SESSION SNAPSHOT: Arkansas lawmakers settle into longer days as session end draws near
Sen. Jonathan Dismang (left), R-Searcy, and Sen. Jimmy Hickey (right), R-Texarkana, voted against House Bill 1669 on the Arkansas Senate floor on Monday, March 31. 2025. (Tess Vrbin/Arkansas Advocate)
The countdown to the end of the 2025 legislative session is on. Following a weeklong recess, Arkansas lawmakers hit the ground running Monday as they returned to the state Capitol focused on wrapping up their work by April 16.
The 11th week of the session saw continued progress on Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders' legislative priorities, including immigration. A Senate committee on Monday approved a bill to impose harsher penalties on undocumented immigrants who commit violent crimes. The full Senate sent the bill to a House committee Wednesday.
On the other side of the Capitol, the House of Representatives approved legislation to overhaul the state employee pay plan, another Sanders priority. The bill was sent to the governor's desk for her signature.
Sanders this week unveiled two new bills aimed at expanding social media protections for children, which was a priority in the 2023 session. Wednesday's announcement came two days after a federal judge declared unconstitutional an Arkansas law requiring age verification for new social media accounts.
Beyond the governor's priorities, the subject matter of lawmakers' bills varied widely as they rushed to push their legislation through in the waning days of the session.
Proposals included potentially removing an environmental permit moratorium intended to protect the Buffalo River watershed, preventing pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) from holding permits to operate drug stores, clarifying state public meetings law, adjusting asset limits for Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) beneficiaries and prohibiting youth organizations that promote diversity initiatives from receiving certain state grants.
The third time was not the charm for a $750 million prison appropriation bill that was thrice rejected by the Arkansas Senate this week. Senate Bill 354 would support construction of a 3,000-bed Franklin County prison that supporters have said is needed to address overcrowding in county jails.
The project has caused controversy since local residents and elected officials said they were blindsided by the governor's announcement of the project in late October. Opponents, including state lawmakers, have fought against the proposal for months. Within the Senate this week, support for SB 354 fluctuated between 19 affirmative votes on Tuesday and Thursday, and 18 on Wednesday.
While that's a majority of the 35 senators, appropriation bills require 27 votes to advance out of the Senate. There is no limit to how many times lawmakers can vote on an appropriation bill, but they only have until the end of the session to send bills to the governor for final approval.
It's unclear if there's yet a clear path to securing the needed votes by the end of the session, but Corning Republican Sen. Blake Johnson asked his colleagues Wednesday to try and find consensus.
'I appreciate everybody's differences, but please let's try to work together for the safety of Arkansas citizens,' Johnson said.
Legislation that sponsors said aim to protect Arkansans' religious freedoms have been popping up on committee agendas in recent weeks.
The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday advanced House Bill 1615, which would 'prohibit the government from discriminating against certain individuals and organizations because of their beliefs regarding marriage or what it means to be female or male.' The House on Thursday approved the bill, which will next be considered by a Senate committee.
CONTACT US
House Bill 1669, which had similar language regarding the 'sincerely held religious beliefs' of parents seeking to foster or adopt children in Arkansas, failed in the Senate Monday. The bill's sponsors, Rep. Mary Bentley of Perryville and Sen. Alan Clark of Lonsdale, said it would protect parents who don't accept LGBTQ+ children's identities from not being allowed to foster or adopt.
Searcy Republican Jonathan Dismang, who noted Monday that not all 'sincerely held religious beliefs' are Christian, said HB 1669 would set a 'dangerous precedent' by shielding foster or adoptive parents from adverse government action if their faith-based actions harm children.
But the bill received enough support to pass the Senate on Thursday and was sent back to a House committee that will consider an amendment made in the Senate.
A bill to abolish the Arkansas State Library and its board advanced out of committee Tuesday before narrowly passing the Senate on Wednesday.
Jonesboro Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan has promised to dissolve the board for some time. With Senate Bill 536 he broadened his intention to eliminate the entire State Library after the board last month did not satisfy the conditions he gave them for its survival.
One of those requests was to detach from the American Library Association. Sullivan has criticized a section 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 who object to the public availability of certain content have claimed this proves ALA believes in forcing sexual activity and LGBTQ+ topics onto children.
While testifying against SB 536 in committee this week, Clare Graham, library director of the Mid-Arkansas Regional Library System, said the bill's 'one-size-fits-all approach' will stifle creativity and flexibility for local libraries.
'Local libraries are already governed by their local boards that know their communities best,' Graham said. 'This bill takes that away, replacing it with centralized oversight that doesn't understand the unique needs of each town and city.'
SB 536 will next be considered by a House committee.
Arkansas lawmakers filed about 150 new bills this week. Nearly half were filed Monday as legislators rushed to submit their proposals in what they hope is enough time to make it through the process to become law before their April 16 deadline. Those bills included:
Senate Bill 591 by Sen. Clint Penzo, R-Springdale, would prohibit a physician or other person from intentionally performing or attempting to perform an abortion with the knowledge that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely based on race. Arkansas law already bans all abortions except to save the life of the mother.
House Bill 1909 by Rep. Wayne Long, R-Bradford, would require state agencies to verify that adults who apply for federal, state or local public benefits are U.S. citizens who reside in Arkansas, except if prohibited by federal law.
House Bill 1980 by Rep. Jimmy Gazaway, R-Paragould, would create the Technology and Energy for Sustainable Logistics Act (TESLA), and add electric vehicle charging stations to the definition of critical infrastructure.
House Bill 1985 by Rep. Denise Garner, D-Fayetteville, would create the Arkansas Renter Refund Act, and provide a $500 income tax credit for certain renters.
Despite the deadline pressure, lawmakers are taking Friday off. When they return to the Capitol early Monday morning, they'll have roughly seven working days to finish their work. Meeting schedules, agendas and livestreams are available on the Arkansas Legislature's website.
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
Hamilton Spectator
28 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. States split on whether to aid or resist Trump Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools , churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey , alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision . Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Legislation supporting immigrants takes a variety of forms Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Many new measures reinforce existing policies Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.' ___ Associated Press writers Susan Haigh, Trân Nguyễn, Jesse Bedayn, John O'Connor and Brian Witte contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Politico
33 minutes ago
- Politico
Two House Republicans issue megabill threats as Senate ponders changes - Live Updates
Two House Republicans drew firm red lines Friday on changes to the House GOP megabill, threatening to vote 'no' if the Senate made any changes whatsoever to key provisions. Rep. Nick LaLota of New York warned GOP senators against lowering the House's $40,000 cap on the state-and-local-tax deduction, while Rep. Chip Roy of Texas vowed to oppose any attempt to delay or otherwise water down the phaseout of clean-energy tax credits provided for in the House-passed megabill. 'If the Senate waters it down by a dollar, I'm a no,' LaLota posted on X, arguing that the SALT cap as it stands is 'unfair' to his constituents. Roy was equally strict about GOP senators' hesitations on quickly phasing out clean-energy tax credits signed into law under former President Joe Biden — even calling out skeptical Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) by name in a floor speech Friday. Tillis has been critical of the phaseouts, saying the House bill is 'void of any understanding of just how these supply chains work.' 'You backslide one inch on those IRA subsidies and I'm voting against this bill,' Roy said. 'Because those god-forsaken subsidies are killing our energy, killing our grid, making us weaker, destroying our landscape, undermining our freedom. I'm not going to have it.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. States split on whether to aid or resist Trump Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Legislation supporting immigrants takes a variety of forms Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Many new measures reinforce existing policies Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.' ___ Associated Press writers Susan Haigh, Trân Nguyễn, Jesse Bedayn, John O'Connor and Brian Witte contributed to this report.
