Restrictions on use of Arkansas State Library funds fail in budget subcommittee
Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Jonesboro, presents an amendment to the Arkansas State Library's fiscal year 2026 appropriation bill to the Joint Budget Committee's Special Language subcommittee on Tuesday, March 18, 2025. (Tess Vrbin/Arkansas Advocate)
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
The Hill
39 minutes ago
- The Hill
White House dismisses Pride Month as WorldPride gathers in Washington
President Trump's administration has not formally recognized Pride Month this year, but has doubled down on LGBTQ-related actions some advocates deem hostile — even as one of the world's largest Pride celebrations takes place in the nation's capital. Speaking with reporters on Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump has 'no plans' to issue a proclamation recognizing June as Pride Month. Trump declined to issue Pride Month proclamations throughout his first term but briefly acknowledged Pride in a 2019 social media post touting his administration's efforts to decriminalize homosexuality globally and recognizing the'outstanding contributions LGBT people have made to our great nation.' This year, Trump has not acknowledged Pride Month publicly. But the Education Department on Monday said it would instead recognize June as 'Title IX Month' in a nod to the administration's efforts to use the 1972 civil rights law to bar transgender students from girls' and women's school sports, restrooms and locker rooms. 'This is going to come as maybe tough news for the Trump administration to stomach, but June is Pride Month, whether they choose to acknowledge that or not,' said Brandon Wolf, national press secretary for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest LGBTQ advocacy group. 'And Pride is, and always has been, a protest, whether they choose to acknowledge that or not.' Pride Month marches and celebrations began in June 1970, one year after demonstrators demanded equal rights for LGBTQ Americans at the Stonewall riots in New York. Three decades later, former President Clinton issued the first presidential proclamation designating June 'Gay and Lesbian Pride Month,' the scope of which was expanded under former President Obama to include bisexual and transgender people. Former President Biden issued Pride Month proclamations each of his four years in office. This year's Pride festivities are not only being brushed off by the White House, however. On Tuesday, Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.), whom Trump endorsed as a 'champion of our America First agenda' in her most recent re-election bid, introduced a resolution declaring June 'Family Month' in a rebuke of Pride. 'By recognizing June as Family Month, we reject the lie of 'Pride' and instead honor God's timeless and perfect design,' she told the conservative news outlet The Daily Wire. A group of Republican lawmakers, including Miller, also railed this week against a post by the children's television show 'Sesame Street' that acknowledged Pride Month. They accused the nonprofit TV network PBS, on which 'Sesame Street' has long aired, of 'grooming' children, an accusation that opponents of LGBTQ rights have long used to associate LGBTQ identity with predatory behavior. 'This hostile rhetoric, the lengths to which they've gone to punish people for existing as LGBTQ, all of it is a testament to just how much our power scares them,' said Wolf, noting that Washington's pushback against Pride comes as the city hosts WorldPride, an international LGBTQ Pride event that's expected to draw millions to D.C. Within the administration, Trump's Defense Department's actions have made perhaps the biggest splash during the first week of Pride Month. On Tuesday, reported that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered Navy Secretary John Phelan to rename an oil tanker named for the assassinated gay rights activist Harvey Milk, with an official announcement expected next week and planned intentionally for Pride Month. Milk, a Navy lieutenant who served during the Korean War and in 1977 became the first openly gay man elected to public office in California, spearheaded an effort to mobilize California voters to oppose a 1978 ballot measure that would have banned gays and lesbians from teaching in public schools. The proposal to strip the ship of Milk's name drew widespread media attention and criticism. 'I don't agree with it,' Retired Adm. James Stavridis, once floated as a possible candidate for Secretary of State during the first Trump administration, said Friday on 'The Michael Smerconish Program.' He questioned why 'we need to rename this ship' at 'this moment' during Pride Month. The Navy is also considering renaming other ships named after prominent civil rights leaders, according to CBS News, including Harriet Tubman, Thurgood Marshall and Lucy Stone. This week, Senate Republicans blocked a Democrat-led resolution that would have expressed the upper chamber's belief 'that the Department of Defense should not seek to remove these names.' This week, the military also ordered transgender service members to self-identify and start a voluntary separation from the armed forces by Friday, also during Pride Month. In an email, Alex Wagner, an adjunct professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, said Hegseth's recent actions targeting Pride Month and LGBTQ people at the Pentagon 'have made him look petty and silly.' Wagner, who served as assistant secretary of the Air Force under former President Biden, helped organize the Defense Department's first Pride event in 2012 while serving in the Obama administration. 'There is absolutely no question, in my mind and in my experience, that the greatest engine for social justice and civil rights in American history is the U.S. military, and it's provided opportunity for everyone, no matter where they come from and no matter what they look like, to succeed,' Wagner said in an interview. 'To denigrate the service of those who sought a career serving the country … is evidence of someone who has not the right experience, not the right insight.' Hegseth, a frequent critic of efforts to promote diversity, equity and inclusion, has opposed recognizing or celebrating specific identities or differences in the military. 'I think the single dumbest phrase in military history is, 'our diversity is our strength,'' Hegseth said in a February address at the Pentagon. The former Fox News personality and Army veteran also ended the Defense Department's recognition of cultural and heritage months, including Pride Month, Black History Month and Women's History Month, shortly after his Senate confirmation. In guidance titled 'Identity Months Dead at DoD,' Hegseth stated, 'Efforts to divide the force – to put one group ahead of another – erode camaraderie and threaten mission execution.'
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Americans are divided over religious freedom. The Supreme Court? Not as much
Thursday was a surprising day at the Supreme Court, and a religion case was part of the action. The justices released six unanimous or near-unanimous decisions, including in a closely watched battle over the scope of faith-based tax breaks. In that religion case, the full court agreed that Wisconsin officials were unlawfully privileging certain religious nonprofits over others by basing access to religious exemptions on how they expressed their beliefs. Organizations that served only members of their own religion or that openly evangelized were typically eligible for the tax break, while organizations that served all comers with no strings attached often were deemed not religious enough to qualify. 'It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion.' There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the Supreme Court's opinion, which reversed a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling against a group of Catholic nonprofits. The decision is significant, since it could lead to changes to religious exemptions nationwide. But the fact that it was unanimous isn't as surprising as it may, at first, have appeared. If there's a case to be made that the Supreme Court's ruling was unexpected, it centers on the role religious freedom advocates played in the battle. Faith-related groups did not speak with one voice on how the justices should interpret the First Amendment. They put together competing legal briefs and press releases. More liberal organizations and individuals supported Wisconsin's narrow religious exemption, arguing that an overly broad tax break would harm workers, including people of faith. More conservative groups, on the other hand, said religious freedom law requires broad exemptions, which enable faith-based organizations to operate according to their beliefs. While these arguments were specific to the Supreme Court case on Catholic nonprofits, they should be familiar to anyone who follows faith-related policy debates. Religious groups and faith-related advocacy organizations no longer agree on what religious freedom means — nor on whether or not conservative Christians, in particular, are demanding too many concessions in the public square. Those disagreements help explain why different religious freedom advocates held very different views on President Donald Trump and Kamala Harris during last year's election, as the Deseret News previously reported, and why some faith groups support a push to limit the application of a landmark religious freedom law. More liberal advocates generally believe religious liberty protections work best when they're balanced with other types of protections, including LGBTQ nondiscrimination laws, while more conservative advocates generally say religious freedom should win out. If you dig into the justices' track record on religion over the 20 years Chief Justice John Roberts has led the court, you'll find several rulings that reflect this tension. Among other issues, the court has split along ideological lines in cases involving school prayer, state funding for religious schools and the Affordable Care Act's birth control mandate. In these decisions and others, the court's conservative majority embraced a broad interpretation of religious exercise protections, while the court's more liberal justices called for limitations on religious freedom in their dissents. These split decisions are often what people think of when they think of the Supreme Court and religion — but they're actually the exception, not the rule. From Roberts' confirmation in September 2005 to April 2021, religious freedom claims succeeded in front of the Supreme Court 13 times. Nine of those 13 rulings were either unanimous or from a mixed 7-2 majority, according to a Deseret News analysis from 2021. In the four years since that analysis was released, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of religion claims in merits cases seven more times. Four of the decisions were unanimous, while a fifth was 8-1. In other words, the justices are finding ways to bridge the gap between conservative and liberal takes on religious freedom, including in cases involving LGBTQ rights. When you consider the court's record on religion, Thursday's unanimous ruling no longer seems surprising. But it might still feel worth celebrating, especially if you're worried about the state of the religious freedom landscape. Before the Supreme Court enters its summer recess in early July, the justices will have one more opportunity to model consensus-building in a religious freedom case. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court is considering whether the First Amendment gives religious parents a right to opt their kids out of reading or hearing books about LGBTQ issues. During oral arguments in April, the court appeared divided along ideological lines, as the Deseret News reported at the time. More liberal justices seemed to support the school district, which said that religious freedom protects you from being coerced into changing your beliefs, not from being exposed to other ideas. More conservative justices seemed to support the families, who felt like their religious teachings were being drowned out. It wasn't immediately clear what a compromise ruling would look like. But even as Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked tough questions of the school district's attorney, he reminded everyone to keep searching. 'The whole goal, I think, of some of our religion precedents is to look for the win/win,' he said.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Bill limiting protests at public universities awaits Gov. Abbott's approval
The Brief A new bill, SB 2972, limiting protests on Texas public university campuses has passed both the Senate and House. The bill prohibits activities like using amplified sound during class, protesting in the last two weeks of the semester, and wearing masks to conceal identity. Critics, including the ACLU of Texas, argue the bill violates First Amendment rights. AUSTIN - A bill that passed through the Texas legislature last weekend would prohibit certain times and locations of protests on public university campuses. Critics worry the bill is in direct violation of the First Amendment, as well as the Texas Constitution. Senate Bill 2972 defines "expressive activities" in the same manner as the First Amendment and the Texas Constitution, directly citing those documents to include assemblies, protests, speeches, the distribution of written materials, the carrying of signs, and the circulation of petitions. Under the new bill, the following would be prohibited at Texas universities: Using devices to amplify sound during class hours while engaging in expressive activities. Engaging in expressive activities during the last two weeks of the semester. Camping or setting up tents on campus. Wearing a mask or other disguise while engaging in expressive activities. Lowering the U.S. flag with the intent to raise another flag. Engaging in expressive activities between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. Note that these are limited and expanded upon individually within the bill's text. The Senate passed the bill 21-10 on May 14. The House passed it 97-39 on May 28. What they're saying The bill's text says it may not be construed to limit freedom of speech or expression as protected by the First Amendment or Texas Constitution. Critics wonder how this is possible, saying the bill in its entirety is an imposition of prohibitions on rights defined in those texts. Caro Achar, the engagement coordinator for free speech at the ACLU of Texas, released the following statement to that point. "S.B. 2972 threatens the free expression of all Texans, regardless of political beliefs. This bill imposes broad restrictions that allow school officials to restrict how, when, and where Texans can speak on campus — undermining the First Amendment rights of students, faculty, staff, and the general public." Dig deeper The new bill comes on the heels of recent major protests on Texas university campuses, largely related to the conflict between Israel and Palestine, as well as developments with mass deportations. At one UT Austin protest in April 2024, 79 pro-Palestine protesters were taken into custody. The university was later found to have violated several institutional rules when handling the incident. Feds to screen social media of migrants, foreign students for antisemitic activity Columbia must notify students before handing records to Congress amid antisemitism probe ICE detains U of M student at Twin Cities campus, officials say What's next SB 2972 now awaits Gov. Greg Abbott's signature. According to the ACLU, he is expected to sign it into law. If he neither signs nor vetoes the bill, it will become law without his action. The Source Information in this article comes from Texas Legislature Online, the ACLU of Texas and previous coverage by FOX 7.
