Arkansas Senate narrowly OKs dissolution of State Library; bill heads to House
The Arkansas Senate narrowly endorsed the elimination of the Arkansas State Library on Wednesday, but the bill did not receive enough support to go into effect July 1 if it becomes law.
Senate Bill 536 would transfer the authorities, funds, contracts and employees of the agency and its board to the Arkansas Department of Education. The State Library is already under the department's umbrella but operates independently, and its board disburses state funds to public libraries on a quarterly basis.
Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Jonesboro, is the bill's sponsor and has repeatedly promised to dissolve the State Library Board. Sullivan broadened his intention to dissolve the entire State Library last month after he said the board did not satisfy the conditions he gave them for its survival.
Most laws go into effect 90 days after the end of a legislative session, around Aug. 1, but SB 536 had an emergency clause that would have allowed it to go into effect July 1. This provision was one of many aspects of the bill that library directors opposed Tuesday before it passed the Senate Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs.
Misty Hawkins, regional director of the Arkansas River Valley Regional Library System, said it would be impossible to rework the interlocal agreements in the four counties she serves within three months to account for the language of SB 536. Several library systems in Arkansas encompass multiple counties.
Emergency clauses need the support of two-thirds of lawmakers, which is 24 votes in the Senate. SB 536 instead received 18 votes, the minimum for a simple majority.
Republican Sens. Breanne Davis of Russellville and Bryan King of Green Forest joined five of the six Senate Democrats in voting against the bill. Sen. Stephanie Flowers, D-Pine Bluff, and Sen. Kim Hammer, R-Benton, were absent. Three Republicans voted present and five did not vote.
The Senate subsequently approved a clincher motion from Sullivan with a voice vote. A clincher prevents a bill from receiving another vote in the applicable chamber, so the House will consider SB 536 without its emergency clause.
Bill to abolish Arkansas State Library and its board advances despite librarians' opposition
Hawkins and three other library directors said Tuesday that SB 536 might cost them the state funding they need to operate their libraries. The bill's criteria for receiving state funds include 'prohibit[ing] access to age-inappropriate materials to a person who is sixteen (16) years old or younger.'
One-room libraries do not have segregated spaces to ensure that children under 16 cannot access specific material, and SB 536 says the Department of Education 'may' disburse funds to libraries that meet the proposed criteria but does not mandate it, the library directors said. Sen. Clarke Tucker, D-Little Rock, repeated these concerns on the Senate floor Wednesday.
SB 536 defines 'age-inappropriate material' as 'books, media, or any other material accessible at a public library containing images or explicit and detailed descriptions' of sexual acts, sexual contact and human genitalia.
The State Library Board approved a motion at a special meeting March 13 to create 'non-binding policies to protect children' while honoring First Amendment freedoms and libraries' material selection policies. Sullivan had asked the board to pass a motion to protect children in libraries and to detach from the American Library Association; the board rejected two separate motions to these ends.
Sen. Terry Rice, R-Waldron, said he also asked State Library Board members to ensure that libraries keep inappropriate content away from children.
'It's time for drastic things to happen if this incompetent bunch is going to continue to put our children at risk,' Rice said. 'There's going to be fallout, but we'll fix the fallout.'
Tucker said the Legislature has the authority to reconstitute the State Library Board instead of dissolving it and its parent agency if lawmakers are dissatisfied with its actions or inactions.
Library directors and State Library Board members have repeatedly said, including at Tuesday's committee meeting, that libraries already organize books on shelves in an age-appropriate manner in accordance with existing standards.
The location and availability of books based on 'appropriateness' for minors was the thrust of Act 372 of 2023, also sponsored by Sullivan. The law would have given local elected officials the final say over whether to relocate challenged library materials some consider 'obscene' and made librarians legally liable for disseminating such materials.
A federal judge temporarily and later permanently blocked portions of Act 372; Attorney General Tim Griffin appealed the ruling in January.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
25 minutes ago
- New York Post
Who's REALLY ‘destroying democracy' — after failing to win voters legitimately?
'Destroying democracy' — the latest theme of the left — can be defined in many ways. How about attempting to destroy constitutional, ancient and hallowed institutions simply to suit short-term political gains? So, who in 2020, and now once again, has boasted about packing the 156-year-old, nine-justice Supreme Court? Who talks frequently about destroying the 187-year-old Senate filibuster — though only when they hold a Senate majority? Who wants to bring in an insolvent left-wing Puerto Rico and redefine the 235-year-old District of Columbia — by altering the Constitution — as two new states solely to obtain four additional liberal senators? Who is trying to destroy the constitutionally mandated 235-year Electoral College by circumventing it with the surrogate 'The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?' Does destroying democracy also entail weaponizing federal bureaucracies, turning them into rogue partisan arms of a president? So who ordered the CIA to concoct bogus charges of 'collusion' to sabotage Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, the 2016-2017 transition, and the first 22 months of Trump's first term? Who prompted a cabal of '51 former intelligence officials' to lie to the American people on the eve of the last debate of the 2020 election that the FBI-authenticated Hunter Biden laptop was instead the work of a 'Russian intelligence operation?' Who ordered the FBI to connive and partner with social-media conglomerates to censor accurate news deemed unhelpful to the 2020 Biden campaign? Who pulled off the greatest presidential coup in history by using surrogates in the shadows to run the cognitively debilitated Biden presidency, then by fiat canceled his reelection effort and finally anointed as his replacement the new nominee Kamala Harris, who had never won a single primary delegate? Who ordered FBI SWAT teams to invade the home of a former president because of a classification dispute over 102 files out of some 13,000 stored there? Who tried to remove an ex-president and leader of his party from at least 25 state ballots to deprive millions of Americans of the opportunity to vote for or against him? Who coordinated four local, state and federal prosecutors to destroy a former and future president by charging him with fantasy crimes that were never before, and will never again be, lodged against anyone else? Who appointed a federal prosecutor to go after the ex-president, who arranged for a high-ranking Justice Department official to step down to join a New York prosecutor's efforts to destroy an ex-president, and who met in the White House with a Georgia county prosecutor seeking to destroy an ex-president — all on the same day — a mere 72 hours after Trump announced his 2024 reelection bid? Who but the current Democrats ever impeached a president twice? Has any party ever tried an ex-president in the Senate when he was out of office and a mere private citizen? When have there ever been two near-miss assassination attempts on a major party presidential candidate during a single presidential campaign? Who destroyed the southern border and broke federal law to allow in, without criminal or health background audits, some 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens? Who created 600 'sanctuary jurisdictions' for the sole purpose of nullifying federal immigration law, in the eerie spirit of the renegade old Confederacy? Who allowed tens of thousands of rioters, arsonists and violent protesters over four months in 2020 to destroy over $2 billion in property, kill some 35 people, injure 1,500 police officers and torch a federal courthouse, a police precinct and a historic church — all with de facto legal impunity? How do the purported destroyers of democracy find themselves winning 60% to 70% approval on most of the key issues of our times, while the supposed saviors of democracy are on the losing side of popular opinion? How does a president 'destroy democracy' by his party winning the White House by both the popular and Electoral College vote, winning majorities in both the Senate and House by popular votes and enjoying a 6-3 edge in the Supreme Court through judges appointed by popularly elected presidents? So what is behind these absurd charges? Three catalysts: One, the new anguished elitist Democratic Party alienated the middle classes through its Jacobin agenda and therefore lost the Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court, and now has no federal political power. Two, the Democratic Party is polling at record lows and yet remains hellbent on alienating the traditional sources of its power — minorities, youth and Independents. Three, Democrats cannot find any issues that the people support, nor any leaders to convince the people to embrace them. So it is no surprise that the panicked Democrats bark at the shadows — given that they know their revolutionary, neo-socialist agenda is destroying them. And yet, like all addicts, they choose destruction over abandoning their self-destructive fixations. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
Politico
26 minutes ago
- Politico
States are trying to keep disasters apolitical in the new Trump era
'This decision was petty. This decision was partisan, and this decision was punishing.' Moore said. And after the Los Angeles wildfires in January, California Gov. Gavin Newsom was quick to propose that politics could play a role in Trump's approval or denial of funding for his state. 'He's done it in the past, not just here in California,' Newsom said on Pod Save America. 'The rhetoric is very familiar, it's increasingly acute, and obviously we all have reason to be concerned about it.' A review by Seattle-based public radio station KUOW in June found that FEMA denied six of the 10 major disaster requests that Democratic states filed between February and June, while denying just one of 15 requests from Republican states. Asked about the analysis, a White House official said that 'Democrat state requests were denied in the first six months because they were not disasters. In the past, states have abused the process. President Trump is right-sizing FEMA and ensuring it is serving its intended purpose to help the American people.' Democratic Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs became the rare governor to criticize the federal government's disaster management in mid-July when she called for an investigation following a destructive fire on federal land that burned down a beloved Grand Canyon lodge. Hobbs said that she does not intend her call for an investigation to be viewed as a criticism of the Trump administration. 'I don't, and I think it's really important,' Hobbs said in an interview, adding that good working relationships between officials managing tribal, federal and state land are key. 'This is not intended to undermine that collaboration, but … we need to look at what led to that decision being made.' Steve Ellis, former deputy director of the Bureau of Land Management who worked for the agency and the U.S. Forest Service under multiple administrations, said that any federal agency involved in managing a fire of the magnitude and destructiveness as the one in the Grand Canyon should be launching an investigation without a governor's need to call for it.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
More than 700 National Guard troops from 3 GOP-led states will be deployed to DC to bolster Trump crackdown
Three Republican-led states will be deploying hundreds of National Guard members to Washington, DC, to bolster President Trump's crackdown on crime and homelessness in the nation's capital. West Virginia will be sending up to 400 troops, South Carolina has pledged 200 and Ohio will dispatch 150 in the coming days, the three states announced on Saturday. 'We stand ready to support our partners in the National Capital Region and contribute to the collective effort of making our nation's capital a clean and safe environment,' Maj. Gen. Jim Seward of the West Virginia National Guard said. The Mountain State's governor, Patrick Morrisey, added: 'West Virginia is proud to stand with President Trump in his effort to restore pride and beauty to our nation's capital,' adding that the mission 'reflects our shared commitment to a strong and secure America.' Three Republican-run states are sending an additional 750 National Guard personnel to Washington DC. AP South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster announced the deployment of 200 National Guard personnel from the Palmetto State to DC, but said the troops could be recalled in the event of a major national disaster such as a hurricane. He said the deployment was part of Trump's efforts to restore law and order in Washington, and in response to a request from the National Guard Bureau at the Pentagon. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, meanwhile, said he was sending 150 military police officers to support the DC National Guard. It follows protests in the capital on Saturday. Getty Images 'These Ohio National Guard members will carry out presence patrols and serve as added security,' he said in a statement. None of the members — who are expected to arrive in DC within the coming days — are currently serving as law enforcement officers within the Buckeye State, DeWine said. The deployments of 750 troops from the three states would bring the total number of National Guard personnel within the capital to over 1,450. So far, National Guard members have played a limited role in the federal intervention. Troops have been spotted patrolling landmarks such as the National Mall and Union Station, as well as assisting law enforcement with tasks such as crowd control. With Post wires
