House Judiciary Committee

February 14, 2023

Rep Dalby: House Judiciary will now come to order. Chair sees a quorum. Members, the first bill we’re going to take up today will be Senate Bill 118, Senate Bill 118. Senator Dotson, you’re recognized to come to the table and present your bill.

Sen Dotson: Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Committee. I’m going to turn it over to Representative McAlindon to open and present this bill. And our witness is here to answer any questions.

Rep Dalby: Representative McAlindon, would you please state your name for the record, and who you represent, and who you have with you as your witness? And then you may proceed.

Rep McAlindon: Yes, ma’am. So thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Committee. My name is Representative Mindy McAlindon. I represent House District 10, which is Bentonville and Bella Vista. And with me today I have Jordan Cope from StandWithUs organization.

So Senate Bill 118 defines anti-semitism in the Arkansas State statutes. It clarifies the word anti-Semitism as it relates to discrimination and discriminatory acts. It helps to ensure that public institutions continue to comply with the civil rights requirements that they have. It is also to aid in determining whether the offending act was motivated by discriminatory or anti-Semitic intent.

The definition that we’re presenting is the definition from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. It was adopted in 2016. And it has been adopted by nearly two dozen states, whether in statute or resolution. It has also been adopted by several US government state agencies. And with that, I’d like to turn it over to Jordan Cope.

Cope: Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the Committee. It’s an honor to be here. I’m Jordan Cope, the director of policy education at StandWithUs. We’re an education nonpartisan non-profit, devoted to combating anti-semitism and misinformation about Israel and the Jewish people. I also happen to be an attorney and I’m here to testify in support of Senate Bill 118.

You might hear some misinformation about what this bill does and does not do. So I’d just like to quickly clarify what this bill does and does not do. This bill does not criminalize anything. It does not restrict or limit any free speech whatsoever, including that which might be anti-Semitic. It does not create a new protected class. And in addition to that, it does not outlaw discrimination against Jews because that’s already illegal.

What this bill ultimately seeks to do is to codify a definition of anti-Semitism for a narrow purpose, and that purpose is to help state officials better identify anti-Semitic motive when it comes to criminal activity such as hate crimes or unlawful discrimination, and to train state officials how to better recognize such in the future.

Why do we need a definition for anti-Semitism? Unfortunately, right now throughout America, there is an anti-Semitism crisis. Jews comprise approximately 2.4% of the US population, yet suffer approximately 60% of all religiously motivated hate crimes. And this crisis becomes more severe when considering the fact that recent surveys indicate that approximately 50% of all Americans do not know what anti-Semitism is. We must first understand what anti-Semitism is so that we can combat it. And the first step to combating anti-Semitism is to define it. And this is what this legislation seeks to do.

This legislation ultimately seeks to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism for a very narrow purpose. Why this definition you may ask? Well, it was devised by leading authorities and scholars who lead the study when it comes to anti-Semitism and fighting it. And in addition, it’s the consensus driven definition for the Jewish community at large, having been adopted by over 95% of all Jewish organizations to comprise the Conference of Presidents. 

And likewise, it remains the consensus driven definition of anti-Semitism for society at large, having been adopted by, yes, 1,100 entities worldwide. Including institutions as vast and as diverse as Lufthansa Airlines, the English Premier League, and the Global Imams Council. And it doesn’t hurt to mention as well that it’s been adopted by US presidents hailing from both the Democratic and Republican parties. In other words, this definition and support for that thereof transcends partisan lines. 

I’m happy to answer any questions that you may have today. And just before I close I’d like to emphasize the importance of this definition for the fact that it has examples that help us understand how to recognize both contemporary and classical anti-Semitism because if we were to address the anti-Semitism of the 1940s we’d be missing a lot of the anti-Semitism today. Thank you so much.

Rep Dalby: Members, are there any questions? Seeing no questions. We have no one who is signed up to speak for or against the bill. You’re recognized to close for your bill.

Rep McAlindon: Thank you. I just want to reiterate that we are wanting to be sure that we are protecting people’s free speech with a bill but that we are also making sure that we are protecting the Jewish people against anti-Semitism. And with that, I ask for a good vote.

Rep Dalby: Members, the sponsors have closed for their bill. What’s the wishes of the Committee? I have a motion to do pass. Any discussion on the motion to do pass? All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed please say no. Ayes have it. Congratulations you have passed your bill.

Sen Dotson: Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the Committee, it’s been great to be with you.

Rep Dalby: Members, let’s turn to House Bill 1355. House Bill 1355. Representative Beaty, you’re recognized to come to the end of the table. We have an amendment, members that are being passed out. Once the amendment is passed out we’ll take that up first before we proceed with the bill

Rep Beaty: Madam Chair, I’m asking my constituent guest to join me at the table, along with a Senate sponsor, Senator Gilmore.

Sen Gilmore: I’m not sure if it helps the chances of the bill me being here but Ben Gilmore, State Senate District 1.

Rep Dalby: Well, Senator Gilmore, as we always tell all Senators, it’s one strike just being here. So we’ll expect you to hold up that tradition of the Senate for us. Members, you do have in front of you Amendment number 1 to House Bill 1355. Representative Beaty, you’re recognized to present your Amendment.

Rep Beaty: I just drew a blank on the proper procedural minutes. I mean, on an amendment.

Rep Dalby: Well, you’re presenting the amendment to add a Senate sponsor.

Rep Beaty: Right, my amendment is to add Senator Gilmore as a co-sponsor on the bill.

Rep Dalby: Members, you have heard what the amendment is. Is there any question on the amendment? Do I have a motion to adopt the amendment? I have a motion to adopt the amendment. Any discussion? All in favor please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. The amendment has been adopted. Representative Beaty, you are now recognized to present your bill as amended.

Rep Beaty: Thank you, Madam Chair. I figured that amendment would be the hardest part of today is to get the Senator on there. I’m Representative Howard Beaty, District 95, Ashley and Chicot County. And today I’m honored to have with me as my guests, Lyna Galye and Jim Knighton, constituents from Crossett. This bill, as the Chairman tweeted out earlier today, it’s just a simple bill that doesn’t do that much. So I know she said her heart skips a beat every time she hears that. So again, not trying to stack the deck but I hope that that plays in my favor today.

Simply, colleagues, this bill changes the exemption from 80 years to 70 years, whereby one person may choose to exclude or exempt themselves or decline to participate in jury service. I would tell you that growing up and being educated in public education, we were taught that jury duty is our obligation. And I take obligations very seriously. But also upon becoming a State Rep, I made an obligation to my constituents, and I take that very seriously too. 

So when Ms. Lyna Gayle brought this concern up to me, I agreed with consult with the Senator that we’d bring this forward and present it today. I think looking at this room, all of us are here because of the influence and how our lives were touched by folks just like the Knightons, retired educators that took an interest in our life and guided us and assisted us in becoming who we are today. So with that said, I’ll let Ms. Lyna Gayle, she prepared a few remarks for us regarding this bill. And I’ll let her speak

Rep Dalby: Ma’am, if you’ll just state your name for the record and then we’ll recognize you to proceed.

Knighton: Lyna Galye Knighton.

Rep Dalby: You may proceed, Ms. Knighton.

Knighton: I’m 74 years old. I earned every gray hair from six-year-old kids for 30 years. And I have noticed as I age, you notice things about you that aren’t quite as sharp as you thought they once were. Your attention span, your quick response, your availability to pay attention longer bothers you and comes into play. And since last September, I received two notices to serve on a jury. One was four months there in Ashley County but we live in Crossett, so drive to Hamburg every day, if chosen. And then I received one in January to be on federal court. That’s two since September.

I’m 74. The anguish of just getting the letter, filling out the forms, going through that ritual. The anguish of Jim, can you drive me every day? What’ll I do? Can I pay attention? Will I pay attention? I feel a lot differently at 74 about things than I did younger. And a lot of things come into play. You think about things, what did he say? On edge, I guess is a good way to explain it. I just don’t feel that I’m as capable as I was when I was younger. And I’m not saying that 70 and above aren’t and shouldn’t serve. I just wish we had the option to opt-out if we don’t feel comfortable with it. Even being driven, we didn’t drive ourself today, Senator Gilmore drove us up here.

Things come into play that you may not see. And I can’t quite explain it to you but it’s real to me and I really feel it. But it’s a tenseness that I can’t quite say. And I just wish there was a way to have that little note on those forms when they come in the mail. Due to my age I’d like to opt out of serving on jury duty. Thank you.

Rep Dalby: Thank you, Ms. Knighton. We don’t have anyone else who has signed up to speak for or against the bill Representative Beaty Members of the Committee, does anyone have any questions for Representative Beaty? Representative Collins, you’re recognized for a question.

Rep Collins: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this is a fine idea. I’m wondering, have y’all talked with the judges or the courts. Do they have any opinion on this?

Rep Beaty: I heard nothing back from any of the judges or courts.

Rep Dalby: Members, any other questions? Representative Clowney, you’re recognized for a question.

Rep Clowney: Thank you, Madam Chair. Judges have the ability, right, to dismiss jurors for a variety of reasons. Can you explain why this bill– what problem this bill solves that that option that judges have does not allow for?

Rep Beaty: I think the primary thing that this bill would address is just the necessity for someone over the age of 70 to go to court and receive that summons and then have to answer. And ask verbally in court for that exemption and to be released from jury duty.

Rep Dalby: Representative Scott, you’re recognized for a question.

Rep Scott: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Quick question, it might be a long shot. Do you know the average age of our retiring judges in Arkansas?

Rep Beaty: I do not.

Rep Scott: Can you guess?

Rep Beaty: I would not even start to guess on that.

Rep Scott: I think it might be 70 and above but I was just wondering if you knew.

Rep Beaty: I was thinking that Madam Chair would know but I–

Rep Dalby: Madam Chair let her know.

Rep Beaty: Thank you.

Rep Dalby: Any other questions members? Representative Gazaway, you’re recognized for a question.

Rep Gazaway: Thank you, Madam Chair. And I don’t mean to indicate that I’m necessarily opposed to this bill by this question. But I’ve seen many times people come to court as jurors and ask to be excused because of health issues, and in some of those cases related to advanced age. And certainly, I think I’ve never seen a judge not be accommodating of that. But one of the important things about our jury system is that it’s a cross-section of the community or it should be a cross-section of the community. 

And if we allow every person who’s over the age of 70 for instance, to check a box and not show up, then you start to diminish the ability to get a true cross-section of the community. You may have an instance where you have an older person who is a part of the trial, whether they’re the defendant, whether they’re one of the parties. And now they’re going to have people who wouldn’t be one of their peers or similarly situated to be members of the jury because they could simply check a box and not show up theoretically. So how do you address that given that it is such vital importance to the way our government functions to have the jury system and to have again, a cross-section of the community participate in that jury system? Thank you.

Rep Beaty: I guess, Representative, the way I would address that question is this doesn’t completely exempt anyone over the age of 70. It allows those individuals to make an election to be exempt. So you would still have that cross-section on most juries. The other side that I might argue is the age of the defendants. I’m not certain on the statistic, what percentage of folks that find themselves sitting before a jury and a judge are age 70 or higher. You may have that number. But I mean that’s the way I would address that is it still gives the– you’ll still have that cross-section, it just allows those individuals that feel as Ms. Lyna Gayle feels, an option to exempt of the stress and obligation reporting for duty.

Rep Dalby: Representative Gazaway, you’re recognized for a follow-up.

Rep Gazaway: Thank you, Madam Chair. And again, I don’t mean to necessarily indicate opposition but I do think it’s worth at least kind of fleshing out the issue. You say you don’t know the age of the defendant, of course, not every case is a criminal trial. You have civil trials. Some of those cases are age discrimination cases which I’ve had some experience with. Certainly, if you had a client who was claiming age discrimination, they might be interested in having someone on their jury who would be age 70 or older. So again, I’m not necessarily opposed to your bill but I’d like to hear your thoughts on that.

Rep Beaty: Well, again, I would think that both counsel in a jury trial, they have certain exemptions where you can exclude jurors and I would think that through that process of jury selection, you guys are going to weed out some of those folks. And if it’s something on age discrimination, then both sides may have an issue and singling out exclusions for someone based on age in an age discrimination trial. 

So I mean, there are a lot of exclusions and exemptions out there. And you’re right, folks can show up at court and most of the time the judge is going to be understanding and grant leniency and release someone. But again, I would just respectfully say that we should honor our Arkansans that feel as Ms. Lyna Gayle feels about jury service and provide them that option at 70 years old if they wish to be exempt from duty.

Rep Dalby: Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions. As I announced earlier, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Beaty, you’re recognized to close for your bill.

Rep Beaty: Thank you, Madam Chair. One thing I wanted to point out, and I was tempted to do during the discussion, is that many states seniors have the right to decline jury duty based on their age. Age limits and rules vary by states. I would point out that our neighboring states, the State of Mississippi, that age is 65 where they can exempt and opt out of jury duty. Louisiana that age is 70. Oklahoma that age is 70. So our surrounding states already have this exemption for jury service and I think that we should provide that for our residents. And I would ask for a motion do pass and for you to vote in favor of this bill.

Rep Dalby: Members, Representative Beaty has closed for his bill. What are the wishes of the Committee? I have a motion to do pass as amended. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor please say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations you have passed your bill. And thank you, Ms. Knighton for coming.

Rep Beaty: Thank you, Committee.

Rep Dalby: Members, if you’ll turn to House Bill 1327, 1327. Representative Gazaway, I’ll recognize you to come to the end of the table and present your bill. Representative Gazaway, you’re recognized. Please do identify yourself. You may proceed.

Rep Gazaway: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m Jimmy Gazaway, State Representative. I represent District 31. Madam Chair, I apologize, what bill did you say I was going to start with? I have so many.

Rep Dalby: You’re just so popular. 1327, because you have someone who has signed up to speak for the bill.

Rep Gazaway: That’s right. Madam Chair, with your permission I’d ask that they be allowed to join me at the end of the table to present the bill.

Rep Dalby: Sheriff, you’re recognized to go to the end of the table.

Rep Gazaway: Glad you made it.

Rep Dalby: Representative Gazaway, would you like a paper copy of the bill? 

Rep Gazaway: I have it on my phone. I think I can go forward with it, but thank you.

Rep Dalby: All right, you’re recognized.

Rep Gazaway: Members, House Bill 1327 concerns the disposition of a contraband firearm, seized property, contraband which in this particular case is we’re referring to firearms. Basically, what this bill does is there’s in statute currently, there are certain ways that a law enforcement agency is allowed to dispose of firearms that have been seized in connection with the commission of a crime.

Once the case is closed, typically the way this works is the law enforcement agency goes to the judge. They have the judge sign an order forfeiting the firearm because again it was contraband used in connection with a crime. And then by statute, the law enforcement agency has a certain number of prescribed ways that they can dispose of that firearm.

What this would do would add to the list of prescribed ways that the firearm could be disposed of by allowing the law enforcement agency to trade the firearm to a federally licensed firearms dealer for purposes of credit toward future purchases. That’s basically what the bill does. And I’m happy to answer any questions. And of course, I have a witness here who can probably elaborate more on this.

Rep Dalby: Members, any questions of Representative Gazaway? Representative Richardson, you’re recognized for a question.

Rep J Richardson: Thank you, Madam Chair. Are any neighboring states already doing this trade?

Rep Gazaway: I don’t know but my witness may have a better idea than me.

Rep Dalby: Sheriff, if you’ll just go ahead and identify yourself for the record. And then I’ll let you try to answer that question for Representative Richardson.

Wright: I’m Sheriff Rodney Wright, Saline County.

Rep Dalby: Did you hear the question?

Wright: I did.

Rep Dalby: Okay, if you’ll please respond.

Wright: Well, in 2019, Senator Irvin passed a bill, Senate Bill 403, that already has this language in it. And the bill in 2019, it already says how we can address and dispose of firearms. The problem with what happened in Senate Bill 403, it says for juveniles, so basically weapons that were seized from juveniles. 

So we’re taking the same verbiage that’s already been passed in 2019, and we’re moving it to Senate Bill 1327 and putting it under Arkansas law 5-5-101, which is the law that– it is the law that controls how we– what we do with controlled firearms, how we seize them– or not how we seize them but what we do with them. There’s procedures already in place. It’s just that in 2019 it said juveniles and we just needed to move it over to a general law that says here’s what you do with all firearms that are already seized.

Rep J Richardson: But are there any neighboring states who already operate with this trade that you guys are clarifying or adding? Are there any neighboring states that currently do what you’re trying to do here?

Wright: That I do not know of, sorry.

Rep J Richardson: Thank you.

Rep Dalby: Representative Crawford, you’re recognized for a question.

Rep Crawford: Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you explain to me, to the Committee, what would be a scenario for the department taking guns?

Wright: So absolutely. So when firearms are seized or forfeited, we have them in our evidence locker. And so every law enforcement department has an evidence locker full of weapons that have to be disposed of at some time or another. They can be either destroyed, a public auction. Where the way this reads now is that we can trade them to a licensed firearms person but then it has to be through a company. And I’ll give you a couple of different companies that are in Arkansas. There’s one in Jonesboro and there’s one in Saline County. But basically, they use a federal licensed firearm dealer and they will purchase our weapons. We will get credit at their place to buy bulletproof vests to buy uniforms, to buy gun belts, anything that we need for law enforcement. You just get a credit there at that establishment.

Rep Crawford: Okay, follow-up, please.

Rep Dalby: You’re recognized for a follow-up.

Rep Crawford: Okay. Let me clarify my question, I didn’t do very well. Can you give me a scenario when guns are taken away from citizens in Arkansas? That’s what I’m after is. You have all these weapons, tell me how you get those weapons.

Rep Gazaway: So I’ll take a stab at that. For example, in cases that I’ve handled, you may have a murder case for instance, where a gun was used in the commission of the offense. That gun is evidence during the course of the case. When the case is over, that’s a weapon that is still in the possession of law enforcement agency. You’re not going to give it back to the person who’s in prison or committed the murder with it, obviously. 

The law enforcement agency needs to do something with it. They get the judge to sign an order regarding that gun. That it’s been forfeited to the law enforcement agency for them to dispose of pursuant to the ways that our law allows that these firearms can be disposed of. This simply adds one of the ways that they can dispose of that firearm would be to trade it to a federally licensed firearm dealer.

So there’s any number of cases where a firearm is involved. I used a murder for example, but it could be any case, criminal case where a firearm was involved in the use of the commission of the offense. That once the case is over, the judge routinely signs these forfeiture orders giving possession to the law enforcement agency for them to dispose of the firearm. 

They can melt them down. They can have an auction. There’s any number of ways that by current statute that they dispose of them currently. And again this just simply adds trading them to a federally licensed firearm dealer for credit toward future purchases for things like as was stated, bulletproof vests, other needs that the agency might have.

Rep Dalby: Representative Richmond, you’re recognized for a question.

Rep Richmond: Thank you, Madam Chair. It would seem to me that this new option of selling it to a firearms dealer is actually probably a safer way to ensure that those firearms that are sold to them eventually get sold to a citizen that’s had a background check or other vetting. Maybe more secure than an auction or even melting down because sometimes people see a gun that they would like to hold on to and maybe it doesn’t necessarily get destroyed. Is it more secure in your opinion to do it this way?

Wright: In my opinion yes, it is.

Rep Gazaway: I would agree.

Rep Dalby: Representative Collins, you’re recognized for a question.

Rep Collins: Thank you, Madam Chair. So I was just looking at the current statute that’s being modified. And under current law, if they’re auctioning it off, there are a lot of procedures they have to follow. There’s a time and place of advertisement, has to be posted on the courthouse door. Proceeds have to be disposed of in a certain manner. Why did you guys decide not to put procedures like that in place for this? If we think that they’re valuable in most other cases, why are they not valuable here?

Rep Gazaway: Well, I don’t think that there’s any issue about whether or not they’re deemed to be valuable or not. I think the issue is under the auction portion of the statute that you reference, that is a legal way that’s currently designated in the law for a law enforcement agency to dispose of seized and forfeited firearms. I’ve actually worked with law enforcement agencies in the past when I was prosecutor and county attorney for them going through this auction procedure to dispose of these weapons.

My point would be similar to Representative Richmond’s question, which is, I actually think that this is a more secure way to just to dispose of, if you will, these firearms than the auction. One of the reasons that we put all of those specific requirements on the auction is because those are being sold to members of the public. And these are firearms that were used in the commission of a crime. I think when you trade them or give them into the possession of a federally licensed firearm dealer then they’re free to dispose of it in accordance with the law as they would sell any other firearms.

So there’s security in place by the law that exists for licensed firearm dealers in the way that they have to dispose of firearms. That once that firearm makes it into the possession of a federally licensed firearm dealer, that they’re going to have to dispose of it in accordance with the law. And if you’re not going to go that route, then I think if you’re going to sell them to members of the public through an auction, that’s why we have such very strict procedures as to how that has to be conducted. I’m not sure that completely answers your question but.

Rep Dalby: Members, any other questions? Seeing no other questions. We have no one else who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Gazaway, you’re recognized to close for your bill.

Rep Gazaway: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this is a really a simple bill that enables law enforcement to dispose of firearms that were used in the commission of a crime in a secure way by adding this simple change. And I would make a motion do pass.

Rep Dalby: Members, we have a motion to do pass on the floor. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion. All in favor of the motion, say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Representative Gazaway, do you have some technical correction bills you’re ready to share with us?

Rep Gazaway: I do.

Rep Dalby: Oh, great.

Rep Gazaway: With the Chair’s permission, I’d ask that Matthew Miller from the Bureau be allowed to join me.

Rep Dalby: Certainly. Mr. Miller, you’re recognized to come to the end of the table. If you’ll call out the bill number, then members we will work through our list on that. Representative Gazaway, we’re going to bring you a packet of technical correction bills. That might help.

Rep Gazaway: Great. Thank you.

Rep Dalby: Are you ready, Representative Gazaway?

Rep Gazaway: I am ready. 

Rep Dalby: All right, announce what first technical correction bill you’d like to discuss.

Rep Gazaway: House Bill 1279.

Rep Dalby: All right, members, if you’ll turn to House Bill 1279. House Bill 1279, this would be technical corrections to the criminal code. All right, Representative Gazaway, you’re recognized to proceed.

Rep Dalby: Thank you, Madam Chair. House Bill 1279 as Madam Chair said is a bill that makes technical corrections to Title 5, which is the criminal code. Very simply, in Section 1 it deletes some obsolete language. Now, I want to tell the Committee, there is an issue with Section 1. The or other process was identified by the Bureau as being obsolete and irrelevant. And so when they sent this bill they struck it. After a review, it came to the attention of some very smart lawyers who I know who contacted me, who said that this provision, really the entire Section 1 needs to be reworded.

So there’s going to be a bill that’s going to come out of this that will entirely reword Section 1 of this bill. So we’re going to go ahead and pass– what we’d like to do is go ahead and pass this bill with the understanding that there will be another bill that will entirely reword Section 1 because it’s not worded well.

Section 2 clarifies the reference to facility to be consistent with the rest of the subsection. Section 3 deletes obsolete language, and Section 4 inserts a comma that was part of the subdivision that was omitted in a prior act. That’s what the bill does. Happy to answer any questions.

Rep Dalby: Members, for clarity’s sake, because these are technical correction bills and they typically are just a word here or a word there. Since they’re redoing a whole section, that’s why it has to be another bill. But we can approve if it’s the Committee’s wish to approve these technical corrections but there would have to be a standalone bill because that would fall outside of what the Code Revision Commission does. So I saw some folks maybe who had a question as to why that would be the way it is. You have heard the explanation of House Bill 1279. Is there any questions? Seeing no questions. We have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. You’re recognized to close for your bill.

Rep Gazaway: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m closed for the bill, make a motion do pass.

Rep Dalby: Members, we have a motion to do pass on the floor. Any discussion of the motion? All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill.

Rep Gazaway: Next will be House Bill 1283.

Rep Dalby: Members, if you’ll turn to House Bill 1283. This will be technical corrections to Title 10. I’m sorry, you’re recognized.

Rep Gazaway: Thank you, Madam Chair. House Bill 1283 concerns corrections to Title 10. What you’ll see in this bill, in Section 1 there’s references to– it previously referred to a misdemeanor. That wasn’t correct because what the sentence that was referred to was not a misdemeanor in fact, it was a violation. So we changed misdemeanor to violation so that that’s the correct usage of the term that should be used there. Section 2, the code section set out is being amended to comply with 25-19-110, which says that a law that enacts a new exemption to the Freedom of Information Act requires a statement to that effect. And so that’s what we do in Section 2.

Rep Dalby: In 1283 I’m not seeing a Section 2. Members, are you seeing it on your devices? Okay, I just don’t have it. Thank you.

Rep Gazaway: I’m happy to answer any questions.

Rep Dalby: Members, are there any questions? Seeing no questions. We have no one who’s signed up to speak for or against House Bill 1283. You’re recognized to close for your bill.

Rep Gazaway: Closed for the bill, make a motion do pass.

Rep Dalby: Members, we have a motion to do pass on the floor. Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion. All in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1283 has passed. Congratulations. You’re now ready to announce your next one.

Rep Gazaway: House Bill 1284.

Rep Dalby: Members, let’s move to House Bill 1284. This will be technical corrections to the law concerning Enforcement, Emergency Management, and Military Affairs. And with that, you’re recognized to present your bill.

Rep Gazaway: Thank you, Madam Chair. Again 1284 refers to Title 12 technical corrections. What you’ll see in Section 1 is we clarify a reference concerning the appointment of a law enforcement officer to clarify political subdivisions law enforcement agency. Section 2 deletes obsolete temporary language that existed. Sections 3 and 7 transfers a section concerning childcare facilities to a more appropriate title. Section 3 repeals the section from Title 12. And Section 7 creates it in Title 20. 

Sections 4 and 5 break an existing section into smaller sections. It adds language clarifying for consistency with other sections. The change will allow each official– it refers to various officials and professions. And it became very long and complicated over time. And so the Bureau believed that it would be easier for each official and profession to have its own section. And so each new section simply copies over the existing provisions that were contained in 12-15-202. Section 6 clarifies references to the organized militia, and causes the section to use consistent terminology. That’s what the bill does. Happy to answer any questions.

Rep Dalby: Members, are there any questions? Seeing no questions. We have no one who has signed up to speak for or in favor of House Bill 1284. You’re recognized to close for your bill.

Rep Gazaway: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m closed for the bill. Would make a motion do pass.

Rep Dalby: 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 ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. You have another one you’d like to present today?

Rep Gazaway: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, House Bill 1285.

Rep Dalby: Members, let’s look at House Bill 1285. And you’re recognized to proceed.

Rep Gazaway: Madam Chair, I’d ask that Mr. Miller be allowed to help present this bill.

Rep Dalby: Certainly. Mr. Miller, you’re recognized. Please say your name for the record, and you may present.

Miller (BLR): Good morning, everyone. Matthew Miller with the Bureau of Legislative Research. As I said when I was here last Thursday, the Bureau is a nonpartisan agency. We don’t take positions for or against legislation. And I’m certainly not here to testify for these bills but Commission staff worked on these bills and Bureau staff staffs the Commission. So given our involvement with the content, I’m happy to be here to help Representative Gazaway just explain the bills. And I’ll just explain what’s in here and if there’s any questions or concerns regarding that, I’ll defer that to Representative Gazaway.

In Title 14, several of these Sections, Sections 1 through 9, 11, 14 through 19, 21 through 23, 25, and 27 through 31. So the majority of the bill is dealing with the classification of offenses pursuant. We have a statute 5-1-107 and 5-1-108 that direct that if a misdemeanor has no sentence other than a fine it’s actually a violation. So it’s making those types of changes throughout there for consistency with what Arkansas law provides on those.

Sections 10 and 20 are similar, those sections set out a sentence but they don’t impose the class of the misdemeanor or a limitation on the sentence to imprisonment. So in Sections 10 and 20, we’re directed by Arkansas law to treat those as a Class A misdemeanor. So that’s what those sections do. Section 12 is being amended to clarify the use of a defined term. And sections 13, 24, and 26 are set out to amend just for clarity. They’re subdivided so that they’ll read a little easier. And that’s all I have but I’m happy to take any questions from the Committee.

Rep Dalby: Members, are there any questions? Seeing no questions. We have no one who has signed up to speak for or against House Bill 1285. Representative Gazaway, you’re recognized to close for your bill.

Rep Gazaway: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m closed for the bill, make a motion do pass.

Rep Dalby: Members, we have a motion to do pass on the floor. Is there any discussion? All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed? Seeing none. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill.

Rep Gazaway: Next, we have House Bill 1286. I’m sorry we’re going to skip 1286, be 1287.

Rep Dalby: Members, if you’ll turn to House Bill 1287. House Bill 1287, this is technical corrections concerning practice and procedure in the courts. And with that, you’re recognized to present your bill.

Rep Gazaway: All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill concerns Title 16, which is Arkansas code concerning practice procedure in the courts. What you’ll see in Sections 1 through 4 is that we repeal several Sections which are obsolete. These are sections from the Revised Statutes of 1837 that require certain things. For instance, for court records to be read in open court each day. For sheriffs to provide blank books and stationery for the courts. And it requires courts to audit and adjust the accounts of the sheriffs and the clerks. So again we repeal all of those old and obsolete statutes.

Section 5 repeals an obsolete section that allows a certain circuit court based on the 1960 census to appoint a person to serve both as court reporter and clerk if the person was a lawyer or serving as a court reporter prior to February 27th, 1968. As you can see, that is no longer relevant.

Section 6 repeals a section creating a fund. The fund is already created in Title 19 and so it’s unnecessary. Section 7 and 8 repeals two obsolete sections referring for approval of the creation of additional judgeships for the First Judicial District to the Arkansas Judicial Council that occurred in 1999. Again, no longer necessary.

Sections 9 and 18, these transfer a sub-chapter concerning constables to a more appropriate title. Section 9 repeals the sub-chapter from Title 16. And Section 18 creates it in Title 14. So basically, what we’re doing is we’re taking portions of the code that are currently a part of Title 16, and we’re moving them to more appropriate places in the Arkansas code. Again there’s a section concerning constables that’s moved to a more appropriate place in the code than this Section. Section 18 also replaces references to justices of the peace holding court proceedings in district courts. That’s in line with Amendment 80, which abolished justice of the peace courts and transferred their jurisdiction to district courts. So it doesn’t make sense to make reference to justice of the peace courts because Amendment 80 said we don’t have justice of the peace courts anymore.

Section 10 corrects references to regular sessions and ordinary sessions. Sections 11 and 12 corrects references to defendant and person for consistency within each Section. Section 13 clarifies language by putting all of the exemptions together and updating references for consistency. Again this was just a structuring issue there, no substantive changes. Sections 14 and 15 repeal obsolete sections dealing with city courts. We have district courts now that preside over both city and state cases. You don’t have independent city courts anymore. So repeal language that references those.

Section 16 references to driving or boating while intoxicated. It corrects references related to those offenses. And 17 corrects references to persons with a disability to use respectful language which is consistent with a bill that we all passed not too long ago to remove language like handicapped from the code and replace it with language that was more respectful. So that’s what the bill does. Happy to answer any questions.

Rep Dalby: Representative Collins, you’re recognized for a question.

Rep Collins: Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I’m curious about the obsolete language. I understand when something is rendered obsolete because of a change in law or it makes reference to a time that has passed. But what about something like these things at the beginning where the sheriffs were required to furnish fuel? I know it’s very old but what makes something obsolete? Is just when people stop doing it and it’s deemed obsolete or what’s the process for it becoming obsolete when it’s not specifically rendered obsolete by a change in circumstances?

Miller (BLR): I think ultimately it’s the General Assembly who makes that decision. We see things that get on the books for a long time like these that go back to 1837, and we’re not doing them anymore. And I think that is probably in the past some of the things the General Assembly have looked at in making that decision. But it was our understanding that these statutes no longer reflect practices of the necessary officials but they are still just sitting there on the books.

Rep Gazaway: I will say if Representative Collins wants to run a bill to require the sheriffs to provide the county clerks with blank books and stationary and fuel, he’s welcome to do that. We don’t need to. I mean, if we want to start trying to enforce that we can have Representative Collins put everyone on notice.

Rep Dalby: Representative Clowney, you’re recognized for a question.

Rep Clowney: Thank you, Madam Chair. Forgive my ignorance on this. But just in terms of kind of how this whole process works, are the Code Revision Commission meetings open to public? Is there public input at those meetings? How does that work? Can you just– and not necessarily about this bill I know, but I would love to just hear kind of an overview of that.

Miller (BLR): They’re public meetings, they’re streamed on the website. And there’s four legislative members on there. I think three members appointed by the Supreme Court and then the law school deans, a representative from the AG, myself, representing the Bureau. So you can go back and stream all of those meetings through the website. They’re all available there.

Rep Clowney: Thank you.

Rep Dalby: Members, any other questions? Seeing no additional questions. We have no one who has signed up to speak for or against House Bill 1287. Representative Gazaway, you’re recognized to close for your bill.

Rep Gazaway: Thank you, Madam Chair. If you would like to go back and explain to your sheriffs of your county that they should be furnishing all of these items, including fuel to the clerks, you’re welcome to vote against this bill. Otherwise, I would make a motion do pass.

Rep Dalby: Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Do you have any others that you would like to present today?

Rep Gazaway: Madam Chair, we’re just going to keep on going if it’s fine with the Chair of the Committee.

Rep Dalby: We’ve got the time.

Rep Gazaway: House Bill 1288. I’m sorry, we’re going to skip that one.

Rep Dalby: Well, everybody, on this end of the table was really waiting for that one.

Rep Gazaway: It was exciting.

Rep Dalby: It was. I heard people say oh, not that one. Go ahead. What’s your next one, Representative?

Rep Gazaway: 1289.

Rep Dalby: Okay, members, let’s turn to House Bill 1289. This will be technical corrections concerning public officers and employees. So you’re recognized to present your bill.

Rep Gazaway: Thank you, Madam Chair. What you’ll see, this concerns Title 21, which relates to public officers and employees. Section 1 of the bill, because once again we see this through several sections in the code. When a section sets out a crime essentially or a violation that doesn’t impose a sentence other than a fine that is a violation not a misdemeanor. And so we use the proper term there, violation as opposed to misdemeanor. You’ll see that in Section 1. Section 1 also makes certain corrections to correct word usage to conform to code style. 

Section 2. The code section set out as being amended to correct a quote from the Arkansas Constitution that appears in the code section and to correct word usage to conform to code style. Section 3, the code section set out as being amended to repeal an internal reference to a different code section in which fees are no longer prescribed. That is what House Bill 1289 does. Happy to answer any questions.

Rep Dalby: Members, are there any questions? Seeing no questions. We have no one who has signed up to speak for or against House Bill 1289. Representative Gazaway, you’re recognized to close for your bill.

Rep Gazaway: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m closed for the bill. Make a motion do pass.

Rep Dalby: Members, we have a motion to do pass on the floor. Is there any discussion of the motion? All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill.

Rep Gazaway: Next, House Bill 1290.

Rep Dalby: Members, if you’ll turn to House Bill 1290. House Bill 1290 is technical corrections regarding public property. And you’re recognized to present your bill.

Rep Gazaway: Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a very short and simple bill. You’ll see in Section 1 basically we’re just amending the statute for clarity. Turning some words around there, sentence reads the same. It just begins with immediately and each County Clerk shall is moved further down in the sentence. Again that’s just for clarity. Same thing in subsection B. And we do the same thing with regard to misdemeanor and violation. So that’s all the bill does. This is Title 22 concerning public property. Happy to answer any questions.

Rep Dalby: Members, are there any questions? Seeing no questions. We have no one who has signed up to speak for or against House Bill 1290, so Representative Gazaway you’re recognized to close for your bill.

Rep Gazaway: Close for the bill. Make a motion do pass.

Rep Dalby: Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed? None opposed, your bill has passed.

Rep Gazaway: Thank you, Madam Chair. House Bill 1291.

Rep Dalby: Members, let’s look at House Bill 1291. These are technical corrections regarding public utilities and regulated industries. You’re recognized to present your bill.

Rep Gazaway: Thank you, Madam Chair. As Madam Chair said, this is Title 23. Concerns public utilities and related industries. This is a rather long bill. Section 1, so in Section 1 you see that there’s a lot of stricken language. Essentially we have several pages of stricken language. The way I understand it is a bill that we passed last session – I may have to have Mr. Miller help with this – but an act that we passed last session, it was signed into law in 2021 changed or amended all of this language. And because of the new law regarding this issue, all of the old language was struck because of the new bill. And I don’t have all the specifics on that but I think Mr. Miller can fill you in on that.

Miller (BLR): Act 404 passed last session. Later in the session act 894 passed. At first blush you would have thought Act 894 was identical to 404. It contained all the same content but there were additions so it was not identical to 404. The decision was made to just codify 894 instead of trying to splice together 404 and 894 into some way. So 404 was superseded by 894 and this is just cleaning that up to indicate that 894 is the operative law on the issue that was addressed in the Act. So if there’s a lot of repeal because it’s just repealing the language of Act 404 but this language is in the books. The issue that’s being addressed there is codified elsewhere as enacted by 894.

Rep Dalby: Mr. Miller, we have a number of new members on our Committee. You might just quickly explain sometimes this happens, that if another bill gets passed later in this session how that works in superseding.

Miller (BLR): Yes, ma’am. Sometimes we have bills that amend the same section of code during the course of a session. You might have two bills that amend 7-1-101 or something like that. Our goal when we’re trying to codify those acts with the Bureau to update the law to reflect your actions is to reconcile those to the extent we can. If it’s two separate parts of the section we’ll combine them. Just the fact that the last act didn’t include the change in the first doesn’t mean that we don’t include the first.

Sometimes they don’t fit. Sometimes your changes might overlap. Or let’s say you amended early voting to be from 7:30 to 8 and later on in the session, you amended it to be 8:30 to 9. Obviously, would have to pick one of those. And the law tells us to pick the later one in the case of a conflict. So we always look at the later act. In this case, the later act contained content that wasn’t included in the earlier act, so we codified the later act. That’s presumed to be the General Assembly’s intent.

Rep Dalby: Thank you, Mr. Miller. We have no one– are there any questions? Sorry. Seeing no questions. We have no one who has signed up to speak for or against House Bill 1291. Representative Gazaway, you’re recognized to close for your bill.

Rep Gazaway: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will say there are some additional sections. That first section was the long section that was repealed. There are at least two other sections. Section 2 through 7. What you’ll see is that same issue that we’ve seen in every other section nearly thus far, where we change usage of the term misdemeanor to violation because the sentence mentioned in that particular law does not allow anything other than a fine. And if the law doesn’t allow anything other than a fine it’s not a misdemeanor, it’s a violation. So you’ll see throughout those sections where misdemeanor was referenced, it’s changed to violation. That’s Sections 2 through 7. 

And then Sections 8 and 9 because once again very similar, you’re going to see misdemeanor change to violation. And then when misdemeanor is mentioned but it doesn’t mention a classification for a misdemeanor as Mr. Miller previously explained, by law that becomes an A misdemeanor. So you see that in a couple of sections also. That’s all the bill does. Happy to answer any questions if there are any related to those sections.

Rep Dalby: Seeing no questions, you’re recognized to close for your bill.

Rep Gazaway: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m closed for the bill. Make a motion do pass.

Rep Dalby: Members, we have a motion to do pass on the floor. Is there any discussion of the motion? All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Want to do another one?

Rep Gazaway: I do. Madam Chair, we’re going to skip over 1293, and 1294 will be next.

Rep Dalby: So members, if you’ll turn to House Bill 1294. You’re recognized to present your bill.

Rep Gazaway: Thank you, Madam Chair. House Bill 1294 concerns Title 26, which relates to taxation. It’s the taxation title of the code. What you’ll see in Section 1 and 2 is that we repeal obsolete language and contingent provisions of uncodified acts that did not become effective, and that is for cleanup purposes. Sections 3 and 4, you’ll see correct some grammatical mistakes and typographical errors. Although, I’m not sure I’m seeing that on my bill.

Anyway, Section 5 removes an internal reference to subdivision (b)4 in the section being amended. Subdivision (b)4 was repealed from this code in 2015 but the reference to it in this section was missed. So it strikes that.

Rep Dalby: Members, are there any questions? Seeing no questions. We have no one who has signed up to speak for or against House Bill 1294. You’re recognized to close for your bill.

Rep Gazaway: I’m closed for the bill and make a motion do pass.

Rep Dalby: Members, we have a motion to do pass on the floor. Is there any discussion of the motion? All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no. Motion carries. Congratulations, you have passed your bill.

Rep Gazaway: I have House Bill 1295.

Rep Dalby: All right, members. Let’s look at House Bill 1295. These will be technical corrections regarding Rehabilitation Services. Representative Gazaway, you’re recognized to present your bill.

Rep Gazaway: Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill corrects or makes corrections at the behest of Rehabilitation Services. My understanding is that there’s someone here from Rehabilitation Services. And if so, Madam Chair, I’d ask that they be allowed to join us at the table also.

Rep Dalby: You bet. Come on down and join the fun of technical corrections.

Rep Gazaway: Just getting started. Just having fun.

Rep Dalby: If you’ll state your name for the record. And then if you have something you would like to add, please feel free to begin.

Lyford (ARS): Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Charles Lyford, general counsel for Arkansas Rehabilitation Services and Services for the Blind. Thank you, Representative Gazaway, Mr. Miller. Just very briefly, these are technical corrections that Rehab Services and Services for the Blind brought to the Code Revision Commission last December, I believe. They all relate to some variation of Transformation and Efficiencies Act changes. There were some parent agencies of Rehabilitation Services and Services for the Blind referred to in the code that are no longer accurate. For example, the Department of Career Education as the parent agency for Rehabilitation Services, and the Department of Human Services for Services for the Blind, those are no longer correct.

Those changes– also references to the head of Rehabilitation Services as the director, rather than a federally recognized term commissioner. And then some changes literally to the word the. For whatever reason, the appears in front of Rehabilitation Services at various points in the code. Thank you. Happy to answer any questions if there are.

Rep Dalby: Members, are there any questions? Seeing no questions We have no one else who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Gazaway, you’re recognized to close for your bill.

Rep Gazaway: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m closed for the bill. Make a motion do pass.

Rep Dalby: Members, we have a motion to do pass on House Bill 1295 on the floor. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion. All in favor please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. According to my list, it looks like we have two more. Do you wish to run either one of those two? We have 1296– oh, we have one more.1296 is the last one.

Rep Gazaway: So thank you, Madam Chair. 1296 is just a shell bill at this point. We’re working on. Basically, I’ll give you a preview of what it does. We’re taking all the references in the code to handicapped and replacing those with disabled and other appropriate language that’s been requested. It turns out, I think, Mr. Miller can tell you, that there are a lot more references throughout the entire code that use the term handicapped than what we may have anticipated. And so this is taking longer at the Bureau to identify all of those references and replace them with more respectful language. But as soon as that’s done we’ll fill this bill in and we’ll present that bill. Mr. Miller may have something to add as a preview for the Committee.

Miller (BLR): Representative Gazaway summarized it well. The General Assembly passed a statute about 10 years ago that directed our agency to stop using certain terms that were deemed not the current way to refer to persons with disabilities and to use certain terms. So this bill, at the request of the Commission, we’ve gone in to seek the term handicapped and replace it with the respectful language that’s requested. Some of those are a little complicated but I was talking to Mr. Lyford earlier, they’re reviewing some language regarding visually handicapped individuals that are in the code, that’s actually a defined term. So we’re working towards finding some more respectful ways to update those sections and when we’ve accomplished that we’ll get that amendment in here and I’ll be back. You’ll be so excited to see me come back.

Rep Dalby: Will be waiting with bated breath, I can assure you for technical corrections. Thank you, Mr. Miller, for your time.

Miller (BLR): To be continued. Don’t be disappointed that it’s over. We’ll have a few more.

Rep Dalby: Thank you for your time, Mr. Miller, this morning. Members, that is all of the bills that we will be hearing today. Let me kind of give you what we have a preview for Thursday. We will take up Senate Bill 59. The sponsor of that Bill had asked to move that to Thursday. We do have some new bills that have come to us and I will be visiting with those sponsors as to whether or not they’re ready to take those up on Thursday. So just watch for your text messages from me.

You do have some kisses and candy at your desk. Please take that with you, and if you don’t want it, pass it out to somebody and make their day. And hope everyone has a great Valentine’s Day. And with that, we are adjourned.