies, agencies or governmental entities need lobbyists to communicate with their legislators. I think everyone at this table knows full well that it is not a truth that is a half-baked truth at best, um, lobbyists, uh, do survey function and it's their current capacity, but as legislators it's incumbent upon us to represent our our constituents c ies the individual. Thank you, sir. Thank you, um, uh, our individual constituencies as well as the roles and functions
within local governments that we represent. Um, agencies can still employ internal staff to advocate for their positions directly, ensuring that they can communicate needs without wasting any taxpayer money to do so. Um, another objection that I've heard is this limits the ability of smaller agencies or governmental entities to compete for legislative attention, um. I think today in education committee this is a non sequitur, but um I heard more about rural Arkansas and the need of rural superintendents than I did um superintendents or
the needs of growing metropolitan areas when we talk about the access bill that's still being debated now, um, so I think that that argument somewhat uh overused, but at the same time this amendment allows the playing fields to be uh levels the playing field by requiring all agencies to rely on their own staff, not expensive lobbyists, and reducing the unfair advantage created by budget. discrepancies Uh, this is my favorite one. These organizations do important work. They do. They absolutely do.
That's why I believe that this bill would constitute for all governmental entities of every shape, size, um, formation to internalize those functions or find capacity within their existing governmental budgets to make sure that those processes and the appeal to us as legislators do take place. But quiet or background contracts that are, albeit our ethics commission does a good job of policing as best they can that do have bonuses or win bonuses or completion of the floor or completion of committee
bonuses incorporated for them, um. Just like what we talk about, we had a few bills today on the floor that talked about um uh the initiated act and referenda. I think that our law that emanates from our Constitution is too important to put a monetary value behind. I think it's important for everyone to have a reproach to their government, but I don't think that. Uh, making it a pay for play or some type of another uh monetary gain for those who know how to game the system is what's best for Arkansans. This could make it harder for us to hear the needs of these agencies or governmental
entities. Again, I disagree. I think that I have, I represent 4 incorporated towns in my district as well as a broad reach of the county. I hear more from my smaller incorporated towns that have no full-time employees, including the mayor, than I do for my larger incorporated towns. It's about the value that our, our entities and that our governmental entities place on the process. So with that, I'd be happy to take any questions.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
45:55
All right, Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the, the direction you're, you're trying to uh go here uh last session, uh, one of the bills that uh we passed was outlawing government employees from using technology, emails, uh, to, to lobby us uh on the government dime and unless that is their job description, um, so it sounds like this is maybe trying to expand it to make sure that they can.
Then go out and hire outside lobbyists and uh I guess the question that I have is, is there a reason why we couldn't do this in statute versus having to do a constitutional amendment. I know a constitutional amendment cements it in stone, uh, but because we're so limited in the number that we can do. Have you considered doing this as a in in statute. I I have and it's
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
46:48
uh there's no technical, I can't give you some uh technocrat reason as to, you know, this dangling modifier in this part of the code. doesn't require me to. I think
that for far too less of our of our taxpayer and our our voters' times, our constituents' time is spent on direct reproach to the tax, their money and the tax paying money that they put into our system. So can I run this as a bill? Yes, um, do I think it's, it's good for us as a legislature to refer out constitutional amendments that our taxpayers can see the the value and the change of um what they pay into their system and getting the direct response back from whatever governmental entity. If they are a part of a trade association that has a lobby down here if it's part of their
local town, if it's part of whatever. I, I think it's best that we give our uh our citizens the opportunity to vote on something like this, but yes, it can be run as a bill. There's no limitation that that won't do it. I think it's, it's a bill of note and it's something that we should have additional consideration debate on. Representative
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
47:50
Collins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you. This is an interesting uh thing to discuss. Is it, do I read this right that they can't use state or local funds to
enter into a contract with the lobbyists, but they could Have a, a lobbyist or another individual engaging in lobbying who's employed by them. Is this right? Correct, yeah. Anyone that, that seeks to influence our job
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
48:10
as a member of the General Assembly or as a constitutional officer and receives a monetary gain from it has to so this bill has nothing to do with that in our current statute. If you receive over $400 I think is that threshold, which is in references as a definition of the bill. You, you are required or obligated to
register at the ethics commission. So my bill doesn't affect that current. definition, um, so City of Little Rock Kamic Village or Kamac, I'm sorry that's right. OK, thank you, um, if, if they had a um a staff and one of those communications director typically or external affairs, if one of their job was in any form or fashion or they could, you know, do the math to determine over $400 of their paycheck went to having to talk to you about uh special zoning or whatever bill we passed last time, then technically they should they should register as a
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
49:00
lobbyist, but yeah. So I guess then. The, the follow-up question would be why is it better or different even to have a
contract lobbyist versus an on-staff lobbyist if they're effectively doing the same thing. They're representing the interests of
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
49:13
the organization or government it's a great question. So it really comes down to the technical versus in
reality. So technically we all represent um towns or counties in some shape or form, um, the way that we often see, I don't know how many of you go to your uh city council meetings or your quorum court meetings, how he
technically will See their budget line items either whether it be um the county judge or a mayor or the city council, they'll have a discretionary line that is often where they put in the line item for their contract lobbying. Do you think that, you know, as someone who goes and attends a um a city council meeting and wants to stay up on what's going on in their, their community, how they're appropriating the money if they're balancing that budget, um. are we gonna get the fine toothcomb detail? Probably not. It's a discretionary line item. I haven't seen too many uh city
county meetings uh where we go into depth over that line item on discretionary. What is line item is headcount. the direct labor for most of our towns, and that's a generalization I know I don't have everyone's in front of me. There is a, there is a specific line item for direct labor and the either the apers or the municipal or uh a code that associates with their pay band. So Um, do I think, do I want every city to go out and hire a specifically someone in the lobby. No, but I think that
we've all seen our towns bend and grow their capacity based on their needs, so um I think in terms of reproach to people who are that attentive to their city or or their counties um annual budgets. I think this does give them a little more visibility. Thank All right, seeing no further
questions by the committee, Representative McKenzie, you're recognized to close for your resolution. Thank you committee. I appreciate it. I know we have
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
50:58
a lot of great bills, a lot of great constitutional amendments. I, I won't won't be long, but um
I think this is a this is deserving of additional consideration. I'm not saying final yet. I know you guys have to go through the process of selecting which one makes sense, but um if given the opportunity, I know that we will have a lot of stakeholders, a lot of people that advocate for transparency and taxpayer funds come to this table and give you more reasons than I could eloquate or explain in a two-page summary. I want to be mindful of your time, but I would appreciate additional consideration and do this for your taxpayers back home. I thank you and I close. All right, thank you, Representative McKenzie.
Next we have HJR 1008. Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Alright, thank you,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
52:00
uh, Mr. Chair, committee, um, so colleagues, um, as we look at all these constitutional amendments that are before us. Um, this is the one that I
think, uh, arguably has the greatest practical impact to the average everyday Arkansan. Um, I actually first became interested in this topic when I was a freshman, so this is something I've been working on for the last 8 go-arounds, and this is my last shot at the wheel at this, so I hope that uh that might help you in your consideration. But what this bill does and, and where, where this really came to light for me was uh two circumstances. Um, after high school, I moved to Florida, lived down there, married a Florida girl and
brought her back here to Arkansas and uh she had a car that she had purchased. Arkansas are purchased in Florida. It was paid for in Florida, completely paid for a car. We brought it back to Arkansas, guess what? We're now paying personal property tax on it. Um, whenever a new citizen comes to this state and they have never heard of this. Now they've got the confusion of understanding, OK, you've got to pay personal property tax on that. So anything you bring to your sta to the state, you're now having to pay personal
property tax on it. And the question that I have is, what's gonna happen to that car? And let me give you the list of things that are subject to personal property tax because you may not be familiar with it. Um, so, uh, cars, trucks, motorcycles, RVs, trailers, uh, boats, jet skis, aircraft, uh, for our farmers, it's tractors, combine, uh, hay baers, other farm implements for businesses that includes office furniture and equipment, computers, machinery, leasehold items, uh, manufactured home if it's not classified as real property.
This one kind of caught me by surprise, but some agricultural animals. s may also be subject to this tax for personal property tax. And so the question I, I, I have for the committee is do you really own those items when you bring them to Arkansas, because who can tell me what's gonna happen if you don't pay your personal property tax on those items. We all know what's gonna happen, right? Sooner or later, the government's going to come take them from you and sell them to cover your, your tax bill. So what is uh uh HDR 1000 and 8 do.
Yeah. So what this does, uh, this is kind of, this is a local control thing. So as the, the constitution stands right now, real property and personal property have to be taxed at the same rate. What this would do is this would give local control to those local communities to separate those two, so they could charge 2 different rates for personal property and real property. Uh, why might that be important if it is a county that is trying to lure manufacturing into The county then they're gonna
want to have a lower personal property tax, uh, to, uh, try to bring that manufacturing firm into the uh into the state. Uh, there may be situations where they want to and increase uh the other kind of way I've got to drawn back into this is you may remember the broadband issue, trying to promote the expansion of broadband within the state. This is where the real property side comes in as um Uh, the internet service
providers were deploying uh assets across the state, the more assets they deployed, the more personal property tax they're having to pay on that, which made it even harder for them to go into certain areas of the state with broadband there were already struggling to have a return on profit for those businesses. Uh, there was no opportunity for the General Assembly to do a carve out, if you will, for those assets to try to promote personal or try to promote the expansion. And a broadband within the state. So the other thing this
does is this gives the General Assembly the ability to do that if we see an economic incentive opportunity, give the General Assembly the opportunity to um do an exemption. The last thing it does is it allows the General Assembly to set a cap on what that personal property is so that over time the General Assembly could allow for the phase out of personal property tax. Just get rid of it altogether, uh, because I, I would, I would. throw this out to you. I love the idea of getting rid
of the income tax, right? But which do you think our constituents would prefer paying $10 a week more in income taxes or every October getting hit with a $500 personal property tax bill. Same amount of money, but I think most of our constituents would rather see that $10 deduction every week versus getting hit with that one-time bill every, uh, October. And of course, if you don't pay that, then eventually you get shamed in the newspaper. You don't pay it eventually,
they're gonna come and take that uh property. is a state and uh and sell it. So, uh, for that, uh, just for the economic growth of our state to make life simpler for our citizens, um, I, I would really love to see us get rid of this personal property tax, and I believe if this made it out to the ballot, our constituents will feel the same way too. So, uh, with that, I'm open to answer any questions any committee members might have. Thank you, Representative Meeks.
Representative Wright, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
57:23
Chairman. Representative makes that, you know, from talking to voters, I don't think you would get much disagreement. I don't think anyone enjoys
paying personal property tax, um, I do have a few questions. I'm looking at, so looking at the fiscal impact, it just says if approved by the voters and undetermined impact may result to collections of real property and personal
property tax. Um, this is, this is exclusively a local. Correct. OK, so that's why that's probably why
DFNA didn't hazard a guess at it, but I guess my question would be, do we know how much funding
goes to local schools and other entities as a result of personal property, yeah,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
58:09
so, uh, I think last figure I had was about $250 to $300 million is collected through uh personal property taxes, um, that rate is
generally going to be set by School boards and counties, so it is specifically a um local, local issue. Uh, I think the only thing
that we do is it gets filtered through the state back to those entities. So
Representative David Ray
Unverified
58:35
where, how would they make up that $250 300 million dollars. So the, the um,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
58:40
the way the bill is structured over time, if they wanted to, again, this is personal choice.
Um, they could shift that from a, the personal
property tax over the real property, um, and they, they can, they can if they wanted to, they could do that and just get rid of it completely, um, the, the General Assembly could work with them to make up differences again, this will be state funds, obviously. Uh, so, I, I, I don't know that I have a specific, this is how it has to be done. Uh, it would allow, like I said local control and um if the General Assembly chose to over time they could phase it out. It just says we're
gonna set a maximum amount. So what, what I don't want to happen is we we differentiate these two and you have a county who jerks the, you know, way up high on the one and lowers it down on the other. Uh, I want to try To phase out that personal property tax, so sets a limit for us to to be able to do that. And I'm, I'm
hoping I'll answer your question, uh, there's numerous ways it could be done, I guess. Yeah, I guess one concern I
Representative David Ray
Unverified
59:45
would have is if you're just shifting it from personal property to real
property, you know, the, the overall tax burden just stays the same. All we've done is shift, you know, shielded people from the annoyance of paying this tax on their, on their cars um if we, if the filled the gap to lower our the way you were describing it sounds like the state would send money. To local governments to backfill some of that is that what you were saying? Yeah, so, so just on,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:00:17
just on your, on your first point, uh, me personally as a,
as a taxpayer, if, if the burden was shifted from my personal property tax to my real tax, so I was paying the same rate. I would be all for it because it would make my life simpler. I'm paying the same amount of money, but I don't have to go to the assessor's office and then I would also argue that uh you would do away with that bureaucracy that, uh, you know, having to go get. predecessor and blah, blah blah, and you know, the driver's license offices got a check to see if you've been by doing away with that bureaucracy, not a lot of savings, but there is some savings. Um, as far as, uh, you
know, if the state were to backfill, uh, most of that backfilling would be to the schools, and that could be done through the current funding formula. Uh, we would just have to, whatever that amount is, we would just have to make that up, uh, you know, since I've been in the General Assembly, we've cut over $2 billion worth of taxes and so while Um, you know, $200 million is, is, is definitely a big lift, uh, on a annual basis we've had 2 $300 million dollar surpluses, so I think if done over time, we
could through the, through the funding matrix to schools, we could add money to there to allow for the locals to slowly fade this out. But again, that flexibility would be up to future general assemblies cause obviously I won't be here. Uh, but, so, so that's why I didn't put in the bill. So like in previous versions of the bill, I said this had to be done by a certain day. I've taken that out to allow for flexibility both at the local level and at the state level to make progress on this issue as it makes sense to do so. Got you. Um,
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:01:56
You mentioned um You mentioned that if you don't pay your personal property tax, eventually your property gets seized or whatever. I, I guess I'm just not familiar with any instances of that actually happening. Does that happen? Uh, not to my knowledge, but uh I don't want to take that
Chair
Unverified
1:02:18
chance. Sure, understood. OK, all right, thank you. Representative Hawke recognized.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:02:24
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Meeks, um, I'm
just trying to think through this. If this were to be in the Constitution, wouldn't this eliminate, like, couldn't the general assembly eliminate the personal property tax at some point and then there will be no funding stream for, for schools or anything like that, right? So the, the
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:02:43
general assembly could phase out personal property taxes, assuming this work were to pass, um, so the locals would still have real property tax that they could continue to. And of course, the assumption would be that um as our economy
and so forth approves that the uh those values are actually gonna go up anyways. Uh, the vast majority of states, um, that's how they do their funding. It's the real property. They don't have personal property taxes, uh, so it's not, you know, like this is anything unusual that if we went straight to real and then of course, the state could do any back funding through the uh through the matrix as well. So, so there, there's two ways that that money could be made up. Thank you. Representative Wright, did you have another question? OK.
All right, any other questions by the committee, Representative Long,
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:03:37
you're recognized. Representative makes, um, could, could we not with a 2/3 vote, um, do this through the General Assembly. Hm
Not to my knowledge. Because it is in the Constitution now that forced the personal
property, everything correct. I, I, I thought we've done that before as far as went in and made alterations to the
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:04:02
Constitution as long as it was majority like that, yeah, um, and talking to BR and I, I'm happy to double check with them because if we could do it that way, I would have done it long ago, um, because I looked at that when um I was trying to create that exemption for broadband to try to help promote broadband within the state. And it was not something that we could do, um, the way the Constitution is written, like I said, those two taxes, real and personal, have got to be taxed at the same rate and so as far
Speaker 37
1:04:34
as I know, we cannot do that. I mean, I'm happy to double check, but if, but I,
I, I do not believe so. Thank you. Bye-bye. All right, any other questions by the committee? Saying no further questions by the committee, thank you, Representative Meeks. actually, did you want to close for your resolution? Yeah, just,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:04:54
uh, I, I'll, I'll just say once again, uh, if we pass this, this would
set up a uh opportunity for us to get one, get rid of one more annoyance for our taxpayers, make life a little
bit easier, uh, less confusing for citizens that are moving into the state. Um, I would argue that it would help bring more manufacturing jobs into the state, because remember, if you're try to get an auto plant to come to the state and they're producing automobiles on tax day every automobile that they produce is sitting there on the lot. They're paying personal property tax on which could create a disadvantage for us if we are, you know, in competition with surrounding states in order to try to bring those jobs to, uh, to Arkansas. So again, this has the opportunity to benefit
just about every single taxpaying Arkansan out there. We all own cars and uh, you know, everything all down to, uh, you know, farm implements and uh. trailer or so forth, uh, and so, uh, you know, when time comes, I would definitely uh Definitely appreciate uh positive consideration. And again, I have no doubt that if we tell, ask the citizens and the voters, do you want to get rid of personal property tax. I guarantee you they're going to pass it next November. So, uh, with that, I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Representative Meeks. Next we have House Joint Resolution 1010, Representative Unger. Steve Unger, District 19. I hate to
Speaker 93
1:06:27
disappoint you, but this is not anything to do with taxes. Basically I'll
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
1:06:30
read the subtitle of this because that's this is really what it is. The
constitutional amendment provide that by 2/3 vote, the Senate may remove members of certain boards and commissions for cause only after notice and hearing. So basically this is me taking a whack. At Amendment 33 and you may not be familiar with it. I wasn't eat till I started doing research on it. Amendment 33 goes back to 1942. And it came about as a result of uh to the best of my knowledge,
having read several history books on this trying to get inside their heads from that era, a blood feud between Governor Homer Atkins and Governor Carl Bailey over the firing of the president of the UFA. Uh, anecdotally, I think this came from the encyclopedia of Arkansas, uh, Amendment 33 was actually written by Robert Leffler, and if you're an attorney in the room, you, you know who Robert Leffler is and what they did is they created this thing that is almost so
airtight, it guarantees it never gets used. And so it was done with the intention of taking the governor out of the loop, and I'm just gonna read real quick section 4 of Amendment 33. It's not very long. Uh, the governor. shall have the power to remove any member of such boards or commissions before the expiration of his term for cause only, only after notice and hearing such removal shall become effective when approved in writing by a majority of the total number of the Border commission. So right off the jump.
Uh, the Border commission has to agree with the governor that one of their brethren needs to be removed. Um We'll go to the Secretary of State for a hearing, an appeal may be taken to the lusky circuit Court. By the governor, I tried to figure out why Puluski Circuit Court. I have no idea why that's in there, why we need to go ask them, Mother, may I on this. And uh it's tried de novo. I'm not an attorney here, but
that's, I think Latin for start all over again. So you have one hearing, you get to have another hearing with the Pulluke County Circuit Court. And then the appeal after that is the Arkansas Supreme Court, where they get to do it all over again. And I think this is just too clunky for us. I have done the best research I can trying to find out, has anybody ever been removed using Amendment 33. Nobody at BOR could tell me that they have. I tried to look it up.
And frankly we've got some members on some of our boards and commissions that need to be removed. Now many of you who are more experienced than me know that a border commission can be disestablished, it can be renamed, reconstituted, and I call that, that's sort of the bulldozer approach. I would rather have more like a tack hammer approach, and I believe that this does it. It helps put the legislature, legislative arm of what should be the three equal branches of government,
more in the driver's seat. And I will try to answer questions. Thank you,
Representative Unger. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you,
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:09:55
Mr. Chairman. Representative Unger, I could, um, I could see where if this were in the Constitution, it
um. It would certainly make things easier in certain situations, I guess one of the things, you know, one of the things we have to take into consideration when we're choosing which amendment or amendments to refer out is,
you know, what do we think the voters would take interest in or approve. I guess my question to you is, do while this is an interesting topic. I wonder how many voters See this as an issue or a problem that is that they would the voters even care, I guess is my question. Representative Ray, I totally understand your concern. I do. Um. I
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
1:10:36
think one of our jobs. When we're running for election or as officeholders, as to educate the public.
So why is this important? Uh, why do we have these boards and commissions that sort of run on autopilot and are not particularly effective. Or they have their own agendas. Um It's not as sexy as some of the amendments that have come through, and I'd be the first one to say that. However, Uh, this has been grinding my gears. Ever since I was a volunteer at a halfway house for felons on parole, where I expressed a great deal of unhappiness with Governor Hutchison's, and this,
this is no comment on any governor, past, present or future, but the board, the uh, the head of the department of corrections. I found myself getting pretty aggravated at this guy, because if you, if you ever worked in the field of uh Working with people on release. When it comes to um Um Helping people get past prison fighting recidivism. We stink at that here. We just, we just stink at this.
And so I was upset with the head of corrections, but turned out I was, I was upset with the wrong guy. I shouldn't have been upset with him. I should have been upset with the board. And I'm still upset with the board and so. Yes, long answer your question. I can see that this may not grab the voters' attention. But it, it's a good political science, public policy bill, and that's why I'm doing it. Thank you.
Speaker 95
1:12:11
All right, any other questions by the committee?
Seeing no further questions by the committee, Representative Unger, would you like to close
Speaker 93
1:12:28
for your bill? I would say. This is a bill that may be a
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
1:12:31
little bit like taking your cousin to the dance, but uh which I've never done, by the way, but uh Since everybody else was running one, I wanted to, too. No, that's not really true. No, I just, uh. As for your consideration at the proper time. Thank you.
Speaker 101
1:12:56
Is that buddy. All right. All right.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:13:01
Next we have House Joint Resolution 1011, Representative Meeks back again. All righty, round 2. so, uh, committee, this bill is a little
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:13:13
bit shorter and a little bit easier to understand to answer Representative Ray's question right off the bat. I don't know if this one will get quite the public attention as as a tax
cut, but uh what this bill does is, uh, of course, every even numbered year we come down as part of uh the, the fiscal session. We're here for about 30 days doing uh budgetary. matters, uh, for someone like me who is not on the budget committee. I basically drive down here at, uh, you know, for 1:30 session, uh, vote on a couple of bills and then I go home and then come back the next day, and that's really generally mostly all I do because I'm not on the budget committee. Um, so what this bill, what this
constitutional amendment would allow is that from 2 weeks prior to the start date of fiscal, uh, excuse me, from one week prior to the start of fiscal to one week after, so 2 week window right at the beginning of the fiscal session, it would allow us to file regular bills. We're already down here. There's no extra cost to the taxpayer. Here's there there's two main reasons why I would argue for the necessity of this, number one. Uh, if you've been down here for more than one term, you, you
know that here in about 2 to 3 weeks, um, we're gonna be running 50, 60, 70, 80 bills through the house in a day. We're going to be running out of time and so we're going to feel the pressure to push bills through the the legislature. By doing that, I think that that and and we've seen it, it runs the risk of us putting through things that maybe are not as well vetted as they should be, uh, things that are not fully worked out. We didn't have enough time to get all the interested parties at the table.
And if we as lawmakers knew that uh, you know, if I'm having trouble getting everyone together, if I've got an issue, if I knew that, uh, you know, hey, I, I've, you know, coming back in 8 months, I'm gonna have another opportunity to present this bill and instead of as it is now, I've got to wait a year and a half, go through another election, then I think that that would take pressure off of us to try to get everything done within this 3 month window. When this 3 month window was set up, Arkansas was a much smaller state with much simpler problems, um, 3 months trying to
get everything crammed into it in the general session, as you all know, is extremely difficult. And so what this bill would do is it would give us that opportunity. Hey, if there's something that still needs to have some tweaks done. to it. I can hold off. I would have all summer to try to get that worked out and then I can present it in the uh the following spring. The other reason why I would say that we need this is, uh, remember last session right there at the end, we passed a little cryptobi mine that had no opposition, and then
two weeks later, that uh crypto facility went on, uh, in my district, and then at that point, we had no recourse to do anything about it. Um, If you were here during the COVID pandemic, uh, you may remember that once the governor cleared the state of emergency. Basically, we were out of it. The, the director of health at that point, he was basically a dictator in the state. I actually asked him because uh
obesity was a comorbidity for uh COVID. I, I asked him once, I said, uh, you know, since obesity is a comorbidity, do you have the power to outlaw ice cream in the state of Arkansas, and his answer was yes. Now, granted, he was not going to do that, but that's the kind of power that he had and what is we as lawmakers have to do to check that power. Nothing. Was the governor going to call a special session to allow us to put a check on his power? No, we had to wait a year and a half until session until COVID was practically over to have the
ability to engage on this issue and once again, if we had that two week window at the start of session, it would have allowed us to engage as a lawmaker to make sure our voice was heard in those decisions that were being made because quite frankly, they were not uh uh. Heed maybe as much as they could have been. I'll just leave it that, that, that. So again, there's no extra cost for us being here, uh, we're all here already, so why not allow us to do the work of the people.
During that time, so uh with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.
All right. Are there any questions by the committee? No questions
by the committee, Representative Meeks you recognized a close for resolution. All right, thank you, colleagues. I think this one's pretty straightforward.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:17:55
If you think we should have that extra opportunity, then I would just ask for your consideration on this, uh, resolution and with that, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Representative Meeks. Next we have House Joint
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:18:09
Resolution 1012, Representative R. Scott Richardson. Good to see you, sir.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:18:20
Last but not least. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's always nice to go last because I can expect few questions, or at least that's the whole, uh, and, and, uh. I, uh, getting a little bit of a feel for what you guys, uh, this committee is having to deal with to try to whittle down all of these wonderful and great uh
opportunities is uh uh interesting, so I don't envy you again, Scott Richardson, uh District 13, Northwest Arkansas. I'm gonna make this as quick and as succinct as possible. You guys can read so you can see that uh this this uh resolution, this constitutional amendment strikes almost all the language associated with um property tax, uh, real property tax reappraisals and places of power back in the people's hands for
any increases in property taxes moving forward. Um, that's really what we want from a people perspective. We want to have a say so in our tax increases. We want to have the ability to say yes, that's something I agree with, uh, property taxes on real estate do not. provide that opportunity. You have very little uh influence over that this resolution, constitutional proposed constitutional amendment says yes, you should have that ability and you should um be able to say no if you don't want
an increase. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Which I don't expect to have a lot. All
right. Are there any questions by the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee, Representative Richardson, you're recognized to close for your resolution. Well,
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:20:03
I appreciate the committee's time and listen to that and um I I uh maybe the quickest one you guys get to run, so that's good. um, and I would appreciate your consideration. I know that my taxpayers up in Northwest
Arkansas who have seen, well, some of them are guaranteed a 5% increase from now until they retire would appreciate you considering freezing property taxes moving forward. With Adam closed. All right, thank you very much. And committee
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:20:30
that concludes the constitutional amendments that we were set to hear today. Of course we'll meet Wednesday morning at 10 o'clock. Same place and so I look forward to seeing
you all then. This meeting is adjourned.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
HB1560 McGrew TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS; AND TO REQUIRE PRICING INFORMATION FOR LIGHTING COMPONENTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS.
HB1574 Vaught TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CANVASSERS; AND TO REQUIRE DOMICILE IN ARKANSAS.
HB1604 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED CONTRACTS BY STATE AGENCIES; AND TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS BY STATE AGENCIES TO PURCHASE PROMOTIONAL ITEMS MADE IN CHINA.
HB1621 Wardlaw TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO EXEMPT PERSONAL INFORMATION OF ELECTED CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS, JUDICIAL OFFICIALS, ELECTED COUNTY OFFICIALS, AND THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILY.
HB1631 Wardlaw TO ADDRESS THE ISSUANCE OF HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENTS.
HB1632 Wardlaw TO REQUIRE REIMBURSEMENT TO THE ARKANSAS STATE GAME AND FISH COMMISSION FOR FREE OR DISCOUNTED HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES.
HB1637 Ray CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT AND PRESENTATION OF FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE FISCAL IMPACT OF STATEWIDE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM MEASURES AND LEGISLATIVELY REFERRED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.
HB1667 Bentley TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC MEETINGS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967.
HB1683 McAlindon TO PROHIBIT THE PROCUREMENT BY A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY OF AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE OR A COMPONENT OF AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE THAT WAS MANUFACTURED IN WHOLE OR IN PART USING FORCED LABOR.
HB1690 Pilkington TO TRANSFER THE NUCLEAR PLANNING AND RESPONSE PROGRAM FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO THE DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1693 Hawk TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DAMAGED OR DEFECTIVE BALLOTS; AND TO ALLOW THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS TO PROMULGATE RULES REGARDING THE DUPLICATION OF DAMAGED OR DEFECTIVE BALLOTS.
HB1694 Hawk TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES TO ELECTRONIC FILING FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS.
HB1706 McCollum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS; AND TO PROHIBIT RANKED CHOICE VOTING.
HB1707 Hawk TO REQUIRE CERTAIN CANDIDATES TO FILE REPORTS WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE; TO AMEND PORTIONS OF INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1422 Long TO CREATE THE ONLY CITIZENS VOTE ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DRIVER'S LICENSES OF CERTAIN NONCITIZENS; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, SECTION 13.
SENATE BILLS
SB304 M. McKee TO ALLOW A CLASS OF REGISTERED VOTERS THAT HAVE CHANGED THEIR COUNTY OF RESIDENCE TO CAST A VALID BALLOT; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51.
SB293 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE REQUIRED POSTINGS AT A POLLING SITE; AND TO AMEND THE LIST CONCERNING REQUIRED POSTING OF NOTICES, INFORMATION, AND MATERIAL AT A POLLING SITE ON ELECTION DAY.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
HJR1001 A. Collins A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE CITIZENS' REDISTRICTING COMMISSION AND TO REPEAL THE BOARD OF APPORTIONMENT.
HJR1002 J. Richardson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL THE EXCEPTION TO THE PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.
HJR1003 A. Collins THE ARKANSAS GOVERNMENT DISCLOSURE AMENDMENT.
HJR1005 Long AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS.
HJR1006 B. McKenzie AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION PROVIDING THAT A GOVERNMENTAL BODY SHALL NOT USE STATE OR LOCAL FUNDS TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH A LOBBYIST FOR LOBBYING PURPOSES.
HJR1007 Cavenaugh A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE A PROCEDURE FOR THE RECALL OF CERTAIN ELECTED OFFICIALS.
HJR1008 S. Meeks AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING THE TAXATION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AND REAL PROPERTY IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.
HJR1009 K. Brown AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO BE KNOWN AS THE ARKANSAS VICTIMS' BILL OF RIGHTS; AND TO PROVIDE RIGHTS FOR VICTIMS OF MISDEMEANOR AND FELONY OFFENSES, INCLUDING VICTIMS IN THE ADULT AND JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS.
HJR1010 Unger A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT BY A TWO-THIRDS VOTE, THE SENATE MAY REMOVE MEMBERS OF CERTAIN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS FOR CAUSE ONLY, AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING.
HJR1011 S. Meeks A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE CONSIDERATION OF BILLS OTHER THAN APPROPRIATION BILLS DURING A FISCAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
HJR1012 R. Scott Richardson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE REAPPRAISAL AND REASSESSMENT OF REAL PROPERTY; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 79, CONCERNING REAL PROPERTY TAXES.
HJR1013 Pilkington A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN VACANCIES SHALL BE FILLED BY APPOINTMENT BY THE GOVERNOR.
HJR1014 Beaty Jr. A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
HJR1015 Lundstrum A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY BY REQUIRING A JUDICIAL CANDIDATE TO DECLARE HIS OR HER POLITICAL PARTY AFFILIATION OR INDEPENDENT STATUS WHEN RUNNING FOR OFFICE.
HJR1016 Ray A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REPEAL THE PROVISION OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 5, § 1, ALLOWING THE SPONSOR OF AN INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM PETITION TO CORRECT OR AMEND A PETITION.
HJR1017 Ray A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROVIDING THAT A PROPOSED STATE-WIDE INITIATED ACT OR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT SHALL BECOME A LAW WHEN APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST IN THE ELECTION AND A MAJORITY OF THE COUNTIES OF THE STATE.
HJR1018 Ray THE CITIZENS ONLY VOTING AMENDMENT.
HJR1019 S. Meeks AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO GREYHOUND RACING FROM ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 100.
HJR1020 K. Brown A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE VICTIM’S BILL OF RIGHTS; AND TO PROVIDE RIGHTS FOR VICTIMS OF VIOLENT AND SEXUAL CRIMINAL OFFENSES.
HB1069 S. Meeks TO OBSERVE STANDARD TIME YEAR ROUND IN ARKANSAS; AND TO ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME IN ARKANSAS.
HB1070 John Carr TO CREATE THE BALLOT DRAW STANDARDIZATION ACT OF 2025.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS- HOUSE, Mar 10, 2025 | Agenda | 5 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Chair
Unverified
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Speaker 19
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
Speaker 31
Chair
Unverified
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 37
Representative David Ray
Unverified
Speaker 38
Speaker 46
Speaker 60
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
Speaker 93
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
Speaker 95
Speaker 101
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified