Restrictions on use of Arkansas State Library funds fail in budget subcommittee
A subcommittee of Arkansas' Joint Budget Committee on Tuesday rejected a proposed ban on the Arkansas State Library funding local public libraries affiliated with the American Library Association.
The State Library is responsible for disbursing funds to libraries statewide. Under the proposed amendment to House Bill 1127, the State Library would not have been allowed to 'budget, allocate, or expend any funding to any library' that is affiliated with the ALA, including as a member; refers to the ALA in any of its official documents; or 'makes payments or grants of any kind' to the national nonprofit during fiscal year 2026.
Libraries that use state funds for ALA-related activities would have been required to return the funds to the State Library.
Amendments to appropriations bills need eight affirmative votes to pass Joint Budget's Special Language subcommittee. Chairman Rep. Lee Johnson, R-Greenwood, said there were not enough votes for the HB 1127 amendment.
Several subcommittee members voted against the proposal, and members of both political parties expressed their concerns to Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Jonesboro, who added the amendment to the bill last week.
The ALA is a national nonprofit trade association that advocates for public libraries and helps them secure grant funding. It also accredits master's of library science degree programs.
Sullivan repeated his criticism of the portion of the ALA's Library Bill of Rights that 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 that the ALA believes in forcing content about sexual activity and LGBTQ+ topics onto children.
ALA's climate change resources and stated commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion are proof the organization has 'an agenda,' Sullivan said. He also said the State Library Board didn't seem to understand that the Legislature has power over its ability to distribute funds.
Arkansas senator continues mission to eliminate State Library Board, cites unfulfilled bargain
'If we're going to distribute funds to libraries that have a policy that we will not withhold any information… from anyone regardless of their age, and if our State Library Board and our State Library, county libraries and regional libraries can't develop a policy that states that, we've got a big problem,' he said.
Sullivan has vowed to eliminate the State Library Board, which refused both last month and last week to disavow the ALA. The board approved a motion to create 'non-binding policies to protect children' in libraries while honoring First Amendment freedoms and libraries' material selection policies, but Sullivan said Friday that this was not enough to ensure the board's survival.
He introduced Senate Bill 184 in February to eliminate both the State Library Board and the Arkansas Education Television Commission, which oversees Arkansas PBS, and transfer their powers to the state Department of Education. The bill passed the Senate Feb. 17 and has yet to be heard by a House committee.
Negotiations with the PBS commission chairman led Sullivan to decide not to dissolve it, and he said he has drafted an amendment to SB 184 removing the Arkansas Education Television Commission. As of Tuesday afternoon, the amendment had not been posted on the Legislature's bill monitoring website.
Sullivan told the JBC subcommittee that he planned to file a new bill that would fulfill the purpose of the HB 1127 amendment if it did not pass. The bill had not been filed as of Tuesday afternoon.
Sen. Jimmy Hickey, R-Texarkana, said he found it 'counterintuitive' that the proposed amendment banned funding libraries with any and all references to the ALA in measures passed by their governing boards.
'Let's just say that one of these boards, if this were to pass, were to go in and say, 'We cannot make a reference to the American Library Association'… then they've made a reference to the American Library Association in an official document,' Hickey said.
Sullivan said he understood Hickey's point but would 'leave it at that.' He also said he had not heard from any librarians saying the amendment would put their funding at risk.
However, librarians in Sen. Jonathan Dismang's district have contacted him with concerns that the fine points of the language of the appropriation amendment could jeopardize their funding, he told Sullivan.
'I don't think any member could read this language and understand what the outcome is all at once,' the Searcy Republican said. 'I may be wrong, but… I'm saying that gives me concern. You may have libraries, doing everything the way that you think they should be doing it, that could be tripped up by the way that this is written and lose their state funding.'
Dismang said he agreed with Sullivan that 'sexually explicit materials' should not be within minors' reach, but Sullivan said he was skeptical of that statement based on Dismang's concerns.
'If libraries have in their policy that we adhere to the American Library Association policy, [that] policy disagrees with what we just said,' Sullivan said.
Dismang also said he was concerned about the amendment's exception for libraries to pay for staff professional development from the ALA if the programming 'does not conflict with state law.'
'Obviously there are some good things [about the ALA] or we wouldn't have carved out an exception,' Dismang said.
Act 242 of 2025 removes the state's requirement for public library directors in Arkansas to hold a master's degree 'from an accredited American Library Association program,' and allows someone with 'work experience in the field of library operations' but without a master's degree to run a library with approval from its local governing board.
Sullivan sponsored Act 242, which became law March 4, and said it will give communities 'local control' over who runs their libraries.
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
USA Today
20 hours ago
- USA Today
What happens if gay marriage is overturned? The question alone is horrifying.
The more we talk about gay marriage as if it's something that could be questioned legally, the more the public will begin to question whether Obergefell was a mistake. A recent appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court seeks to overturn the landmark 2015 case Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, giving the entire LGBTQ+ community reason to be fearful – even if the case is unlikely to be heard by the court. Kim Davis, a former county clerk from Kentucky, filed a petition in late July asking the court to appeal a decision that she must pay $360,000 in damages and legal fees for refusing to issue a gay couple a marriage license after the Obergefell decision came down. According to the appeal, this infringed upon Davis' First Amendment right to freedom of religion. There are a variety of reasons gay marriage is likely safe despite this appeal, including changing opinions on the court, public support for same-sex marriage and the 2022 Respect For Marriage Act. It doesn't change the fact that the very notion of this right being overturned is a reminder to the LGBTQ+ community that our rights are dependent upon the whims of politicians and judges, and could easily disappear. I don't trust this Supreme Court to leave same-sex marriage alone In 2015, Davis wound up in jail for six days for contempt of court when she refused to grant a marriage license to gay couples in Rowan County, Kentucky. One couple who were refused a license, David Moore and David Ermold, sued Davis for violating their constitutional right to marry. Moore and Ermold were awarded $50,000 each in damages, plus $260,000 for legal fees. Davis attempted to appeal the ruling with the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals but was denied this March. She then sent her appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in July, which is how we ended up here. Mat Staver, Davis' lawyer, told Fox News he believes this case will be heard by the nation's highest court based on the fact that three of the dissenting justices from Obergefell – Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito – are still on the court. Other legal scholars aren't so sure that five justices are willing to overrule the case. Robbie Kaplan, a lawyer who argued in defense of LGBTQ+ rights in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 in a ruling that eventually paved the way for Obergefell, told Axios it would cause a lot more legal problems than it's worth. "It's not just a recipe for administrative chaos," Kaplan said. "It also would result in an almost indescribable amount of (needless) suffering and heartache." Opinion: I was the named 'opposition' in Obergefell v. Hodges. I've never been happier to lose. I'm skeptical that the very court that sent abortion rights back to the states cares about the legal complications that a ruling like this could cause. In the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, Thomas even issued a concurrent opinion saying he believed Obergefell should be reconsidered. The Supreme Court has also asked Moore and Ermold to respond to Davis' petition, which hints at the possibility that this case could be considered by the court. Kim Davis' petition reminds us our rights are revocable Davis' appeal isn't the only attack on gay marriage since President Donald Trump returned to the White House and Republicans took the majority in Congress. Resolutions were introduced in five states that would have formally asked the Supreme Court to review Obergefell. In two of those states, Idaho and North Dakota, the resolutions passed the House of Representatives before failing in the Senate. While these measures were unsuccessful, it's a sign of growing discontent among Republican politicians with the legality of same-sex marriage. In June, the Southern Baptist Convention voted for a resolution to ask the court to reconsider gay marriage. A denomination may have no legal authority in our secular government, but the resolution signals that we should be worried. Opinion: I told you GOP would come for marriage. Southern Baptists just proved my point. The fact that these resolutions were even introduced is scary for the LGBTQ+ community. It's a sign that there are still people out there who think we shouldn't be able to marry the people we love, that our rights as couples should differ from the rights of straight couples merely based on a few verses in the Bible. It's a reminder that the rights we fought for years to gain can be reversed, that all it takes is a conservative shift in government to send us back to a time before legal gay marriage. What would happen if gay marriage were overturned? Thankfully, Democrats in 2022 passed the Respect For Marriage Act, which says that same-sex and interracial marriages must be recognized by the federal government and every state, even if Obergefell were to fall. However, the loss of the 2015 Supreme Court ruling would affect future generations of LGBTQ+ people looking to get married. If the Obergefell ruling were overturned tomorrow, same-sex marriage would become illegal in 32 states that have constitutional and/or legislative bans on marriage equality. This would affect more than half of the LGBTQ+ people in the United States. Per a May 2025 Gallup poll, 68% of Americans say same-sex marriages should be legally recognized. While this is a safe majority of people, support is down from a high of 71% in 2023 – signaling a potential shift in the acceptability of gay marriage nationwide. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. I'm also not one to believe that public support will sway the justices from hearing a case. After all, abortion rights were also widely popular, but that didn't stop the court from sending legality back to the states. Gay marriage is not going to disappear tomorrow. This does mean, however, that gay people are once again being reminded that their rights are dependent on a handful of people and the opinions of politicians and can easily be stripped away. We've already witnessed how the trans community has lost rights in a matter of months. The more we talk about gay marriage as if it's something that could be questioned legally, the more the public will begin to question whether Obergefell was a mistake. Even if it seems unlikely that the Supreme Court will take up this review, the fact that an appeal was even introduced is bringing anxiety to the LGBTQ+ community – and it should be taken seriously. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Judge blocks FTC probe into progressive media watchdog
A federal judge temporarily blocked the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) investigation into Media Matters for America on Friday, arguing the agency is likely in violation of the progressive media watchdog's free speech rights. U.S. District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan, an appointee of former President Biden, ordered a preliminary injunction against the investigation, which was opened in May. 'It should alarm all Americans when the Government retaliates against individuals or organizations for engaging in constitutionally protected public debate. And that alarm should ring even louder when the Government retaliates against those engaged in newsgathering and reporting,' Sooknanan said in the 48-page ruling. 'This case presents a straightforward First Amendment violation.' The FTC opened the probe into Media Matters in late May over whether the progressive media group improperly coordinated with advertisers. The anti-trust agency demanded correspondence between Media Matters and advertisers, along with its communications with watchdog groups. In response, Media Matters sued the FTC in June to block the agency's probe, contending the investigation is an example of unlawful retaliation. Media Matters president Angelo Carusone said in a statement Friday that the court's ruling shows the 'importance of fighting over folding, which far too many are doing when confronted with intimidation from the Trump administration.' Carusone said the case is not 'just about the campaign to punish and silence Media Matters, however. It is a critical test for whether the courts will allow any administration – from any political party – to bully media and non-profit organizations through illegal abuses of power. We will continue to stand up and fight for the First Amendment rights that protect every American.' Media Matters was sued by tech billionaire Elon Musk and social media platform X in 2023, arguing that the progressive media watchdog colluded with advertisers as part of an effort to pull advertising dollars from X.
CNN
a day ago
- CNN
Judge blocks Trump FTC's ‘retaliation' against liberal media watchdog
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration's investigation of a liberal advocacy group known for its campaigns against Rupert Murdoch's Fox News and Elon Musk's X. Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan cited evidence that the investigation, which was opened by the Federal Trade Commission last spring, was an act of retaliation against the advocacy group, Media Matters for America. The judge granted a preliminary injunction because, she wrote, 'Media Matters is likely to succeed in its First Amendment retaliation claim, which is all it needs at this stage.' Media Matters has been a thorn in the side of Musk and his X social network for years. The group has published numerous reports about the prevalence of violent and hateful posts on X, leading Musk to call them an 'evil propaganda machine' hellbent on harming his business by turning off advertisers. Musk sued Media Matters in response; the group has countersued, and some Republican elected officials have backed Musk. The overarching charge is that liberal activists have colluded with advertisers to hurt conservative platforms and chill speech. Some of the advertisers Musk has sued have fought back, arguing that he has resorted to legal and political maneuvers 'to win back the business X lost in the free market when it disrupted its own business and alienated many of its customers.' With President Trump back in power, Musk and other Media Matters opponents have felt emboldened. Media Matters alleged 'retribution' when the FTC said it was probing possible collusion. Media Matters filed suit against the FTC seeking legal relief, which is what Sooknanan delivered on Friday, though the court battle is likely to continue. An FTC spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the court order. Media Matters, which has been seriously hampered by Musk and company, said the injunction is a symbol of effective resistance to the Trump administration. 'The court's ruling demonstrates the importance of fighting over folding, which far too many are doing when confronted with intimidation from the Trump administration,' Media Matters president Angelo Carusone said in a statement. 'This case is not just about the campaign to punish and silence Media Matters, however,' he said. 'It is a critical test for whether the courts will allow any administration — from any political party — to bully media and non-profit organizations through illegal abuses of power.'
