State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (66)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1369
Act 270
· 5 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “HB1369 Ray CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MAXIMUM CAMPAIGNCON…”
|
CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MAXIMUM CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMIT BY THE ARKANSAS ETHICS COMMISSION; AMENDING … | Ray | Notification that HB1369 is now Act 270 |
|
HB1075
Act 146
· 4 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “…item on the agenda that we're going to begin with today is House Bill 1075. Representative Ray, this is to concur in a Senate amendmen…”
|
TO PROHIBIT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT FROM REGULATING THE SALE OR USE OF A LAWN CARE … | Ray | Notification that HB1075 is now Act 146 |
|
HB1410
Act 323
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…RESULTING FROM INITIATED ACTS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. 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 |
|
HB1379
Act 287
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “…e it so Representative Beatty, you're recognized to present House Bill 1379. OK, amendment hasn't made it over to committee yet, so we'…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SPECIAL AUTHORIZATION FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR MEALS AND LODGING WHILE … | Beaty Jr. | Notification that HB1379 is now Act 287 |
|
HB1024
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…T Page 4 of 5 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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…POSE TERM LIMITS OF MEMBERS FOR THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS. HB1069 S. Meeks TO OBSERVE STANDARD TIME YEAR ROUND IN ARKANSAS; A…”
|
TO OBSERVE STANDARD TIME YEAR ROUND IN ARKANSAS; AND TO ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME IN … | S. Meeks | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1070
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1070 John Carr TO CREATE THE BALLOT DRAW STANDARDIZATION ACT OF…”
|
TO CREATE THE BALLOT DRAW STANDARDIZATION ACT OF 2025. | John Carr | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1078
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
HB1121
Act 211
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1121 Long TO REPEAL THE LAW CONCERNING THE TRANSFER OF TAX-FORFE…”
|
TO REPEAL THE LAW CONCERNING THE TRANSFER OF TAX-FORFEITED LANDS TO STATE INSTITUTIONS. | Long | Notification that HB1121 is now Act 211 |
|
HB1162
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SINESS OF THE STATE. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle 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
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 |
|
HB1365
Act 938
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CANDIDATES FOR THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 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 |
|
HB1415
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1422 Long TO CREATE THE ONLY CITIZENS VOTE ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW…”
|
TO CREATE THE ONLY CITIZENS VOTE ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DRIVER'S LICENSES … | Long | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1425
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 2/19/2025 @ 7:45 AM) Moved HB1425 to Deferred House Committee on State Agencies and Governmen…”
|
TO ABOLISH THE ARKANSAS FIRE PROTECTION LICENSING BOARD; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE … | L. Johnson | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1449
Act 250
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1449 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING REPORTS OF CONTRIBUT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING REPORTS OF CONTRIBUTIONS FOR A CANDIDATE FOR STATE OR DISTRICT … | A. Collins | Notification that HB1449 is now Act 250 |
|
HB1459
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE TRANSFER OF TAX-FORFEITED LANDS TO STATE INSTITUTIONS. 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. |
|
HB1460
Act 324
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ERNING RECURRING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. HB1460 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING APPOINTMENTS TO CERT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING APPOINTMENTS TO CERTAIN BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COUNCILS BASED ON CONGRESSIONAL … | Rose | Notification that HB1460 is now Act 324 |
|
HB1461
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…COMMISSIONS, AND COUNCILS BASED ON CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. 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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
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
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LAW CONCERNING THE REVIEW OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PLANS. 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. |
|
HB1499
Act 288
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TATE AGENCIES TO PUBLISH FEDERAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS ONLINE. HB1499 Ray TO AMEND THE SALE AND PURCHASE PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC PRO…”
|
TO AMEND THE SALE AND PURCHASE PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC PROPERTY. | Ray | Notification that HB1499 is now Act 288 |
|
HB1507
Act 252
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AMEND THE SALE AND PURCHASE PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC PROPERTY. HB1507 Ladyman TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL J…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL JUSTICE, OR GOVERNANCE SCORES; AND TO CLARIFY THE … | Ladyman | Notification that HB1507 is now Act 252 |
|
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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1003 A. Collins THE ARKANSAS GOVERNMENT DISCLOSURE AMENDMENT.”
|
THE ARKANSAS GOVERNMENT DISCLOSURE AMENDMENT. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1004
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH A LOBBYIST FOR LOBBYING PURPOSES. HJR1007 Cavenaugh A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE A PROCEDURE…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE A PROCEDURE FOR THE RECALL OF CERTAIN ELECTED OFFICIALS. | Cavenaugh | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1008
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1008 S. Meeks AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNI…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING THE TAXATION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AND REAL PROPERTY … | S. Meeks | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1009
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1009 K. Brown AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO BE KN…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO BE KNOWN AS THE ARKANSAS VICTIMS' BILL OF … | K. Brown | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1010
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NCLUDING VICTIMS IN THE ADULT AND JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS. 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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1014 Beaty Jr. A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DE…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL … | Beaty Jr. | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1015
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HJR1015 Lundstrum A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY BY REQUIRING A JUDICIAL CANDIDATE TO DECLARE HIS OR … | Lundstrum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HJR1016
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AFFILIATION OR INDEPENDENT STATUS WHEN RUNNING FOR OFFICE. 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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…GREYHOUND RACING FROM ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 100. HJR1020 K. Brown A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE VICT…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE VICTIM’S BILL OF RIGHTS; AND TO PROVIDE … | K. Brown | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
SB147
Act 205
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB147 J. Dotson TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT O…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSFORMATION AND SHARED SERVICES; AND TO CHANGE … | J. Dotson | Notification that SB147 is now Act 205 |
|
SB165
Act 206
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SHARED SERVICES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. Page 2 of 5 SB165 J. Dotson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COMPETITIVE SEALED PR…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COMPETITIVE SEALED PROPOSALS UNDER THE ARKANSAS PROCUREMENT LAW. | J. Dotson | Notification that SB165 is now Act 206 |
|
SB184
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
SB185
Act 208
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB185 J. Dotson TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS COMPUTER AND ELECTRONIC SOL…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS COMPUTER AND ELECTRONIC SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT. | J. Dotson | Notification that SB185 is now Act 208 |
|
SB207
Act 218
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB207 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE AND REFERE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM PETITIONS; TO REQUIRE A CANVASSER TO DISCLOSE … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB207 is now Act 218 |
|
SB63
Act 219
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…R CERTAIN INVESTMENTS. SENATE BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB63 Hickey TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING REPORTS BY THE SECR…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING REPORTS BY THE SECRETARIES OF CABINET-LEVEL DEPARTMENTS ON THE STATE … | Hickey | Notification that SB63 is now Act 219 |
|
SB166
Act 207
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB166 J. Dotson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EMERGENCY PROCUREMENT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EMERGENCY PROCUREMENTS; AND TO INCLUDE A STATE OF DISASTER EMERGENCY … | J. Dotson | Notification that SB166 is now Act 207 |
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
I wanted to make sure that everybody had the opportunity to get here, given the weather. I know that causes some delays, so. Glad to see you all here this morning. First item on the agenda that we're going to begin with today is House Bill 1075. Representative Ray, this is to concur in a Senate amendment. This is a bill that we've already heard and considered, but the senator has added an amendment. So with that Representative Ray, you're recognized.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
0:54
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. David Ray, State Representative District 69. Yeah, colleagues, this is House Bill 1075 just concurring on the Senate amendment, um, the amendment is on the yellow sheet there. The Senate wanted us to wanted me to clarify. Um, are sort of simplify that line on page 2, line 13 to 16, and then um they wanted me to clarify that this bill would not prevent a city from enacting or
enforcing a noise ordinance, so I went ahead and added that in. I'd be happy to
take any questions. Representative Ray has presented the bill as amended. Are there any questions by the committee? Seeing no
questions, we don't have anyone signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Wray, you recognized a close for the bill. I'm closed
for the bill and move to pass. OK. Hang on
just a second. So Representative Ray has. Uh, closed for the bill. He's
made a motion do pass and essentially I believe this. But we're beginning with is to concur in the Senate amendment. Is
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:05
that correct? Yes, so maybe I misstated that. I move that we concur on the Senate
amendment. All right, all those in favor say aye.
All those opposed. the eyes have it we have concurred in the Senate amendment. Thank you, Representative Ray. Next
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:22
we have see some committee members still coming in. Next we have um
If we have some committee members that aren't here. So next we have House Bill 1369, Representative Ray, you're up again. My understanding is that you have an amendment on that bill, is that correct? All right, Staff is going to
pass out the amendment and then Representative Ray, you'll be recognized to present the amendment.
Representative Ray, you're recognized to present the amendment on House Bill 1369. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
4:35
Um, I'll be happy to answer any questions that folks have about the amendment, but it's probably just easiest if we could go ahead and adopt the amendment and then I'll explain the bill and it's totality. Our Representative Ray
has explained his amendment. Are you making a motion to adopt the amendment? I move for adoption of the amendment if there's no questions. Representative Ray has moved adoption of the amendment. Are there
Uh, any, is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Yeah habit, the amendment has been adopted. Representative Ray, you are recognized present
Representative David Ray
Unverified
5:17
House Bill 1369 as amended. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, um, this bill basically what it does is it streamlines the updates every 2 years to our campaign contribution limits. So for Arkansas political campaigns, our maximum
contribution limits are linked in statute to the maximum limits for federal campaigns so that they mirror each other. Um, the federal limit is set by the Federal Elections Commission, and they adjust that number every 2 years to account for inflation, which means that our state maximum contribution limit also gets adjusted every 2 years. The problem is that goes through the rulemaking process and it's, there's a significant, it
results in a significant gap between when the federal Elections Commission updates their limit and when our limit gets updated and that gap is usually 5 to 6 months, which is a really significant amount of time when you consider that those limits are only good for 2 years to begin with, so about 25% of the two-year cycle is spent updating the limits. Um And so during that 4 to 5 month period, you have two different campaign, maximum campaign
contribution limits. You have one limit for federal candidates. And one limit for state candidates. So this bill would just uh exempt that, that change in the contribution limit from the rulemaking process, and it would require the Arkansas Ethics Commission to adjust the new limits, um, within 30 days of the FEC's new limit. Um, the rulemaking process. Really is not a good function for this anyway because the ethics commission doesn't really
have any any discretion in terms of setting the limit. They just follow the instructions laid out in statute. Which is to adhere to a very simple formula and update our limit to correspond to the federal limit. And with that, I would be happy to answer any questions. Representative Ray has explained the bill. Are there
any questions about the committee Representative Meeks are recognized. Thank
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
7:26
you, Mr. Chair. Um, I, I just noticed that this bill has an emergency clause on it. I, no heartburn either way, but I'm just wondering what the necessity for
putting the emergency clause on this versus letting it go into
Representative David Ray
Unverified
7:41
effect in August. Sure. Well, The federal Elections Commission updated the limits, um, about a week and a half ago, and so If the bill is not enacted now or if it's not enacted upon passage, then what will end up happening is we'll go through this 5 to 6 month delay again and this bill won't have any real effect until the 2028
election cycle. Um, that's the functional answer to your question, but if you read the emergency clause I lay out, um, the reasons there that I think that this promotes and preserves the public peace, health, and safety. Of the state of Arkansas. Representative Mayberry, you recognize. Thank
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
8:28
you, Mr. Chair. This is actually, remember I said earlier, there was a question I had for you, David Ray. This is actually what it was, so, um. it
Explain to me on page 2 lines 93, 19 through 21, to me it does seem like we're increasing the base amount. From $2000 to $3300. Can you explain that section because it does seem like we're kind of giving us a raise. So
Representative David Ray
Unverified
8:57
if you'll see um if you look at the amendment that was passed out, the amendment changes back. The the amendment strips
out that language and goes back to the base amount of $2000 as of
January 1, 2015, and the, the reason that we changed it back is because we discovered that, well, when I was drafting the bill, uh BLR's original opinion was, hey, let's just, since we're addressing this section of code, let's just update it to today's number, but as we looked into it a little bit further, we found that changing the base number would Actually change the maximum contribution number, so we changed that back so that it's not going to have that effect.
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
9:46
OK, thank you, because I was concerned about
that, but you're telling me and I, and I, I looked at Other parts of the amendment but did not see that part, so we're keeping it with the $2000 base.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
9:57
That's right. If you look at the amendment that was passed out, the first, the first section is the first part there where it says page 2, delete lines 20 and 21 and substitute the following. We're changing that back. OK, thank you. Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. This question may be for, for Mr.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
10:18
Graham, who I see is in the audience. We did something with this last session in a bill that I ran and I thought we took the amount out of statute. So that it could be raised and lowered depending on how that metric fell and didn't have to wait on a session. Richard So, can you confirm or deny that? I couldn't remember exactly how we worded that, but I thought we addressed it where it didn't have to be an actual statute. Great. Graham Sloan, director of
Speaker 40
10:49
the Arkansas Ethics Commission, uh, Representative Wardlaw, the, the maximum campaign contribution limit, the exact number, current number was referenced in statute and so every time the number changed, the 2 or 3 places that it was in the code had to be amended and so then now what had happened was it just, it just referenced the maximum number that had been set or established by the ethics commission and took the exact number out. So that it didn't statutes
didn't have to be amended every time
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
11:21
it changed. OK, so from looking at this. Is it going to? cause that problem again
or we're still in the same place we were from
Speaker 40
11:30
last session. No, I don't think it's going to because the, the $2000 is a base amount and then the Department of Labor every 2 years certifies the number to the FEC and that number is a cumulative. It's not a consumer price index number exactly, but it's essentially it, it, it, it does capture that
concept and, and so they certify that number and it's a cumulative total, so you'll just take the new cumulative. To multiply it by 2000 and that'll get you the current limit and it'll be the commission will set it and it'll be on our website and then, uh, but it just won't be mentioned in the, the, the maximum contribution limit. The current one won't be mentioned specifically in statute so they won't have to be updated. Thank you. That was my only concern.
All right, any other questions by the committee? Seeing no further questions by the committee. Is there anyone signed up to speak for or
Representative David Ray
Unverified
12:35
against the bill. Seeing non-representative right, you're recognized to close for your bill. Sure, thank you committee. I'll just close by saying, um, I think this is a common sense change that will help prevent confusion. I know every 2 years when the FEC updates their limit, I get calls from other members and people uh from various groups and and and so forth asking me, hey, when
does the new limit take effect. This will help bring some certainty to that question and answer it, because it's gonna change two years anyway. This will just Help effectuate that change in a much, much more efficient and smooth manner, and with that, I'm close for the bill and make a motion to pass. As amended. Representative
Ray has made a motion to pass as amended. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, the question before the committee is do pass on House
Bill 1369, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. The eyes have it. Congratulations, Representative Ray. You've passed your bill as amended. Looks like I see Representative Beatty has. Made it so Representative Beatty, you're recognized to present House Bill 1379. OK, amendment hasn't made it over to committee yet, so we'll come back to that.
Next we have House Bill 1410 Representative Unger. And my understanding is Representative Unger
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
14:03
has an amendment as well and staff is going to pass that out.
All right, Representative Unger, I believe the committee has a copy of your amendment,
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
15:17
so you're recognized to present your amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you committee. Basically the amendment is pretty much the meat of the bill, um, what it changes, this is a bill that has a one sentence change in Arkansas Code 21 TAC 8A 304. No public servant shall knowingly interfere with an inspection, investigation, or outcome by a
governmental body with the intent to deceive. All right, Representative Unger has explained the amendment. Are there any questions by the
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
16:01
committee, Representative Beatty, you're recognized. Representative Bunker, my, my question is, how do you prove an intent to deceive. Thank
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
16:10
you, sir. In judicial matters. Intent matters a lot, and I'd say with like a death, there's a
dead body laying on the floor. It's up to the judge and the jury to determine. Was this an accident or was it intentional? And so I say in the the issue I'm most familiar with that there just seems to be a systematic ongoing issue with it, then there's probably an intent, an intent to deceive. follow You're recognized. So
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
16:42
you're saying more a pattern and a practice.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
16:48
Yes sir, I think that's a good explanation. OK. Representative Collins, you're recognized, um, I'll just move that we adopt the amendment and then continue the conversation, so that's my motion to adopt
the amendment. All right, Representative Collins has made a motion to adopt the amendment as there discussion on his motion. Seeing that all those in favor, say I. All those opposed.
The amendment's been adopted Representative Unger, you recognized to present the bill now as
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
17:26
amended. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you committee. Arkansas Code 12-8-304. As it is currently contains 3 prohibited activities by public servants. What House Bill 1410 does is add one sentence to the Arkansas code and the language is what you see in the amendment.
Uh, once again, no public servants shall knowingly interfere with an inspection, investigation, or outcome by a governmental body with the intent to deceive. All right,
Representative Unger has explained the bill. Are there any questions about the committee, Representative Clowney. Uh, Representative Unger, I guess
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
18:12
my question is just, is this not covered, I'm looking now, but is this not covered anywhere else in code. It's hard when I, when we get the amendment in committee to try to
look all of this stuff up quickly, but um there is currently nowhere else that this, uh, That interfering with an investigation with the intent to deceive would be. penalized?
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
18:34
Uh, thank you, Representative, uh, for myself and the attorneys at BillR we weren't able to find it any place and basically this is taking a uh a correction within the Arkansas code and sticking one more jingle block in it of probably what should
have been a prohibited activity a long time ago. Representative Clowney, did you have a follow up?
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
19:13
Sorry, no thank you. OK. Representative Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So Representative Monger, if someone does do this, what are the consequences if they do one of these prohibited activities?
Speaker 77
19:22
Is it a crime? Is it civil, just kind of walk us through what happens.
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
19:28
Uh, thank you, sir. It actually is a crime when you put it within the context of the code of that chapter, uh, what can result is charges in a trial with the outcome of it being uh uh charged and perhaps found guilty of what is called an crime. And from what I can tell, the most usual. Uh, verdicts that have come down
on that have been mayors using the city credit card to buy things they shouldn't buy when they go to trial, they get charged, uh, ends up under this section being an infamous crime. And uh Representative Cloudy, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry,
Speaker 80
20:13
Representative Unger, I'm just trying to figure out what would
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
20:17
happen? Do you know the current law, and you may not. Do you know what, what, where the current law stands on if a
private individual were to say, um, interfere with the government investigation with the intent to deceive. Is that covered anywhere
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
20:34
in Arkansas code? Yes, and I'm sorry, I can't cite the source, uh, but I believe that a citizen interfering with, say, Let's say Boston Mountain trash actually has its own little police department of like 3 guys. If you've got somebody out investigating illegal dumping or illegal burning or something, um, doesn't have to be law
enforcement, but just any inspector if you threaten or harass that person somewhere in the code that is illegal, but I'm sorry, I can't cite the source. OK, I guess just my overall overall
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
21:05
concern is that I'm trying very hard to find, I just, I can't believe that there's nowhere in code where this behavior is not already covered. I don't know why we need a separate section, um, and I am still a little bit confused on what the penalties would be if you violated it. So if you could just clarify that for me too, that would be great.
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
21:33
I don't know that it gets used that much. Um, I'm sorry, I,
I can't quite land on the penalties, but when it comes down to the, the first time I ran this, I had so many people reach out to me, citizens in the media, and they would say, isn't this against the law already. No, it's not, but it should be, and so that's what we're trying to do here. represented back, you're recognized.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
22:06
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I do like the intent of the bill, but, but It's, it's, and I'm not a lawyer, so, so maybe some of the legal counsel on this they can jump. But the previous things seem to indicate that the public servant is acting in their capacity as a public servant. Whereas this one is a little bit wide open. It says that I'm a public servant. And I knowingly interfere with an inspection. So does that
mean, I mean, what if that person is actually acts acting as a private individual, not, you know, not in any capacity of as a public servant. You you say that that's my confusion, so would we be taking away Maybe a public servant's
ability to act as a In a private citizen capacity. The, the, the other ones like
for instance, a public servant shall not accept employment
engagement or any public or professional activity while serving as a public defender which he or she might, he or she might reasonably expect would require him or her. To disclose any, you know, say it's, it's, it's like the other ones all talk about how their public servant position. Would, uh, influence it, whereas this one here is just saying, OK, I'm a public servant. I can't get involved in anything that I might, that a
private citizen very well might get involved with. Or something.
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
23:41
in a regulatory. Roll You're on the clock. 365 days a year. It it doesn't just stop when you clock out at 5 o'clock. And so if you do something that would change deceitfully change the outcome. of an investigation that's the problem and so the deceit part. Went in there because I, I did take so many questions.
Of and so. This is different than mitigating. It's different than explaining. It's different than clarifying. It is deceiving with the intent to cover up what you've done. Sir, I'm not
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
24:27
sure that answered your question just a quick follow up. The so then I would put the question the other way. So a private citizen shall So knowingly no, no private systems shall knowingly
interfere with an inspection and investigation of the outcome of a public of a governmental body. With the intent to deceive, you see what I'm saying? It, it almost seems like it's a pri a public servant or a private
citizen, I can't do, you know, why wouldn't you just put private citizen? Well, because
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
25:03
when they're, uh, thank you for the question, when they're acting in the role as a public servant or investigator, they're not a private citizen. So this, this is basically the
ethics manual for state employees. Not Was pertaining to private citizens. I'm happy with it. I'll let it go
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
25:20
and let other people ask the questions. Thank you and Representative Unger, I do have a
couple of questions also, um. And I apologize, I didn't get with you before committee today to talk about some of these, but one. I do think Representative Beck's point is well taken about distinguishing between actions
taken in an official capacity versus actions taken, not in an official capacity. We do make that distinction throughout the code in a number of areas, and I do think that's something important to keep in mind, but also as we look at the language that you have here, you have no public servant shall knowingly interfere with an inspection. What's an inspection? They shall not interfere with an investigation. What's an investigation? And number 3, or Outcome by a governmental body.
What is an outcome by a governmental body and how would one interfere with that and I think those are. Uh, some questions that we would need to have some answers to. So if you would uh like to comment on that, I'd like to hear. Thank
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
26:30
you, Mr. Chairman. Well, starting backwards and working forward because that was a lot to take in, uh. The interfering so since I attempted this a week or so ago, I ended up getting some interesting phone calls from
different people in different parts of the state involving different agencies, so the one that I'm aware of is. The landfill in Tawneytown, Arkansas. But I've had people reach out to me about the use of chemicals and pesticides in eastern Arkansas. And other departments including RA, DHS with daycares and nursing homes. And so to interfere with something would look like. Uh, we're coming for our surprise inspection on Monday.
look surprised, uh, you've got 3 days to clean up your act at your daycare center, your nursing home or wherever you store your chemicals. Are the air testing that we're doing, um, so it's a very deliberate thumb on the scale to get a business to pass an inspection which they wouldn't have otherwise passed. All right, so again, you
know, my question is. I think just there are a number of questions here. Number one, what is an inspection? What, what type of inspection are you referring to?
Are we referring to An inspection by a code enforcement officer. Are you referring to an inspection by uh Department of Environmental Quality. Are you referring? What exactly is an inspection? I would also say what is an investigation. I see Kevin White in the audience here is an audit and investigation. Is what exactly are we deeming an investigation and then we use
the, use this phrase outcome by governmental body. What is an outcome by a governmental body and how would one interfere with
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
28:23
that? The outcome would be to pass the inspection when they shouldn't have. All right,
and then I, my last question would be, what does it mean for one to interfere with something. To, to call ahead. To change in outcome.
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
28:47
Uh, to give warning to An entity, uh, where people have either their grandparents, their children. Affects the crops that they
eat, the air that they breathe and the water that they drink. And so to put your thumb on the scale to tinker with that outcome. I uh To change the outcome of an investigation. All right. Thank you very much,
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
29:17
Representative Wooldridge, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you, Representative Unger,
um, the chairman asked the second half of my question. The first half was who enforces um this section of code or who determines that a violation has taken place and then the second part of that was, is there any specific inspection or a language anywhere in a different section of code that defines or outlaws what uh it would be
to interfere or what type of inspections we're talking about.
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
29:48
The The punishment part is in another part of the code, but this is
a law like any other law we have on the books of, of criminal law is would be investigated by the prosecuting attorney. It would be held in the court. closest to the proximimity of where the offense occurred and would be investigated by the police department.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
30:13
One quick follow up. So that
means that anyone can submit this or violation or code if so if someone feels that they've been wrongfully, um, they've been done wrong by a public servant, then they can, I guess, call the police and try to bring charges against that public servant under this section
of code. Yes, OK. Representative Rose, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
30:45
was looking at Title 21, chapter 8, subchapter
3, which is code of ethics for public officers and employees where a lot of these good questions have been asked specifically addressed, um. The definitions of governmental body, penalties that it's a Class B misdemeanor in the enforcement mechanisms are, are kind of right there in sections 301, 302, 304, and 305. Uh, my question for the bill sponsor was, could you reiterate again in your research or the research
of BLR, did anybody find where this type of activity. I'm sure nobody in this room wants fraud to, you know, proliferate, and I think it's just the deliberation of is this doing what we're saying it's doing or is it done anywhere else, but is there anywhere in code where public officers and employees are prohibited from doing something to deceive an investigation from a governmental body. Thank you for the question.
Speaker 107
31:43
No, sir, it's not. OK. All right, thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Clowney, you're
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
31:53
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and yes, I was able to pull that up after I had a second to look. So, um, we are talking about a class B misdemeanor here, which, as you know, is up to 90 days in jail up to $1000 fine for each offense, um, we do have some definitions here, uh, but I'm really concerned about the language before us. I absolutely understand the problem that you're trying to address, and I want us to get to a place where that can be addressed. This language though says no public servant shall knowingly interfere with
an outcome by a governmental body with the intent to deceive. So going off of what Representative Wooldridge just asked, we are all at this table public servants, right? We are engaged in outcomes by governmental bodies every day, multiple ones, every single bill that we hear in front of this committee today will be one of those. Um, could any of us, I guess, help me understand it looks to me that under this law, if it were to pass as it were, Any one of us could could accuse any other of us of, you know, you, you lied at the
end of the table. You interfered in an outcome by a governmental body with the intent to deceive. Therefore, you exposed yourself to a class, you know, to be in charge of the class B misdemeanor. How is that not a possible outcome of the bill if it stays written as you've suggested this morning. I guess it comes
Speaker 78
33:13
down to with the intent to deceive. Are you I will do my best.
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
33:18
To answer your question, because that was a lot of words. um.
Well, give me a second. Give me a second. If you're doing something. That you would be embarrassed. If you made a phone call, To a place you were supposed to be inspecting. And you would be embarrassed to have your pastor. For your spouse. For a judge or your employer hear that conversation, then you're probably doing something wrong. So it's it's the, it comes down to the intent to deceive.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
34:00
And I don't disagree with anything you just said. I just think our job as members of this committee is to look at the at the words we are given, which are very few on this page and, and under the words that we are given. Any member of this body or any member of the public. could accuse any member of this body. If they said something that that member of the public disagreed with. They could accuse that public servant of acting with intent to deceive, trying to interfere in an outcome with intent to deceive. I know that's not what
you want to do. I want to solve the same problem that you do. I just am having a hard time seeing how we can vote for this bill
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
34:40
if that is one possible outcome of the language we're given. Thank you. Here's my question back. Could you fathom a prosecuting attorney. Pulling that string. To raise a case. If, if there was no intent to see. Maybe it's a miscommunication, maybe it was a misunderstanding that could be settled with a further conversation.
It's not involve This is about a cover up of a malicious intent and I don't. I mean, we could, I get accused, I have unhappy people email me nearly every day accusing me of something. But they're not gonna take it to the prosecuting attorney. But our job is to make law, with all due respect, you
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
35:22
understand that our job is to make law under this law they would be able to, and that's my only point. Thank you.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
35:35
Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized. I, I'm just gonna say I agree with the previous questions and, and I'm really concerned about the definitions. I went back and pulled the whole code up. Online and looked and I put this in it. And when I read through it, it seems like it more affects elected officials than it does government employees. I will say
the title does say government employees, so I get where that's coming in and where we're at. But when you read the actual words of the statute. It's more about elected officials and constitutional officers than it is about a government employee, so I'm not sure we're putting this in the right place in the code. So I, I guess I'm a little concerned, um, I would say as a hint to the sponsor. Going forward, I think as I put bills out there, I would have had the bureau put the whole
code section now it's not a long code section, by the way, so I mean it may have been 2.5 pages, but by putting that out to the public and to the committee, it makes it a whole lot easier to See it in its entirety, um, so it's no offense when I say this, but it's not like you're hiding anything. You did tell us it was there and it was the the misdemeanor was there, but it's not on the paper, so it makes it difficult for folks to know where to go look that up, how to put that language in there and how to see that. So
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
37:11
I'm just concerned. I get, I don't really have a question, but It is concerning. Mr. Chair, if you would let me, uh, I will take on board the collective wisdom in the room, and I'd like to pull this down and come back to
fight another day. All right, that's uh. That's your prerogative and if that's what you'd like to do, I certainly will honor that request. So Representative under your You can pull the bill down.
Thank you very much. All right, next we have house Joint resolution. 1,004 Representative Ladyman. You're recognized.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
38:21
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I'd like to call, uh, I'd like to have
Mr. Chris Kinner come up to the table. Um, he's with US term limits and uh maybe help me answer some questions.
Speaker 125
38:34
If you would just state your name and identify any organization you're representing
and you'll be recognized to help me and I'm sorry, Jack Ladyman District 32. Well, thank you, but I was referring to the witness, uh, you'll be, uh,
Speaker 127
38:52
you'll be recognized to. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Chris Keener, I am the regional director for US
Speaker 125
39:01
term limits. You're recognized Representative Ladyman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I have a handout if I could
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
39:06
get this passed out at the beginning of the presentation. All right, seeing no objection.
Uh, colleagues. HJR 1004 is a resolution to call a convention to pass term limits for US representatives and senators. In Article 5 of the Constitution of the United States. It states there are two ways that amendments to the Constitution can be proposed. Many of you know this, but I want to go over this again, make sure everyone understands how amendments can be made. Number
1, 2/3 of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment. 2, 2/3 or 34 of the state legislatures can vote to call a convention to propose an amendment. After that The force of the state legislatures or 38 states must ratify an amendment coming from either source before it becomes part of the US Constitution.
I've thought a long time that term limits for Congress is needed. Um And this has nothing to do with uh our current Arkansas delegation in Congress. I'm not planning to run against anybody. Uh, because our, our people in Congress are very short term in their service compared to others. However, some people have served over 50 years in Congress. Think about this in the
perspective of uh other Professions Most individuals Don't work more than 30 years in their chosen profession. Anyone serving in the military and many do this, can retire after 20 years. Also I think after a determined or specific period of time, people, all people tend to get entrenched and do not have the energy they had when they first
started working in that field. We have term limits for our state legislators and many other states do as well. Uh, when I was a mayor, I would not appoint an individual to a city committee for more than 3 years. Because I thought we needed turnover to get high energy and fresh ideas. I think we need that in Congress. I don't know how many years the terms should be in Congress.
We in Arkansas don't know the best number for years because we've changed it 3 times in 10 years. The number of years allowed to be served. would be determined by Congress or the Title 5 convention. Let me ask you a question. What does the general population think about term limits. Nationally. Uh, there was a study done by Scott Rasmussen, which y'all are probably familiar with. In October of 2012.
82% of the respondents strongly agreed with term limits for Congress. Another study In July of 2023. Shows that number has risen to 87% of respondents who want term limits. In Arkansas, some of these numbers are in the handouts that you have. There's a lot more data in there other than what I'm mentioning, but these numbers are in there in Arkansas from a study done by US term limits from January 2nd to the
8th. Of this year, the number of respondents that favor term limits was 81%. That same study asked the question, would you be more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate for state legislature who supports term limits for Congress. With 74% responding more likely. Many other states. have approved this exact resolution word for word.
Uh, I want to ask Mr. Kinner if he would
Speaker 127
43:55
to give you some information about what other states have done. of the committee. Currently 9 other states have already passed this exact same language resolution, which includes Florida, Alabama, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Louisiana, and North Carolina and currently just this year, 2 states, Indiana and South Dakota have already passed
one chamber with a few other states have already passed some
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
44:26
of their committees as well. Thank you. Uh, one question I got when I started looking at this resolution. Um, was it there are many organizations out there trying to get a national convention approved, and that's true. And people get confused about all the convention campaigns out there. I'm only aware of two other campaigns and to try to clarify that I wanted to mention those
two. There is a campaign for a balanced budget, which our legislature approved in 2017, 24 states have approved this campaign. There's another campaign by convention of states which most of you are familiar with, uh, for a balanced budget term limits and to limit the federal government power. That uh national group that is putting on that convention, uh, putting that, I'm sorry.
The national group that is putting this resolution that I'm talking about forward is US term limits. They've been promoting this in many states since 2015. Uh, one other thing, uh, There's never been one of these conventions, to my knowledge. Because There has been a couple of cases where the number of states wanting a convention approved it
a resolution, but when it got close to that 34 number. It was taken care of by Congress. So I think that might be the case in any of these applications. So here's a quote I think is appropriate. Uh, Frank Broyles, uh, y'all know the University of Arkansas football coach and athletic director before a game against number one Texas said, and I quote, when the going gets tough, the tough get going. I agree and I think it's time
for Arkansas and other states to get going with that, and I'd
take any questions. Thank you, Representative Lady. Are there any questions by the committee? Representative Crawford, you're
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
46:48
recognized for a question. Thank you Mr. Chair. Representative Leeman, I've heard of this ever since I've been in the legislature. I It seems like.
It has a new dress on. But it's always the same. The same verse, I don't know, uh, my concern when I first heard about it was through convention of states. And you're telling me that this is different US term limits is different than convention of states. My concern is that If we are at.
34 states to call. 38 to ratify an amendment. For the US term limits, if I'm following you correctly, we're at 9 states to do this. Would this If we had enough for the call. Open up the constitution as a whole. Well, let me just ask that question. In your opinion,
would this open up the US Constitution.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
48:05
Totally. Well, in my opinion, it would not, but I'd like to ask
Speaker 126
48:11
Mr. Kenner to address that question. Mr. Chairman,
Speaker 127
48:14
uh, Representative Crawford, uh, I appreciate the question so in Article 5 it states on the application of in which this application is a single subject. Top single subject resolution for just term limits. So therefore,
It would not open up the uh constitution because it's only the single subject of term limits for Congress and therefore when you hear of the application on the application of You know, I'd look at it like this, you wouldn't take a uh car loan application into a bank and say, hey, I wanna, I wanna do this car use this car loan application, but I want to use it for a house. It's the same concept. No, you won't get to uh do anything else other than this. However, here's
the thing about term limits for Congress. They are not going to allow states to ever get to 34. Because it is term limits on themselves. They're not gonna succeed, they're not gonna let that power be handed to the states to decide their terms and to decide if they are grandfathered in or not, because if it was to come to a Convention, the states, the delegates could turn around and say upon ratification of this amendment, you can no longer
serve if you have met these terms. They're not gonna allow that power to be to the states. They will preempt. The uh states from getting to 34 and they will pass it themselves. And currently SJR1 and HJR 12
Speaker 128
49:48
in DC is filed for term limits. And let me, let me just add Representative Crawford, um,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
49:55
I mean, you, you bring up a valid point. A lot of people are concerned about that. But I think that's why the convention of states, which has
been around forever and, and we all get emails. I do. I'm sure you all do as well. One of the reasons that they're not successful is because it's too open. They have 33 different subjects in there. And, and, and that really concerns a lot of people. This resolution is very focused on one item. And that one thing is all that can be brought up in that convention. No other things can be addressed, discussed, or acted on. So, very good question. Thank you for that. All right, thank you.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
50:38
Representative Beck, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I support what you're what you're trying to do here. But I'm gonna be blunt. You've been working on this for 10 years, you've got 9 states. Uh, so far, is that not correct? I've only
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
50:55
been working on it for a couple of months, representative. Well, I
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
50:59
was actually referring to. Thank you, uh, chair, uh, Representative, yes, so we've
Speaker 127
51:09
actually started on this in 2015 going into the session of 2016 and since 2016, there has been nine states that have passed. This resolution, Oklahoma passed in 2023 with Louisiana. Tennessee and North Carolina all passing last year. I, I I, I, I support what
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
51:28
you're doing. I, I, you know, the question is, is it doesn't seem to be getting a lot of traction at this point. Hopefully it will
in the future, but the, the other concern is,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
51:44
let me, let me respond to that if I can, uh, I think they picked up speed lately. I was at a national meeting where I met Mr. Kinner and he just explained this to me and I, I think they're actions have sped up a lot recently. I think maybe that's why
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
52:01
there's been a delay. Uh, my only other concern and, and Is, is that and this is a question for you.
Yeah, the, the interesting thing is the Congress being limited to it it's 6 years, right? Total? No, in our
Speaker 127
52:18
resolution, there is no set number of terms. That is because we are not going to dictate to you in this resolution what those terms should be. If it was to meet a convention, then you guys would get to choose those terms.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
52:32
Let me explain what's in the the bill there what you're referring to, I think is where it says that our congressional officers are limited to 6 years in the house
and 2 terms in the Senate. So what you're referring to? OK, that's in there because right now our Arkansas constitution actually has in it limitations for our representatives 3 terms, 32. terms, 2 terms for the senators that was passed back in the 1970s actually. In our Arkansas constitution. Some other states have done the same thing, but that went to the Supreme Court and they said this is not allowed because you would have different term limits for
different states in Congress, so the uh Supreme Court uh threw that out, but it's actually in our Constitution. That our people have term limits, but it's not enforceable.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
53:27
So, I, I, I, if I understood you right, you said that we, we need 34 states or whatever to they would have to do this and it would be I, I thought you said
identical. And then that was what would be adopted, uh, so, Help me out and I, I might have
missed something here, but, but help me out, how, how are you going
to do that? I mean, if it's. If, if you've got this language in here because it's in the Arkansas Constitution. I'm assuming that other states may have slightly different language. They would not have the same language, so we would be passing a resolution. It's a resolution just to say, OK, we're gonna have a convention of states and then
they'll determine what the term limits are gonna be, are, are these that are
listed in here actually gonna be what everyone else will vote on.
Speaker 127
54:19
Mr. Chair, rep, uh, representative, so that language that you are speaking of is in the whereas clause that is giving the history of why we
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
54:29
are needing to get to what we are and that's, I'm fine with it then. All
right, I have a question, the concern that I have, so my understanding is is this does not. Set forth any specific terms for
congressmen and senators, is that right? Correct. OK. And so the way this would work is if we pass this, we would be one of the states calling for a convention of states for the convention of states to take up the issue of term limits for our federal congressman,
Speaker 127
55:04
is that right? Correct. This would be a convention for the sole purpose of term limits
on Congress, nothing else, but Right. And so, but the issue remains, uh, the way I understand it is, is once the convention of states happens, the debate happens there as to
what those term limits should be, whether they should be, for instance, as we apparently put in our Arkansas Constitution, which is news to me, 32-year terms. representatives to the United States Congress, which is a total of 6 years, and their senators to the United States Congress, uh, serving 2 6-year terms, 12 years for a US senator. I understand that that's just in our Constitution. I understand that that's not legally binding upon the federal
government, um, but the point is, is there may be people there at the convention of states advocating for term limits such as that. For our federal congressmen and senators is that, and that's where the debate would happen is that how
Speaker 127
56:05
this process would work? Correct, your uh At the convention, you guys would all the delegates would all discuss what those terms would actually be, but most of the uh representatives state level wise that I have spoken with do not like those terms because they, they seem to think
that they're too short. But that is the uh terms that are the federal uh delegation has established in SJR1 and HJR 12 in DC that they are pushing the pass. But that is not what the state levels would be pushing. So at a convention you guys would get to decide what those terms would actually be, whether that be 6 terms in the House, 2 terms in the Senate, you know, whatever
you guys end up choosing, but as far as this resolution goes, it does not set a number of terms, and it would join the other nine states once a passed by the entire legislature to uh join
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
57:04
them. Chairman Gassway, I think that's a very good question that you asked.
And I think You're absolutely right that that debate would go on in this convention. Uh, and I think that's a good thing and you know, every state would would send representatives to be a member of this convention, but then, as I
mentioned earlier, 38 states would have to approve what came out of that. So we as Arkansas and other states would have input onto that whatever they approved. And
that would be the delegates that we select who, who would be our delegates, how do we select delegates to a convention
Speaker 127
57:41
of states. You know that's that. If I'm not mistaken, I believe Arkansas has passed a faithful delegation Act, if I'm not mistaken, I could be wrong, but most states have already done that to decide how their
delegates are selected. All right, so I'm gonna share with you my concern, and then I'd like to hear your response to that. My concern is we saw what and I support term limits for our federal congressman. I know not everyone agrees with that. Some people firmly believe that there should not be any term limits that the that the uh uh. Arkansas delegation in terms of our state representative senators shouldn't have term limits in our federal delegation shouldn't have term limits, and there are people that firmly believe that. I am a believer in
term limits. The problem is, however, is I saw the experience that we had in Arkansas when we had very limited and restricted term limits and you had people that would come to serve in the state legislature who could serve a total of 6 years in the house who just learned where the bathrooms were when they were term limited, and they really weren't able to be effective and. You had a an executive branch which could wait out the legislative branch. You had a governor that could be here for 8 years and representatives that could only be here for 6 years.
You had, uh, the bureaucracy, if you will, who is here in indefinitely they're always here and If you look at the impact that those very restrictive term limits had on the state of Arkansas. Think about how that is magnified at the federal level when you have a federal bureaucracy that is beyond the pale of human decency and to expect that you're gonna have the representatives of the people to be able to take on that bureaucracy with only 6 years before they have to go
home. Uh, I just I have some very serious concerns about the effectiveness of the representatives of the people and the point is if we pass this, we don't know what's going to happen in that convention of states. They could limit it to 6 years. They may give them 20 years, they could give them 30 years. I don't know what they would come up with, but it's a very dangerous thing in my opinion if we don't know what they're going to do. So that's my concern with this and so I'd like to, uh, I'd like to hear your responses to that, yes, uh, that's a good question,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
59:57
and I I would like to respond to that and, and I tend to agree with exactly what you're saying. We had a problem. 6 years was not long enough. Um But what happened? What happened? What action was taken, that changed. We went to 16 years. And then it changed again. So that was improved. Here and I think, you know, the
states are labs for the federal government. I think we proved that and what we did on term limits, and I think the same thing could happen at the federal level and and I really believe this is something that needs to be done, uh, because Congress is not functioning as well as they can, and a lot of times that is held up by people who are there who know all the uh the ways to do things, to block things, and that sort of thing. But I, I think we corrected that problem, Mr. Chairman, and I, I think we ought to give.
Uh, the convention opportunity to correct it at the national level.
All right, Representative Ray, you're recognized. You, you actually
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:01:07
asked my question, Mr. Chairman, so I don't have a question anymore. Representative Wooldridge are recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:01:14
Chair. um, you asked somewhat of my question,
and, and I'll I'll follow up on that a little bit, um, is there a mechanism in place that if, if this does convene and they set a term that the states are uncomfortable with. Is there any recourse there? Do we have any
buy-ins where we can change that, that have to be ratified or approved by
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:01:34
the legislature. How does that work? Well, again, as I said in my opening remarks, it has to come back to the states and 3/4 of the state legislatures have to
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:01:46
the terms, OK, and then I did have 11 other question, um. So I think term limits is a hard
thing to discuss or debate, um, you know, I certainly don't want to be here for 20 years, but
At what point do we say that we just don't trust the elector to make the right decision. I mean, you know, technically, I mean they could make that change every 2 years for our congressmen or every 6 years for our senators, so, uh, I mean, how, what's the argument there to say that, you know, you've done this for a long time, you make a decision every 2 years that in the first congressional district we send Representative Crawford to DC to uh to take on our interest at the federal level, but now we no
longer trust the citizens of the first district to make that decision ongoing will allow you to make it for a set number of years and then we're gonna force you to choose someone else. I mean, I, I guess I'd like to hear just your thoughts on, on that, I mean,
because essentially we are taking that away from
Speaker 127
1:02:54
the people, right? No, it actually opens up the opportunity for people to have more choices anytime there's an open sea, especially on the congressional level, you have
way more options to choose from in Arkan uh Colorado, for instance, Lauren Bobert switched districts and her seat ended up having 15 individuals run for it. Which gave the people a lot of choices to be able to run to to choose from, but it's the people that would like to have term limits, and they understand that there's a seniority system in DC. You got a term limit system and a seniority system. DC runs off the seniority system, so of course they're going to keep the person there even if they may
not like them all the time. They're gonna keep him there longer because they build up that seniority and to be able to do things for their district, but under a term limit system, everybody's same. Every single state, every single representative
Speaker 169
1:03:48
and senator will be under the same amount of terms. So everybody would be equal. Representative
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:03:54
Woolridge, to add to that, I, I think what your question is, and, and I agree with you,
we're gonna lose some good people. There's people in Congress right now that are 89,
90 years old that I, I think are sharp as a tack. That's probably gonna happen. But there, there's always give and take and nothing is 100%. We, we may lose some of those people. I think we would. Uh, but again, getting back to what I said earlier, most people don't work in a profession more than 30 years. Maybe the number's 30 years, maybe it's 40. I don't know, but there needs to be an upper limit and also keep in mind.
80% of the people nationally want this. 81% of the people in Arkansas want this. We are representatives of the people. This is what they want and it's not gonna be perfect. There are gonna be some issues. Right, I understand that
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:04:49
and I guess a follow up, um, you know, I, I understand that 81% of people are in favor of term limits according to what you shared with us here, but I also know that 81% of the people could change their person if they voted for someone else. And I think to the witnesses's point, I, I think that you maybe
answered what I'm trying to get at or or or I guess clarify, are we wanting this because it creates a path for other people to run that's easier or I mean because 15 people could run against the current member, you just saying that that's a losing venture, so nobody wants to do that or you, you think that it's easier for people to run in an open seat because they're not running against an incumbent. Is that what we're, um, um, I guess I'm trying to find what's the, what's the real motive here? like what are we trying to create an opportunity for, and
it sounded to me like from your answer that we're trying to create open seats because that, that gives a lot more options
Speaker 127
1:05:49
for folks to run. It's to make it to have free and fair elections all across the board, not to mention, uh, think about Mitch McConnell. He hasn't made a decision to run next year yet, but representative Andy Barr has decided that he may run for Senate, but only if McConnell retires. He won't run against McConnell if he doesn't
retire, but he has the ability to he does, but he won't do it. Most people won't run against an incumbent that's been there for quite a long time because They don't want to go out there and get blown away in the election, you know, get 700,000 to 30,000 votes. They, they want to have a free shot. A fair shot at it. Besides that, members of Congress has fra franken privileges. So therefore a challenger can't really challenge an incumbent because
of the fact that they get to send out mail off the government's dime to the people. They get to go and call up a news station and say, hey, I want to talk about this, and they get to do that because they are the incumbent. So they get all those advantages. It's the income and advantage to the challengers. Challengers. Don't get to
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:07:01
do all that, but incumbents do. So I guess one more question and then I'll be done, Mr. Chair has an income it ever lost? Rarely, but there is a path where it's
Speaker 127
1:07:13
possible. It is, but members of Congress, the House have a 94% re-election rate and uh members of the Senate, it was 100% re-election rate just in 2022. OK, thank you,
sir. Representative Beck, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:07:29
So, Something that you said that we would have the chance, the state legislators would have the chance if this thing were to pass to Uh, agree to the term limits, correct?
Speaker 127
1:07:47
Correct. Congress passes it or or through a convention it passes you guys still get the ultimate decision to decide if you agree to what those terms are or not because you guys would have to ratify
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:07:59
it. So, so I have two questions then. So, uh, what our delegation that we send up, would they be bound to the Arkansas Constitution. Because if they were, they could only vote for 6 as it stands right now. They can only vote for the term limits that you listed in the whereas because
also it's in our Constitution, correct? They would be bound by what you guys tell them to be bound by. OK, so let's say
that they could. Do that others. So now let's say that we adopt a 10-year term limit for Congress. I'm just gonna use this as an example. So we have a 10-year term limit. So it comes back to the legislators. To adopt that we will get we swear an oath to uphold the Arkansas Constitution. The
Arkansas Constitution says 6 years. Well, that's actually something I'm missing? Yeah, in reference to that,
Speaker 127
1:08:54
so like we mentioned in the 1990s, 23 states to include Arkansas had passed that. But in 1995, the Supreme Court said that is void and invalid. And therefore it actually shouldn't even be in the state constitution anymore because it is invalid according to the US Supreme Court because it has to be a constitutional amendment.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:09:20
So, so, so I'm agreeing with you with that, but, but my point is this, I, I think that We might be getting the horse before the, you know, the cart before the horse or something. It seems like we should clean up our constitution. I mean, we can go ahead with this, but someone's got to clean up our constitution because we swear to uphold the the Arkansas's constitution, and I, I don't see where the Supreme Court says. You can come in and say, OK, well, yeah, you said you were gonna do that, but you don't
have to because we think it's wrong. I don't think that's, I mean, I'm not legal, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know how that would work, but I think that would be something that someone could possibly challenge this on. So possibly we need to actually come in front this committee, we'd have to actually change our constitution to say that we would be able to adopt or I don't know what all that would look like, but it seems like that's a conflict that the Legislators would have if this thing actually came back different than what's in our
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:10:21
Constitution. Thank you. Representative Hawk, you're recognized. I don't, I don't think I have a question anymore, Mr. Chair. uh
yeah, I, I'm good. All right, Representative Long, you're
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:10:40
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, do you think
it would be Uh, incumbent upon the delegates to the Constitutional convention or excuse me, convention of the states to come back with something reasonable. I mean
they, they go there, go to all the trouble to, to put out an amendment. Do you not think that they probably would try to come up with something that would be considered reasonable, at least 38 states, uh, so that, um, you know, the process would be fulfilled.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:11:08
Well, I, I That's a good point, Representative Long, and I, I, I think you're right about that. We all know how difficult it is to pass a bill. So I think that same process that we do every
day here would work its way through that convention. So if we believe in what we do on a daily basis, I think we ought to believe in what they
would do. All right, seeing no further questions by the committee, uh, is there anyone signed up to speak for or against the bill?
Seeing no one signed up to speak for or against the
bill, Representative Ladyman, you're recognized to close for your bill, or resolution, I should
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:12:04
say. Yes, I am, uh, well, you know, this has been a healthy debate and I've really enjoyed it and I think good points have been raised. Uh, and, and I knew when I agreed to run this, this is a heavy lift. And referring to the coach, the quote that I had. Uh, you know, it's tough sledding. It really is because there's a lot of um
Questions, uh, would be a lot of work and it's gonna be a long time to get this done, but I truly believe that it's something that we need to do. It's been discussed for many, many years, so it's time to take action. It's time to start the process, and we would have input into that as a state all along the way. So with that, uh, Mr. Chairman, uh, I'm closed for my resolution. All
right, Representative Ladyman is closed for his resolution. What are the wishes of the committee?
I see a motion do pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, we have a motion to pass all those in favor say aye, all those opposed
the nose have it. I'm sorry, Representative lady, the bill's failed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you committee. All right, next
we have. Just one moment to pull up.
the list Well, let me go back, uh, Representative Underwood, are you ready to run?
Senate Bill 207. All right. You recognized to run Senate Bill 207, I believe Senator Hammer is here also. And my understanding, uh, Representative Underwood, is you have an amendment.
Uh, yes, chair, uh, I have an amendment to this bill is going to pass out that amendment now. I
Alright, Representative Underwood, you're recognized to present the amendment.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:15:13
Thank you. Um, this is the same bill that we uh that I presented on Monday about uh providing the warning for um signing fraudulently. We had a little bit of a debate about whether it was a class A misdemeanor or a felony. Um, turns out I'd asked BLR to research this, and it does look like we have some conflicting code sections, so that's probably something to debate a different day, but, uh, for the
purpose of this amendment, this just changes it to uh criminal offense rather than being specific about what that criminal offense is, um, and I have a motion at the appropriate time.
All right, Representative Underwood has explained the amendment. Any questions on the amendment?
Seeing that Representative Roger recognized for your motion. Make a motion to adopt the amendment. Representative Underwood makes a motion to adopt the amendment in discussion on that motion, seeing none all those in favor say aye. All those opposed, I have it the amendment is adopted. Representative
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:16:11
Underwood, you're recognized to present the bill as amended. Sure, so I think I uh explains just the change with the amendment. I already presented this bill on Monday, so I won't, uh, go back into that further because I know we were here for probably over 6 hours Monday, so I don't know if Senator Hammer has any additional comments,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:16:32
but if not, that's all I had. Senator Hammer. Thank members of the committee, I think this amendment will align with what's in code
section and also uh we'll we'll bring it to a place where if there is a criminal activity, it would be charged appropriately and can be left up to local authorities to make that determination. So appreciate a good vote from the committee members, please. All
right, Representative Underwood, Senator Hammer have explained the bill as amended. Are there any questions by the committee? Representative Collins,
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:17:07
I mean I I understand that there are some places in our law where
we tell people that there would be a criminal offense if they broke the law, but most of the time we don't, and most of the time, you know, ignorance of the law is no defense, is a maxim that is is present throughout law and even for example, um, when someone goes to vote, it's very similar and very, you know, uh, important. part of the democratic process just like signing a petition is, but we don't have poll workers tell people, everyone who comes
in, that, you know, voter fraud is a criminal offense, and so I guess I would ask why not, why not that what the analogy has been drawn between signing a petition and actually voting is that they're similar in a lot of ways. So why do we not do that when it comes to voting? I'm
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:18:03
not sure you haven't brought up a good idea because one of the issues we want to do is help
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:18:09
people avoid um from breaking the law, number one, and also remember the intent of this and
the whole drive behind this isn't for those that are inadvertently or accidentally breaking the law. This is going to be so that for those who have broke the law, it will give a greater ability to prosecute them because they won't be able to do what they did without knowledge of what the law is expected, so it'll protect both those that are voting with the greatest of integrity in mind, but it's also going to help capture and convict those who are not, and I think by sounding the warning and giving them this knowledge, it will relieve any excuses that
they could use in court should there be an offense that breaks the law and
prosecution proceeds. But I guess my point is that it could be done widely for everything, essentially. Why are we picking this one in particular and not other important areas of
of our law and our of our world. Sure, thanks for bringing that
out because I think one of the things that we have is the evidence or the appearance of evidence of wrongdoing in the great number of signatures that have been duplicated and again I think
what this is intended to do along with all the other bills that have been referenced is we want to purify the process so that the signatures that are on the sheets are legitimate signatures and also to help alleviate alleviate some of the burden that's been placed on Secretary of State as far number of duplicate signatures that they have had to identify and and to me this is just taking it in a positive direction to where when somebody signs it, if they are made knowledgeable that breaking the law, uh, they are going to think
twice about did I sign this already once, number one, but greater is it's going to spread the net and capturing those signatures that are intentionally being put on there, uh, for, for ulterior motives and you know, to your point, um, ignorance of the law. is no excuse and so any time that we can remove that and we'll start in this area I think we're just doing the, the general public service by raising the awareness that if you're going to do this and then you were captured or caught
doing it, you'll be in court without any excuse. OK, thank you. And then the other thing I want to ask you, you know, in, in this amendment process and in our discussion, uh, the other day there was so much confusion about the law, and in fact there were two parts of law. There was a felony part and a misdemeanor part, and Representative Ray was talking about, you know, uh, evidence of, you know, instances of breaking the law, but didn't mention the mental state. It, it's complicated and, and we are having canvassers talk about
criminal law. To every potential petitioner, uh, don't you think that would create a risk of confusion just like we experience here on this committee as legislators. No, I don't think it creates a risk of confusion. I mean, the law
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:21:02
is that it's a criminal offense. It's just, and I have, I have a memo on it and I can provide that to you, but it, it looks like the law was changed in 2019 and it changed the law to a felony, but then it didn't strike a previous code section regarding a Class A misdemeanor, so it's still it's already in
code that it is a criminal offense and we're just notifying people that fraudulently signing it would be a
criminal offense. Representative in it, you're recognized for a question. All right, Representative Ray, you're
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:21:36
recognized for her question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This, this may be one of those, would you agree questions? But To Representative Collins's question. Wouldn't you agree, you know, he asked. Why don't we offer this sort of
warning when you go to cast your vote at the polling place. I think everybody knows when they show up at a polling place, what exactly is going on there. I think a key difference is, you know, everyone goes to the polling place with the purpose of casting a vote. When you're pumping your gas at a Cito and someone walks up to you with a clipboard and shoves it in your face and says, hey, would you sign my petition to hold the politician. Accountable or to protect
women's health or whatever nebulous reason they described the petition is for. People don't necessarily. know that they're signing an official government document. And what the ramifications of that are. People get asked to sign petitions all the time and those petitions are sometimes formal, uh, government documents. Sometimes they're Petitions described as are their petitions um disguised as
fundraising appeals. Sometimes they're informal petitions that might carry no meaning. So wouldn't you agree that there's a big distinction between the two and that this warning is simply to let people know, hey, this is an this is an official government pro um process and that, you know, your signature if you're, if you're falsifying it in any way if you're not who you state that you are. There are consequences for doing so. Wouldn't you agree?
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:23:23
Yes, I would agree and one of the things that, again, it's intended to do is that if somebody does present to you with a petition to sign, I think there's a duty to raise the awareness of the um importance of the document that is being being signed I guess that's, that's one of the things that causes me some pause as to the resistance is, I would think that for those that are wanting to do it right.
And wanted to make sure that the process is pure, that you would want to do everything to make the public as aware of the importance, but also the severity of, of honoring the law and honoring the process and so that's part of what I've, uh, I just have never got my mind around if you're willing to do it right and you want to do it right, why would you be resistant to what is the right thing to
do. Representative Collins are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, that actually goes into my next question because I think that
the resistance to this really comes back to the chilling effect. The chilling effect on people signing a petition who were perfectly above board and and don't have any criminal intent, but with this warning that they may be about to commit a criminal offense on law. They don't have any information about, don't have any background on, and the canvasser won't be able to explain to them coherently, it probably will make many not sign, and I think that is the that that will throw a wrench in the democratic process. My question really is about the
disproportionate impact because it is gonna have a chilling effect. There's just no question about that. I, I don't even think you guys would deny that, although if you do, you, you know, feel free, um, but my question is, do you think, have you considered and do you think there will be a disproportionately high chilling effect in communities that don't have as much confidence or familiarity with the law. Maybe we don't have as much trust in uh you know, institutions. of familiarity with systems. I mean, the reality is there are some places where if you show up with the clipboard and say, you
may be committing a criminal offense if you sign this, they will be more likely to walk away and say I want no part of this because they rationally irrationally uh fear those consequences and don't trust the system that that, you know, you're asking them to participate in. So what about the, the proportionate disproportionate impact in different communities. I would respond by saying this representing Collins, I
appreciate you bringing it out because you've just identified one of the heartbeats of why we're doing everything that
we're doing is you acknowledge that there's a lack of trust currently. These are all intended to raise the trust level so that petitions can be signed and as this goes forward and people become aware of it. Uh, I think it's gonna raise the trust level. Representative Ray, you're recognized.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:26:19
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I, I guess I, you know, Representative Collins raised the issue of a chilling effect,
which, you know, I'm sensitive to because. You know Rights to free speech or certainly enjoy and deservedly so a high degree of protection, but I guess I would just ask uh Representative Underwood, you know, the 2nd Amendment is also an individual right that is afforded deservedly so, a high level of protection, and I know that every time I've ever gone to purchase a gun and I fill out the background check form. I'm asked a series of questions, a lot of questions. There's
probably, I think, 12 or 15 questions on there. And it states very clearly on the form that if I um if I respond to any of those questions in a way that that I know is inaccurate that I'm committing a felony, um, but that has Never had a chilling effect on my intent or ability to purchase a firearm. Would you agree? No, that's correct. Representative Roy, I think I
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:27:23
probably didn't articulate that as well as you just did, but that's kind of the
point I've raised on Monday, uh, you know, I've purchased firearms. I've read that form. I've seen that that doc that disclaimer or that that notification and it didn't deter me because I wasn't. Answering the questions inaccurately or relying on the form. Representative Long,
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:27:50
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'd asked
the other day on the other bills, but um just wanted to get a clarification on this one. This does only apply to statewide initiatives and referendum
situations, is that correct? Yes, that's correct. Not local options for, for liquor licenses or or excuse me, wet dry issues or um you know any other local ordinances, that's correct. Thank you, sir. Representative Rose, you're
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:28:21
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair With regards to a chilling effect, um, would you agree if, if there will be a chilling effect, it will be on those people who are trying to do
something fraudulently, wouldn't that be the intention of this? Yes, 100%. Alright, thank you. All right, seeing
no further questions by the committee, we do have people signed up to speak. It appears against the bill. It doesn't appear that there's anyone here to speak for the bill and so with that, Brady and I apologize. I just can't
read the handwriting. If you would identify yourself for the record, state the
Brady Shires
Unverified
1:29:10
name of any organization you're here representing and then you're recognized to present your remarks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, looks like the snow scared everybody away today, so it's just me. Um, so my name is Brady Shires. I work for the Arkansas Public Policy Panel. On its face, SB 27207 is a rather simple piece of legislation that a canvasser must tell a potential signer that petition fraud is a class A misdemeanor or in this case with the amendment I um a criminal
offense, um, those are pretty simple words that a canvasser must say out loud, I'm I'm not going to disagree with how simple that is to say. Um However, there was discussion today and several days ago on the potential chilling effect that this legislation may have. Um, the line of questioning being about how signers may be afraid to sign a petition after being told that petition fraud was a crime. And a a mistake may have serious legal consequences. I believe
that this legislation will have serious chilling effect, not only for signers, but for also canvassers as well. If you'll let me explain. Uh, there's been a lot of discussion about signers committing fraud. That's only one half of this legislation. If we look at the bottom of page one, the start of section 2. Section 2 would amend Arkansas Code 79103c. This section of code deals with the penalties for fraudulent activities as it relates to the petition process. If passed into the law, the full section of code would now read.
A person commits a class A misdemeanor if the person acting as a canvasser, notary, sponsor, or agent of a sponsor, and in this part is new as a canvasser fails to disclose to a potential signer that petition fraud is a Class A misdemeanor before the potential or um is a criminal offense before the potential uh petitioner signs the petition in the custody of a canvasser as subscribed under the subdivision. In other words, failure to say simple several simple words to a
signer means that I, as a canvasser, have now committed a crime. In this very same sub subsection of the code that we would be amending the other Class A misdemeanors include actual petition fraud and the paying of signatures. So let me ask, does the failure failure to say a simple words really rise to the same level of punishment as the fraudulent signing of official government documents. That seems like a gross overreaction to me. For example, say I'm set up at a farmer's market with my table
and I have my petitions. I have 6 people with me, and they all want to sign my petition to eliminate the grocery tax. So I'm gathering signatures, I'm doing exactly what I need to do. I'm explaining the petition process. I'm looking at their photo ID. I'm reading the ballot title aloud. I'm doing everything I'm supposed to. Then John in the booth right next to me decides he wants to start filming me. And he picks up that I didn't tell the signers that petition fraud is a crime. Well, now he
has video evidence of me openly committing a crime. So He sends this video to the Secretary of State, and at that point several things could happen. First of all, all the signatures I've collected could be thrown out because my true affidavit is no longer true, and the Secretary of State now has evidence of me not following the law. So those hundreds of legitimate signatures I've gathered are now null and void with no way to cure them. Second, should the Secretary of State think I was acting maliciously, um, I could very well be referred to prosecution.
Now, of course, it's up to the prosecutor's discretion to determine if there's actual case here, but nevertheless, we've wasted more taxpayer resources. Now it should be noted out of Section 2 of this bill, there's been no discussion on intent or state of mind of the criminal offense. Just a mere failure to say those words results in a crime regardless if it was an accident or not, and because it's so so vague, what's to say some hotshot prosecutor who wants to make a name going after petition fraud won't bring this
case. Now I would have to pay for a lawyer, miss work, potentially go to jail and pay a fine. Furthermore, back to the chilling effect, if I'm a volunteer with a grassroots petition campaign, and I now see that accidental failure to say a few words means I can not only ruin the campaign, I believe in, but also in the ending up having serious legal consequences, I'd be scared to death to even sign up to be a canvasser. We would absolutely see a drop in volunteer canvassers with this legislation. People would be scared and walking on
eggshells the whole time to make sure that they were doing everything right or else face serious consequences. And this just means that big money out of state interests will get more and more power over our petition process, a paid canvasser has the financial interests to make sure they're following every step of the law. A volunteer does not. They just have their passion for the cause. Grassroots sponsors are going to have. have to start taking big money to hire canvassers just so they have a shot of having a large, large enough base just to get
signatures. So to conclude, due to the vagueness of the language of Section 2, the very real chilling effect this will have on grassroots campaigns and the increased influence of big money in our petition process. I ask you to vote no on SB 207 and let's not make criminals out of canvassers. Thank you. All
right. Thank you, Mr. Shires. Are there any questions? About the committee. Seeingan, thank you very much. Next we have Christian Harper to speak against the bill.
Ms. Harper, if you would just identify yourself and state the name of any organization you're here representing and then you're recognized
Kristen Harper
Unverified
1:34:59
to present your testimony. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Kristen Harper. I'm the policy director with Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and we believe the Arkansas family should have a say in major decisions that will impact their communities. That's why we support the ballot measure process and are asking you to please vote against SB 207. We understand that Representative Underwood and Senator Hammer believe that this
bill will prevent fraudulent activity in the ballot measure process. However, the more likely outcome of this bill would be to intimidate voter. And in doing so, decrease participation in the ballot measure process. We believe that the requirement outlined in SB 207 to inform voters of the illegality of the petition fraud will scare away legitimate voters from signing. Voters will likely be afraid that if they do not complete the petition form just right, they will be accused of fraud and be in legal trouble. This is in
part because as written, the acts of fraud the bill sponsors have stated they're trying to prevent are not listed without being told voters will be threatened with a criminal offense without being told. What acts would constitute a crime. The vast majority of Arkansans already know fraud is illegal and are entering the petition process, not with nefarious intentions, but with the desire to participate civically in their communities and support issues they care about. A better way to prevent fraud is to enforce current laws and to train canvassers to ask voters
if they have already signed. We urge you to vote against SB 207. Thank you. All
right, thank you, Ms. Harper. Are there any questions
by the committee? Singan, thank you for being here and thank you for those remarks. Before we go any further, I want to note that On Monday we had uh several people who were signed up to speak against 207. They had signed up to speak against all of these bills and I went back and reviewed the video from
Monday to make sure as to how we handled this and when the bill was pulled down, those individuals who had signed up to speak against 207, uh, didn't get the opportunity to speak against the bill. I will tell you that I've had what from my account 15 text messages this morning. Some of which were from individuals who were here Monday to speak against the bill, asking me to delay a vote on this bill today because they were not able to be here because of the weather that the roads were bad, they had signed up to
speak against this bill on Monday, and when we delayed this bill to today, of course, at that time we're not aware that they wouldn't be able to make it here today because of the roads. And so I, I certainly understand their uh Their point and I also understand that we have work to do and that the bill sponsors, I'm sure would would just would like to proceed with the bill as this is the 2nd meeting that this bill has been
presented, so with that, uh, I told Representative Underwood that I would raise this issue and that I would leave whether or not we vote on this bill today in order to give members of the public additional time to show up when the roads aren't bad and that they can actually make it to the Capitol. I'm gonna leave that decision as to whether we vote on this bill today. To the will of the committee. And so with that, uh I just want to open it up to the committee for discussion as to whether or not we should take a vote on this bill today. Representative Collins, you're recognized. Well, I guess my question first
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:38:29
would be to representative Underwater, are you guys willing to push the vote to Monday so that we can hear from
the people who can't make it due to these roads and these conditions. Uh, no, I appreciate the question, but
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:38:41
no, I plan to take a vote today. We had over 6 hours of testimony on Monday. We presented the bill then and also I think with some of the other bills that we had like the term limits deal, I've had quite a few emails regarding that. Now most of those were in support of that, but I don't know, I mean, we're here, we're working, um, you know, I don't know how many
people were planning on coming to speak on that one either, but I think we so we've had other controversial things here today,
so to be clear we did not have any discussion from the public on this bill Monday. um. So I think, I think with that I would move
Speaker 223
1:39:12
that we tabled this bill. All right, uh. Hang
Speaker 65
1:39:20
on just a second. So your motion is to table the bill. Is that the proper way to take the bill out of consideration for one day and then bring it back. Well, I think my understanding
is that tabling has a uh there are certain consequences that follow from tabling a bill that are pretty severe in terms of being able to ever even bring the bill back.
Speaker 225
1:39:43
So that may. take a vote at the committee to bring it back up.
All right, so with regard to your motion, I'm being told by staff that if the motion to table, uh, would Essentially end any further action on the bill. However, that at the next meeting, the committee with a simple vote of
a majority of the quorum could uh bring the motion to. Uh, the motion, I guess, formally would be
to take from the table. But simple majority of a quorum could vote to.
Hear the bill and take it off the table, so. So is that, is
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:40:47
that your motion? That is my motion and, and for what it's worth, I'm happy to vote to bring it off the table Monday. I just think this would be a way that we can do right by the process and the people who want
to speak on this. All right. Representative Collins has made
a motion to I lay. Senate Bill 207 on the table. Is there any discussion on that motion, Representative Ray of parliamentary inquiry.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:41:11
You're recognized. I get, I guess by the fact that you opened it up to discussion, it
Speaker 230
1:41:17
is a debatable motion. No, it's not, uh, to postpone action and lay on the
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:41:21
table is actually not debatable, so of parliamentary inquiry would be Would it, would it not be more appropriate to you, you opened up the question of whether we were going to vote on this to discussion at the committee. Would it not be more appropriate to Let that discussion take place and then consider Representative Collins' motion because he, his
motion essentially cuts off the discussion of the question you presented to the committee, Representative Collins, do
you want to withdraw that motion so we can discuss this further? I will withdraw the motion. All right, thank you, Representative Collins. All right, so let's just, we're gonna discuss this before we take any action. I understand Representative Collins is going
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:42:01
to have a motion, but Representative Ray, you're recognized for discussion. Sure, and thank you, Representative Collins for your flexibility there. Um, I guess my point would just be that this committee met the other day for 6 hours and we
chairman Gazaway was very gracious in giving a lot of leeway and flexibility to all the members of the public who came. To offer their comment and No member of the committee limited debate. We listened to all of that debate. I think it is safe to assume. That everyone who testified in favor of the other two bills were in favor of this bill and the everyone who testified
against the other two bills also is against this bill. I don't think we heard from a single person who said they were for one bill and against the other, and most of the testimony, frankly, uh, if we're being honest with ourselves, bled over among all the three bills. There were very few comments that were specific to any bill. And so I, I don't think that we're. doing anything unfair by voting on a bill we've already heard essentially 6 hours of testimony on.
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
1:43:16
Representative Bennett, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, given the nature of Senate Bill 207. I think we owe it to our constituents to give them time to come up here, um, we don't have any control of the weather. We're here, we're doing what we're supposed to do, but I've had many calls, texts, emails, asking, can we prolong, not prolonged, but delay this. And so I think it's fair. Uh, we did not hear about 207
the other day, and I think it's fair for us
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:43:59
to approach it another time. Thank you. Representative Crawford, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As
much as I want to get this over with, which I do. Um, if you guys will remember. When we were all here. In that six-hour debate. Each person at the end of the
table was told to keep it. To that bill. They were not allowed to speak on all the bills collectively. They were only to speak on the bill that was in front of them. So if we keep to our word. Uh, we should let the people come back and debate again is the outcome gonna be different? No. Is the bill gonna pass? Yes.
I just want us to be fair to our constituents and even if they're not our constituents to the state of Arkansas. Thank
you. Representative Beatty, you're recognized. I, I know we all sit
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:45:09
through those six-hour meetings. And they, the witnesses are the test of the folks providing testimony we're told to focus strictly on The bill on the table. And under consideration.
You know, I I don't know how many times I said point of order, but it was a lot. Because we didn't stay on task on, on the measure on the table. I kind of agree with the comments from Uh, Ray and um and some others that Those that were opposed were opposed. Those that were in support are in support. Uh, hearing the testimony, I want
everyone to have their opportunity to speak, but I think we heard from the people. On Monday. So I'll be voting in favor of a vote on this bill and I'd encourage all, uh, my colleagues to do the same. Representative Woolridge.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:46:15
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and um I, I think that I would agree with Representative Crawford and
some others, you know, I think that
we owe it to our constituents to allow them to engage in the process. I don't think that we should ever get to a point where we think that just because we were elected to represent a select group of folks, we understand what their intent is. They Have the opportunity to engage in the committee process. That's the process we're in, and I can only assume after a record number of point of orders during the last committee meeting that folks were not able to speak freely on a bill that wasn't heard, so I think that we should
wait and allow the public to engage in the process.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:47:01
Representative Ray. I guess if I could just make one more point. I would point out that from a functional standpoint, this committee Had a 6 hour meeting the other day and we're going to have more 6 hour meetings. We're going to have many more 6 hour meetings over the course of this legislative session. If you just look at the agenda that there are stacks of it sitting over there. It is page one front and back page 2 front and back.
And page 3. I haven't counted them, but I would wager there's at least 100 bills on this list. And We're going to meet, it sounds like we're just going to meet 6 hours every day. From now until the end of session and this doesn't even include the bills that haven't been filed that are going to come to this committee. So, you know, I, I just, I think we got to keep that into consideration that You know Anyway, I think, I think I made
my point. Representative Rose, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. With respect to Representative Collins Annet
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:48:05
Crawford and Wooldridge. I respect their opinions. I, I do disagree at this time. Uh, what I would say as somebody who is supportive of this bill, uh, we were only able to hear somebody speak against it today. We weren't able to hear somebody who was willing to speak for it, and even with that in regards, I'm still more than willing to listen to a vote on
this and support it, but also um this bill should be considered on its own merit by the We are continuing to do business as a committee and as a house, as a legislature, as representative Underwood spoke earlier. We heard the resolution from Representative Ladyman, uh, I'd received as many emails or texts from individuals on that as I had this, those people weren't able to be here for or against, we still took a vote with respect to the chairman, uh And um I, I agree you gave a lot
of latitude on Monday to those who are speaking for and against and we heard a lot of discussion. Whether it was regards to one bill or the package of bills and, and I feel with regards to that, the The fact that we're here, that we're
doing business, I think we should go ahead and vote as we have on everything else so far
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:49:24
in this committee today. Thank you. Representative Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, it's important for
folks to be given the opportunity to speak, but we, we, I think we need to keep in mind the main reason why we do that is to allow them to share their concerns either for or against a bill to help us make a decision on how we're going to proceed with the bill like Representative Rose said, whether we're going to support a bill or against a bill, and I think most of us at this table have probably already made our decision. How we're going to vote on this and so because of that, I say let's go ahead and get the vote
done, get it taken so we can continue to move on with other business that
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:50:08
we have before our committee. Representative Hawke. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. While, while I agree with both points of view on this, um, if that was a sentiment, we should have not even met today. I mean, we, we should not have met at all today to vote on any bill in this if that was the sentiment that we shouldn't take any votes. We shouldn't have done anything in this committee at all today. And so um we're here, we, we as
Representative Ray said we've got a really long agenda and we've heard through email, through text, through phone calls. the people that were here, um, different points of view on all three of these bills, specifically this one. So with that being said, I, you know, the roads are somewhat passable. I was just, I actually just ran from rules committee back over here, and there's people driving around, um, I would just say we get this, we, we do this vote and, and we move on to the rest of the agenda. Representative Bennet.
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
1:51:09
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I respectfully, um, disagree with, um, what others have said about voting for this bill. I think we should wait. Um We do have a long agenda, but that's not the constituent's problem, if we have a long agenda. We come here, we work for the people of Arkansas. I can't tell you how many emails, calls, texts I'm still getting, we can't.
We can't put this bill with um lady with Jack Ladyman's bill, or sorry, Representative, I mean sorry, representative layman's bills, apples and oranges, two different types of bills there. This one is gonna impact us here right now, House bill, or sorry, Senate Bill 2000, I mean, sorry, Senate Bill 207. So again, I will. Like for us to let the constituents come in, let them have their say, and let us vote. Thank you.
Representative Rose. Yeah, I'd just like to make a motion at the proper time that we vote on this. Motion to pass. All right, well, we're not, we're not to that point yet at the proper time. Um, representative Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:52:31
Um, you know, as we heard earlier, a couple of people did make it here and I thought they did a fine job of explaining their opposition to the bill and as I look around the room, I counted up over 20 other people that are
here. They, they managed to make it in today if we were the only people that made it just the committee members. I might feel differently, but obviously, uh the people that were determined to get her did get here and um. Uh, I think we should go
ahead and vote on the bill today. Thank you. Representative Rose motion for
immediate consideration. It's, there's not a primary motion on the floor to be considered at this
point. So we're just in discussion about whether or not to take a
vote. There was a motion that Representative Collins had made, but he withdrew his motion, so there is no primary motion on the floor. Can I make a primary motion? You can make a
motion if you'd like. I'd like to make a motion to pass. Well, that would have to be as amended and and further uh Representative Underwood's not been recognized to close for his bill, and we haven't heard what we've heard too against so I just don't feel like we're at the until Representative Underwood's had the opportunity
to close for his bill we're not to the point to make motions to do pass or otherwise. So I just don't think that we're at that point
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:53:57
yet. Representative Collins. Yeah, um, I'm just wanting to continue the discussion here, um, which I agreed to withdraw my motion so we can have the discussion, not to be railroaded, but
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:54:08
um, you know, this is the only time the committee process, the only time the people can participate in the process and We are doing something here that
that addresses people's ability to participate in their democracy. I think we can't ignore that and I think that right or wrong, the perception that we're rushing through um this bill in particular really does matter and you know, if we're gonna do something like this, we need to make sure we are as upfront and open and transparent as we can be the downside to waiting until Monday to take a
vote. It's so minimal, it's not gonna significantly make a difference with our agenda. We've got other bills, but we're, you know, elected to handle that, and we can still handle that, um, but the other side of it is that people feel like they're being shut out of their own democracy. And um that is a lot more
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:55:07
serious, I think, than the consequences to waiting until Monday for a vote, and I would, uh, move to table the bill.
That is a proper motion this time. Representative Collins has made a motion to table the bill.
That's a non-debatable. If passed laid on the table, uh, It's just. Yeah, well, it'll be noted on the agenda as having been
laid on the table, but as we discussed a simple vote by a majority of the quorum. Uh, can bring the bill off the table. So that this motion is
non-debatable by Representative Collins. The motion is to lay Senate Bill 207 on the table. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed. The nose habit. I see two hands call the roll. Representative Meeks,
Representative Meeks, no. Wait a minute. We, we do need to clarify the motion is to lay on the table so a vote in
the affirmative is to lay the bill on the table, a vote of no is to uh take the vote
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:56:44
today, just point of parliamentary inquiry you're recognized. What is the, how many affirmative votes does the motion need to prevail? It, uh
It's a majority of a quorum. Majority
of the quorum those those members present,
Speaker 248
1:57:49
that's correct. All right, call the roll. Representative Meeks. Representative Meeks, no. Representative Wardla. Representative Wardlaw. Representative Barry. Representative Barry. Representative Mayberry. Representative Mayberry, yes.
Representative Crawford, Representative Crawford, yes. Representative Clowney. Representative Clowney. Representative Collins. Representative Collins, yes. Representative Evans. Representative Evans. Representative in it. Representative in it, yes. Representative McIlroy, Representative McIlroy, yes. Representative Ray. Representative Ray, no.
Representative Beatty. Representative Beatty, no. Representative Carr, Representative Carr, no. Representative Underwood Representative Underwood, no. Representative Long. Representative Long, no. Representative Hawk. Representative Hark, no. Representative Rose. No. Representative Rose, no. Representative Wooldridge, Representative Wooldridge, yes. Representative Beck.
Representative Beck, yes. The motion has failed. And with that
we have no other no other individuals signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Underwood, you're recognized to close for your bill.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:59:48
Well, committee, um, we've talked a lot about this and I will, I'll just will note that uh I appreciate you guys' discussion on all the, all these things. I know we're passionate about our opinions on every issue. So I thank you for taking the time to deliberate that. I'm not gonna say anything further. We've debated this bill quite a bit. Um, so I'm closed unless Senator Hammer has anything to add. If not, I'd make a motion to pass as amended. All
right, Representative Underwood has made a motion to pass as amended. Is there any discussion on the motion.
Seeing no discussion on the motion. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? No. The eyes have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Uh, there's a motion for a roll
Speaker 248
2:00:39
call. I see two hands. Call the roll. Representative Meeks. Yeah. Representative Meeks, yes. Representative Wardlaw. Representative Wardlaw. Representative Barry. Representative Barry.
Representative Mayberry Representative Mayberry? No. Representative Crawford. Representative Crawford. Representative Clowney. Representative Clowney. Representative Collins. Representative Collins, no. Representative Evans. Representative Evans. Representative in it. Representative in it? No. Representative McIlroy Representative McElroy, no.
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. Yes. Representative Hark, yes. Representative Rose. Representative Rose, yes, Representative Wooldridge.
Representative Wooldridge? No. Representative Beck Representative Beck, yes. Already passed it, sorry.
Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, Chair. Thank you committee.
Representative Beatty, are you are you uh ready on House Bill 1379, I believe we have your amendment now. All right. Jude marked me as a yes. Representative Beatty, uh, you Once you get to the end of the table, you'll be recognized to present your amendment. to
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:03:08
House Bill 1379. Representing Howard Beatty District 95, uh, members, I have an amendment to
House Bill 1379, uh, during the discussion and um. Oh, I'll wait till
y'all get it. I'm sorry.
You had an opportunity. Representative Beatty, you're
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:04:23
recognized. Representative Howard Beatty District 95, uh, members uh presenting an amendment to House Bill 1379 during our discussion, uh, there were concerns about maybe a department or an agency uh that did not have a chief fiscal officer, uh, identified, uh, in their organization, uh,
so we are amending lines 26 and 27, uh, to state cabinet level secretary or um director, chief executive office or the chief fiscal. officer of the department Border commission for which the travels occurred, so that that would, uh, would cover, um, Make certain that we had someone in each of those agencies that could approve this travel and that I think that was discussion in a request. Uh, by a member of the committee.
Speaker 284
2:05:07
All right, so that's your explanation of the amendment.
Is there any questions about the amendment? Seeing none, are you closed for your amendment? I'm closed for amendment and
offer a motion we have a motion to adopt the amendment. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed guys have it, the amendment's been adopted Representative Beta, you
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:05:33
recognize to present House Bill 1379 as amended. Members of the House Bill 1379 is amended, uh, basically it's still to amend the law and uh put practice. Of what the basis of the practice of what we're doing on official authorized
reimbursement for meals and lodging, uh, to put that in the code what we've been doing, uh, under the current law. I won't go through everything, but currently, uh, the chief fiscal officer of the state and uh secretary of DFA would be responsible for approving special travel expense authorizations and this basically just moves that to the agency level, uh, and to the chief fiscal
officer at the agency level and That all entertain any questions.
Representative Beatty's explained this bill. Are there any questions by the
committee? Saying no questions about the committee. Is there anyone here signing to speak for or against the bill. Seeing
no one's son to speak for or against the bill. Representative Beatty, you're recognized a close for your bill. I'm closed for the bill with the offer motion to pass as amended as amended Representative Beatty
makes a motion to pass as amended. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none all those in favor say aye. All those opposed, as
Habit, congratulations, Representative Betty, you passed your bill.
Alright. Next we have House Bill 1121, Representative Long, you're recognized.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
2:07:17
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Wayne Long, House District 39. Um, this is the
thing I brought a couple of weeks ago and then it's um it was brought up again a similar bill by Representative Richmond last week. Um, but just to give you just a brief review of what it was about, so you'll remember, um a few years back, a lady in um Uh, I think she's 92 or 93 years old lady and in Minnesota had her home taken because she
couldn't pay her taxes, um, she owed like $12,000 in taxes and penalties. They sold her home for $40,000 and the state kept the the entire $40,000. This was taken to the Supreme Court about the Pacific Legal Foundation, and they won the case of the Supreme Court ruled that that was a taking without just just compensation. So when I heard about this um tragic story. I asked um specifically specifically Foundation, if they would look
at our laws and see if there was anything that could, um, result in a tragedy like this happening in Arkansas. They did and they pointed out this particular part of the statute needed to be lined out. I spoke to the um land commissioner's
office. They agreed and um So I brought the bill and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Representative Long has explained his
bill. Are there any questions by the committee? Seeing no questions by the committee. Uh, is there anyone signed up to
speak for or against the bill. Seeing no one signed to speak for
Chair
Unverified
2:08:53
or against the bill Representative longer recognized a close for your bill. I'm closed for the bill, and we would make a motion
to pass. Representative Long's closed for his bill, and he's made a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, we do have a motion to pass. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, yeah, let's have it. Congratulations, Representative Long, you've passed your bill. Thank you committee.
Next we have House Bill 1460, which is representative Lee Johnson, but it's my understanding Representative Rose is going to present the bill for Representative Johnson
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:09:36
today. So Representative Rose, you're recognized. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you committee. Uh, House Bill 1460 ensures
that appointments to certain state boards, commissions, and councils are based on the current congressional district boundaries at the time of the
appointment rather than outdated maps. This update main uh maintains fair representation across the state as district lines change over time. It does not alter the number of appointments. It only modernizes the language to reflect present day districts. Some of the boards are currently using district. Maps from as far back as 1975, 1990, 2007 and 2012, and I
apologize, uh, Representative Rose, District 48 should have entered uh started with that. Uh, at this time I'm open to any questions.
Representative Rose has explained the bill. Are there any questions about the committee, Representative Mayberry, you're
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
2:10:28
recognized. Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm having a hard time pulling
it up. My internet is running really, really slow, so I can't completely read this. So I'm trying to understand if someone was appointed to a board. And then the district changed, you know, the 22 after 2020, are you saying they're gonna be kicked off the board, I appreciate that. I probably
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:10:53
should have, uh, iterated that in the beginning that this will only apply to future appointments, so it does not impact current board members, uh, serving in their terms, so only for
future appointments and that they will use the current congressional maps at the time
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
2:11:10
those appointments are made. OK, but if they representing the 2nd congressional district, let's say, and then we, it changed. And I'm trying to, uh, I'm just trying to completely make sure I
understand. So now there's. That that person where their house is would technically maybe be
moved into the 4th congressional district or something. What hat do they wear on that
committee from that point forward, like which, which one's vacant? I I'm not sure if I understand. That's fine. This
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:11:47
will only apply to future appointments. So if they're appointed currently under, say, the 2nd congressional district.
The current as a board member appointed to a board. They're serving in that capacity. Any future appointments will fall under the current congressional maps. So to
reiterate, this will not alter anybody who's currently appointed. It will only apply to future appointments. But could
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
2:12:11
you potentially have two people who represent the 2nd congressional district then we already have. As
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:12:17
I, as I've stated, some of these boards are operating for maps from the 1970s and the
1990s. So this is not to discriminate against anybody who's currently appointed to a board, but to correct it moving forward, that the language will say any future board appointments will be according to the current congressional maps. OK. OK, thank you. Representative Beck,
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
2:12:45
you're recognized. And then sort of following up on Representative Mayberry's question. So And I'm on the 2nd congressional is, is,
was appointed with an old map and that person holds
that and and they stay there as a second congressional
district on that appointment, but if Another seat came up that was in the I will just
use the 4th congressional that now is in the 2nd congressional. District. Then, then you would, you could possibly have two people from one congressional district, but just because of the when the appointments came up. Does that
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:13:28
make sense? Yes, I follow what you're saying
and to not discriminate against anybody who's appointed already and to correct those district lines moving forward, the language strictly states for all future appointments, current congressional maps will be what is used. So it has to be brought into alignment some way in the way that this is done is to not remove anybody from any boards, but moving forward, it will all be correct. And so I would, I would say to your point and Representative Mayberry's point, there may be a little bit of
alignment that has to take place for this to fully come to fruition, uh, but is the way the bill is written and, and, and the language in it, this is the best way to do that without discriminating against anybody who's already appointed. Great questions. All right, any other
questions by the committee? Seeing no further questions by the committee, is there anyone signing to speak for or against this bill? Seeing none uh Representative Rose, you're recognized to close
for the bill. I've closed I I closed the bill and make a
motion to pass. Representative Rose is closed for the bill, and he's made a motion to pass. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed. The os have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Sher. Thank you committee. Sorry, next we have House Bill
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:15:03
1499, Representative Ray, you're recognized. Mr. Chairman, if it's OK with you, I'd like to invite my guests from TSS to join me at the table, of
course. Please state your name. And any organization you're here representing and you're recognized. Present your testimony along with Representative Ray. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Anne Laidlaw,
Ann Laidlaw
Unverified
2:15:25
director of the division of Building Authority with Department of Transformation and Shared Services. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:15:34
Chairman. Committee members, House Bill 1499 deals with the processes by which um public property is sold or purchased. This is an agency bill from the division of Building Authority. It's a bill that's supported by the governor, but it's a bill that I eagerly agreed to run because I agree wholeheartedly with the reason that it's being sought, um, and I'll explain that in a second, but first I'll just quickly run through what the bill does. So section one, just strikes
through uh some exemptions to that section of the code and moves them to page 2 of the bill, so it's just moving where they are and they're ordered in a list, so it's easier to read. There's not any changes there. Um, sections 23, and 4 where the changes occur. So in Section 2, it would require an agency when they sell or purchase uh lands to come to the division of building authority before they obtain an appraisal on that property. Section 3 just says that once
their proposal to sell or purchase the property is approved by division of Building Authority, then they can go get that appraisal. And then Section 4 says that the agency proposing the sale or purchase, then has to bring the appraisal back to the, to the division of building authority for assessment and recommendation by TSS. So the reasons for making these changes. Oftentimes, uh, when an agency decides that they have a real estate need. Currently, this is
a very decentralized process that agency will go out on their own, find whatever it is that they think that they like and need, they will go ahead and pay for an appraisal, and they will even go so far as making an offer to purchase that property before the division of building authority even is notified of what's going on. It just makes more sense for the division of building authority to be brought in on the front end, um, when the property, uh, when the property purchase
process, or sorry, on the front end of that process before everything is basically signed, sealed, and delivered. This was actually one of the recommendations in the AR forward efficiency study. That's designed to save taxpayer money and approve, improve services. Um, if, if I could just comment a little bit on why I think the way that we currently do it is is not not great and needs to be improved by this bill. I think number one, state
agencies don't always have the best incentives when it comes to selecting their real estate, um, their incentives might be to get the nicest property possible, get the most square footage possible, uh, maybe get it in the part of town that's most desirable, even if that means that the property is significantly more expensive. And also. Agencies don't specialize in real estate. Agencies specialize in whatever their mission is. So the health department, for example, is focused on improving
public health and well-being of Arkansans, but they're not experts in the area of real estate, not picking on our friends at the Department of Health, just using that as an example. Um, but that's why we have the division of building authority, the division of Building Authority doesn't have those same incentives, and they do specialize in real estate and when they're helping an agency procure a property, they're conducting a feasibility study. They're conducting a flood blind review.
Their mission is to act as the state's agent in lease negotiations, capital improvement projects and property transfer needs and, um, importantly, they are in a position to help optimize our state's uh real estate usage which benefits the taxpayers. So that's what the bill does and why I'm proposing it and And if you want to add anything, you're welcome to. You did an excellent job. Thank you. And we'll be happy to take any questions.
Representative Ray has explained the bill. Are there any
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:19:39
questions by the committee, Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Ray. So I'm just looking at section one, and I know you said that this is just reorganizing the section, but it, it, it explained to me, doesn't this, uh, does it take any ability from boards or commissions other than those excluded entities uh to buy and sell property. Does it, does it change their authority to buy and sell property?
No. OK, well, I'm, I'm glad to know that it's not the intent, so just help me with the language. So the current language that's being struck says that several state boards are commissions having supervision what's, you know, etc. and all other state boards and commissions, except for some other ones have uh they sell or purchase land. OK, and that's all struck, so now what's left is the executive heads of all state offices, departments, divisions, and
agencies, so state agencies after, if this were to pass, state agencies could purchase or sell lamb, but boards are commissions could
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:20:46
not. at least that's how it looks to me, so maybe explain what what I'm missing here.
Ann Laidlaw
Unverified
2:20:54
Thank you, Representative Collins. Um, so what is struck are those entities currently right now that do have the their own authority to purchase property without division of building authority, um, for clarity because that sentence seems to run on with just
commas. It wasn't clear that when you get to the point where it says that the heads of Allstate agents, offices, departments, divisions and agencies are the ones that are not exempt and do have to come through the division of building authority. So it was just not clear on where that list. Stops of those that do have authority versus those that do not. So that's why those uh names have been stricken there and then moved into the next. Uh section where they are listed for clarity purposes. So it is not changing authority for anyone currently that has that
authority right now, or that has to come through the
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:21:46
division building authority. Well, I appreciate that. I understand why you struck those names and put them down there, but those are exceptions to the general rule, but the, but the general rule, I mean it right now boards and commissions do have the ability to buy and sell land through a process and will they, where will the maybe the question is where will they have it in statute in this statute, can you show me the language that we're
Ann Laidlaw
Unverified
2:22:12
keeping that will allow boards and commissions to buy and sell land. Well, it's they, they will, they still have the permission to buy and sell state lands, but they first have, will have to come to the division of Building Authority first so that we can be involved in that process on the front end rather than trying to catch up after they've already possibly negotiated an offer. Uh, it still will require to come through the uh secretary of Transformation and Shared Services to make a recommendation to the governor. So that process exists it's just
not, we're trying to improve it so that division of building authority is informed on the front end and not after possibly they've already expended dollars for an appraisal or even made
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:22:55
an offer on the property and thrust of the bill. I, I understand, but so let me just again, sorry to belabor the point here, but what's left is executive heads of all state offices, departments, divisions, and agencies. Our boards and commissions one of those things, and if so, what are they?
Because right now they're listed separately, which makes me think they're not one of those. Thanks, but
Ann Laidlaw
Unverified
2:23:20
which one of those things are you saying that they are? Most of the boards and um boards and commissions have been rolled
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:23:27
into departments now but not all, um, like I don't know, the board of Corrections, for example if they're
Ann Laidlaw
Unverified
2:23:32
not specifically listed as having that being excluded, then they are still under required
to work through division and building authority. Well, it looks to me like they don't have any authority to buy
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:23:46
and sell through DBA or or at all independently or through you guys, but, but if y'all can tell me where, what I'm missing, I'm, I'm more than happy to uh be corrected, so thank you. Any response
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:24:05
to that? Well, I Our reiterate what Director Laidlaw just said, but I, I think she said that.
The way the bill is currently constructed, if it were to pass, then the boards and commissions
would need to obtain prior approval from division of Building Authority to make a purchase of public property. Representative Collins, sorry, I think that they
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:24:26
can. I think that's now what it is, right? Isn't that, so that's currently the case. That's not what this is
doing. I'm saying it looks to me like they're being struck from having any ability to buy and sell land, and maybe it's not intended, but, and maybe it's not doing it, but that's what it looks like to me. Any response to that?
It is not the intention to change that. So I guess I would have a question. I, I haven't seen this language, but does it indeed function and do exactly as Representative Collins says, because if that's the case, we have a problem. Me reading it, I don't see a problem.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:25:09
He, he's the one that's saying he thinks there's a problem. Hm. I understand. Representative Mekhi Rain.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:25:22
Representative Ray, what we, we, this is gonna be a, would you agree question? If there's nothing in law that says they can't do something, then by definition, they can go out and do it, right? So if there's not a state law that says they can't buy land, then they can go out and buy land, so I'm assuming there's not a law that says they can't buy land, so commissions and boards do currently have the ability to buy land just simply because they've got a right to do it because we've not told
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:25:47
them they can't. Would you agree? Yes or no? I would agree with that, yes.
What you're concerned, I don't know. All right. Any other questions by the committee? Seeing no further questions by the committee, we have no one signed to speak
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:26:10
for or against the bill, Representative Wright, you're recognized to close for the bill. Sure, thank you committee. Look, the reason that um the reason that I think this is a really positive step for the way our state manages real estate. It is, if you look at what other states are doing real estate is an area where state governments
can save a ton of taxpayer money without reducing any services to the citizens. Um, the state governments own a tremendous amount of real estate in Arkansas. We currently have a portfolio of approximately 11.8 million. square feet. Um, several years ago, our neighbors in Tennessee got serious about how they chose to manage their real estate footprint, and they were able over a handful of years to achieve $53 million a year in annualized savings by doing some
simple things like optimizing office space so that they didn't have just a bunch of empty office buildings or floors on office buildings sitting unused. They took over things like deferred maintenance from agencies that were letting their, their valuable real estate. deteriorate and fall into disrepair. They were able to save money by being intentional on things like energy efficiency, and they were able to consolidate real estate, sell back unused real estate back into the private economy so that it could be put to a more efficient use and so that those
people would be paying property taxes on that real estate. So I'm really excited for the, the potential savings that we can achieve by being more intentional with our um management of the state's real estate portfolio. This is really just a small step in that overall process that brings um um these purchasing decisions to building authorities so that we can be more intentional about them, and with that I'm closed
for the bill and um I moved to
pass. Representative. Ray has closed for his bill and he's made a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion. We have a motion to pass. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Has Abbott, congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you. All right, looks like the last
item on our agenda today, we had some couple of other bills with by Representative Lee Johnson, who was not able to be here today. So we're gonna pass over those and hold those until the next meeting. And then that leaves Senate Bill 63 by Senator Hickey and Representative Wardlaw, but to my understanding, Representative Beatty is going to present this bill. So Representative Beatty, you're recognized to present Senate Bill 63.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:29:05
Thank you Mr. Howard Beatty District 95, um. Here to present Senate Bill 63, and it's to amend the Arkansas law. Concerning reports by secretaries of cabinet level departments to, uh, on the state of their departments. This is a legislative council, um, Request or a bill coming from council and basically what this would do if you read through the bill, uh as we at council, the council has requirements of oral
reports from all the secretaries. It would cover all the departmentsag, uh, commerce. I won't go through everything, but it's the oral reports that are, they're required to um present to counsel and odd numbered years, uh, so basically what this does is it removes the oral uh reports that council has to schedule, uh, and have them come in, uh, still request, um, uh, reports and updates from the agencies at um ALC. It just removes that from, uh, the duties of those
cabinet-level secretaries provide oral, uh, reports in odd numbered years, with that, I'll entertain any questions. Representative Ray, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:30:16
Chairman. Representative Beatty, is this the, is this basically the bill that um uh Representative Mark Berry passed in 2021 that required all of the agencies to come to ALC and present that those reports at the beginning of the committee. Yes, it's my belief that
Speaker 232
2:30:32
that is the, the bill that Barry passed
that required them all to, to come and present oral reports and we could still get reports from all of the cabinet secretaries by just requesting
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:30:45
that they do it right, members still just go through counsel through the, through the chairs of council to make those requests for uh secretaries
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:30:53
to appear and and address concerns and give an update. So this is just going to cut out that um that 30-minute presentation every Friday morning in an ALC where we Hear what's going on with the department and that sort of thing.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:31:07
Yes, from, from all those cabinet level secretaries, you'd have like 1415 of those, so, OK, thank you.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
2:31:17
Representative Beck, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So my question is really just based upon transparency. So the information that would be reported is a vital is that. Available in a report somewhere that could be, you know, pulled up immediately our getting a little bit with Representative Wright's question or statement
was did they are these reports gonna be produced? at all, or do they get, does it require that they get requested, uh, before the reports would be produced. I, I'm not talking about the oral part of it I'm talking about there's a written report somewhere that gives out data that someone could
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:31:57
pull down and utilize. this bill strictly deals with the oral reports that they make
to council. So that's the only change is, is removing those the requirement that they shall make
an oral report on odd-numbered years. So my question
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
2:32:12
then is, is there an actual report somewhere that they could have access to and read. I, I think there's updates,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:32:20
but as far as I know, I don't know that every agency has a written report, uh, most of these agencies. prepare an annual report or something that that I have seen from some agencies, but I don't know that every agency has a, a written state of the agency report on an annual basis. This strictly removes the requirement
of their job duties of the description, job description and a requirement that they shall, uh appear and, and
make an oral report to counsel. All right,
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:32:53
thank you. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I, I apologize, committee of my questions made this more confusing than it needs to be. Representative Beatty, my understanding is that This, this law when it was passed in 2021, uh, while well-intentioned, I think the
general consensus has become that these updates are sort of ill-timed because they take place on Friday morning during legislative council when there's a lot of really important business to conduct and Um, the goal of this legislation, I think, is to just remove the requirement so that these meetings don't have to take place on that Friday morning meeting that, you know, as various subcommittees and so forth wanted a report they could they could certainly still
request that a secretary to come and deliver that report, but it would just remove them
Speaker 232
2:33:48
from that Friday morning meeting. Is that, is my understanding correct? Well,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:33:52
the intent is to, to remove the requirements that they have to come and prepare an oral report or present. Oral report at council, uh, in odd numbered years, but along the same lines, members can always request information, request that secretary, uh, to come to the table, um, and, and get current updated information that is relevant that members may wish to have an update on
this just simply removes that requirement of their job duty that in an odd number of years they have to come in and give an oral report. So it, it doesn't take anything away uh from a member's um uh ability to request information. From the agency and you would still have that request level through counsel or or to those cabinet level uh secretaries. All right, I do have a question, um.
In 2023, we passed the bill to require this.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:34:48
This was Representative Mark Berry, right? I, I, I
think it was, was it 23 or was it 21 when we
first came in 21. And so apparently this legislature thought it was a good idea at the time. And passed the bill to require The secretaries to appear before ALC and make make reports. Um What's changed? Why is that still not a good idea to require
them to appear before ALC and make the report. I understand Representative Ray has said that, you know, essentially there's other business to do and that sort of thing, but we thought it was a good idea in 2021. I mean, I think it, you know, for transparency purposes, it's good to have them there. It's good to hear their reports. That's, uh, it's important to hear what's going on with the various agencies and state government, and so. I, I guess give me a very compelling reason why we should
not make them appear and give an account for how
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:35:51
things are going with their agency. Well, I would think if you attend uh ALC meetings regularly, you see that those cabinet level secretaries are in attendance. Therefore, at any time that you have a request or there's a concern, uh, members have the ability to uh call those secretaries to the table to address uh issues and concerns, um. So I, I think that's a um I think that's one of the compelling reasons is uh instead
of having 3 or 4 secretaries to come down and prepare an oral report and scheduling those in, uh, that it gives you an opportunity to do this at any time. Uh, so maybe, maybe members now see this as, as an unnecessary requirement, a job duty to come in and prepare an oral written report in odd numbered years only, uh, when you have full access to those secretaries at any time that that the member decides they want information. All right, Representative Beck. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I've
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
2:36:51
been on ALC and, and I've called people down with a question and, and the response more often is that they don't have that information with them, but they'll get back to you with it and you, you know, the request for the information is for that day, you know, you, you need it, you want it that day. I mean, I would, I would, that was the reason for my initial question as far as transparency. If the information is available in a report, I don't have to And if someone give that report, but if, if it could be the same
information could be available somewhere else where it would be available, but I think on ALC the the response typically when something comes up is. And you, you bring the, the, the secretary up, they'll they'll just say that, well, I don't have that information with me, but I'll get it for you and get it back and it comes back and emailed everybody in the committee two days later after you've made the boat. So I in
that I I, you know, I think transparency is good. I would, I would agree if I can
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:37:52
respond. I, I would agree transparency is good, uh, and, and that process that you're speaking of would still be the process. You would still ask those, those, those secretaries. If you have a question or you want information, this bill does nothing to to uh restrict or or lessen that ability to, to ask questions about specific information. The only thing this bill does is it would elimin the requirement of a job duty that these cabinet level secretaries have to appear before ALC and odd numbered years and prepare an oral uh an
oral report to um legislative council. Representative
Beatty doesn't it also require or they also allow the secretary to send someone other than themselves to answer these questions, they can send a designee, etc. whereas right now, the secretary has to show up. I'm not talking about a designee. I'm not talking about, uh, you know, the undersecretary or whoever it is that they want to send, no, we're going to have the secretary show up and you're going to be there on certain days and you're going to give an
account if we want to hear from you and it's also been my experience that sometimes if you want to hear from a secretary, you know, they have a lot of things going on and they just aren't. just happened to not be available on a particular day when you'd like them to be there, so, um, you know, I'd like to hear your response to that. I'm,
Speaker 320
2:39:12
I'm looking through the bill. But I don't I didn't,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:39:18
I didn't see that amendment in, in this language on the bill where it said, or their designee. I think that may
have already been in, uh, in the language. Can you direct me to
where you read that in the bill? Well, to be honest with you, that was in my discussion with Representative Ward Law last night, uh, when we talked about it. I'm having them pull the bill now and I'll look through it, um, I scanned again. I didn't see it. Well, we'll come back on that Representative Wooldridge, you're
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
2:39:47
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I, I think, um, you kind of hit on my point earlier at some point, the
legislature decided that it was necessary to enact this, uh, in the statute to compel them to be there and uh I don't know what has changed in that situation. The way I understand this, it says they have to report by November 1st of the d year, is that correct? So there's nothing that compels them to be there every Friday, uh, that we meet, it just compels them to be there at least. So to me that's a minimum standard. Um, I'm not sure why we would want to change that. I don't think that I would vote to
change that. I think that Representative Gasway made an excellent point that we want to make sure that we've got access, uh, to those folks to get the answers that we need, um, but I just want to make sure I understood that correctly, that they're not compelled to be there every time we meet,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:40:40
correct? No, I haven't said that. I, I said they just have to prepare an or written or an oral report. I won't keep saying written and oral report in the Numbered year um and, and, and by that deadline I think of um November that was in, in the
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
2:40:58
bill, and I in that you had said that, I apologize. That wasn't my intent, but I just want to make sure I understood
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:41:05
that correctly. Thank you, sir. And I think the only place you, you saw in, in the bill to respond back with on Department of Education where they may send a designee in, but I think that was already in uh in, in the language, uh, that that allowed that. So I don't think we made a change to to allow that. That's right,
Representative Beatty, and I, I just looking through the bill, I don't see any added language where it talks about
allowing it. Designee, I do see the, the portion that you're referring to about the Department of Education, um. Once again, my concern, however, is that the secretary's may just stop showing up altogether and uh send representatives and always be busy every time I need to talk to one of them, so, uh, if you'd like to address that, you're certainly welcome to, I'll
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:41:54
just go back to what the bill does. Um, it just require
eliminates requirement for an oral report to legislative council, and this was something that this is a bill from legislative council to be presented. Representative Beatty got the
unfortunate, uh, it's not unfortunate. I mean, I, it's a clear
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:42:12
bill and it's the will and wish of the committee if we vote, I'm gonna offer a motion to do pass on it when it comes up, we pass it or not, uh, it's the will of the committee, and, and I respect that I understand, I understand it's
not your bill in fairness. It's Hickey and Wardlaw, right? All right, any other questions by
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
2:42:40
the committee? Representative Crawford, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand the busyness of the secretaries. I know they have a lot on them especially since transformation. But transformation was done to make things work better. So In my opinion, and I'm at almost all ALCs.
In my opinion, hearing from a secretary is invaluable because you don't always know the questions to ask. Uh, I know they can come if you have a question. But it's nice for us as representatives legislators to know what's going on in the agencies so that we can let the people in the community know that. Let our constituents know that and I agree, you know, it's
a lot for a secretary, but once a year, I think it's all that's being asked of them and, and I would ask them to do that for us. All
right. Seeing no further questions by the
committee. Is there anyone trying to speak for or against the bill, seeing non-representative Betty, you recognized a close for the bill, members,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:43:57
uh, in closing, I would, I would simply say it, it does nothing to restrict your access to information from the cabinet level secretaries, and
it's only once every 2 years that they would have to come in, so it's not every year that they would have to come in and do an oral report, and I think any time that a member makes a request, a cabinet secretary, he's going to try to provide. information and address some members uh concerns and issues, um, and again that this request of legislative counsel, um, and with that I'd offer a motion to pass. And would appreciate a good vote.
Representative Beatty has made a motion to pass. Is there any
Representative David Ray
Unverified
2:44:37
discussion on the motion, Representative Ray. Well, um, I don't change my
mind often, but I think Representative Wooldridge and, and Crawford's comments did change the way I look at this. I think the reason this has been proposed is because these reports have become sort of tedious, uh, at times, but I think the reason is not necessarily the report itself because I, I have found a lot of valuable information in these reports and to agree with
Representative Crawford. I really do enjoy hearing from the secretaries. What is happening at their agency. I think the pro the real problem is with the timing of the report because they put it first thing on the meeting on Friday morning and they could just as easily, I think, put the meat, put the, put the report at the end of the meeting so that we conduct the business, get that out of the way, and then the folks who want to stick around and learn more from the secretaries can do so and those that want to go get lunch can go
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
2:45:46
I'm gonna vote for this bill. For those reasons. Representative Crawford, you're recognized and adding on to that, then the secretaries would not have to be there at the beginning when we start so we would not expect them to sit there through all of our business. But that they, ah, that doesn't always happen in ALC. My mind's going how ALC works. So, um, That would not always work for
ALC because it could happen in 30 minutes and it could happen in 4 hours, so I withdraw
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:46:17
my comment. Mr. Chairman. Based on the comments of of my fellow committee members. I, I don't want to belabor this issue and I'm gonna allow Senator Hickey and Representative Wardlaw to come make their case to the committee on
why this is a uh a needed change in, in law, uh, so I'm gonna pull this bill down hang on just a second,
Representative Beatty, you've made a motion to pass. I, I removed my I removed my motion. We, we got, we got a motion on the table. Uh. Are you, are you asking to withdraw your motion? I'm asking to withdraw my motion. Let me confer with staff.
All right, so they tell me. And we don't have a definitive answer, but staff has said that it's up to the ruling of the chair. So in that case, Representative Beatty, I'm gonna allow you to withdraw the motion and we'll, uh, come back and let the sponsors explain this, seeing
no objection to, to you withdrawing the motion. Uh, motion's been withdrawn. We'll come back and hear this at a later time. Thank you. And with that, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you so much.
Agenda
Number Sponsor Subtitle
SB207 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM PETITIONS; TO REQUIRE A CANVASSER TO DISCLOSE THAT PETITION FRAUD IS A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1075 Ray TO PROHIBIT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT FROM REGULATING THE SALE OR USE OF A LAWN CARE DEVICE OR IMPOSING A TAX OR FEE ON THE USE OF A LAWN CARE DEVICE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1379 Beaty Jr. TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SPECIAL AUTHORIZATION FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR MEALS AND LODGING WHILE TRAVELING ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS OF THE STATE
.
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1243 Underwood TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES; TO AMEND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTING AND PROTECT ELECTION INTEGRITY; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996.
HB1281 McAlindon TO AMEND REPORTING FOR A CANDIDATE FOR CERTAIN MUNICIPAL OFFICES AND FOR COUNTY OFFICE; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF THE ARKANSAS
CODE THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 1 OF 1996.
HB1352 Beaty Jr. TO AMEND VARIOUS LAWS CONCERNING ACTIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN FOREIGN ENTITIES.
Notice: Silence your cell phones. Keep your personal conversations to a minimum. Observe restrictions
HB1369 Ray CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MAXIMUM CAMPAIGNCONTRIBUTION LIMIT BY THE ARKANSAS ETHICS COMMISSION; AMENDING PORTIONS OF LAW RESULTING FROM INITIATED ACTS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
HB1410 Unger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES BY PUBLIC SERVANTS.
HB1415 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DUTIES OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL; AND TO ALLOW THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL TO REQUEST AN INQUIRY BY THEDIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE FOR ARSON.
HB1422 Long TO CREATE THE ONLY CITIZENS VOTE ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DRIVER'S LICENSES OF CERTAIN NONCITIZENS; AND TO AMENDARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, SECTION 13.
HB1449 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING REPORTS OF CONTRIBUTIONS FOR ACANDIDATE FOR STATE OR DISTRICT OFFICE; TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR FINAL REPORTS; AND TO AMEND PORTIONS OF LAW RESULTING FROMINITIATED ACT 1 OF 1990.
HJR1004 Ladyman APPLYING TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS FOR AN ARTICLE VCONVENTION OF THE STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION TO IMPOSE TERM LIMITS OF MEMBERS FOR THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS
HB1069 S. Meeks TO OBSERVE STANDARD TIME YEAR ROUND IN ARKANSAS; AND TO ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME IN ARKANSAS.
HB1121 Long TO REPEAL THE LAW CONCERNING THE TRANSFER OF TAX-FORFEITED LANDS TO STATE INSTITUTIONS.
HB1459 L. Johnson CONCERNING RECURRING REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
HB1460 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING APPOINTMENTS TO CERTAIN BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COUNCILS BASED ON CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.
HB1461 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE EVALUATION OF NECESSITY OF VARIOUS COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS.
HB1470 Beaty Jr. TO REPEAL THE LAW CONCERNING THE REVIEW OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PLANS.
HB1494 Hawk TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS GUIDANCE OUT OF THE DARKNESS ACT; AND TO REQUIRE STATE AGENCIES TO PUBLISH FEDERAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS ONLINE.
HB1499 Ray TO AMEND THE SALE AND PURCHASE PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC PROPERTY.
HB1507 Ladyman TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL JUSTICE, OR GOVERNANCE SCORES; AND TO CLARIFY THE EXEMPTIONS FROM
DIVESTMENT FOR CERTAIN INVESTMENTS.
SENATE BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
SB63 Hickey TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING REPORTS BY THE SECRETARIES OF CABINET-LEVEL DEPARTMENTS ON THE STATE OF THEIR DEPARTMENTS.
SB147 J. Dotson TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSFORMATION AND SHARED SERVICES; AND TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSFORMATION AND SHARED SERVICES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB165 J. Dotson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COMPETITIVE SEALED PROPOSALS UNDER THE ARKANSAS PROCUREMENT LAW.
SB185 J. Dotson TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS COMPUTER AND ELECTRONIC SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT.
SB166 J. Dotson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EMERGENCY PROCUREMENTS; AND TO INCLUDE A STATE OF DISASTER EMERGENCY IN THE DEFINITION OF
"CRITICAL EMERGENCY" FOR PURPOSES OF AN EMERGENCY PROCUREMENT.
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.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS – TO BE HEARD AT A LATER DATE
Number Sponsor Subtitle
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.
DEFERRED BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1024 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; AND TO REPEAL THE LAW PROHIBITING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
HB1028 A. Collins TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE LAW CONCERNING OBSCENITY AND THE PROCESS FOR CHALLENGING MATERIALS INCLUDED IN A LIBRARY; AND TO REQUIRE A LIBRARY TO HAVE A POLICY PROHIBITING BOOK BANNING IN ORDER TO RECEIVE STATE FUNDING.
HB1035 A. Collins TO CREATE THE ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 2025; TO ALLOW ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION; TO AMEND ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION,
AMENDMENT 51; AND TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
HB1036 A. Collins TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VOTER REGISTRATION; TO ALLOW VOTER REGISTRATION DURING EARLY VOTING AND ON ELECTION DAY; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51.
HB1037 A. Collins TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING PERSONS WHO MAY REGISTER TO VOTE; AND AMENDING PROVISIONS OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY ARKANSAS
CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 51, § 19.
HB1038 A. Collins TO CREATE THE NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING ACT OF 2025; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE VOTING; AND TO REPEAL VOTER
QUALIFICATIONS FOR ABSENTEE VOTING.
HB1039 A. Collins TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE BALLOTS; AND TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING ELECTIONS.
HB1040 A. Collins TO CREATE THE WATER IN LINE ACT OF 2025; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PENALTIES FOR MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES RELATED TO VOTING.
HB1041 A. Collins TO PROHIBIT DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT DEEPFAKES IN ELECTION COMMUNICATIONS.
HB1042 A. Collins TO CREATE THE DIRECT DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2025; TO REPEAL THE
ENSURING ACCESS FOR ALL ARKANSANS AND VOTER PROTECTION ACT OF 2023; AND TO AMEND THE PROCEDURE FOR THE FILING OF A BALLOT
INITIATIVE PETITION AND REFERENDUM PETITION.
HB1043 A. Collins TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING OF NONCANDIDATE
EXPENDITURES PERTAINING TO APPELLATE JUDICIAL ELECTIONS; AND TO ADOPT NEW LAWS CONCERNING APPELLATE JUDICIAL CAMPAIGNS.
HB1070 John Carr TO CREATE THE BALLOT DRAW STANDARDIZATION ACT OF 2025.
HB1162 Duffield TO ESTABLISH GOOD FRIDAY AS AN OFFICIAL STATE HOLIDAY.
HB1058 Unger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FOR PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; AND TO PROHIBIT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FROM GIVING ADVANCE NOTICE TO ENTITIES OF REQUIRED INSPECTIONS.
HB1059 Unger TO PROVIDE THE OPTION FOR A FREE LIFETIME HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSE TO A COMMERCIAL TRUCK DRIVER WHO IS A RESIDENT AND PROVIDES CERTAIN INFORMATION RELATED TO HUMAN TRAFFICKING.
HB1064 D. Whitaker TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ABSENTEE VOTING; AND TO ALLOW PERSONS OVER SIXTY-FIVE YEARS OF AGE TO VOTE BY ABSENTEE BALLOT.
HB1187 Vaught TO AUTHORIZE A LICENSURE BY ENDORSEMENT FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS.
HB1078 Long TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING RUNOFF ELECTIONS; AND TO
PROVIDE FOR A RUNOFF ELECTION FOR CANDIDATES FOR THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
HB1365 K. Brown TO REMOVE RACIAL AND GENDER QUOTAS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERSHIP FOR CERTAIN BOARDS, COMMITTEES, COUNCILS, AND COMMISSIONS.
HB1425 L. Johnson TO ABOLISH THE ARKANSAS FIRE PROTECTION LICENSING BOARD; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DUTIES OF THE ARKANSAS FIRE
PROTECTION SERVICES BOARD.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — STATE AGENCIES & GOVT'L AFFAIRS- HOUSE, Feb 19, 2025 | Agenda | 5 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Chair
Unverified
Representative David Ray
Unverified
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Speaker 40
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Speaker 77
Speaker 80
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
Speaker 90
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
Speaker 107
Speaker 78
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Speaker 125
Speaker 127
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
Speaker 126
Speaker 128
Speaker 103
Speaker 169
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Brady Shires
Unverified
Kristen Harper
Unverified
Speaker 223
Speaker 65
Speaker 225
Speaker 230
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
Speaker 248
Speaker 284
Chair
Unverified
Ann Laidlaw
Unverified
Speaker 232
Speaker 320