State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (66)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1365
Act 938
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1365 K. Brown TO REMOVE RACIAL AND GENDER QUOTAS AND QUALIFICATI…”
|
TO REMOVE RACIAL AND GENDER QUOTAS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERSHIP FOR CERTAIN BOARDS, COMMITTEES, COUNCILS, … | K. Brown | Notification that HB1365 is now Act 938 |
|
HB1410
Act 323
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1410 Unger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES BY…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES BY PUBLIC SERVANTS. | Unger | Notification that HB1410 is now Act 323 |
|
HB1524
Act 939
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Howard M. Beaty, Jr. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1524 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BIDDING PROCEDUR…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BIDDING PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES. | Wooldridge | Notification that HB1524 is now Act 939 |
|
HB1548
Act 375
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1548 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DIVISION OF INFORM…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DIVISION OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS; AND TO ABOLISH THE DATA … | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1548 is now Act 375 |
|
HB1549
Act 489
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1549 R. Scott Richardson TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CYBERSECURITY AC…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2025. | R. Scott Richardson | Notification that HB1549 is now Act 489 |
|
HB1560
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 |
|
HB1607
Act 318
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…STATE AGENCIES TO PURCHASE PROMOTIONAL ITEMS MADE IN CHINA. HB1607 Rose TO CREATE THE OFFICE OF OUTDOOR RECREATION WITHIN THE…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFICE OF OUTDOOR RECREATION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, HERITAGE, AND TOURISM. | Rose | Notification that HB1607 is now Act 318 |
|
HB1608
Act 319
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, HERITAGE, AND TOURISM. HB1608 Rose TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC R…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC RECORDS AND ARCHIVES; AND TO REQUIRE … | Rose | Notification that HB1608 is now Act 319 |
|
HB1614
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1614 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATIONS RELATED…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRANT PROGRAMS. | Lundstrum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1621
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NATIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRANT PROGRAMS. 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. |
|
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. |
|
HJR1003
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1005 Long N AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS. | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1006
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RSONAL PROPERTY AND REAL PROPERTY IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. 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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1012 R. Scott Richardson AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTI…”
|
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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…N VACANCIES SHALL BE FILLED BY APPOINTMENT BY THE GOVERNOR. 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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TIVE OR REFERENDUM PETITION TO CORRECT OR AMEND A PETITION. HJR1017 Ray A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROVIDING THAT A PROPOSED ST…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROVIDING THAT A PROPOSED STATE-WIDE INITIATED ACT OR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT SHALL BECOME … | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1018
· 2 mentions in 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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 |
|
SB184
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AND FISHING LICENSES. SENATE BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle 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. |
|
SB209
Act 273
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB209 K. Hammer TO DISQUALIFY SIGNATURES OBTAINED BY A CANVASSER…”
|
TO DISQUALIFY SIGNATURES OBTAINED BY A CANVASSER UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | K. Hammer | Notification that SB209 is now Act 273 |
|
SB210
Act 274
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB210 K. Hammer TO REQUIRE THE SIGNER TO READ THE BALLOT TITLE OF…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE SIGNER TO READ THE BALLOT TITLE OF THE PETITION IN THE PRESENCE … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB210 is now Act 274 |
|
SB3
Act 116
· 2 mentions in transcript
Matched: “laws, and recently it passed Senate Bill 3, which the governor signed into law on February 18th that p…”
|
TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION OR PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BY THE STATE OF ARKANSAS AND OTHER PUBLIC ENTITIES. | D. Sullivan | Notification that SB3 is now Act 116 |
|
HB1024
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…L CRIMINAL OFFENSES. 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: “…ES FOR MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES RELATED TO Page 3 of 5 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 |
|
HB1069
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…CANDIDATES FOR THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TO ADOPT NEW LAWS CONCERNING APPELLATE JUDICIAL CAMPAIGNS. 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. |
|
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: “…Carr TO CREATE THE BALLOT DRAW STANDARDIZATION ACT OF 2025. 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: “…E ARKANSAS CODE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996. 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. |
|
HB1422
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…INQUIRY BY THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE FOR ARSON. 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. |
|
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: “…ING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL Page 4 of 5 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: “…D TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, SECTION 13. 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. |
|
HJR1004
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RKANSAS; AND TO ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME IN ARKANSAS. 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. |
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
this meeting started than what we anticipated, but everybody's busy and I was waiting on enough committee members to show up to feel like we had a sizable
enough quorum to begin business, so I appreciate everybody being here. We're going to begin with Uh, as I sent members in advance, House Bill 1365 Representative Carolyn Brown. Representative
Brown is here. I think she has some witnesses with her. Representative Brown,
you've had an opportunity to take a seat and Get situated, you're recognized. If he would announce Your name for the record, district you represent, and then your
witness can announce their name and who they're here representing. You're
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:06
recognized. Now it's, it's on, OK. Representative Carolyn Brown, District 67,
and my guest. Laura Dagostino with the Pacific Legal Foundation.
All right, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm here today to uh present House Bill
1365, uh, an act to remove racial and gender quotas and qualifications of membership for certain boards, committees, councils, and commissions and for other purposes, um, this is a very simple bill. It affects um 22 sections of code or. Yeah, 22 code sections and it simply removes racial and gender
quotas and um. which are Unconstitutional, um, all persons weren't based on the 14th Amendment, all persons born and naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside, no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws. So This amendment is simply or this bill is simply to eliminate government instituted um racial and gender. Quotas In accordance with the 14th Amendment. All right, Representative Brown, sounds like you've presented
your bill. Uh, does your witness have any remarks that she would like to make?
Yes. Alright, if you would recognize yourself, state your name in any organization you're representing,
Laura Dagostino
Unverified
2:58
you're recognized to make your remarks. Yes, sir. Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Laura Dagostino, and
Speaker 22
3:06
I'm with the Pacific Legal Foundation. Founded in 1973, PLF is the oldest and most experienced public
Speaker 23
3:11
interest legal foundation of its kind. I myself am part of PLF's equality and Opportunity Practice group, and we are devoted to advancing liberty for all and ensuring that everyone is treated equally under the
law. We seek to dismantle unconstitutional barriers to opportunity, and this includes legislation that allocates burdens or benefits to some at the expense of others. Statutes that require appointing authorities to discriminate against their own citizens when making appointments to public boards is one area where We are actively litigating cases. In 2023, we defeated a sex-based quota in Iowa that required the judicial nominating commission to be gender balanced. In
Kansas, we focused on challenging a racial quota that existed for the state board of cosmetology. Just this past January, the Attorney General issued an opinion where he noted that defending that racial quota in court against the constitutional challenge would be likely a difficult task, end quote. We have similar cases presently ongoing in Louisiana. Minnesota, Tennessee, South Carolina, and West Virginia to name a few. It has also been my privilege to litigate a case here in Arkansas
in 2023 I represented Stephen Hale in challenging a racial quota for the social work licensing board. Despite Mr. Hale's vast experience as a foster parent, he was excluded for being considered for a seat on the board because of his race. However, shortly after our lawsuit was filed, Governor Huckabee Sanders signed into law a bill that abolished the racial quota to the social work Licensing Board. Indeed, the Arkansas legislature has been taking active measures to eliminate discriminatory
laws, and recently it passed Senate Bill 3, which the governor signed into law on February 18th that prohibits discrimination by public entities on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. HB 1365 continues this great work by ensuring that the government does not discriminate when making appointments to various boards and HB 1365 eliminates 22 discriminatory laws. These types of bills are necessary because racial classifications and quotas
perpetuate stereotypes, patronize the qualified, and hold back citizens of Arkansas from serving their communities. As the Supreme Court of the United States has noted in its students for fair admissions decision. The heart of the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection lies the simple command that the government must treat citizens as individuals and not simply as components of a racial, religious, sexual, or national class. This great legislature now has the opportunity to continue advancing equality in
the state and ensuring that everyone is treated equally. Thank you very much and if you all have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer and
address them. All right, thank you for those remarks. Uh, does the, are there any questions by the committee? I see Representative
Representative David Ray
Unverified
6:23
Ray, you're recognized. No, I it. We I can
Speaker 10
6:26
if you need me to. All right, and apparently, um, Apparently, we made a mistake.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
6:32
Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a couple questions, um. So I think first and foremost, um, I appreciate you traveling here to speak for this today. Um, I don't know if you followed closely. I know you're not from here, so I don't know if you followed closely the debate on Senate Bill 3, that was obviously positioned as a pro equality bill, um, in fact, what it does is I think dismantle some really important steps in the state of Arkansas has taken to address equality, to get us
to a place of equality, a place where I think nobody around this table would argue we are yet so in the same vein. Um, I think this bill concerning boards and commissions does a lot to damage steps that we have taken to get us closer to equality, um, can you explain to me who in Arkansas is currently harmed by the status of the law as it is right now. Thank you representative
Speaker 23
7:28
for your, for your question. So our position at Pacific Legal is that any time that the
government is given power to use race in making determinations and who can serve on a board that harms all people of Arkansas. First, when you have quotas, it automatically imposes a limitation, and it. Precludes people from being able to serve in that in that position. It also perpetuates a demeaning badge on people who do serve and so I would argue that all people in Arkansas are damaged when there's a racial classification, um, and where
someone is I'll give you an example in Iowa where there was the sex-based classification. It was purported to help increase female representation within different boards, but ultimately if two women wanted to Serve in a district. It was not possible because that quota limited it to have a seat reserved for one male and one female. And so ultimately what quotas often uh put in in people's minds is to say, well, yep, check. I, I, I fulfilled my quota or people are being told,
well, you can't serve on on this time around because you're not the right race we're looking for. Historically, when the government is in a position to use racial classifications. It always harms people. And so what this bill is doing is removing the government's ability to use someone's race as a means to determine who gets to serve on a board. Thank you and
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
8:56
I appreciate the sort of philosophical arguments, the high-level arguments of who is harmed and, and talks of sort of big E equality, but I think our job as we sit around this table, and I hope you understand this, is to solve problems that
actual Arkansans are facing. I haven't heard from a single Arkansan, I didn't through that debate, and I haven't through this debate, maybe we will today, but I have not heard from a single Arkansan who is harmed, who, who feels in expressing and is asking for our help to address any harm, um, when it comes to this particular. Issue. Um, however, I do hear from lots of Arkansans and have um as we were talking about these bills. heard from Arkansans who are helped by the current state of things, um, Representative
Brown, I'm looking for example, this is just an example, but um, uh, on page one, actually, section 2, line 33, you cross out that text that that you said the membership of the state board, sorry, the the law currently says the membership of the state board shall reflect diversity in general education. Is it your position that we don't need the state board to reflect diversity, that there's no role for that and good governance of our state schools. I'm not saying that we don't
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
10:11
need to reflect diversity, but diversity occurs naturally and we don't need to use language that sort of codifies. Makes things more awkward or more difficult to fill positions. Well, with all due respect, I think this language came about
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
10:24
because diversity wasn't happening naturally and so that was the need for this. So um I would just say that um Unless there is a strong reason why Arkansans need this. I just don't understand why we're talking about it, but I will yield to somebody else.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
10:42
Representative Collins recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have some questions about some specific things in this
bill, um, Representative Brown, so it looks like right now community college boards, um, have a, the governor shall consider equitable representation by geography and you're striking that, I guess, why do you think it is not important for those boards to have geographic representation from throughout the district they serve. I don't think it's not.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
11:15
I'm not saying it's not important. I'm just saying that we don't
need to codify it. The governor is certainly capable of. Determining the diversity of the board or, you know, what, what they think is necessary for the board and those people who volunteer, uh. People who are volunteering their time to serve should not be excluded. Simply because of race or gender or geography, it seems
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
11:40
like, and and the other thing I guess is, you know, people often say that
if uh there aren't things to ensure adequate geographical representation. It'll be overrepresented by places like Little Rock, um, I mean, I, I think that's part of why we have a legislature that has districts throughout the state, so it's not all just decided by the most populous area, and I think that the same thing is probably true for these community college boards is that That's in there to make sure that it's not just the the population center being overrepresented. What would you say to that idea that this is actually trying to help the
people more broadly who live outside of the big cities, maybe live in rural areas
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
12:25
or other areas in the district. Well, as a community college board, you're, you're dealing with a rather small footprint. So Um I think that the people
Speaker 53
12:39
of the community have a pretty good idea of, of their community. They, um, They don't need to be
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
12:50
Chosen based on. Raise or ethnicity or any other criteria. Part of the community. Or geography, I guess
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
13:00
would be my question, but another thing, a different thing is it seems that you're saying here on page 5 that we should no longer ensure that
cultural competency and health disparity issues are adequately represented in an agency and board decisions. That's not race or gender,
cultural competency we talked in here about SB 3, and I believe the point was made um several times that somebody who is culturally competent could be of any race, but we're saying that we shouldn't even
try to have cultural competency when it comes to health decisions made by agencies or boards. Why is that? Why is cultural competency no longer important in in being struck.
Which section are you referring to on page 5. Line 28 So it struck it's language that says that the purposes of this subchapter are to ensure that cultural competency, health disparities, and other minority health issues are adequately represented in the health policy decisions determined by state-related, state health related agencies, boards, and commissions for the state of Arkansas. That's not a quota. That's not making one person be on a board or another not be on
the board. This is saying that
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
14:29
these are important goals. Well, in this section 11, uh, eliminates two
sections of code, 1780-301 and 17-80-302, uh This bill addresses
The fact that we do not need to have the government determining that we must have certain diversity qualifications on our boards and commissions for people who want to volunteer their time to serve their communities or
their uh or certain agencies, I guess I would say
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
15:13
in reference to something Representative Ray has said in the past, and I'll kind of flip it around here, you know, often we have We're trying to protect people from government. These are
government boards and commissions, OK, so I, I think I guess my point would be that we're trying to ensure that government is handling people adequately as opposed to protecting people from government, so I would just say in this sprawling bill we're doing a lot more than just what's being stated here as far as uh quotas or anything of that nature. These are, these are goals we're being that we're removing from what we are requiring of our government. saying that you believe that
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
15:58
only people of of a specific race could be culturally competent to serve the people of that
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
16:02
race. Absolutely not, and that's why I would say, why take that out? Cultural competency is something you're taking out of code here as a goal. I'm not saying by any one race or another race. I'm saying that that's something that is serving a purpose in current law that would no longer be a purpose under
Speaker 23
16:21
this bill. Representative respectfully, what I would argue is that when language is taken out of a bill, that doesn't mean that the government cannot
consider uh different considerations that would serve the community. The purpose is we're addressing specific language that is putting an onus on the government to essentially take race into consideration and what we have found in various bills is just like Arkansas has over 22 different statutes that pertain to setting aside a racial quota, it's very much in line with the similar type of language stating, uh, you know, for example, in Louisiana on the
uh medical board there, there's a racial quota and at the same time, there's many different calls within the government to say, well, you know, we, we're going to define diversity this way. In our view, uh, a diverse perspective is as such and what our position is is that people are so complex and different that it's extremely demeaning to say, well, if you're of this racial perspective or if you're a woman, you're automatically going to bring a diverse perspective. That's not necessarily true. You could have women of three different races
who come from the same socioeconomic background, and they might all have the same perspective or vice versa. What we're trying to get at here is that the government should not be in a position to use racial classifications to either think that it knows better than its own people or to tell people that it's being culturally responsive because it's assuming that people have the same perspectives. That's what this gets at. It's not attacking the priority to respect people, to hear their lived experiences or to negate them. It's merely to
say the government should not be in a position to use race to make subject determinations about people respectfully, and
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
18:08
this will be the last thing I'll. say before I get out and let someone else speak, but. That's not
what this section I'm asking about is talking about. It doesn't say that the race of any one individual, it says cultural competency, health disparities, and other minority health issues are adequately represented in the decisions, so it's not saying that one race or another race is capable of doing that. It's saying those are things that are important to be
considered. So I, I would just say that that response doesn't really address what I'm talking
Speaker 23
18:38
about in this section. It does, it does connect it to minority considerations though representative respectfully. It's those concepts as at least how it's drafted there appear to be connected.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
18:49
Cultural competencies can be, can be appreciated by people of any race. I would agree with that, but
I, I, I don't think that what you're saying addresses what I'm saying,
Speaker 81
18:59
as it's drafted, I believe that it is using race. Thank you.
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
19:06
Representative in it, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. um, representative Brown, has there been any feedback from the community saying that this is something needed. And if so, do you have any? Any feedback from the feedback from the community. I have not
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
19:25
received any feedback from the community either positive or negative. Have you tried,
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
19:30
have you reached out to the community to say, hey, this is a problem or is it have there
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
19:38
been any intentionality in that respect. The intentionality with this bill is to avoid Arkansas being sued over and over again as they were before, um, and to get this matter behind us and to remove government instituted um. bias. It's a proactive step. But I have not received any negative or positive feedback.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
20:09
From the community. I'll come back again. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I just needed a minute to think about my
question. Um. this, I guess so this question will be directed to, um, and I'm sorry, I know we just met, I forgot your name Laura Degostino. OK, all right, Laura, so let me make sure I understand correctly what you were saying, kind of in the in your introduction.
Pacific Legal brought a case against the state of Arkansas on behalf of uh a man that was wanting to be considered for an appointment to the social worker board. And he did not qualify because he was not of minority race, and that was the only opening on the spot available on the board available, right? Is that, is that correct. And then That case, as I understand it, um, was basically. The the AG declined to defend
Speaker 22
21:14
it. Is that correct? currently, it was being litigated when
Speaker 23
21:18
then the bill um was passed and signed by the governor that removed that
Representative David Ray
Unverified
21:23
quota. All right, so the the legislation um rendered it moot.
OK. Um, OK. My next question would be, That the same lawsuit that you brought uh against the state of Arkansas would be you could basically file an identical lawsuit for every single one of
these boards and commissions that exist. Is that
Speaker 23
21:48
right? Yes, sir, and that's precisely the type of work we've been doing in many different jurisdictions like I referenced earlier
Representative David Ray
Unverified
21:55
as well. And you would almost be, you would almost certainly
Speaker 22
21:59
be successful in those suits. Well, we believe so. We've had success in Iowa for the sex-based classifications, we received a favorable AG opinion in Kansas, and
Speaker 23
22:07
we're continuing to gain momentum on this, and we think that the Supreme Court has spoken clearly on racial classifications, so.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
22:16
OK, and Representative Brown, you may want to answer this one. So, uh, Representative Collins, uh, pointed out a section in the bill that referenced geographical distribution from across the state. I think that was for the community Colleges Board. You know, the governor makes these appointments, is that right? And isn't the governor elected statewide. OK, so for a governor that's
elected statewide who's accountable to the voters all across the state, not just in one county or one region. Wouldn't it make sense for a governor, even without being required to by statute want to consider people from all across the state of all different geographic regions. I would think so. OK, so they probably do that anyway, um, and then to Representative Clowney's question about who is actually harmed, I mean.
I would guess the gentleman, Mr. Hale, that Wasn't eligible for a position to serve on a board that he was qualified to serve on and wanted to at least be considered for, I would guess that he felt he was harmed otherwise he wouldn't have filed
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
23:34
infinitely qualified to be on that board and and really
had a servant's heart and wanted to serve and was not allowed to OK, thank you. Representative Hawk, you're
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
23:47
recognized. They share, um, Representative Brown, I'll take you to page 7, line 18, um, when we're talking about a discrimination bill for boards
and commissions. Why are we Adding a member to the pharmacy board on this bill? I
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
24:13
think because we deleted uh the uh requirement for one
minority member. There were 5 + 1 and I understand
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
24:23
that, uh, but so that 5 initially was consistent of the one minority member, so wouldn't it just stay at 5 members that one was just doesn't have have to be made up of a minority member. It looks like we're adding a 6th because right now on page 18, it, it says it strikes out 5 and adds a 6th.
I may, I may be not mathing
Speaker 111
24:52
well. I just two of them are not. Specific OK. I'm, I'm clearly not mathing well. I I apologize. I was
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
24:59
just, I read that wrong where you would be concerned about that
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
25:03
or why you would ask that question. Let me just read this through one more time. I should be a
minority be license practicing pharmacy. I did not see the
Speaker 113
25:13
aid on there. I apologize. That's, that's my fault. Thank you.
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
25:21
Representative in it, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If the goal is to promote merit-based appointments, what alternative strategies are being proposed to ensure that diversity and inclusion is still
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
25:38
prioritized in these appointments. We are not prioritizing any um.
Any, um. Advantage to any race or gender that's not a priority to
advantage anybody. It's uh the advantage is to make it open to everybody to make it equal an equal opportunity
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
26:10
for everybody. Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you. Um, first, I just want to clarify, so it says in this handout that when you filed your lawsuit that uh the state of Arkansas responded by overturning the unconstitutional
requirement. That seems to me like you're saying that a
court ruled that it was unconstitutional and overturned it, but that's not right, is it?
Speaker 96
26:34
Representative, that's just referencing the fact that the bill directly removed the racial quota following our
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
26:40
lawsuit. We would typically call that overturning, but I, I, I, I guess just again clarify one of these is not actually been adjudicated as unconstitutional
Speaker 13
26:53
in Arkansas, has it? No, because of the
Speaker 23
26:56
but uh Because of these different quotas that exist, we would intend to challenge those in court because we do believe that they are unconstitutional and with our different work
Speaker 120
27:06
in other jurisdictions as well. OK, I would
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
27:09
exercise caution and and assuming that we can confidently say these are all going to be unconstitutional. The other question I have for Representative Brown is, um, on page 2, the commission on closing the achievement gap in Arkansas.
What achievement gap are we closing? What is
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
27:40
which section that is section. 3 on page 2,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
27:45
which line, please? Well, it starts online 36 on page one and it continues all the way down into uh. page 3, line 6.
Making amendments to that commission on closing the achievement gap in Arkansas.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
28:08
I am assuming that the achievement gap they're referring to is the achievement gap in schools for our students. So who is achieving higher and who
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
28:18
is achieving lower? I think we should, I mean,
know about what this is that we're amending here um.
But. I guess regardless of what it is, uh, we're not only taking
people who are African American and Hispanic from being required under this board, but it also looks like we're no longer requiring the board to represent community demographics or socioeconomic diversity. And so I guess regardless of what the gap is, if it's racial, if it's socioeconomic, um, I
mean we're taking people off the board who would be able to speak to that from their unique. Background as a member of that community or with perspective. As
Speaker 23
29:14
an individual from that community. Well, Representative, do you believe that because this quote is removed that people from different communities would no longer want to be considered for these positions or do you have a specific examples of the governor of Arkansas, uh, being discriminatory in appointments
because that's a required, that's a required demonstration if you're going to use racial classifications, you need to point to a history of direct and specific discrimination by that office. So removing a quota from the law will not preclude the governor from making her selections for people who bring in diverse perspectives and can adequately represent their community. You keep talking about quotas, but I keep talking about
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
29:55
things that are not quotas. You, you, you maybe address quotas in this book, but
you do a lot of other things. So look on
page 3. I'm well, how I maybe not. You can, I mean you can say, of course, Representative Brown, I, I'm just saying that when you talk about what's on page 3 line 9 through 11 task
force members shall be representative of community demographics and socioeconomic diversity. Those aren't race-based quotas. How does one, how do
Speaker 22
30:23
you define selecting someone from that's representative of community demographics. How, how do you make that determination that one
Speaker 23
30:32
is representative of a community demographic I don't have to make that
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
30:36
determination. Well, it's specifically says there community demographics, race, ethnic, gender, and as socioeconomic diversity. And then over here on page 2, Where was it? Um, OK, on page 2
line 9 and 10 for the governor's appointees shall be,
uh, and striking minority or making a strictly low-income parents because many of the the same problems affect all low income. Families, fair enough, but why then strike
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
31:18
socioeconomic diversity. Why say that the task force members do not have to be representative of socioeconomic diversity. It's not a race-based quota.
Speaker 23
31:34
It's not a quota at all, that part. Again, The key here is to empower people to represent their communities and the more we can limit the government's ability to exclude people, uh, that is something that brings greater liberty to everyone, and so, um, It's for this reason we're trying to create greater opportunity for Arkansas's
people from Arkansas to represent their community and not to be precluded by arbitrary classifications the government puts in place.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
32:11
Arkansans is what we call ourselves.
Speaker 75
32:14
Thank you, I understand that representative. I misspoke.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
32:18
I apologize. But as we continue on, task force members shall, uh, include 3 parents as selected by the local school district's parent organization. One parent who has a child in elementary school and I mean it goes it goes on, it breaks it
strikes the uh the language that you referred to, however, there's quite a bit of uh Other language that indicates who is being who those membership task force members should be. Which I think adequately. covers the situation. community-based organizations, university school of education. Uh, representative local businesses, local communities
and schools program. Um, represented local law enforcement, juvenile court counselor. On and on and so that could be people of those people could represent uh. All races and genders, all ethnicities. All right, Representative Mayberry, you're recognized.
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
33:42
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I guess I'm kind of curious on page 5 and 6, section 11, because I, I, I do understand the, the, the. What you've outlined here on this sheet which was very helpful, by the way, we're talking about race and, and gender, but I'm kind of struggling with those sections and wondering if, if you'd be willing to amend it to take all that out because to me I read it as we're eliminating
stakeholders were eliminating the possibility of these examples of, of, um, groups like the Arkansas State Board of Nursing. That's not a, a race or a gender, um, the Arkansas Medical Dental and Pharmaceutical Association. That's not a race or gender, um, the down on on page 6, down at the bottom there, Arkansas Board of um podiatry, the Arkansas Psychology Board, social work licensing board, State Board of
Dental examiners, State Medical Board, State Board of Pharmacy. Um, I, I guess I'm just Wondering why that section had to be included and if there's some way that maybe um That could
be taken out because that's not
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
35:04
a race or gender issue. Well, OK, we have two sections of code here and 178301. is on page 5, and that is um it states the purpose of purposes
of this subchapter are to provide appointment recommendations for Arkansas state boards and commissions that license or otherwise regulate health-related professions to ensure board and commission compositions that reflect the diversity of the state of Arkansas. Ensure that cultural competency, health disparities, and other minority health issues are adequately represented in the health policy decisions determined by state health related agencies, boards, and commissions of state of Arkansas.
That's one section of code then when what you referred to on the next page, um, or section 178302 minority members of state health related agencies, boards, and commissions, uh, the appointing authorities of state health related agencies, boards, and commissions shall consider appointment recommendations submitted by minority health-related professional associations. The recommending organizations under this section include without limitation, so.
We're not eliminating the organizations, it would just saying that. It is The language referring to Um I mean authorities of state health related agencies, boards and committee shall consider an appointment recommendations. minority members of State health-related agencies, boards, and commissions. It specifically saying minority members of state
health related agencies, boards, and commissions. The appointing authorities, so it's It is Requiring minority members to be part, a part of each of these boards and commissions. Am I not correct? I. I, I, I'm just not reading
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
37:14
it that way. Uh, I mean, I could be completely wrong, but I'm, I'm seeing that we're trying to get
diversity of um different organizations, different stakeholders. Well,
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
37:25
you've got to read from the top. I mean, you know, that's the introductory information. And why these agencies are then listed. I'll, I'll let someone else. Ask a question. I just, I minority members of state health related agencies, boards, and
commissions. The appointing authorities of state health-related agencies, boards, and commissions shall consider appointment recommendations submitted by minority health-related professional associations. The recommending organizations under this section include without limitation, and that's where all those. Are listed So it is saying that the minority health-related
It's not making sense? I mean, if you just read it from
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
38:32
the top, you can't read it from the bottom and I went back into the law too, so I, I, I don't know, I just That part of it Has concerns for me that the other parts I I totally get. I'm, I, I very much understand and again, this handout was very helpful. But I guess I'm just seeing diversity as in boards. Um
Anyway, This is the topic. Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I might follow
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
39:13
up on this uh section here that Representative Mayberry is talking about first off. So, uh, under the Arkansas State Constitution, uh, private organizations cannot uh have uh Make appointments to boards and commissions, all that they can do is actually make recommendations. So all this code section is doing is saying
that we're going to allow these private organizations to make recommendations for these boards, they could still make those recommendations even if we strike this code. Is that correct? And they're not even those we can't force those organizations to even make recommendations. So all this is, this code section is saying is that if these organizations choose to make a recommendation that we have to allow them to make a recommendation, which if we strike this, they can still make that recommendation. So, um, that, that, that part of the
code that's all it does, wouldn't you, would you agree? I agree with that. OK, so that's all that section does. It just says that those folks be allowed to make recommendations, which I could do with her. without the code on page 4, Representative Collins had asked about the issue with the geographic distribution. Um, where it says to the extent possible, um, and Laura, you may be better equipped to answer this one as a as a legal mind. I, I would say that that phrasing pretty much makes that
section superfluous, uh, because normally when we say when we define these and law, we say we want somebody from each congressional district or we want somebody from a different county. The way this is written is it says to the extent possible, whatever that means, the governor shall, uh, Uh to equitable representation based on geographic distribution, whatever that means. I mean, we could have somebody from North Pulaski County, South Pulaski County, East Pulaski County, West Pulaski County, and that'd be
considered geographical distribution because it's not defined. So would you agree that this is, I don't know, vague at best and superfluous at worst. Well,
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
41:18
actually, I would agree with you because the majority of the population is right here in the center of the. Center and then in a lot of counties you've got um you've got very sparsely populated areas and you have more densely populated areas and you know, you might not be able to find somebody in a sparsely populated
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
41:39
area who wanted to participate and so I, I, so I guess my point is that
you would have a hard time trying to make a legal case that the governor violated that section of law because it is so poorly defined. So in my mind, it makes it superfluous to begin with. And then Section on cultural competency. How, how, how do you define that? I mean, what I think of cultural competency is and what somebody else thinks of cultural competency is could be two entirely different things. So again, here's another section of
code that is very ill defined and as a legal mind, I don't know how you even begin to file a lawsuit to say that the governor did not do this. Because how do you define that? How do you define that to even say the governor violated it. So again, while it's a very nice, well-intentioned thought. I think legally again, this section of code is, you know, superfluous or or troublesome at the best because it doesn't define what these, what is a
health disparity? I mean, I, I think, you know, I might know what that is, but how do you define that legally? So, again, because these things aren't defined and fleshed out. I, I, I don't know. that they do a whole lot of good to begin with. Would you agree or disagree?
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
42:55
I would agree with that because even within any ethnicity, you're gonna have different cultures, you're gonna have different. You're just not, we're not all alike within each, you know, where you might peg me, I might be insulted by that because I might see myself in a different
category or you know. Yes, it is vague and impossible to deal
with. All right, I have a question and to be
clear, I'm not necessarily taking a position one way or another on the bill, but, but generally I do have this question, so for example, and I think this begins on page 2. Where we talk about the commission on closing the achievement gap, and this follows up to some degree on Representative Collins's question, what achievement gap
are we talking about? Why do we have this commission? Why does it exist? Well, it's about the achievement gap that we know that exists between, for example, black students and white students between female students and male students, socioeconomic, uh, those who are on the lower end of the economic spectrum versus those on the higher end of the economic spectrum. And so the whole purpose. Of the commission is to try to address the inequities that we know exist, uh, for these particular groups and so you
have, uh, the law essentially says that because of that, because that's the specific purpose of what this commission is trying to address that we will ensure that there is uh that there are certain members from Those groups who are a part of this commission because that's the whole purpose of the commission is to close the achievement gap which we know exists and I think which we all recognize is a problem. So why should we not do that when the whole purpose of the commission. Uh, is to address these
inequalities, if you will. I'd just like
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
45:00
to hear a response. Thank you. Because someone belongs to a specific rates or ethnicity or Um Doesn't necessarily mean that they are well equipped to address the problems. There might be other people who
are, are better equipped who um when we're talking about education achievement gaps, uh. Educators may be better equipped than. Somebody who Doesn't have anything to do with education, doesn't take an interest in education who might have a, they could have a career in any in anything, but if they don't take an interest in education they're not going to be well qualified to serve on a particular border commissioner help resolve the closing of the
achievement gap, um. And there's nothing to prevent. Anyone from applying to volunteer their service to their community to serve on the boards commissions and there's nothing to prevent the governor from choosing someone of a of a variety of ethnicities to serve on those boards and commissions would be the governor's responsibility to choose the person that they believe can best serve the board or commission. OK, and while I understand that point,
I mean, I'll go back to my point, if we have created this commission to address a very specific issue, which is the achievement gap between different groups, whether that's uh racial groups, uh, Gender groups, socioeconomic status groups. We know there's an achievement gap. We do not believe there should be an achievement gap. We want to address that. Don't you think that it makes sense to write into the law that those most directly affected by the achievement gap.
Will be part of this commission to address
Speaker 22
46:59
that specific problem. Well, representative, that would be also assuming
Speaker 23
47:03
that just because someone, uh, But you know, I'm uh a female Italian immigrant, uh, I may have one perspective, one life experience, but that doesn't mean that that necessarily would empower me to address um Italian uh educational achievement gaps.
Uh, someone that is involved in uh Working with children in uh learning styles and all of these different factors would have a much greater wealth of knowledge and perspective to bring to the table, then my, my own experience, for example. So all, all the law is doing is saying not putting the government in a position to say I know who I think is most qualified because of that person's background. It's more saying, if you're interested, the opportunity is
there for you and appointments can be made by verifying. that the person has all of the different qualifications to be able to serve in the position. It's merely saying a person shouldn't be automatically excluded from the equation just because they don't meet the specific um vision the government may have for that for that commission, but if we're dealing with it, closing the achievement gaps, we want to hear from everyone that may have some offering of knowledge and background to offer to that. That, that would be my response, sir.
All right, I was looking for another portion of the bill that I wanted to ask about, but I can't seem to find it at the moment, so let
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
48:49
me move on. Representative Bennet, you're recognized. Representative Collins, you're recognized. So something you just said there was interesting to me because Representative Brown a minute ago said that diversity would naturally arise on these boards and the, you know, event there were not the requirements anymore, but you just said that it doesn't matter that you know,
people can ably represent um different interests despite not having that background. So I, I guess, which is it? because those seem inconsistent, like, for example, uh, a board on closing the achievement gap. Um, I think underrepresentative Brown's vision would be diverse by nature and it would naturally evolve that way, but it sounds like what you're saying would be that uh a board on closing the achievement gap could be made up of, you know, all white men from
Speaker 23
49:38
Little Rock and that would be perfectly fine, uh, representative, uh, our statements are not contradictory. What I'm saying is that I don't preclude, I don't presume to have the uh The authority to think that I know what what the composition of that board will look like. All I'm saying is that if we remove these types of qualifications, it opens it up for everyone to serve. I'm not saying that I know what that board would look like, nor would I, would I presume to have that type of authority or uh uh
clairvoyance. I don't. All I'm saying is all people benefit when situ when boards are open to
Speaker 120
50:13
all citizens. So like in a situation that
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
50:20
says there shall be one black. OK, well, does that mean you can only have one black member of the board. Maybe you could have 2 or 3 or 4. you know, if they're interested in serving or you should have one woman. Well, uh, I mean, what if you had, what if you had 2 or 3 women who wanted
to be on the board. We just shouldn't as the government, we
should not be in the position to to be discriminating based on race and gender. Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize. I had to
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
50:57
step out, so I hope that this hasn't been asked already, but um. way. If that's the argument, if the argument is about not precluding people from serving, then can you look with me at a couple portions of the bill that I have
questions about, so one of them, um, let's see, I'm on page 5 lines 9 and 10. This is about the state athletic commission, one of the 7 members shall be a senior citizen. Uh, the same. type of requirements uh appears in the section about the Arkansas State Board of Pharmacy, um, two members of the board, blah blah one member shall be 60 years of age down in line 30 on page 7. Why are we not similarly concerned about
younger members who want to serve being precluded from having the opportunity to do so in the same way that we're worried about white people who want to serve being precluded from doing. Oh, I thought you were referring to age. I am. Why are, why are those sections not struck out because we are worried about why aren't we worried about those requirements? Why aren't worried about a quota for age. Why aren't we worried about the young person who will be precluded from applying for from serving in those roles as we are the people that we're talking
Speaker 31
52:12
about in the bill today. Oh, that's a good point. I probably should
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
52:20
have struck those also. Our primary concern here was race and gender
quotas. OK, so I'm gonna go back and follow up to some degree on. Representative Clowney's question. This was the part that I was looking for earlier. So when we talk about the closing the achievement gap again. I mean, if you're not concerned about the inequalities. Then why even have the closing
the achievement gap commission because it was clearly uh developed to address specific issues and one of the things that I note shall consist of 11 members and you know it goes on through a number, but one of them, for example, is, uh, one member of the school of education. Faculty of a historically black college in the state with an accredited school of education. All of that has been stricken. Well, the reason that they were specifically named is because we know that there are achievement
gaps that exist there, and it would be very important to have someone represented on that commission that's addressing this problem from that particular. Uh, demographic. So I just go back to again, I mean, if you disagree with the premise that we should even address this issue entirely, then that's fine. Maybe we should just strike the whole commission. But if we're going to have commissions that address very specific issues like this, why would we not include that in statute.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
53:44
Well, I would think that the governor. Who's making these appointments would consider. All
of those things when making those appointments that doesn't have to be in law. They're gonna consider all the. You know, things
change and so what is is relevant today may not be relevant in 50 years.
Yeah, it's interesting, you know, to your point, um, gender is one
of the things in in closing the achievement gap that's mentioned. And things have changed significantly from where they were, say, 50 years ago, we now have more women enrollees in college, more women graduates, more, uh, there's an equal number, if not more women in law school than there are, uh, then there are men, that's a significant role reversal from what it was maybe 50 years ago. Um
Chair
Unverified
54:48
So to your point, Representative Bennet, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
54:55
Chair. Um. When we think about Maternal mortality, and we think about shortage of teachers that look like me, and when you put these restrictions on these boards and commissions, how are our voices supposed to be heard when people are making decisions about our livelihoods. If you're gonna take all this out of these
commissions, how and how are my constituents' voices heard when you take this out. When you talk specifically about
things that matter to black. communities. I would think that the things that matter to the
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
55:36
people in the black community matter to all people. We all want to be safe. We all want our children well
educated. Um And I have done a considerable
amount of reading and studying on this issue. And many of the um. Black intellectuals. who were formerly in favor of um Affirmative action and quotas are no longer. in support of that. And who
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
56:15
referring to? Thomas Soul, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, um.
An author I'm currently reading, which his name is Escape me and then um. A white woman, Heather McDonald. the research indicates that affirmative action in all of these policies have done nothing but hurt the black community and where are these these numbers
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
56:41
and research, they're in books and I've read them. So you're welcome to read
them too thanks. um. Again, when we talk about things that
Specifically hurts our communities, you're trying to erase all the stuff on here that will help. Our communities, who is better to voice our opinions than people that look like me. Oh ma'am, I, I
Speaker 22
57:10
would argue representative, that just by removing a quota
Speaker 23
57:13
that doesn't preclude people from serving, and what we often find is that a problem with recruiting diverse people is also because oftentimes websites are outdated, people might not know
about the opportunity or they might see, well, that quote is fulfilled and even be discouraged from applying because there's so that quote has already been fulfilled. It it, it, it sets a limit in people's minds, so there's, there's absolutely nothing wrong with. trying to get the community involved and and wanting to fix even the process maybe to simplify how one applies to a public board commission. So, um, removing this quota doesn't change the fact that the governor of the state is still
accountable if they act in a discriminatory manner or they're excluding people from being able to represent a diverse community. All this is doing is just saying it's not, it's taking the government's power away from using race to say, OK, we want a certain number of people and anyone else, that's fine. This is more saying let's open it up to everyone, let everyone serve and if so if a government officials, if a government official acts in a discriminatory manner, they
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
58:28
that exist to protect people against discrimination. Again, you didn't answer the question. If I have people in my constituency who suffer from maternal mortality and all those things, you're telling me you're gonna remove the black quota on here and somebody else is going to tell this board commission how our community works. You're telling me that's that that's OK. What I'm seeing representative is that by
Speaker 23
58:58
removing the quota, it doesn't preclude different people. from being appointed to the board, that doesn't mean that there will
Speaker 120
59:04
never be a diverse candidate appointed to
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
59:07
the board. Well, obviously there was a problem with getting people on these boards that's why this bill was originally here, because I have constituents who email me and call me from time to time who want to be on these boards and commissions who are qualified who asked me to write letters of recommendation because they've tried for years and years to get on these commissions and have not been
able to get on these commissions. That's why these things are placed so we have safeguards, so we have our voices heard. And with this, you're removing it and nobody can tell me one good reason why you wanna tell me about some. Larry Elders or whoever that is, he does not speak for the majority he does not speak for black America. Well, representative, if, if
Speaker 23
1:00:00
these individuals were not able to serve. I mean, the, the
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:00:11
quote is presently exist. Representative Beatty, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Representative Brown, I, I guess my question more goes in line with what Representative Bennett is saying is the, the intent of this bill with the quotas, uh, based on, on maybe racial, um, um, I guess
requirement to serve on the board, the, the intent of this where some of those requirements said one. Member of the African American community, under your bill when you change this language, would it not open it up to where that maybe that committee could be 100% African Americans that could serve on that community and represent their districts and have their voices heard and not limited to one member or two members of that of that targeted audience. It opens it up to all members. Is that correct? Absolutely. This, this bill is
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:01:01
not intended to hurt anybody. It's intended to open it up to everybody. Thank you,
Representative. Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:01:12
Brown, but you understand, right, that just because the, the current law says one member shall serve. It doesn't mean only one member shall be a member of a minority. We're not currently limiting membership of boards to only one minority per board if that's the statutory minimum for the requirement, right? You understand that. I just wanna make sure. I do understand that,
so I guess can you square that with what you just answered Representative Beaty with He said this opens it up to more minority representation, and I, I, I just don't
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:01:44
understand how that's true. I would think that that. I'm just speculating that that could be open to speculation, whereas uh if you just, we just don't need race and gender quotas.
We don't need them in our government. We don't want government discriminating against people or favoring
people because of race or gender. We do not want that in our government. And that's fine.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:02:09
You and I can agree to disagree on, on, you know, all of these more abstract points, but I just want to be facts. I just want to be factually clear that the boards are not currently limited to. Whatever the minimum is for the
minority representation that the law currently lays out. That's all. Representative Rose, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:02:34
Chair. Um, to the question that was just asked,
I heard your response that it was not abstract. Would you feel comfortable elaborating to what you mean by it's not abstract. Representative Brown. Would
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:02:46
you repeat what you said. About that I responded.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:02:53
Well, I, you were saying that you would speculate that this would open it up and I was just saying that I think, I think you had said that we shouldn't have quotas anymore and I said we
could disagree about that in the abstract, but I want to get the facts, the facts correct about what the current state of the law is, and then I think you said it wasn't abstract. My guess is you were about to give an example, but I don't know. I haven't heard about it
in Arkansan having problems until today, but maybe you have more. Well,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:03:26
and I didn't mean to derail, um. More to the point that Representative Cloney mentioned that she hadn't heard of an Arkansan having a problem, but you guys talked about a lawsuit
earlier. I guess maybe speak more to that claim that somebody was excluded. From a border commission, by the way that the law
Speaker 23
1:03:45
currently stands. Uh, yes, Representative. So in that case, we were representing Stephen Hale. Uh, he is a foster parent that has fostered over 300 children and really opened up his home uh to help some of the most vulnerable children in the state, and because at the time when he wanted to be considered for um an opening on
the social work licensing board, he would have been precluded entirely from being considered. Um, and so there are what, what, what occurs with these types of quotas is that someone may see that and say, I, I can't represent my community. I, I can't be equally considered and the law does place a significant demand on the government when it is using race to allocate benefits. They have to show a specific uh history of discrimination from that board or from by that appointing
authority. So, um, and, and to bring about the point. Even if the law states that, um, OK, uh, the government is not limited to a point only a single person, uh, we would argue that it, it creates a detrimental effect by by creating a a situation where someone might feel that they, they met their diversity quota by fulfilling that seat. Instead, it would be a, a more advantageous situation to not have a quota at all and someone to be open to just appointing as many people as
they want, and that happened in Iowa as well. There were women that wanted to serve um in different districts, but because of the gender balancing law, uh, a seat was always reserved for a man, and so, even if all women wanted to serve in every district, they were precluded from doing so. And so it, everyone wins when there aren't arbitrary classifications that keep people out. And I go back to the
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:05:33
14th Amendment. Uh, nor deny any person within
its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws. So setting
quotas is not Consistent with equal protection of the laws. All right, seeing no
further questions by the committee. Thank you, Representative Brown. We don't have
anyone signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Brown, you're recognized a close for your bill.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:06:10
Thank you committee. Um, And I appreciate the the back and forth and the questions and they're all things that I have thought about. And I feel that. It is time to eliminate Race and gender quotas. It is time for us to honor each individual as an individual, as a citizen of the United States as a citizen of Arkansas and to respect each and every person
regardless of race or gender and to allow our boards and commissions to be populated by the most qualified volunteers. These are people who are volunteering to serve their communities or to serve a particular particular capacity and I believe it is. It is time for us to eliminate those. And the um based on this. The Agostino. Uh, experience with our social
work licensing board, um, I believe that we are setting ourselves up for future. Lawsuits, um I don't mean to have the carrot and the stick sort of thing but um we just need to get rid of these because they are unconstitutional. race and gender quotas are unconstitutional. They're not defensible. And With that. I'm closed. You want to say anything else?
Representative Brown has closed for her bill. What are the wishes of the committee. I have a motion to pass Representative Beatty, is there any discussion on the
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:07:54
motion? Representative Collins, you're recognized. We talked about this a lot. I just want to make one additional point though, because it was mentioned several times that the governor would exercise good judgment and appoint a diverse board or commission in every situation where it's warranted. I, I don't really understand why we as the legislature are
wanting to give up our power so quickly to the executive. This is not the only governor that we're going to have in this state any future governor could make decisions based on what criteria he or she desired and I think that the reason that these quotas were put in place, as was mentioned earlier in some of these other principles that have nothing to do with quotas is that in the absence of some parameters, we end up with the old boys network. I mean, and that's my office is on the 4th floor,
and we have all of the, the house composite photos from the 40s and 50s up there. It is 100% white men in those pictures and I just wonder what it was like. in those rooms and if much consideration was given to other perspectives. Of course I'm sure there were people in the legislature at that time who did their level best to consider perspectives other than their own, but your perspective is your perspective. You come into it with your life experiences, and that's informed by a lot of things. It's not a perfect overlap about where you come
from and where you represent and and how you'll be as a commissioner or board member, of course it's not, but at the same time, I think there's value in that and I I think that the legislatures of the past who realized the errors we made in over uh airing on the side of uh letting the old boys network run its course, realize that there's value in having people who look different and have different backgrounds in the room making decisions, especially when we're talking about things like minority health, closing the achievement
gap. There are valid reasons to have diversity on these boards and commissions. I mean, so I guess I would say that we should reassert our Legislative, um, commitment to these important principles, not rely on the good faith and goodwill of some future governor and vote no on this to preserve something that we did get right after many, many decades of getting it so wrong. Thank you. May I
respond? We're in the discussion phase.
Is there any other discussion on the
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:10:19
motion? Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Um, I appreciate everybody's patience. I know we've debated this
for a long time. So I guess I would just say in listening to this testimony, you know, anybody in the state. Of any race, uh, male, female. Anything can go online and apply to be considered for an appointment for a board and a commission. The governor represents the whole state. The governor represents all races, all
ethnicities, um, male, female. First congressional district, 4th congressional district, you name it. But to put Racial, uh, race and sex quotas for boards and commissions in the law is unconstitutional and the lawsuit that was brought by Pacific Legal on the social board case, the AG's office declined to defend it. That means they could not even make a good faith argument that it was constitutional, and we went ahead and repealed that requirement through the
legislature. Uh, if you look at the boards and commissions around the state. Not all of them require uh have race or sex quotas, and I am certain that you will find boards and commissions that don't have any requirement that do have women serving on there that do have minorities serving on there. Um. You know, removing a quota as it has been pointed out many times does not preclude anyone from serving and, and as it's been pointed out by Representative Beatty and others, you know, it
might actually lead to more people being considered because, you know, sometimes when there's a requirement that you put one person in this position and that one person's been in that they're sort of this, oh well, we've checked that box now we're moving on. You know, I've heard people refer to Governor Mike Huckabee's administration when he was asked about um his views on affirmative action. I've heard it quoted as saying that he didn't believe in affirmative action, but he believed in acting affirmatively and that meant
Appointing people from abroad uh and diverse set of backgrounds and Representative Collins said that that's important, and I don't disagree with that, but Doing it through statute creates problems as has been testified here today. So I think honestly I, I don't this bill to me seems much more straightforward and narrowly tailored than SB 3, which generated a lot more controversy, I think this bill is
actually Much more narrowly crafted than
that one is, and I'm going to be
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:13:00
voting yes on this bill. Representative Beatty, you're recognized. Mr. Chair. committee. I just want to say I'll be voting for the bill, but I wanted to to follow up on one of the points made by Representative Collins on uh the appointment authority and the and the governor appointing and, and, and along the lines that the legislature is not just giving up its authority to the governor, there is still the power of confirmation by the
Senate on, on a lot of these appointments that come through, so there still is a uh a balancing uh. by the legislator and executive branch on the appointments of these boards, and I think this will open up to where all those uh that wish to serve have an opportunity to serve, so I'll be voting yes. Alright,
seeing, oh, Representative Bennett, I'm sorry, you're recognized. Thank
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
1:13:52
you, Mr. Chair. This ironic that
the sponsor of this bill is trying to eliminate these provisions that have already been set upon these boards and commissions. Um, again, I represent a very diverse constituency and their voices deserve to be heard, and when you erase stuff like this, you hurt people that look like me. And I know you probably don't have any reference to how that feels, but this is what you're doing. This is I.
Again, I'll be voting no on this bill. Thank you. All right, seeing no further discussion, we have a motion to pass on House Bill 1365. All those in favor say aye. All those
Speaker 189
1:14:54
opposed. The eyes have it. Oh See two hands call a roll. Representative Meeks, Representative Meeks, yes. Representative Wardlaw.
Representative Wardlaw. Representative Barry, Representative Barry, yes. Representative Mayberry, Representative Mayberry, yes. Representative Crawford, Representative Crawford, yes. Representative Clowney, Representative Clowney, no. Representative Collins Representative Collins, no. Representative Evans. Representative Evans.
Representative in it, Representative in it? No. Representative McIlroy. Representative McIlroy Representative Ray Representative Ray, yes. Representative Beatty Representative Beatty, yes. Representative Carr Representative Carr, yes. Representative Underwood Representative Underwood, yes. Representative Long Representative Long, yes. Representative Hawk.
Representative Hawk, yes. Representative Rose. Representative Rose, yes. Representative. Representative Wooldridge, yes. Representative Beck. Representative Beck, yes. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you
All right, thank you. For what was some really good debate, um. The next item that we have on the agenda, we're going to move to constitutional amendments. I announced Thursday afternoon. That we would begin hearing constitutional amendments this afternoon. I want to tell you what the plan is with regard to constitutional amendments over the course of the next 3 Mondays we're going to meet each Monday. Uh, this counts the first Monday, there'll be 2 other
Mondays hereafter we're going to meet on Monday afternoons for the sole purpose of addressing constitutional amendments. I think some people may not have heard my announcement on Thursday afternoon. And so my understanding is with regard to the first constitutional amendment, HJR 1001, Representative Collins is not prepared to go forward on that today. He's asked that we hear that next Monday. Which means the next item is HJR 1002, Representative Richardson.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:17:54
Representative Richardson, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Today I present to you committee. HJR 1002, which is a joint resolution. An amendment to the Arkansas Constitution to repeal the exception to the prohibition of slavery and involuntary solitude. So this, this amendment seeks to remove language in the Arkansas Constitution that permits slavery, um, and it asserts that
the Arkansas Constitution should fully abolish slavery in all forms to reflect the state's morals. Um, when we look at this, I want everyone to please understand that this is about human capital. This is, this is not a black or white thing. This is about people that are being treated as slaves, um, and we're one of the few states that still allow this. I think currently there are 1234567, Arkansas being the 8th state that still uh acknowledge this and approve
this and the goal here is to uh give voters the opportunity to remove this from our Constitution. And with that, I'll take questions. All
right. Thank you, Representative Richardson. Appreciate that explanation. I do want to add, and I should have said this earlier, that we're not going to take any votes on any of the constitutional amendments that we hear, we're simply going to hear them and the intention is, is that we will rank the constitutional amendments after we've heard all of them and each one depending upon where it
ranks in your calculus will be assigned, uh, a certain number of points, whether so for example, if you believe that this constitutional amendment is The top priority constitutional amendment that you like the best, that'll receive 5 points. Your second choice will receive 4 points. Your 3rd choice will receive 3 points and then we'll calculate all of those and ultimately arrive at a top 5, then we, we'll narrow that down to 3 and then ultimately we'll likely narrow that down to one,
should we pick any constitutional amendment at all, and we probably should have an option for I would prefer that we refer no constitutional amendment, so, uh, these have been the discussions and I apologize to bring that up now, Representative Richard Richardson, but I do want to make clear that we're not going to be voting on your amendment today. So if there's questions about that process, I'll take them after Representative Richardson has presented but Representative Richardson. Uh, is that, does that complete your presentation of this amendment? Yeah, I guess that will complete it and I'll just
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:20:30
ask for a number 5 on your vote when
you choose to Is there anyone here signed up to speak, uh, for or against the constitutional amendment. We do have someone here signed up to speak for this particular constitutional amendment. Kaleem Nazim. Yes, sir. If you
would state your name in any organization you're here
Colleen Nazim
Unverified
1:20:50
representing and you'll be recognized to present your remarks. Yes, sir. My name is Colleen Nazim. I represent the organization decarcerate. Oh
Speaker 206
1:21:02
And I support um House Joint resolution 102. This resolution has a very special place of significance would mean um because of a lot of things, uh, first of all, I would like to say that I'm a proud Arkansan and um the mors and the values that my teachers and um. Um, and my mother and my loved ones and embodied uh in me, uh, I had went astray for a while, but now I'm back, um.
The clouds within the 13th Amendment of our state constitution which says that slavery is illegal with the exception if you commit a crime is uh of great concern. I feel that when individuals, you know, commit crimes or act or act outside of the law that they shouldn't uh strip away their dignity, their morals, or their humanity and this is what we're seeing in our uh state uh institutions, um.
I speak to you today. Not only as a citizen. But also as someone who has been formally marginalized out of society and I'll share with you um. Why I say that this resolution is very important to me when I was 17 years old, I acted outside of the law and was convicted of a crime which sent me into prison for 28 years and 11 months and I've seen a lot of
things in those 28 years and 11 months of incarceration and. I like to just share some of my experience. Um, to go along with this bill. Um, when I first went to the prison system. Uh, before I went. Um, I used to like every, every year I watched the miniseries Roots, and I'm sure many of you in this room have watched that
series before, and I couldn't understand and you know, um, how. We can be so and more to each other. And then when I was driving up to the institution I we passed cotton fields after the cotton fields, after the cotton fields, and I've seen these little black dots in the fields and I at the time I didn't recognize him as human beings for the time I got there, I understood what I was seeing it was guys in the cotton fields picking cottons and you
had riders on horses or pushing them up the field and in that moment I understood that I was in the condition of slavery. Uh, throughout the year of my incarceration, it was many examples, you know, that, uh, kind of coincided with my feelings of being in that condition. I view our state constitution as a living document. And what I mean by that is it, it breeds, you know, it has relevance uh relevancy today,
but anything you know uh that uh is living has the room to grow. And I feel that our state constitution must grow in purge itself of of this clause within our state constitution because it's not only immoral, you know, uh, it's inhumane. I think as human beings as civilized human beings within this committee that we can all say that slavery is immoral, it's a moral act and don't no one deserve to be in a condition of slavery.
So that's that's, that is the reason why I'm here today when I was released from my incarceration, I wasn't bitter. I, um, the time that I did, you know, uh, I wasn't bitter about it, but I made myself a promise. I said to myself that I will exercise my freedom and exercise my democratic voice. So I'm here today to say that a lot of the conditions that we are seeing in our prisons today. We need
To stop it and not only just by saying um That it is wrong, but taking it out of our constitution because there's now slavery is codified into our laws, and this is something that I feel as a society, we can do better. We, we own our ourselves that we own out the next generation that um I'd like to leave you with a with a close and saying uh that Mandela uh Nelson Mandela said,
he said the best way to judge our society if you wanna know the judge of nation, just look at his jails, so I interpret that. To being the way that we treat the individuals that we have marginalized outside of our society. Um, is, um, for indication of what values we hold as a society. So with that there I close my statement on hopefully, uh, I pray that when the
resolution is voted on, each individual on this uh panel with rank it as a 5. Thank you for allowing me to
share. Thank you, Mr. Nazim. Before we go any further, I should have asked if there were
any committee members who had any questions of Representative Richardson. Are there any questions? Because I have one, I have a few actually. One So when I look at this proposed amendment.
It's pretty clear to me that slavery is prohibited in our Constitution. It says specifically there shall be no slavery in this state. Nor involuntary servitude, but then of course it says except as a punishment for crime. And Certainly do understand that concern, uh. Wondered if there was anyone from the Department of Correction. They could talk about what their policies are
with regard to working prisoners and that sort of thing. Um, it's my understanding that they don't, that they no longer do that sort of thing. Uh, although maybe there was a time where that was sentenced to hard labor, if you will. I've heard of such things and so. But apparently I'm not sure that there's anyone here from the Department of Corrections, maybe if they want to head over here, that'd be great. This is the state agencies committee after all. Um, but Representative Richardson, uh, if you've got an answer to that or can speak to
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:27:51
that, I'd be happy to hear it, you know, my, my, my conversation with those that have been recently incarcerated or have been incarcerated, uh, tend to differ where, where there were things that they were called in quote unquote house squads, uh, which they would be working in fields and hoeing with people following them as they hold, uh, and, and it's my understanding that still takes place till. Today, uh, which is similar to what the gentleman just spoke about in terms of picking cotton.
So is there some distinction between no one, for example, no one who is in the state prison system is required to serve on the whole squad, but if you'd like to, uh, I guess in order to just get outside or for whatever other purpose, uh, you're, you're welcome to. I don't know the policy on that, so I just, do you have any idea about. I can't confirm or deny that, to
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:28:45
be quite honest with you. OK, Mr. Nazim, you're recognized.
Speaker 206
1:28:55
Well, as I said, uh, I spent 28 years and 11 months of incarceration, so I think I'm qualified to answer the questions that you're uh asking, um. The way the system works is if You don't go to work. You receive a punishment. You, you, you was rolling, you was written a disciplinary you're taking the dictionary court and you're given 30 days in the whole uh for the most part is.
You It's forced labor. It is simple as that is as forced labor you receive um. You receive some type of punishment if you rather it be you losing your vegetation privileges, uh, losing your commissary privileges are being placed in solitary confinement and And in my case I have been physically punished for not going to work. Not wanting to pick cotton.
To the extent where I'm taking on these long back roads taking on this long back road, uh. Uh unhandcuffed off a truck and the host writers physically assault me. So, uh, in answering your questions, there are, there are physical uh consequences. And there are also uh consequences where you're losing your privileges now um.
Yeah, so you're saying that as a, as a form of punishment, uh, they would require
Speaker 206
1:30:35
a prisoner to work the whole squad. Uh, yes, uh, and not only whole squad. And I'm, I'm gonna say it like this everyone that's in the Arkansas Department of Correction is required. Uh, to work in some type of capacity, uh, you have uh you have inmates who leave the
prison in the daytime and we go to the um. Go to the warden's house to wash his dishes, fold his clothes, cook his meals, raise his children and different things of that nature now and not only that. Not only that, if that war get transferred uh to another uh unit he would take his domestic what they call domestics with him. If that's not reminiscent to slavery, then what is what is these, these, some of the things
that are happening in our state uh prison institutions um are atrocious, so he said the
Speaker 214
1:31:38
whole was a result of punishment or were they
just Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:31:46
Chairman, and I, I agree with your observation about the Department of Corrections, it would be helpful if someone uh from the department we're here to answer questions
on this topic, um. Representative Richardson, I guess, functionally, um,
And I'm sorry I missed the first part of your presentation. I had to step out for a second. Um, it is my understanding correct that the, the functional um outcome of this amendment if it were to ultimately be adopted um would be how Correctional facilities handle inmates that are required to perform work, they would have to compensate them in some manner, is that correct? So the the resolution gives, I think,
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:32:28
two choices. It gives them the opportunity to either pay or uh
time where they would give them time for the work
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:32:38
that they've done off of their sentence. Um, and then one of the things that I'm just looking at generally on all not the specific one, but all cost all these constitutional amendments is, um, is it something that We could accomplish through statute rather than a constitutional amendment, and I know you're, there's a specific section of the Constitution here in Article 2 Section 27, that you're amending.
Um, but I wonder if the what you're wanting the Department of Corrections to do. Have you explored whether that could be filed as
a as a bill and, and just passing the statute that way, I have not. I have not. Thank you for that recommendation. OK, alright, that's, that's
all, Mr. Chairman. All right. Thank you, Representative Wright. Is there any other questions about the committee? Representative
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:33:31
Rose, you're recognized. I would just echo the sentiments of uh wishing the Department of Corrections could be here to
answer some of the things we've discussed and we've heard the witness say this afternoon, thank
you for your testimony. So we're live streamed and so I'm calling out to the ether, Department of Correction, Department of Correction. If you would like to show up, we would love to hear from you. Um, with that Representative Richardson, is that complete your presentation? Yes, sir, it does, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. All right, what if you want to stick around to see if anyone from the Department of Correction would like to show up. You're welcome to do that.
Um not going to hold my
breath, but we'll see. And Um, but you're certainly
All right. Next we have. HJR 1005, Representative Long. Representative Long. Yes.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:34:39
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, that was the one that I had texted about asking if I could um He passed
over this week. OK, that'll be fine. Thank you, sir. We had 1006 Representative McKenzie, who also asked that we pass over that. And so that leaves us with HJR 1007, Representative Kavanaugh. But Before we begin, Representative Kavanaugh, I
apologize. Representative Hawke had a question. Representative Hawke, Yes, Mr. Chairman, talking about
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:35:10
the procedure on the voting of these constitutional amendments. This is my first time on this committee, so I just want to get this clear. When we get to a top 5 when we rank these things, is there a possibility of the 5 that we picked to almost represent so because there's 20 of these things and we, we have them represent to kind of give us the the what their bill consists of and in that way it's fresh whenever that comes about. I just want to ask for clarification on that. Yeah, I
think that's a great idea and I'm certainly uh very open to that and likely uh Likely would do that. I mean, I suppose we can kind of pull the committee informally after this meeting if that's what everybody would like to do. Uh, I think that would be wise because there will be a time that's passed and people have forgotten and then when you're trying to relate them one to another as to which one you like best to be helpful if you heard them all in a row and then some people are gonna miss meetings and, and, you know, not be here
for certain ones and others, so to kind of bring them all back when we're making that. Final cut and decision I think makes perfect sense, so. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:36:22
you. Representative Kavanaugh. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you
committee members. Um, HJR 1007 is a mechanism to amend the Constitution so that we can have recall elections of all constitutional officers and the answer Representative Ray's question before he asked it. I
have to do it through a constitutional amendment. It can't be done through statute. I've asked that question several times. Um, this just sets the guidelines of what it would take for a recall. It goes in. it talks about what the petition would look like, what if the recall is actually secretary of state who steps in in those cases. So it just goes through each office and sits what would be the parameters for a recall and how that would look. And with that, I'd take any questions. All right, Representative Rose,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:37:12
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Kavanaugh,
uh, would it be possible for two recall elections take place at the same time. If this were to pass. Say for example, hypothetically a recall election of the Secretary of State and the Governor at the same time.
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:37:30
Yes. Is my understanding the way that it's been drafted is my understanding. Follow
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:37:36
up You're recognized. Um, I, I read through, um, the language on
this, and I was just curious if you could speak to Kind of the, the, the difficulty and the continuity of government in that hypothetical scenario where the Attorney General is attending to the Secretary of State's duties, presiding over that, as well as I think there's a provision for the lieutenant governor to oversee some things if the governor's capacity is then
limited through a recall election. If both of those were to happen at the same time, right,
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:38:09
and understand that they can do the
petition, but there has to be a um
election and so both of them would have to be recalled through the similar election. And then they got 90 days to do it. But you know, that is something under this, I guess theoretically
could happen. How often would it happen? I don't know. Um Do you think there's
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:38:32
merit to prohibiting those two things happening at the same time. I think it's something we can look at. That's
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:38:38
why I made sure I put in there also that there
would only be one recall attempt per term. That way we wouldn't have to go through
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:38:54
this multiple times for each office. OK, thank you. No
problem. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Kavanaugh, I noticed there's a couple of offices on the list. That have 2-year terms, namely members
of the House of Representatives and I think JP's also have a two-year terms, is that right? I think they've gone
to 4 years, I think. Are they still 2? I'm not, um, I guess I wonder functionally, would it even be possible in a within a two-year term to gather the signatures and hold an election or would that even be, would that even be a fair, um, because I I could certainly understand, you know, A Supreme Court justices on the court for 6 years. That's a that's a lengthy term. You know, 4 years is even a long period of time, um, but for, for
folks that have a two-year term, it seems A little bit pointless that you would try to recall them when And if you just waited a few more months,
you could just vote them out at the next. Regular
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:39:58
election I understand that, but I also want to give this constituents and the people they represented, they feel the need to
do a recall that they have that ability to
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:40:11
you have any sort of um I can't think of another way to
describe it other than, is there any public opinion research or polling that indicates that the voters of Arkansas really want a recall system. Or do you, are you, have you heard from a lot of constituents that want a recall system. I'm just kind of curious where you
came up with the idea for the I have been
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:40:35
elected, it's one thing I continually get asked about in my district is, you know, how come we don't have a recall mechanism. For offices, you know, we do have them for statutory offices,
but for the Constitutional offices, we don't have that. So it has been a question that's continually asked me in
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:40:53
my district. You said we do have recall for for what
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:40:56
offices? Like created by statutory like mayors and such there are recall mechanisms for those. I, I guess I was
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:41:02
unaware of that. OK, all right, thank you. That's helpful. All right, seeing, are there
any other questions by the committee? Seeing no further questions by the committee, uh,
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:41:18
Representative Crawford, you're recognized. And thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Kavanaugh, just thinking of the price tag with this, um. Holding an election is expensive. So with this being a constitutional amendment, would it need a um impact statement. No, ma'am, this is so we'll have a
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:41:44
vote so that people can make a
choice if they want to do it.
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:41:57
OK. All right, I guess that's it. I mean, elections are expensive, so this would be in this would be a special election if we were to recall. Let's say, uh, the Secretary of State. So would it And, and I apologize. I haven't read it. Um, would it be? Done.
During an election or would it be
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:42:26
a special election? It depends on what time the actual recall would occur and it goes through that in the bill that if it would be, I think it's 120 days of a
general election, then it would be part of the general election, if it's outside that area,
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:42:41
then it would have to be a special election. OK. All right, and um are there any When you're doing a constitutional amendment, there are, there's just nothing that would
I don't know, create. I don't even know how to say it. Just so that it doesn't get out of hand. I can see things getting out of hand with this, and then they keep calling special elections. It's 100, it's not the 120 days and the money is kind of my concern. Well, when we passed constitutional amendments here, we
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:43:16
put it on the ballot for people to vote for, whether they want it up or down, so that's a decision that the people of Arkansas can make, and that's what this bill does is give the
opportunity for the citizens of the Arkansas. to decide if they want to recall mechanism for those offices created by the Constitution. Uh, it does go in here and talk about the expenses and how they would be, uh, taken care of. So the bill does cover all that, um, but I will say, This is probably one of the biggest things my constituent asked me is why don't we have a recall mechanisms for the offices because they want it. They're like if they're unhappy with their elected official, how
come they don't have the ability to do a recall. How come the citizens can't stand up and say, we want to do a recall. OK. All right,
thank you. Representative Meeks, you're recognized name was Charlie.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:44:14
Uh, so on the, uh, signatures that are gathered, are there any guidelines, you know, like on the petitions we
just had a very long meetings about the requirements on, you know, gathering signatures for petitions. What are their requirements that would be put
in place on the people gathering signatures for any potential recall. Yes, if
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:44:33
you'll look in there, it covers about how many they have to have. It's 25% of those that elected that voted in the last uh governor's race, um, depending on the office, if it's statewide would be statewide if it's county, it would be only in the county, but it also goes through there and says that that at least on a statewide that 10% of it has to be from 50 states, so it does 50 counties, so it
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:44:59
does set those guidelines I think you're misunderstanding my my
question. So, You know, if, if a person wants to canvas for a signatures. They have to sign an affidavit that says that uh uh you know, that they have received information from the Secretary of State about how to do that. They, uh, we just passed, you know, bills through here that say that the people that are gathering the signatures, have to check the driver's license or ID to make sure that that person is actually a registered voter within the state and I'm just
wondering if any of that is filled out to make sure that the signatures That are gathered or legitimate signatures and you know we was trying to prevent some of the fraud that we've been looking at. Some of
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:45:40
that is actually incorporated in here, but not, not all of it that would have to probably be an amendment that we'd make if those bills do pass. All
right, any other questions about the committee? Representative Wooldridge, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Kavanaugh, um, I was trying to
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:46:01
kind of look through the bill. I'd read it the other day. So I know a special election if it's not within like 120 days or something of a general election. What happens if it is within 120 days and that person's already up for an election. If
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:46:16
they're up for a recall election, it would, the recall would be on the ballot and
if they were on the ballot, I guess theoretically that might be something we need to look at an amendment because then it could actually happen at both times. They could run for re-election and have a recall. That might be
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:46:32
something we would have to look at amending. OK, in my curiosity, your question, follow up, Mr. Chair. My curiosity or question would be, I think that'd be a rare scenario, but in the event that it happened, how would you vote to recall someone and be able to vote. to elect the governor. Uh, and I don't, I don't know if you have an answer to that either, and, and that question just came to me while I was listening to testimony, but if you look at that, I'd appreciate it and I'm happy to get with you offline and discuss. Thank you, ma'am. All right, and someone may have already
asked this, but you know, with regard to state rep,
for instance, with just a two-year term. I know Representative Ray mentioned this. So someone could recall us, say they were angry with the decision that we made during the legislative session. We, we finished the session in April. Would, could we have to have a recall election before our next upcoming election, which is only about a year away anyway. Would we have to potentially in the course of a two-year
term have to fight 2 elections. Yes, if there's a recall, but
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:47:29
that's why if you look at the number of signatures that have to be gathered. It's not
something that can be done lightly. It takes more than just a little bit.
One of the other things I noticed, and again I'm not taking a position for or against it. I'm just here to debate it, so, um, it mentions judges, um, including those on the Supreme Court to a circuit court to a district court judge. You know, I have some concern that, you know, you have litigants in a court have a criminal defendant, for example, whose charges are ultimately
dismissed to then goes on a mission. To have a recall election on against a judge because of the decision that they made, uh, which they're of course charged by law to do, um. I understand we elect our judges, but we give them six-year terms and at the federal level that we don't elect judges, they're just appointed because we want to insulate them and we want them to be able to make the decisions that they believe are fair and just and not have to worry about political outcomes. So for instance, you know, in this, under this amendment, I mean
even our judges would be subject to recall, um, you have any perspective on that?
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:48:43
I didn't pick and choose. I chose everybody that was created by the Constitution and that's why this election, that's why this recall was done, so I didn't pick and choose. So if the office is actually created through the Constitution. That's why this recall amendment hits it. Now, I will say if we, this is my opinion, if we elect a judge, Then if there's enough of the
I guess constituency that are unhappy with the performance. Then they have the right to do a recall. Do I think one individual who's mad at a judge for a ruling. They're gonna have to work really hard to get 25% to be able to do that recall. Suppose that it
could depend on the jurisdiction and the number of people that voted, um, in some places that might not be very many people, but nevertheless, uh, Representative
Beatty, you're recognized. Mr. Chair, I guess my question
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:49:38
was going to be, uh, this would impact a lot of our constitutional law almost every elected office in the state. Are you gonna call those folks out for not being in committee to add their testimony. Uh, to this constitutional amendment as you did Department of Corrections. I can if you'd like me to. I, I just that's your prerogative is cheers sir. I was just wondering. Now, let me, let me think
Speaker 115
1:50:01
on that one. Um, and I will add that this is not anything.
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:50:09
New with me, if anybody's been down here and they turn with me, I think this is probably the 3rd time I have filed a constitutional amendment for a recall because it's something I feel like really we do need to think about as a state and beyond that, my constituency really does support it. All right, any other questions by the committee? All right, seeing no
further questions by the committee, Representative Kavanaugh, do you want to close for your resolution? I appreciate y'all listening to it and like I said,
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:50:40
this is really not a jab at any one particular office. It is just something that I believe philosophically that we need to have the ability to recall. And with that,
I'd appreciate y'all thinking about it. Thank you. But All right, thank you, Representative Kavanaugh.
And with that, uh, that concludes all of the constitutional amendments that I had asked that we hear today again several of those, uh, that we were going to hear. The sponsors were not Prepared for one reason or
another to hear those today or to present those today, Representative Ray, you
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:51:15
have a question? Just a question for the chair. Um, on Wednesday are we gonna hear normal bills or we're gonna hear more constitutional amendments, or you may work, you may have been about to
say that. Yeah, so the plan was that we would hear all the constitutional amendments on the course of over the course of 3 Mondays. Which is why I picked essentially 6 today, uh, one, I know one, for example, uh,
Representative Brown's 1009, she does not want to present. She has another 1, 10 or 1020 that uh they're on the same topic and that's the one that she wanted to present, so it worked out to about 6 or 7 per meeting in order to finish those up, but of course when people aren't ready to present their constitutional amendments, then that throws our 3 Mondays off, so, um, you know, we may add more. to a Monday or I suppose we could take some up on a Wednesday, but my intention was is that our regular meetings on Wednesday to take up regular
bills and to have this Monday meeting to be specifically for constitutional amendments. But
I'm happy to add them to a Wednesday agenda if that's the will of the committee, and I'm happy to take
any discussion on that. heart saying none. figured out, I guess. Um, last thing I'll say with regard to the Department of Correction. I love you
guys if you're listening. So just so you know. And uh Without seeing no further
business before the committee. This committee is adjourned. Thank you very much.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
HB1524 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BIDDING PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES.
HB1548 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DIVISION OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS; AND TO ABOLISH THE DATA AND TRANSPARENCY PANEL.
HB1549 R. Scott Richardson TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2025.
HB1365 K. Brown TO REMOVE RACIAL AND GENDER QUOTAS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERSHIP FOR CERTAIN BOARDS, COMMITTEES, COUNCILS, AND COMMISSIONS.
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.
HB1410 Unger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES BY PUBLIC SERVANTS.
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.
HB1607 Rose TO CREATE THE OFFICE OF OUTDOOR RECREATION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, HERITAGE, AND TOURISM.
HB1608 Rose TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC RECORDS AND ARCHIVES; AND TO REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE ARKANSAS STATE ARCHIVES PRIOR TO THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS.
HB1614 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRANT PROGRAMS.
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.
SENATE BILLS
SB184 D. Sullivan TO TRANSFER THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ARKANSAS EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION COMMISSION AND THE STATE LIBRARY BOARD TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.
SB209 K. Hammer TO DISQUALIFY SIGNATURES OBTAINED BY A CANVASSER UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB210 K. Hammer TO REQUIRE THE SIGNER TO READ THE BALLOT TITLE OF THE PETITION IN THE PRESENCE OF A CANVASSER; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
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 N 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.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS- HOUSE, Mar 3, 2025 | Agenda | 5 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Chair
Unverified
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
Laura Dagostino
Unverified
Speaker 22
Speaker 23
Representative David Ray
Unverified
Speaker 10
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Speaker 53
Speaker 81
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
Speaker 102
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Speaker 111
Speaker 113
Speaker 96
Speaker 13
Speaker 120
Speaker 123
Speaker 75
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 31
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 166
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
Speaker 189
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
Colleen Nazim
Unverified
Speaker 206
Speaker 214
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
Speaker 232
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
Speaker 115