Judiciary Committee- House

So once we get that amendment and everybody has a chance to look at it. Then I'll recognize you, Representative Richardson. All right, the amendment's been passed out, so Representative Richardson, you're recognized present uh the amendment from the Senate. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you committee. Good morning. I am Scott Richardson, House District 13. Um, I'm bringing before you amendment number one that happened over in the Senate, um, this, uh, amendment addresses a piece that's uh slightly um I guess it would be at the very far bottom of the bill, if you look at it, page 2, 36, uh, line one on page 3. this brings us in line. Uh, with federal statute associated with intellectual property. This was a challenge with the Frank Boys Act has been for quite some time, apparently and the Senate felt like this was a good opportunity to go ahead and clean up that language at this point as well, bring us in line with federal statute and and uh move this bill forward. So with that, I'm happy to try to address any questions that you have for it, but uh um. Members, are there any questions? Seeing no questions, you're, oh, I'm sorry, Representative Collins, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just kind of curious about what this will do practically. So by saying by striking that they are not considered intellectual property for example, this is the first time I'm seeing this, what is 47 USC 230 doing and so if they are intellectual property for those purposes. What does that mean? So I, I'll do the best I can to to explain it. It's my understanding that the Section 230 of the US um code section. I guess 47 USC 230, um. Explicitly uh takes out, um, the, um, our separates, um, liability or I should say, allowing liability for platforms like Meta when they um host uh intellectual property without taking action, so if, if it, if a user posts intellectual property on meta, um. Section 4230, um, holds them liable to a certain extent for that if they continue to host that for an extended period of time, as I understand it, versus uh with ours the way it was written, we had taken that out and so they wanted to redefine that so that we fell in line with federal statute and could hold any of those hosters um that happen to have that intellectual data out there. Go ahead and hold them accountable for for having that intellectual data, and I think everyone agrees that in data is something we need to do a good job protecting, so I felt like that it's a, it's a good, it's a good change for this for this bill as well. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the concurrence, so you're recognized to close. I am closed and make a motion we concur and Senate Amendment number 1. Members, we have a motion on the table to concur in Senate Amendment number 1, is there any discussion, seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any posts say no. Congratulations, we have concurred. Next, members. Let's turn to House Bill 1479, Representative Warren, you recognized come in the table, introduce yourself, and you may present your bill. members this is House Bill 1479. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Representative Les Warren, District 84. All right, so this bill will amend the statute with respect to who may execute and record a scrivener's affidavit. So I'm not trying to insult anybody's intelligence here, but I work in an industry where scrivener's affidavits are a common occurrence in the title business, so if you're familiar with it, ignore me right now, but if you're not familiar with it, Scribner's affidavit is a legal document that corrects errors in a previously written document. It is a sworn statement made by the person who drafted the original document. So, uh, when you use this to correct minor errors in legal papers, contracts, or other written agreements. So is to clarify a chain of title to recorded land, which is where I use it a lot, uh, it will allow a licensed engineer or surveyor to file a scrivener's affidavit to correct the basic error like an engineer, if they filed a plat, they can do a scribner's affidavit to correct, uh minor mistake in that or a surveyor, we rely on surveys, if they used north instead of south. changes that uh piece of property. So, uh, but it allows them to correct a basic mistake in the document that they drafted. Uh, and then also notary public, uh, when they acknowledge a document if they misspelled a name or something. They have to correct that. We can't correct it for them. So this is just adding engineers, surveyors, and notary publics as people who can correct and then file right now, only attorneys and title companies can actually file those at the courthouse, so we're just adding a few people to who can actually go and record at the courthouse. Members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Are there any questions? Seeing their questions, we have no one who's signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Warrener recognized to close for your bill. I would appreciate a good vote on this. Members representative Warren his clothes for his bill, whether the will of the committee. We have a motion to do pass. Is there any discussion of the motion, seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed? Say no. I have it congratulations, you have passed your bill. Thank you, committee. Repro gas away, or are you ready to Do technical corrections. Great. Members, we're going to start with Senate Bill 170. Senate Bill 170 representing gas away, you recognized to proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Jimmy Gazaway, District 31. Senate Bill 170. Simply makes Uh, some very Minor, let me make sure I've got the uh Right section pulled up here. Yeah So Senate Bill 170 simply deletes. A section that has expired. That's all the bill does. Members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion, no one signed up to speak for or against the bill representing Gasway. You recognized the clothes for Senate bill 170. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm closed for Senate Bill 170. We make a motion to pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass. Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The habit, congratulations you have passed the bill. Let's move on members to Senate Bill 171. Represent guess what you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 171. ratifies a decision by the Arkansas Code Revision Commission, uh, related to a grammatical error. The commission changed does not require to does not prohibit and it also changes from compliance with to From complying with So these were simple grammatical changes that conform with the code style. And that's all the bill does, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Members, any questions? Seeing no questions, we have no one who signed up to speak for or against the bill representing gas away you recognized clothes for the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm closed for the bill. Make a motion to pass, we have a motion to pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion, seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed Senate Bill 171. Members, let's turn to Senate Bill 172. You. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 172. Uh, makes a few technical corrections. What you'll see in section 1 of the bill, it deletes obsolete language related to a date that's already passed that section refers to January 1, 2024 is the first meeting has to be held within 30 days of that date. It's already passed. So it deletes that language. Section 2 deletes language about the first meeting because Uh, the first meeting has already occurred as detailed in section one. Section 3 As repealing a section. Of code that has expired. So It expired on June 30th of 2020, so that section of the code you'll see several pages of deleted language. It's no longer relevant. Section 4 corrects a grammatical error. There was a missing conjunction or so it's simply adds the word or sections 5 and 6, ratify a decision by the Arkansas Code Revision Commission to add open enrollment public charter schools following public school district. Uh, the code section refers to both throughout the entire section. It was just essentially missing a reference there. And then Section 7 ratifies the decision by the Code Revision Commission. Uh, related to the codification of subsection C at 663-317. The original code section that this language. was being added to was repealed, but the language came from another act that was a standalone from the repeal. So. That's where it needs to be located. And that's what the bill does, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Represent Collins, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. So Section 3, which you're striking in its entirety is, I believe, also struck in its entirety in a pending bill that access bill. So like what would happen in that scenario if it's struck and then we try to strike it in a subsequent bill that passes. Because it's double struck. I don't know. OK. Guess it's not your problem. It's not your bill. OK, we really don't like it. Thank you. Gives code revision something else to ponder on. Any other questions, members? Seeing no questions, we have no one who's signed up to speak for or against the bill referencing Gasaway, you're recognized to close for the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm closed for the bill. I make a motion to pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass on the floor. Is there any discussion of the motion, seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The eyes have it. Congratulations, you have passed the bill. All right, members, let's move to Senate Bill 173, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair, and with the chair's permission, could, uh, Mr. Kevin Coon from our code advisor from the Bureau of Legislative Research joined me at the table. Certainly, Mr. Coon. Thank you, Madam Chair. Kevin Coon, BLR code redvisor just wanted to remind the committee that I'm here in my capacity. The bureau is required to staff the Arkansas Code Revision Commission and so that's why we assist the commission with their legislative package and I appear here in that capacity. Right, Representing Gasaway, you're recognized to present Senate Bill 173. Thank you, Madam Chair, and this one is a bit more involved in so I may have to rely on Mr. Coon a bit for this, but Essentially in Senate Bill 173, what you'll see is section section one ratifies the decision by the Code Revision Commission to merge two acts from the 2023 regular session. Most of this language and this is about damage or defective ballots. Most of this language came from Act 460 of 2023. Which established a new procedure for duplicating damaged ballots. Act 444 from the 2023 session added language regarding Designated poll watchers that is in subdivision D2 and D5, all of this language from section one comes from these acts, but Mr. Coon, do you have anything to add to that or to expound upon that? The only thing I would add to that is that these acts were both amending the same part of this code section, um, the way they were doing that, uh, they needed to be reconciled together and so the language is just from both of those acts. It was suggested by the state Board of Election commissioners and adopted by the Code Revision Commission. All right, so that's section one. Section 2. relates to reporting of independent expenditures. And it simply changes $500 to $200 in order to correct. A reference error. And then section 3 ratifies the decision by the code revision commission and this is a, a section related to interference with initiative petitions and it ratifies the decision by the Code Revision Commission to change the ending punctuation in a list from and to or I recall this. Because the items in the list are independent elements. The list concerns ways a person commits the offense of interference with initiative petitions and proposed measures. The only change by the commission was to change the end to an or because those are again, clearly when reading it in context independent elements and happy to answer any questions on that. Members, any questions? Representative Clowney, you recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Basically, I'm stalling because I'm trying to pull up this code section so I can read it in full. I don't know if y'all have it, though. Maybe that would be easier, changing an and to an or feels like a pretty big change to me, so I was just wondering if we could get a sense of the context that you were just talking about. Representative Clowney, I believe when the commission looked at this section, there was establishing different ways you could commit a criminal offense related to this uh petition. Law. And when you read it in context, it wouldn't appear to make sense that someone would have to have done all of those different acts that were listed in order to commit the offense. So the commission looked at it in their opinion, the sense of the law was that. Each individual one of those subdivisions was a different way to commit the offense, which is more properly reflected with the use of or versus and. Representing Collins, you're recognized for a question. Was that unanimous in the code revision commission's assessment. Do you recall? was any dissent lodged on that, right? Well, most of the, most of the actions that we take in the Code Revision Commission are unanimous, but to recall this specific one, I can't. I will say so having pulled up the code section that's uh referenced here. 79 127 upon conviction, a person commits a class A misdemeanor if the person knowingly And it's change is a signature other than his or her own signature. It erases or otherwise removes a signature other than his or her. Signature on a petition intentionally destroys or discards a signature other than his or her own signature on a petition, pays a person any form of compensation in exchange for not signing a petition as a petitioner accepts or pays money or anything of value for the purpose of not obtaining signatures on a petition when the person is included on the sponsors list filed with the Secretary of State under 79601. Misrepresents the purpose and we can go on. It goes through 7, but the point is, is if that were an end, you would have to do a whole lot of different things in order to violate the law and that clearly in context is not should not have been an end. It was if you if you would have done any one of those things that would cause you to be guilty of a misdemeanor, and that seemed very clear from the context. So that, that's the reason for the change. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, no one has signed up to speak for or against the bill, representing Gazaway, you're recognized clothes for the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm close to the bill. I make a motion to pass. Members, we have a motion to pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed Senate Bill 173. Members, let's turn to Senate Bill 174. You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 174 is Title 8 of the Arkansas Code related to environmental law. Section 1. relates to used tires and it's simply inserts a may in order to correct a grammatical error, uh, here you have this was brought before the code revision commission, uh, the sentence was missing a verb. And that was the only change made by the commission was to insert the word may. In Section 2, I should add, uh, is adding nuclear to a reference. Consistent throughout the code, the code section uses the term spent nuclear fuel and it said spent fuel, we added spent nuclear fuel because that was Clearly when read in context of the code section, uh, what it would have been referring to. So happy to answer any questions with that members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Is there any questions? No seeing no questions, no one has signed up to speak for or against the bill, representing Gassway, you recognized clothes for the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm closed for the bill. Make a motion to pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. And he opposed say no. I have it. Congratulations, you have passed Senate Bill 174. can I just ask a question? Certainly. Thank you. Uh, just for clarity's sake, do y'all make the changes online before they've come through committee. Um I just was looking at that code section and it already says or it doesn't say and. In the code section online, so I just was wondering if those changes were already made. So moving forward, I could read it better. Representative Clowney in the technical correction bills, you'll see the ones that say that you all are ratifying a decision by the commission. Those are already incorporated into the law. The other ones are not. All right, Representing Gassway, you recognized to, uh, present Senate Bill 175. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 175 relates to Title 11. Which is labor and industrial relations. There is one change in Section 1 which we're ratifying a decision. It's a very important point. By the Code Revision Commission to correct references uh in the subsection, the language in this subsection referred to this section was changed to the subsection and subsection E of this section. This was language that originally was a standalone section in an appropriation bill, but in the 2023 Act, it was added to existing code and so That's not that sounds a bit confusing if there are any questions. I've got the expert, Mr. Koon here who can clarify that, so happy to answer any questions. Members, are there any questions? Seeing the questions, we have no one who signed up to speak for or against the bill, you recognized to close for the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm close to the bill. Make a motion to pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The eyes have it. Congratulations you have passed Senate Bill 175. Members, let's turn to Senate Bill 176 and referencing Gassway, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 176 relates to Title 15. Which is the natural resources and economic development section of the code. Section 1 clarifies a reference to golf lessons. And makes a small grammatical change. Section 2 adds clarifying language concerning a minimum investment. This is consistent with the language and subdivision B1. And then section 3 deletes obsolete language. And updates references the initial selection of organizations occurred before July 1, 2012 and the current process is set out in language. That is not being deleted. So again, it looks like it's obsolete language about selecting 4 eligible organizations for participation in the Arkansas Great Places program by July 1, 2012. Once again, that's something that's already occurred. No, no longer needed for that to be in code and happy to answer any questions, Mr. Koon also can sure clarify our Timbers, any questions? Seeing no questions, no one has signed up to speak for or against the bill. You're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Close for the bill, make a motion to pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed say no. I have it. Congratulations, you have passed Senate Bill 176. I know it comes with a great displeasure. We're moving to the last technical correction bill this morning. I, I know, but rest assured we have another one that's hit our agenda, so you can look forward to that one. Let's turn to Senate Bill 177, Senate Bill 177, and you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 177 relates to technical corrections related to Title 17, which is The title of the code related to professions, occupations, and businesses. Uh, this is a fairly Uh, lengthy technical correction bill. And with that, uh, I would ask with the chair's permission to allow Mr. Coon to give an explanation of this particular bill. Certainly you recognize Mr. Coon. Committee members, uh, section one is ratifying a decision by the Code Revision Commission. this when this language is really enacted, it had a grammatical error in it, and so they decided to insert the phrase may have licensure and additional fields of body art added by to make the sentence make sense. Um, section 2 is adding clarifying language and to make the terminology in that code section consistent. Section 3 is the leading obsolete language. The language that's being stricken in B2 expired in 2005. That expiration is not actually here in the codified language, but it was part of that bill in an uncodified section, and so this language has expired in 2005. Uh, sections 458, 1819, 2022, 33, 34, 35 are all the leading obsolete languages that have tied the dates that have already passed, so it's it's simply there's a reference to a date in the code that's already passed and those sections are simply deleting that language. Section 6 is adding language to correct the grammatical error, um, the phrase just makes that sentence make sense. That's being added there. Section 7 is clarifying a criminal offense to make it consistent with Arkansas criminal code. If you look at the first offense there, it only authorizes a fine, so under our Arkansas criminal code, if if an offense only authorizes a fine, it's considered a violation, not a misdemeanor. The subsequent offenses are unclassified misdemeanors because they do authorize jail time, but they don't meet any of the existing classifications, so they're just considered unclassified misdemeanors. Section 9 is also clarifying a criminal got the same issue where you have a a fine that's being set out as a misdemeanor, but it only authorizes a fine, so it's actually just a violation and then the subsequent events here, it does match an existing classification of a class C misdemeanor, so the section is just clarifying that. Section 10 and 11 are updating some obsolete references. The uh ophthalmology section of the Arkansas Medical Society is now known as the Arkansas Ophthalmology Society, so we're just changing that name to be consistent. Section 12 is clarifying that section in the membership of the state board of optometry. Section 13 is the leading obsolete language. The Harrison right anti-narcotic Act that you see referenced there is a federal law that's been superseded by the federal uniform Controlled Substances Act. Section 14 is just clarifying some references that make it easier to understand what laws are actually being referenced in that section. Section 15 is clarifying references and updating references. It's also doing that same thing with the offenses that I just discussed where you had uh offenses that were called misdemeanors, but they're only authorizing a fine, so it's actually a violation. And then the subsequent offenses are unclassified misdemeanors. Section 16 is clarifying a term in this particular area of law, the practice of pharmacy is defined as engage in the practice of pharmacy and so this is just a small technical correction to make sure that that term is being used. And with that, Madam Chair, I couldn't have said it any better, and we're happy to answer any questions members, are there any questions? Seeing no questions, we have no one who signed up to speak for or against the bill, you're recognized to close for the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm closed for the bill. I'll make a motion to pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Say no. The eyes have it. Congratulations you have passed Senate Bill 177. Mr. Coon, thank you for being here today. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. Members if you'll turn to Senate bill. 214 Senate Bill 214 represent recognized representative Underwood. Once you've identified yourself, you're recognized to present Senate Bill 214. Uh, Kindon Underwood, state representative, District 16. I know it's difficult to follow the excitement of technical correction bills, but I'll do my best. Senator Bryant, uh, couldn't be here today. Uh, so I told her I'd do my best to, to present this bill. Essentially what this does is it removes um or it adds 2nd degree murder, to the list of ineligible crimes that's that the crimes that are ineligible for meriororus the furlough program. So currently, they're, um, if there are certain crimes that are not eligible for this, and you can get up to, for good behavior, you can get up to 5 days of furlough under this program and so all this is doing is adding second degree murder to that list. Second degree murder is obviously an intentionally killing of another, and so I think that, um, we kind of, we don't want to I think we don't need to have this available for this program since it's a violent killing. Um, this bill was brought to us by constituent who the father of a child. was murdered. He got like 20 something years, I think, in prison and 4 years after he was supposed to be in prison, his family, her family, uh, seen him in the community walking around and she was kind of confused about the situation and so that's how this came up uh happy to try to answer any questions. Members, are there any questions? Seeing no questions, no one has signed up to speak for or against the bill, you're recognized to close for the bill. Um, committee, thank you for your time and I'm close to my bill, and I don't make much too fast. Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any posts say no. The eyes have it. Congratulations you have passed Senate Bill 214. Thank you. Members, that's what we have on our agenda today, but we need to do a little housekeeping and I want to stay online so if anybody's watching and wondering what's coming up, they'll be able to. hear this, um. We have for Tuesday We have another technical correction bill. So we will hear Senate Bill 169 on Tuesday. Representative Beatty, will you be ready to run House Bill 1511. I mean, not Tuesday, Thursday, Thursday the 20th. I apologize, uh, Beatty, will you be ready to run House Bill 1511 on Thursday. You just filed it yesterday, but I'm just asking. Give me the pill. Oh, to amend the law concerning the Attorney General and to mend the law concerning the Attorney General's subpoena power. OK, members, let's put House Bill 1511 on Thursday's agenda. Represents Shepherd you filed House Bill 1508 to recodify Title 19 of the Arkansas Code concerning public finance. Would you like to run that on Thursday or next week? OK, we're gonna take Yes, it, it will be as exciting as technical correction bills, if you haven't had a chance to look at it there'll be a quiz and let's have plenty of questions for former Speaker Shepherd keep him on his toes. So that will, that will be Thursday. Then, I've got to talk to a couple other people that maybe are Thursday list. I've got things set up for next week. Watch your text messages and we, we may add Representative Meeks Mill to Thursday, which is 1504, uh, to create an offense of manufacturing, modifying, selling, transferring, operating robotic devices with A weapon on him. So we'll watch for your text messages. Um, I think we're all good. Are there any questions from the committee? All right, with that, thank you for your time today. We are adjourned.