Daylight saving time: Where Arkansas efforts to ‘lock the clocks' stands
However, some Arkansas lawmakers are attempting to 'lock the clocks' and end the twice-a-year time change. Arkansas is one of at least 31 states with bills introduced in their current legislation regarding time change, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
One bill currently in the Arkansas legislature, House Bill 1069, would keep standard time year-round and eliminate daylight saving time.
The bill would allow state employees the option to adjust their work schedule one hour earlier during the portion of the year when other states observe daylight saving time.
HB1069 is sponsored by Rep. Stephen Meeks (R-Greenbrier), and if passed, Arkansas would join Arizona and Hawaii as the only states to not observe daylight saving time.
As of March 6, the bill remains in the House with no updates since Feb. 13.
This bill is not the only attempt by Arkansas lawmakers to end the time change in the Natural State.
Daylight saving time 2025: These states are trying to 'lock the clocks'
State Rep. Sarah Capp (R-Ozark) filed House Bill 1368 in February 2019, which would adopt year-round standard time and eliminate daylight saving time in Arkansas. However, Capp withdrew the bill 23 days after filing it.
Rep. Johnny Rye (R-Trumann) filed House Bill 1017 in 2020, the exact opposite of Capp's bill. Daylight saving time would be adopted year-round and standard time would go away. The bill passed the House in February 2021 by a 71-24 vote but died in a Senate committee meeting in October of that year.
Rye tried again in 2022 with House Bill 1039, which would have also adopted daylight saving time. One month later, Rye withdrew the bill.
Meeks made an attempt in 2023 with House Bill 1568. The bill would have eliminated daylight saving time and observed standard time year-round. The bill was withdrawn three weeks later.
Another attempt made in 2023 was done by Rep. R. Scott Richardson (R-Bentonville) and co-sponsored by Rep. Wayne Long (R-Bradford) with House Bill 1104. It was also withdrawn about two weeks after it was filed.
Whichever Arkansans prefer, the clocks will be turned back an hour on Sunday.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
Texas Democrat says she was threatened with arrest after escort lost her on trail
A Texas state House Democrat said she was threatened with arrest after an officer assigned to follow her lost track of her on a walking trail. Texas state Rep. Sheryl Cole (D) said in a post on X on Tuesday that an escort from the Texas Department of Public Safety, whom she said 'was forced upon me to track my every movement,' lost track of her on the trail, became angry and 'made a scene' in front of her constituents. 'While a little shaken up from the incident, I remain undeterred by this intimidation tactic by House Republicans to have a 24/7 state police presence to intimidate me and my colleagues,' Cole said. Cole's account of the incident comes as a fellow Democratic state representative, Nicole Collier, has chosen to stay on the floor of the state House chamber for more than 24 hours rather than having a law enforcement officer shadow her. After the state House Democrats returned to the Lone Star State on Monday, ending their two-week out-of-state stint to prevent Republicans from passing a new map, state Speaker Dustin Burrows (R) declared that those who came back would have an officer with them to ensure they didn't leave the state again. Collier chose to stay in the state House overnight instead and told MSNBC's Ali Vitali in an interview that she would stay 'as long as it takes.' 'At the moment that the directive was issued, I felt like it was wrong. It's just wrong to require grown people to get a permission slip to roam about freely. So I resisted,' she said. Cole said she stands in solidarity with Collier, who has 'refused to go along with this charade.' 'We will not be intimidated by this, and history will remember this,' she said. The Texas state legislature is expected to approve a new map as soon as this week, with enough Democrats back in the state for the body to conduct business.
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
There is a solution to America's gerrymandering problem
The redistricting war going on across the country began with the president asking — or, as some see it, directing — Texas to redraw its congressional map to give the GOP as many as five additional House seats in the 2026 midterm elections. Given that the party that holds the White House typically loses House seats in the midterms, and with a thin GOP majority after the 2024 election, the president is looking for any advantage to hold the House. This action has elicited outrage among Democrats, pushing the most populous state, California, to redraw its map. Several other states, including Ohio, Florida and Indiana, are also investigating the possibility of redrawing their maps, in an all-out gerrymander fest to squeeze every last seat out of Congress. Yet the maps drawn after the 2020 census were already well gerrymandered. Of the 435 total seats, just 36 were deemed competitive in 2022, defined as winners determined by a margin of victory below 5 percent. In 2024, the number of competitive seats jumped to 43. Though the problem appears to be the gerrymandering of congressional maps, the real problem is how representation is determined. The popular vote in each congressional district determines its winner, but the way the population of each state is dissected into discrete districts partitions the popular vote across each state. Since each district seat is represented by a winner-take-all vote, the design of each state's congressional map effectively determines how its voters are represented in Congress. Take, for example, Massachusetts. Its nine congressional seats are all represented by Democrats. In the 2024 election, five of the seats were uncontested. Among the four contested races, the closest margin of victory was 13 percent. Yet in the presidential race, 36 percent of the votes cast were for Donald Trump, the same percentage that voted for the Republican candidates in the four contested seats. This begs the question: Should these 36 percent of voters have some GOP representation? A similar situation occurred in Oklahoma, with all five of its congressional seats held by Republications, even though 32 percent of the votes cast were for Kamala Harris. Given that computational redistricting can draw House maps that are either maximally gerrymandered, provide sensible voter representation, or anything in between, there is no need for maps to be drawn by redistricting commissions, whether they are independent or made up of partisan legislators. The necessary mapping criteria specified by state laws can now be incorporated into mapping algorithms. Examples of such criteria include compactness of districts or preserving communities of interest. The only role for redistricting commissions is to specify the desired bias of the map. Gerrymandered maps demonstrate that we no longer have representation of the people but of the parties, making Congress a de facto House of Mis-Representatives. At the core, the problem is how members of the House are elected, and indirectly, the Electoral College. As long as voter preferences are packed into discrete ongressional district seats, the current gerrymandering wars will continue to discount and ignore voters. In fact, Trump told a group in 2024 during his campaign that they would not need to vote again if he were elected. Despite not knowing precisely what he had in mind, he may indeed be correct, given that representation of voters is mostly predetermined. Is there a solution? Continue to hold elections with congressional districts. However, the number of seats won by each party should be allocated by each party's state popular vote. Then the top vote getters, either in absolute number or in percentage of votes won, across all the districts from each party are assigned seats, up to the number of seats won by the party. This means that all the representatives in each state would be at-large, representing all the people of the state. A formula for rounding would be needed to determine which party gets the partial seat fraction, much like how congressional apportionment is used after each census to determine the number of House seats in each state. With such a system, in Massachusetts, Republicans would have won two congressional seats and Democrats would have won seven. In Oklahoma, Republicans would have won four seats and Democrats would have won one. Such a process would neutralize the impact of gerrymandering, since each state's haul of seats would be determined by the state popular vote, giving every eligible voter the added incentive to cast their vote. The net effect of such a system would likely not yield a difference in the overall number of House seats held by each party. It would, however, redistribute party representation across all 50 states. Most importantly, it would neutralize the benefits of gerrymandering to the parties, since each state's popular vote would determine representation. —Such a new system would require a change in the Constitution something that is highly unlikely in this vitriolic political environment. Yet without such a change, gerrymandering will continue to erode the influence of voters and elevate the power of parties. Texas's actions to redraw their congressional map midterm has unleashed a war on democracy. More accurately, it has taken gerrymander politics to unprecedented levels. The final outcome will be less voter representation and more partisan party politics. What the Texas 'seat steal' effort demonstrates is that, in the eyes of parties, voters are no longer relevant. Every voter in the 2026 midterm elections who is disgusted with such disrespect should write in an unnamed candidate, 'Other' — if such a name won a seat, it will send a strong message that gerrymandering is no longer acceptable, that the current toxic mapping system is shattered beyond repair, and a new model for earning representation is needed. Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a computer science professor in the Grainger College of Engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. As a data scientist, he uses his expertise in risk-based analytics to address problems in public policy. He is the founder of the .
Bloomberg
9 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Navarro Reminds Modi of America's Exorbitant Privilege
Without saying anything really new, Peter Navarro has revealed something important. If India wants to keep earning dollars by selling goods and services to America, it has to recycle them as per Washington's diktats. The White House trade adviser's op-ed in the Financial Times is aimed at critics who have been shocked by the summary disdain with which President Donald Trump has alienated an ally that past administrations have spent a quarter-century cultivating. Navarro's main message: 'If India wants to be treated as a strategic partner of the US, it needs to start acting like one.'
