New bill would dissolve Arkansas State Library and its board, set new library funding criteria
Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Jonesboro, in the Senate chamber on Tuesday, January 14, 2025. (Mary Hennigan/Arkansas Advocate)
Arkansas Sen. Dan Sullivan filed legislation Thursday to abolish not only the State Library Board, but the State Library as well.
Senate Bill 536 would carry out Sullivan's promise to dismantle the library board by transferring the agency's and board's powers, authorities, funds, contracts and employees to the Arkansas Department of Education. The Arkansas State Library is already under the department's umbrella but operates independently, and the board consists of seven members appointed by the governor who disburse funds to public libraries on a quarterly basis.
In February, Sullivan introduced Senate Bill 184, which would have abolished the State Library Board but not the State Library. The bill also would have dissolved the Arkansas Educational Television Commission, which oversees Arkansas PBS and is also under the education department but operates independently.
CONTACT US
Sullivan, a Republican from Jonesboro, said he would amend SB 184 to no longer include the Arkansas PBS commission after making an agreement with the chairman. As of Friday morning, the amendment had not been posted on the Legislature's website. Sullivan did not respond to a text message asking if SB 184 will not be considered now that SB 536 has been filed.
The 28-page SB 536 would delete all mentions of the State Library from existing state statute and make 'prohibit[ing] access to age-inappropriate materials to a person who is sixteen (16) years old or younger' a condition of public libraries receiving state funds from the education department.
'It looks like materials that are written by and for adults would fall under the scope of this, and to receive funding from the state, we would have to engage in unconstitutional censorship,' said Adam Webb, executive director of the Garland County Library and president of the Arkansas Library Association.
The legislation 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 bill includes a limited exception for sex education materials, which minors under 12 years old would not be able to access if their parents or guardians have stated in writing that they are not allowed to see such materials.
Page 18 of the 28-page Senate Bill 536 outlines how many hours public libraries would be required to be open per year in order to receive state funding from the Department of Education.
The requirements would be based on the population of the library system's service area:
1,480 hours per year for less than 10,000 people
1,730 hours per year for 10,000 to 19,000 people
1,980 hours per year for 19,001 to 49,000 people
2,470 hours per year for more than 49,000 people
Libraries in sparsely populated areas of Arkansas might not have the tax base and therefore enough funds to meet the required hours of operation, which includes paying utility costs, Arkansas Library Association President Adam Webb said. These libraries might lose funding under this section of SB 536, he said.
Libraries would also be required to 'provide a process for a member of the public to request the inclusion, removal, or a policy regarding access to age-inappropriate or sex education materials and resources' in order to receive state funds.
The location 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.
Webb, the Arkansas Library Association and 16 other plaintiffs sued the state over Act 372, claiming portions of it violated the First Amendment. A federal judge sided with the plaintiffs by temporarily and later permanently blocking the challenged sections; Attorney General Tim Griffin appealed the ruling in January.
Supporters of Act 372 said the policy was necessary to keep 'pornographic' content away from children. Opponents of the law said it would be used to reduce access to content that reflects the general public, including the LGBTQ+ community.
SB 536 would require libraries to submit annual reports to the Department of Education that include 'an assurance of compliance with the applicable laws of the state, rules promulgated by the department, and the policies of the public library.'
If the education department determines a library no longer qualifies for state funding, the library would be allowed to appeal the decision as long as it can prove 'the determination was made in error' or 'the determination was correct but remedial actions have been taken by the public library to bring the public library into compliance.'
SB 536 has an emergency clause that would make it effective July 1, the start of the 2026 fiscal year, instead of 90 days after the adjournment of the legislative session. The State Library Board's next regularly scheduled meeting is May 9.
Emergency clauses require two-thirds support from each legislative chamber, 24 Senate votes and 67 House votes. SB 184 has no emergency clause, and it passed the Senate with 23 votes on Feb. 17. Debate on the bill focused more on the potential outcomes of eliminating the Arkansas PBS commission than the State Library Board.
Federal judge declares sections of Arkansas' library obscenity law unconstitutional
Sullivan and former senator Jason Rapert of Conway have repeatedly criticized the State Library Board for rejecting Rapert's efforts to withhold state funds from libraries where 'sexually explicit' content is within children's reach. Rapert has been a member of the board since December 2023, and the board has also rejected his efforts to withhold funds from libraries suing the state over Act 372.
On March 13, the library board held a special meeting after Sullivan spoke with several board members and said he would withdraw SB 184 if the board developed 'policies that protect children' and disaffiliated from the American Library Association.
The board rejected by a 4-3 vote Rapert's proposal to create an ad hoc committee to recommend measures to 'protect children from sexually explicit materials' in public libraries. It also rejected his motion to remove all references to the ALA in board documents.
The board subsequently adopted a motion by member Lupe Peña de Martinez of Mabelvale for the board to 'non-binding policies to protect children' while honoring First Amendment freedoms and libraries' material selection policies. The motion passed by the same 4-3 vote that rejected Rapert's motion.
Peña de Martinez said she made the motion 'in good faith' and was 'disappointed' that Sullivan remained determined to abolish the library board.
Board Chairwoman Deborah Knox of Mountain Home said the day after the meeting that she 'could simply not support Mr. Rapert's motions yesterday, even though that probably does spell the end of our board.'
Rapert and Sullivan have both criticized the portion of the ALA's Library Bill of Rights that says access to libraries should not be restricted based on a person's age. Far-right conservatives nationwide who object to the public availability of certain content have claimed this is proof the ALA believes in forcing content about sexual activity and LGBTQ+ topics onto children.
On Tuesday, a subcommittee of the Legislature's Joint Budget Committee rejected Sullivan's proposal to ban the State Library from funding ALA-affiliated local libraries.
Restrictions on use of Arkansas State Library funds fail in budget subcommittee
Sullivan was successful with Act 242 of 2025, which removes the requirement that public library directors and the State Librarian hold a master's degree from an ALA-accredited program. The law will go into effect 90 days after the legislative session ends.
SB 536 accounts for Act 242 by specifying a public library director may hold 'a master's degree in Library Science from an institution accredited by an agency recognized by the United States Department of Education or Council for Higher Education Accreditation' or a bachelor's or another graduate degree from a similarly accredited institution. Library directors may also have work experience in libraries, which is included in Act 242.
SB 536 will be heard by the Senate Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs.
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


Miami Herald
11 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Is Elon Musk right to oppose the budget bill? What Americans said in a new poll
During his public falling out with President Donald Trump, Elon Musk slammed the president's proposed spending bill — dubbed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' — claiming it will balloon the deficit. It turns out, most Americans agree with his critique, new polling reveals. In the latest Economist/YouGov poll, half of respondents were asked to react to a statement from Musk on the GOP-backed spending bill, which passed in the House without a single Democratic vote. The legislation, Musk wrote on X on June 3, 'will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion and burden (American) citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt.' A majority of respondents, 56%, said they agreed with this statement, while just 17% said they disagreed. More than one-quarter, 27%, said they were unsure. The answers were largely linked to partisan affiliation, with Democrats largely siding with Musk for a change. Seventy-two percent of Democrats said they concurred with the billionaire's statement about the spending bill, as did 55% of independents. Among Republicans, a plurality, 44%, said they agreed. The poll — which sampled 1,533 U.S. adults June 6-9 — posed the same statement before the other half of respondents, but this time, it did not attribute it to Musk. Without reference to Musk, a slightly smaller share, 49%, said they agreed with the statement, while 23% said they disagreed. Smaller shares of Republicans, independents and Democrats agreed, though Democrats saw the largest decrease in support — from 72% to 60%. The poll has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points. More on the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' The spending bill, which provides funding for fiscal year 2025, passed in the House in a 215-214 vote in late May and is now under consideration in the Senate. It contains many pieces of Trump's agenda, including a road map to extend the 2017 tax cuts, as well as an increase in funding for the Pentagon and border security, according to previous reporting from McClatchy News. At the same time, it slashes funding for social programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Further — to Musk's point — it would increase the federal deficit by $3.8 trillion over the next 10 years, according to an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency. In addition to Musk, the bill has received criticism from several other prominent conservatives in Congress. One of the most vocal opponents has been Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who wrote on X that 'the spending proposed in this bill is unsustainable, we cannot continue spending at these levels if we want to truly tackle our debt.' Other Republican lawmakers have come out in defense of the bill, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, who has said the legislation will deliver 'historic tax relief, ensure our border stays secure, strengthen our military, and produce historic savings.' Meanwhile, Democrats have been united in their opposition. In a statement, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries labeled the bill 'the GOP Tax Scam' and said it would rip 'healthcare and food assistance away from millions of people in order to provide tax cuts to the wealthy, the well-off and the well-connected.'


Newsweek
14 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Four Senior Biden Officials to Testify in Probe on His Health: Report
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Four senior officials in former President Joe Biden's administration are set to testify in a House probe into Biden's health while in office. Newsweek reached out to Jill and Joe Biden's office via online form Tuesday for comment. Why It Matters Biden dropped out of the 2024 presidential race in late July following a disastrous debate performance against then-Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. Biden repeatedly stared at Trump and made halting statements where he appeared to lose his train of thought. Biden later said he had "a bad, bad night." Questions swirled about his mental acuity and possible decline as the White House and then Vice President Kamala Harris fielded questions about his cognitive ability in the final months of his presidency. Biden also faced harsh feedback as excerpts from CNN's Jake Tapper and Axios' Alex Thompson's book Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again were published. What To Know According to Politico, citing a House Oversight Committee aid, former deputy chief of staff Annie Tomasini, former deputy director of Oval Office operations Ashley Williams, former director of the Domestic Policy Council Neera Tanden, and Anthony Bernal, former senior adviser to the then first lady, are all set to testify in either June or July. Committee Chair James Comer requested their cooperation with the probe in May and also sent Biden's physician, Kevin O'Connor, a subpoena last week, Politico reports. In a post on X, formerly Twitter, Comer said that he requested O'Connor appear for a deposition on June 27, 2025. Trump has pushed White House lawyers to look into whether Biden's aides covered up his alleged health decline, Reuters reports. Biden also revealed last month that he had been diagnosed with an "aggressive" form of prostate cancer that had metastasized to the bone. Former President Joe Biden can be seen posing at the opening night of "Othello" on Broadway at The Barrymore Theatre on March 23, 2025, in New York City. (Photo by Bruce Glikas/WireImage) Former President Joe Biden can be seen posing at the opening night of "Othello" on Broadway at The Barrymore Theatre on March 23, 2025, in New York City. (Photo by Bruce Glikas/WireImage) What People Are Saying House Oversight Committee on X over the weekend: "Even Obama's doctor admits the truth. This is precisely why Chairman @RepJamesComer subpoenaed Dr. Kevin O'Connor, Biden's physician. This is a scandal of historical proportions, and we will investigate it thoroughly!" Trump on Truth Social in May after Biden's diagnosis: "Melania and I are saddened to hear about Joe Biden's recent medical diagnosis. We extend our warmest and best wishes to Jill and the family, and we wish Joe a fast and successful recovery." Biden in a statement last week: "Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false," Biden said. "This is nothing more than a distraction by Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans who are working to push disastrous legislation that would cut essential programs like Medicaid and raise costs on American families, all to pay for tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and big corporations."


New York Post
20 minutes ago
- New York Post
House panel demands records of 217 NGOs that nabbed billions of taxpayer dollars to ‘fuel' border crisis
WASHINGTON — A House Republican panel is demanding records from more than 200 non-governmental organizations that nabbed billions of dollars in taxpayers' money to settle migrants in the US under ex-President Joe Biden. One of the targeted groups is among those embroiled in the anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green (R-Tenn.) and Subcommittee Chairman Josh Breechen (R-Okla.) fired off letters to the 217 organizations Tuesday, accusing each of having 'helped fuel the worst border crisis in our nation's history.' Advertisement 5 House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green (R-Tenn.) fired off letters to 217 non-governmental organizations Tuesday accusing them of having 'helped fuel the worst border crisis in our nation's history.' Bloomberg via Getty Images The powerful Republican chairman and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee leader said the groups created a 'pull factor' in providing taxpayer-funded transportation, translation, housing and other services to migrants, most of whom were released into the country after crossing the border illegally. 'The Committee remains deeply concerned that NGOs that receive U.S. taxpayer dollars benefitted from the border crisis created by the Biden Administration, and stand ready to do so under future Democrat administrations,' Green and Breechen wrote, citing a 'near-total lack of accountability' for how the money was spent. Advertisement They also noted that they are investigating how much the funding incentivized 'human trafficking and smuggling' operations as well as whether the 'NGOs are now actively advising illegal aliens on how to avoid and impede law enforcement officials.' 5 The ICE crackdown in Los Angeles rounded up convicted sexual abusers, drug dealers and gang members to put into removal proceedings, federal officials said. REUTERS One of the groups, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), took nearly $1 million in DHS grants to 'offer both citizenship instruction and naturalization application services to lawful permanent residents' starting in 2021. Its last tranche of funding was yanked by the Trump administration in March. CHIRLA organized a rally Thursday to denounce the ICE arrests of illegal immigrants in Los Angeles before protests devolved into full-blown riots that destroyed property and led to the assaults of federal law enforcement. Advertisement 'We have not participated, coordinated, or been part of the protests being registered in Los Angeles other than the press conference and rally,' a CHIRLA rep previously told The Post in a statement. The group did not respond to a Post request for comment Tuesday. The ICE crackdown in the city rounded up convicted sexual abusers, drug dealers and gang members to put into removal proceedings, DHS officials said. 5 'The committee remains deeply concerned that NGOs that receive U.S. taxpayer dollars benefitted from the border crisis created by the Biden Administration,' Green wrote. REUTERS Advertisement Southwest Key Programs, another group being probed by Green's panel, was the largest housing nonprofit for unaccompanied migrant kids who entered the US and took around $3 billion in taxpayer funding from Biden's Health and Human Services — before Trump officials pulled the plug in March. Between 2021 and 2023, Southwest Key's top five executives saw their salaries inflated on average from $420,000 to $720,000 — even as the organization outspent its revenue by millions of dollars. The Justice Department sued Southwest Key Programs in July 2024, alleging that some supervisors and employees had committed 'severe' and 'pervasive' rape and sex abuse against kids between 2015 and 2023. The civil suit was dropped by the DOJ in March 2025, the same month that Trump's HHS cut off federal funding for the organization. 5 Green led the GOP charge in the House to impeach former Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. AP Southwest Key 'strongly denied the claims relating to child sexual abuse in our shelters,' a rep previously said. The group did not respond to a Post request for comment Tuesday. Of the more than 550,000 migrant kids who entered the country between February 2021 and January 2025, at least 291,000 were released from federal custody to domestic sponsors — thousands of whom have since been flagged as sex abusers or gang members — and 32,000 went missing entirely, according to an August 2024 report from DHS's inspector general. On average, 2.4 million immigrants entered the US every year between 2021 and 2024, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Roughly 60% crossed the border illegally, a Goldman Sachs analysis found. Advertisement DHS subagencies such as ICE and the Federal Emergency Management Agency were tapped to 'coordinate with nonprofit organizations that provide services such as food, shelter, and transportation' for those non-citizens who were released, according to a Government Accountability Office report in April 2023. 5 President Trump pulled taxpayer funding for many immigration NGOs after returning to the White House. AP A March 2023 DHS Office of Inspector General audit revealed that 'more than half' of FEMA funding that went to NGOs couldn't be accounted for, Green notes in his letter. The GOP leader has previously called out $81 million in possibly 'illegal' funds that helped cover migrant stays in luxury New York City hotels. Advertisement Conservative immigration groups have previously estimated that the influx of migrants cost New York City residents as much as $10 billion and bilked US taxpayers up to $150 billion in 2023, the year when illegal border crossings reached their highest level in recorded history. Green led the GOP charge in the House to impeach former Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for allegedly failing to comply with federal immigration law and lying to Congress that the border was 'secure.' The Republican missive requests the total dollar amount of federal grants, contracts or payments received by the NGOs between Jan. 19, 2021, and Jan. 20, 2025. It also demands to know whether any organization sued the feds and what services it provided to migrants. Influential left-leaning groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International and the Southern Poverty Law Center have all been asked to respond to the queries.