Week in review.

Legislators unveiled draft legislation to direct lottery money toward college scholarships. Over 11,000 entering freshmen are expected to be eligible for state funding when the program begins in 2010. Lawmakers introduced a series of bills that would reduce energy use and subject public utilities to stricter state regulation.

The House passed a bill that would require Arkansas to cast its electoral college ballots for the winner of the national popular vote. A similar measure died in a Senate committee in 2007. Sen. Steve Faris said there would be enough votes to kill the bill in his committee. In the face of opposition from civil libertarians who said it would increase racial profiling, a law making failure to wear a seat belt a primary offense went through the House. The governor will sign it. The House gave final approval to a reform of the state Martin Luther King Jr. Commission. The commission will shed half its members and the governor will gain the authority to hire its director. A gubernatorial spokesman said there are no plans to make a change the current director at this time. The House rejected a plan to make prosecutorial elections non-partisan.

After hearing testimony from two hostile motorcyclists, a Senate committee declined to approve a bill that would require bikers to either get health insurance or wear a helmet. The same committee refused a bill forcing gravel-carrying trucks to be covered with a tarp following commentary from hostile county judges. A separate Senate committee said people should not be allowed to bring concealed firearms into churches.

Rep. Otis Davis, a pastor, told the House that it would be a sin not to vote for the aforementioned seat belt law. 40 members sinned. Rose Jones, arguing to the House State Agencies Committee that it should not reform the Martin Luther King Jr. Commission, imagined aloud that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took over the Arkansas Capitol.  Rep. John Edwards said Aaron Copland’s “Fanfare for the Common Man” makes him think about the Freedom of Information Act.

Are the lottery scholarship requirements too low?

Among the numerous figures and statistics discussed at Wednesday’s lottery-scholarship meeting, one stood out because it is actual rather than speculative: of all students who have an Academic Challenge Scholarship, which requires recipients to maintain a 2.75 GPA, only 61 percent graduate college. Granted, that’s better than the forty-odd percent of non-scholarship students who graduate. But I would submit that it’s still an abysmal number. (According the Department of Higher Education Director Jim Purcell, Academic Challenge students are tracked after they enter their freshman year.)

Thus the great paradox of the lottery scholarships: They should be as inclusive as possible, but they serve little purpose if recipients fail to graduate.

Will the state be throwing 40 percent of the lottery money away? Should it not award higher grants to students who show greater potential to graduate? Under the current formula, recipients are required to have a GPA, 2.5, that is just on the threshold between a C+ and a B-. Should we not be demanding more than mediocrity from our students?

If only it were so easy to correct the problem by demanding a better GPA. To do so would undoubtedly leave out poor and minority students, whose meager resources make it difficult to achieve at the same level as the well-to-do.

What changes, then, could be made to the bill to optimize the use of state dollars?

One has to do with income cutoffs, anathema to this point: Take income into account, but don’t create an upper limit. Instead, establish a GPA scale pegged to wealth. If a student’s family is in the top 10 percent of earners, for example, then the student would have to maintain a 3.0 GPA to get a scholarship. The 2.5 threshold could continue to apply to students from poorer families. Exceptions could be made for those with learning and developmental disabilities. The numbers could be changed, of course, but the idea is to weed out underachievers among the group of students in a better economic position to succeed.

A second suggestion is political poison and would never be adopted, but I have to throw it out there anyway: give money to go to college out of state on the condition that recipients return for a certain period of employment after graduation. When the graduation rate at Arkansas universities is 61 percent even among the best high-school performers, it suggests to me that those universities are not doing what they should be doing. You could also take a hard look at improving education standards at Arkansas universities, but that’s another issue entirely.

Opposition to lottery bill found in the details.

By this point, plans for lottery-funded scholarships, which were unveiled at a three-hour working session Wednesday evening, have been pretty well publicized. There will be a formula that makes the scholarship award amount contingent on lottery proceeds (see Under the Dome for a chart); with a few exceptions, anyone who has a 2.5 GPA or scores a 19 on the ACT will be eligible, regardless of family income; 11,700 freshmen are expected to earn a scholarship each year (Under the Dome again for a powerpoint with more projections); a current $20 million annual appropriation for the Academic Challenge Scholarship will be pooled with the new lottery cash; and in general the legislature can continue to tinker with award amounts and eligibility requirements until it hits on an optimal formula.

At the Wednesday session, many agreed that the draft legislation, which is subject to revision, had done a good job of being inclusive. But in a bill this large, there are sure to be unhappy customers. And while no one has expressed strong opposition to the bill, not everyone is getting what they want.

Start with Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, the lottery creator. For the most part he has received the draft legislation warmly. But he raised some questions at the meeting yesterday. Halter’s prognostication for the lottery’s success has been exceedingly optimistic, as he has predicted revenues twice above those forecast by the Department of Finance and Administration. In keeping with that attitude — at least from a fiscal standpoint — he said yesterday that legislators would be making a mistake to assume that all people eligible for scholarships will take advantage. (Current projections assume 100% participation  among eligible students.) If the legislature over-predicts the number of participants, then money that could be going to higher awards will end up languishing in a trust fund.

Halter brought up other fiscal concerns. He did not like that some lottery money is to pay administrative costs. He also asked the legislature to increase the $20 million Academic Challenge Appropriation, which is currently funded at the same level every year; if expanding costs bring Academic Challenge expenditures beyond $20 million then the lottery scholarship money would fill the gap. That would violate the constitutional stipulation that the lottery supplement, not supplant, current scholarship dollars.

(Read on after the jump: some have problems with academic provisions, and one issue in particular could cause a battle.)

Lawmakers file energy conservation package.

With the exception of some global-warming squabbling in its initial weeks, this session has been conspicuously absent of energy policy. But the floodgates opened today as several lawmakers filed bills that seek to cut down on energy use and improve efficiency.

Rep. Kathy Webb, who led a press conference this afternoon to introduce the legislative package, filed a bill to establish energy-saving practices at state-owned and higher-education buildings. The current version, which is a shell bill, should gain more detail as information about Arkansas’s share of federal stimulus dollars emerges. Rep. Webb said her plan is based on a North Carolina conservation program, the Utility Savings Initiative.

Rep. Webb’s bill will work in conjunction with others filed today.

Rep. Joan Cash introduced a measure that will increase the Public Service Commission’s regulatory authority by requiring it to create efficiency standards for public utilities.

Sen. Shane Broadway offered a bill that calls for a $300 million bond issue to pay for retrofitting state agency buildings. If approved by the legislature, the bond issue would come before voters in 2010, barring an earlier special election. Voter approval would allow the state to borrow up to $60 million annually. The money would be repaid with saved energy costs.

A second wave of energy legislation is expected before the filing deadline in 10 days. One bill would change code in order to allow electric cars to be regulated as automobiles rather than motorcycles; another, which is to be sponsored by Rep. Allen Maxwell, will help homeowners install efficient energy systems.

The filing, of course, is the easy part: the package’s supporters are likely to face a stiff fight from energy producers.  Rep. Webb said she was meeting with energy representatives today and hopes to eventually gain their blessing. We shall see.

No guns in church, after all.

After a barrage of national media attention over a House bill, the Senate Judiciary Committee decided today that it’s not such a good idea to allow concealed-carry holders to bring weapons into churches.

Other than the fanaticism that gun stories never fail to cause — even more fanatic when the gun story involves church — the bill raised a legitimate constitutional question. Does banning weapons in the sanctuary, as current law explicitly does, violate on the free exercise of religion? Is such a ban an infringement of the separation of church and state?

Personally I think not. Firearms have nothing to do with church doctrine, scripture, dogma or teaching. Gun control is a public-safety and therefore a public-policy issue.  Sen. Sue Madison made some of the same points in her arguments before the negative vote on the bill.

(I do think this bill has been a huge waste of time. As John Brummett writes, the circus could have been avoided if church language had never been put into law in the first place.)

But Rep. Beverly Pyle, the bill’s sponsor, disagreed. More importantly, she had the opinion of John DiPippa, dean of the Bowen School of Law, on her side. In an email Rep. Pyle read to the committee, DiPippa outlined how the current law banning guns in church could be challenged on constitutional and other grounds.

Rep. Pyle said after the committee meeting today that she would present the bill again later this session. Perhaps she thinks that DiPippa’s email, which I’ve reprinted after the jump, will help change some minds.

House committee approves King Commission reform.

The embattled Arkansas Martin Luther King Commission took a step closer to reform today when the House State Agencies Committee approved a bill that will reduce the commission’s membership and change how employees are appointed. Sen. Hank Wilkins, the measure’s sponsor, has pushed the bill in spite of opposition from some commission members.

If the bill gains approval in the House, as is likely, commission membership will be reduced from 26 to 13. In past years the commission has had difficulty achieving a quorum to conduct business.

The bill will also entitle the governor to select the commission’s executive director. He can dismiss the executive director at any time.

Several current commission members, who stand to lose their positions if the bill is enacted, testified against the change. They said they had not been consulted and took issue with the stipulation that the executive director serve at the pleasure of the governor. Judy Green, a onetime member, said it was a “slap in the face” when Gov. Beebe called the commission an embarrassment last year.

Commissioner Diana Charles said the commission has been unfairly portrayed in the media. “The true story of the King Commission has never come before the people of Arkansas,” she said. She did not elaborate.

None of these arguments swayed the committee, who approved the bill unanimously. Sen. Wilkins said it pained him personally to make the change — his father wrote the state MLK holiday and his mother wrote the law enacting the MLK Commission — but that reform is necessary.

Victory for FOI advocates.

The House Judiciary Committee this morning approved a bill allowing plaintiffs to recover legal fees from the state in Freedom of Information Act appeals. This is the first successful FOI action of the session; earlier bills to open the criminal records of public officials and to require the Attorney General’s office to review FOI rejections gained little traction.

Rep. Lindsley Smith sponsored today’s successful bill. Though a similar measure failed last session, the current version gained support by including a provision that allows the Arkansas Claims Commission to hear appeals. Unlike earlier FOI bills this session, this one had the backing of the Attorney General’s office.

Citizens whose FOI requests are rejected may appeal to a circuit court. However, previous rulings have found that the state does not have to pay attorney’s fees even in cases it loses. The new law will require the state to pay when plaintiffs “substantially prevail.”

There was some questioning in committee this morning about that language. Bowen Law School professor Rick Peltz said that, though there is currently no widespread consensus on the meaning of “substantially prevail,” the language is unlikely to cause a problem. “I’m confident that’s something we can leave to judicial evolution in the circuit courts,” he said.

Under state law, the Arkansas Claims Commission can pay a maximum of $10,000 in awards in most cases. Rep. Smith said she believes most appeals for attorney’s fees in FOI cases will be less than that amount. According to committee testimony, the money will come from a $1.5 million state fund for the payment of such claims.

Senate readies new rules for scholarship spending.

As the legislature prepares to deal with an influx of lottery-funded money for scholarships, the Senate Education Committee has approved a measure that will change the way state colleges and universities allocate their own funds for tuition grants.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Gilbert Baker, appears in part to be a reaction to the expansion of presidential discretionary scholarships at the University of Central Arkansas during President Lu Hardin’s administration. Those awards generally had vague criteria and were sometimes given on the basis of political favoritism.

The bill would reduce the percentage of money state schools can spend on scholarships relative to their total tuition collections. 30% of tuition is the current scholarship threshold, though there is no enforcement mechanism in the law. Sen. Baker’s measure would limit scholarship spending to 20% of tuition in 2013-2014. It would also impose fiscal penalties on schools exceeding that amount.

Sen. Baker said the bill is intended to limit what he called a “bidding war” for students among Arkansas universities. It is also meant to prepare for an increase in statewide scholarships via the lottery, he said.

According to numbers Sen. Baker provided, Arkansas Tech is the only state school to have recently overshot the legal limit, with its scholarship expenditures amounting to 31.1 percent of tuition collections. UCA spent 26.3 percent of tuition on scholarships over the same period.

Sen. Baker said the Department of Higher Education opposes the proposed caps, but no one challenged the bill in committee.

Though the bill clearly changes how state colleges and universities allocate scholarships, less obvious is what its practical effect will be should the governor eventually sign it. Unlike current law, Sen. Baker’s bill allows schools to subtract from their scholarship totals money given to students who are eligible for a maximum Pell Grant. The students need not be receiving the grant. At a school with a large number of low-income students, then, it is conceivable that the amount of money spent on scholarships will increase.

There was confusion in the Education Committee today as to whether the bill requires schools to report athletic scholarships in their scholarship totals. Sen. Baker first said it does, then changed his position when someone pointed out that athletic scholarships are not explicitly listed among money that must be counted. However, a separate section of the bill says all scholarships must be counted that do not get a specific exemption; athletic scholarships do not. The section in question — lines 27-30 on page two for those of you keeping score at home — seems intended to reduce the type of criteria-free scholarships that have been awarded at UCA in recent years. But it appears also to force reporting of athletic scholarships that is not currently required.

Senate committee says no to motorcycle helmets, tarps.

In the face of motorcyclist opposition, the Senate Transportation Committee this morning failed to make a motion on a bill that would toughen state helmet requirements. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Kim Hendren, mandates that a rider either wear a helmet or carry $10,000 of health insurance.

Sen. Hendren said the helmet requirement would cut down on injuries and thereby reduce public health costs. Rodney Roberts, a motorcyclist who testified against the bill, countered that there is contradictory evidence on the effectiveness of helmets in saving lives, and that in some cases helmets are responsible for deaths. (The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has found a positive correlation between helmet use and crash survival.)

Roberts further argued that the law would be ineffective and a hassle to bikers, who would have to acquire a decal to prove they had health insurance. He said the decal might mar the appearance of bikes. He also said it was unfair to make motorcyclists acquire health insurance but not the general population.

Members of the committee did not seem impressed with any of this reasoning. “People against a bill will use every argument they can,” Sen. Bobby Glover told Roberts.

In the end, however, the committee did not make a motion. The bill will remain on the active calendar. Sen. Hendren said he might give it another shot later in the session.

The helmet requirement is representative of a gradual approach Sen. Hendren has taken to traffic safety issues this session. Even if it passed, the bill would not make Arkansas one of the 21 states to have a universal motorcycle helmet requirement. Nor does the bill prescribe strict penalties for violators. A Sen. Hendren-sponsored bill requiring teen drivers to use hands-free cell phones also had weak enforcement provisions.

Sen. Hendren encountered another defeat this morning when the Transportation Committee declined to approve his bill that would require trucks carrying gravel to be covered with a tarp. A number of county judges who spoke against the measure called it an unfunded mandate. A 2001 law exempted trucks made after 2001 from using a tarp; Sen. Hendren said it is time to end that exception. He offered to set a firm deadline a few years in the future to end of the exemption, but the judges countered that they should not have to supply trucks with tarps until the economy is on steady ground.

Week in review.

After weeks of negotiation, House and Senate leaders unveiled part of draft legislation that will create a lottery in Arkansas. The current bill, which is subject to change before it is officially filed, includes tough ethics rules and an express ban on video lottery and casino gambling. The second half of the draft legislation, which deals with lottery-funded scholarships, is slated to be released next week. It is expected to be more controversial than the first part of the bill.

The Senate sent a ban on partial-birth abortion to Governor Beebe’s desk. He has said he will sign the measure. The House voted to repeal the state tax on charitable bingo, though the bill may receive amendment in the Senate. Supporters of the repeal say the tax is an unfair burden on non-profits and that it limits their ability to fund worthy activities such as scholarships. Opponents argue that the tax cut will limit bingo oversight and allow commercial operators to move into the state. The Department of Finance and Administration has protested the loss of $1.2 million in revenue from the tax. The House also approved fee hikes for wine and spirits permits. The new fees, which have already made it through the Senate, will allow Alcoholic Beverage Control to ramp up enforcement and improve its technology. The measure stoked controversy when first debated in the Senate; some small wholesalers said the permit increases would put them out of business. It has since been revised to charge lower fees to wholesalers who distribute under a certain volume.

The House State Agencies Committee approved a measure to eliminate the partisan election of prosecutors. Opponents argued that the measure is itself partisan. The Senate Judiciary Committee recommended a bill making it a misdemeanor to transmit voyeuristically obtained images; in the face of opposition from defense lawyers, it deferred action on a bill to enhance penalties for domestic assault carried out in the presence of a child.

Former President Bill Clinton addressed a joint session of the legislature in front of two full galleries. He arrived forty minutes late and encouraged lawmakers to provide means for more efficient energy in buildings. A House committee declined to recommend that the blue catfish become the official fish of Arkansas. The ichthyological honor is currently unclaimed. Another House committee recommended a byzantine procedure to determine who rightfully controls the remains of dead people. The Senate told Turkey to stop harassing the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Orthodox Church.

Elections and the judiciary.

The House State Agencies committee this morning approved, by an 11-9 vote, a bill to make elections of prosecuting attorneys non-partisan.

As the close vote indicates, this is a fairly divisive issue. That’s mainly for political reasons. According to Mariah Hatta, Arkansas Democratic Party Executive Director, 24 of 26 elected prosecutors in Arkansas are Democrats. Making the elections non-partisan will rob the Democratic Party of the $7,500 filing fee each candidate must pay to run for prosecutor. (Last election cycle the party returned to candidates the maximum political contribution, said Hatta.) Presumably Republicans charge fees, too, but the high number of incumbent Democratic prosecutors ensures the Democratic Party of steady fee collections every four years.

Rep. Steve Harrelson, a Democrat who voted against the change this morning, stressed that the measure is motivated by partisan politics. (He had some of the same concerns when a similar bill came up in the 2007 session.) He added that making prosecutor elections non-partisan might lead to the same change for sheriff, county clerk and other offices.

Both the 2007 bill and this year’s bill were introduced by Republicans, which has furthered Democratic suspicion.

“Our concern is that there doesn’t appear to any need to change the election process,” Hatta said.

But Republicans contend they are working in the best interest of the judicial system. Rep. Andrea Lea, who introduced this year’s bill, brought a letter of support this morning from Thomas Deen, an independent prosecutor in Monticello. Rep. Dan Greenberg, a Republican House State Agencies Committee member who voted for the bill, has posted a brief essay on why he thinks politics should stay out of prosecutor elections.

Beyond the parochial concerns of Arkansas politics there has been a wider conversation about whether prosecutors should be politically aligned. Like Rep. Greenberg, some think prosecutors should be focused on justice, not elections. But another school of thought says prosecutorial priorities should not be divorced from the will of the electorate. In essence, it argues that justice is a dynamic rather than a static concept. If the public thinks fewer drug convictions are warranted, for example, they have the option of voting for a prosecutor from the Democratic Party, which tends to support such policies. (For a concise look at the pros and cons of elected prosecutors refer to this slightly dated essay.)

Three Democrats voted for the bill today, which suggests that some representatives see this as a non-political issue. It will be worth watching to see how closely the vote in the House follows party lines.

A second elections bill touching on the judiciary is still awaiting a hearing: Rep. Harrelson’s proposal to repeal sections of state law that ban judges from soliciting on behalf of a political candidate. Rep. Harrelson said he is still talking with members of the Arkansas Judicial Council about the bill, which is on the active calendar in the House Judiciary Committee. Even if the bill passes, it would have little practical impact without changes to portions of the Judicial Canons that bar judges from political activity.

UPDATE 24 FEBRUARY: I asked Howard Brill, a professor at Arkansas Law School and an expert on legal ethics, about Sen. Harrelson’s bill. He said it might come into conflict with Amendment 28 to the Arkansas constitution, which arguably gives the State Supreme Court sole authority to regulate judges and lawyers. “Legislative involvement in this issue would present interesting issues of state constitutional law concerning the separation of powers doctrine,” Professor Brill wrote in an email.

The bill is currently on the deferred calendar of the House Judiciary Committee.

The politics of partial-birth abortion.

As expected, the Senate passed Rep. Dawn Creekmore’s partial-birth abortion ban today. Three senators voted against it: Sen. Sue Madison, Sen. Mary Anne Salmon and Sen. David Johnson.

A ‘no’ vote was a vote for reason. The ban is effectively meaningless, a political wedge issue to get people riled up. The procedure in question has never been performed in Arkansas, at least according to testimony in both the House and the Senate.

The way they talk about the procedure, some ban supporters would have us think there are jaundice-eyed abortionists out there slobbering at the chance to brutalize fetuses — a dubious prospect. In fact, partial-birth abortion is reserved for serious medical situations. And if one day an Arkansas woman does need the procedure for health reasons, the performing doctor will face jail time, fines, civil penalties and a loss of license. Though the ban contains an exception to prevent the death of a woman, it does not say anything about preserving the health of a woman — i.e., if a doctor is not 100 percent sure that a woman will die without a partial-birth abortion, then he can’t perform it without putting his own livelihood at risk. I’m guessing that’s a level of certainty few doctors would feel comfortable expressing.

In effect, the bill will either rob a well-meaning doctor of his discretion or put him at the mercy of courts and the Arkansas Medical Board.

Sen. Johnson expressed some of these concerns in explaining his ‘no’ vote. He said he didn’t like that there are no exceptions for a woman’s health. He hypothesized a situation where a doctor performs a partial-birth abortion to prevent a woman’s death and is subsequently brought before a court. If the prosecution finds just one doctor to testify that the procedure was unnecessary to save the woman’s life, then the doctor who performed the abortion could be ruined, he said. He also expressed concern at the civil penalties within the bill. (Those confusing terms, which allow a fetus’s father or grandparents to sue the abortionist in certain circumstances, are copied straight from a federal partial-birth abortion ban.)

But a loss for reason is a win for politics. Abortion is such a hot-button issue for its opponents that any legislator who votes ‘no’ could face a backlash from voters. That is particularly true for the partial-birth issue decided today, as it received almost no logical debate on the merits. And if the ban doesn’t really have a practical effect, why not vote for it rather than risk political penalty?

Gov. Beebe has already said he will approve the bill. I can’t totally blame him, though he is taking the expedient path.

What would I do? If I’m a politician, I sign it. If I’m a reasonable person, I veto it.

Legislature debuts lottery bill.

In a two-hour meeting this afternoon, a conference of legislators introduced long-awaited draft legislation detailing how the new state lottery will work.

Several of the provisions have been in circulation already. The lottery will be implemented and administered by a nine-member commission appointed by the governor, speaker of the house and senate president pro tem.  The commission is essentially an independent state agency. In theory at least, neither legislators nor the governor will have any control over which companies get the big business of running the lottery beyond appointments to the commission.

Commissioners will be unpaid. The only paid employees of the commission are expected to be a director and a procurement official that advises female- and minority-owned firms about acquiring lottery business. The commission will appoint both employees.

Less expected were the tough ethics standards in the bill, which Speaker of the House Rep. Robbie Wills said will make the Arkansas lottery the most ethically stringent in the country.  Members or employees who leave the lottery commission will be banned from lobbying the commission on behalf of a lottery vendor or retailer for two years. Lottery vendors will not be able to give any gifts whatsoever to members of the lottery commission, and they will be prohibited from making political contributions to public officials. They will be barred from so much as buying a lottery ticket.

The bill explicitly opens the lottery to scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act. It includes a exemption for certain information given to the U.S. Government or law enforcement agencies under special agreement.

Government oversight of the lottery is expected to be comprehensive as well. Besides an annual review by the Division of Legislative Audit, the bill establishes a special lottery oversight committee that will consist of five senators and five House members.

Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter, who ran the lottery amendment campaign last fall, said he was pleased to see that so many of his ethics recommendations made it into the draft legislation. In fact, he said legislators may have tried to make requirements too strict in one regard. A provision of the bill would ban any vendor from operating in the state if an elected official or constitutional officer owns even one share of the vendor’s stock. Halter envisioned a situation in which a legislator against a particular lottery company buys a share of its stock so as to eliminate it from state consideration.

The draft bill, which is fifty pages, does not yet contain information about how the lottery will fund college scholarships. That section of the legislation is not to be revealed until next week.

For now the bill has plenty of provisions for statehouse watchers to digest. Read after the jump for more details.

Big Willie Wednesday.

The big question ahead of Bill Clinton’s visit to the legislature this morning was: What is he going to talk about? The general thought leading up to his arrival was that there would be a good deal of reminiscing about his days in Arkansas.

Clinton did his share of that, as he thanked many who had served during his administration. He took particular note of Sen. Bobby Glover, who Clinton said gave him his first $100 contribution for his 1976 Attorney General campaign. He also noted the increased diversity in the legislature and the state as a whole. “This is a more interesting country, and the state is a more interesting state, than it was 30 years ago,” he said.

But it wouldn’t be a Clinton speech without policy prescriptions, and he provided plenty. He applauded President Obama’s stimulus plan and expressed a belief that the economic downturn will continue somewhere from six to twenty-four months.

He encouraged Arkansas legislators in their work and commended them on lowering the grocery tax. But he reminded them that they had it fairly easy compared to lawmakers in states with multi-billion-dollar deficits. Of the lottery creation process he practically told legislators to buck up:  “The details are mind-numbing, but this is normal!”

The most interesting part of Clinton’s speech, however, was a policy suggestion specific to Arkansas: If the federal bank bailouts succeed, he said, then state government should work with banks to obtain loans for retrofitting buildings. Combined with a government match for bank contributions, the program could be used to install efficient lighting in homes and buildings across the state. Savings in utility bills would pay the cost, Clinton said.

In fact, some legislators have been discussing a program that will help homeowners do something similar to what Clinton proposed today, though it is unclear if banks would be involved.  Rep. Kathy Webb said she would present a package of environment and energy bills next week that could include the program.

Dead Tuesday.

You know it’s a slow day at the legislature when the most interesting bills to come before committee deal primarily with dead people.

In an apparent attempt to rival the presidential line of succession for complexity, the House Health Committee approved a bill to set the order of people who have the right to dispose of a dead person’s corpse. If the spouse can’t be found then the child gets the responsibility; if there’s no child, then the parent takes over; etc. Pets appear to have no rights under the statute.

The measure was brought at the behest of a group of funeral directors, who are apparently uncomfortable dealing with bodies when no one comes to claim them. The bill allows funeral directors to dispose of corpses without penalty if they make a good-faith effort to find relatives. It also establishes a system in which circuit courts settle family disputes over control of remains. Funeral directors would be able to collect fees from the family for preserving the corpse during the adjudication process.

Rep. Gene Shelby pointed out that the line of succession doesn’t include a live-in partner who was not married to the deceased. The objection was no obstacle to the bill’s passage.

The House Judiciary Committee also approved a dead-guy bill today. Actually, this one’s more about dead presidents than dead people. It extends the time during which a living person can level a claim against an estate to six months after the passing of the deceased.

In very tangentially related news, Rep. Steve Harrelson reports that a bill allowing guns in parking lots will not be attempted this session after all. Too bad for us journalists — even the New York Times got in on the latest action. I guess the guns in church bill really took the wind out of the sponsor’s sails.

Despite skepticism, Senate committee approves graduated drivers licenses.

If it’s Monday, it’s transportation day at the legislature. Besides the Joint Retirement Committee, the Senate Transportation and Technology Committee is the only committee to regularly meet on Mondays. The group has contended with some surprisingly controversial questions, most notably a ban on texting and a requirement that drivers use only hands-free cell phones. Today was not an exception, as the committee only approved a graduated drivers license measure after 45 minutes of discussion.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Jim Jeffress, adds restrictions to drivers who are between 16 and 18 years of age. With exceptions for travel from school, work and church activities, those drivers would not be allowed on the road without adult supervision between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. They would also be banned from transporting more than one person under 21 who is not a member of their household.

The bill’s prospects didn’t look good early in the debate, as Sen. Larry Teague asked a barrage of questions. How will the new regulations affect the social lives of teens in small towns such as Nashville and Crossett? Will it cause undue hardship for kids who carpool to school?

Sen. Paul Bookout said he was worried that young hunters would be unable to go out early enough. Concerns were also expressed about the bill’s lack of enforcement provisions. It leaves it up to the Department of Finance and Administration to develop penalties.

However, a slew of testimony followed that appealed to the public health benefit of placing restrictions on teen drivers. Multiple speakers asked the committee to approve a bill that would save lives. That was enough to ensure its passage.

Sen. Teague absented himself for the voice vote. Sen Denny Altes, who is listed as a bill co-sponsor, didn’t register a vote either way.

The committee’s approval puts Arkansas on its way to implementing the tougher teen-driving standards prevalent across the nation. According to testimony given today, 45 states have a curfew for teen drivers, while 39 place restrictions on the number of passengers.

Sen. Jeffress said afterwards that he thought the opposition was “just posturing.” But resistance may be stiffer in the House, where a similar measure received just 27 votes last session. Sen. Jeffress said he thinks he has made the bill more palatable by adding exceptions.

Also in the Transportation Committee today, members approved bills to make it a primary offense not to wear a seatbelt and to prevent lawyers and chiropracters from accessing accident reports.

Week in review.

By a one vote margin, the Senate decided to send a tobacco tax increase to the governor’s desk. The tax will pay for various healthcare provisions and a statewide trauma system, which legislators still have to create. Senators voted to cut in half the number of members on the state Martin Luther King Jr. Commission. The 26-member commission endured a long period of political infighting before a leadership change last year.

Without debate, the House approved of outlawing a particular abortion method. The bill caused a stir in committee after its sponsor presented a last-minute rewrite that opponents were unable to review before their testimony. The House rejected a measure that would have allowed wider access to the criminal records of public officials. It passed a bill that will allow people to bring concealed weapons into churches. Speaking on the floor in favor of the bill, Rep. Donna Hutchinson said she felt forced to vote for it because it is unfair that poor churches are unable to afford private security teams.

The Senate Judiciary Committee put on hold a proposal to create the crime of strangulation. Opponents argued that strangulation is covered under other parts of the law, and that a new criminal category could wreak havoc in courts. A House committee said natural gas companies should be able to use the power of eminent domain in order to lay pipelines. A separate committee ruled that the Arkansas Contractors Licensing Board cannot fine contractors who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

Rep. Richard Carroll, a white legislator who comes from a majority-black district and whose wife is black, tried to join the Legislative Black Caucus. His request was denied. To join, said the caucus chairman, “You have to be an elected legislator and you have to be black.” Sen. Tracy Steele, the term-limited senator who is rumored to be considering a challenge for Carroll’s House seat in 2010, said he has not ruled out running for President of the United States. Backed only by a shoddy CD player, Charley Pride sang over half an hour of his country hits from the Senate lectern. A House committee recommended that the full body commend Bobby Hurley of Clarksville for making the Professional Rodeo Hall of Fame.

FOI bill defeated in House.

One of this session’s simmering battles has seen Rep. Dan Greenberg and Attorney General Dustin McDaniel matched against each other. Rep. Greenberg has introduced a series of expansions and refinements to the Freedom of Information Act; McDaniel has vocally opposed at least two of the changes on the grounds that they would be too difficult to administer.

McDaniel won round one today when the House defeated Rep. Greenberg’s bill to allow greater access to the criminal records of elected officials, agency heads and candidates for office. At 33-56, the vote adhered largely to ideological lines, with a contingent of conservative-leaning representatives providing the yeas. 11 members sat this one out. (Rep. Greenberg has posted an account of the affair.) 

This is a rather confusing result. FOI need not be a partisan issue. Yet when it becomes one, Democrats are usually more supportive of greater sunshine. (There was a similar reversal of roles this week when a number of Democrats sided with energy companies on the issue of using eminent domain to lay gas pipelines.) 

An explanation for the partisan split might be found in the campaign McDaniel, a Democrat, waged against the FOI measure. Besides giving oppositional testimony in committee, McDaniel distributed a letter to legislators urging them to vote against the bill, Rep. Greenberg writes in his post. I’d speculate that McDaniel’s note had some influence with Democratic members. 

Another argument circulating in a House memo was that the bill got out of the House Judiciary Committee inadvertently. Rep. Greenberg disputed that on the floor today. I missed the committee debate early in the week, but Judiciary chairman Rep. Steve Harrelson told me the bill came up late in the meeting when some committee members were gone. 

Rep. Greenberg has acquired something of a reputation for grandstanding on the FOI issue, but I’m not so sure. I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt after seeing the changes he made in the most recent version of his criminal-record bill. The amended bill sought to meet administrators’ concerns by charging a fee for information. It also would have narrowed the time frame during which one could request criminal information about a political candidate. 

Ironically for a sunshine bill, this measure appeared to get cut down partially because legislators were sick of openly debating its provisions. (The full House refused to send it back to committee for amendment earlier this week.) It’s a frustrating situation for an observer, because one of the fascinating things about covering the session is weighing policy arguments that go into each law. But it’s also an instructive one, especially as the lottery gets hashed out behind closed doors. The crux of lawmaking often isn’t the methodical consideration of ideas — it’s having the right personality and the right friends to get your ideas heard.

Bill to limit medical conflict of interest hits snag.

Rep. Lindsley Smith’s bill to prevent doctors from taking kickbacks for MRI and other screening referrals failed to gain traction this morning in the House Health Committee. While some opposition was based on principle, the bill will get another hearing later in the session after several of its provisions are clarified.

Rep. Smith scrapped her original measure and presented an amended version (not yet online) to committee members at the beginning of the meeting. A late amendment posed no problem for Rep. Dawn Creekmore’s partial-birth abortion ban in front of the same committee on Tuesday, but questions today flustered Rep. Smith and caused the bill’s withdrawal for further consideration.

The aim of the bill, whatever changes it may undergo, is to keep doctors from referring patients to outside screening facilities in which they have a financial interest. Rep. Smith said she wants to prevent situations in which doctors unnecessarily prescribe MRIs and other expensive scans in order to make money from insurers. She detailed how some doctors arrange to send patients to an outside screening center in return for a part of the insurance payment. (The Wall Street Journal described this situation in a 2005 article.)

Rep. Smith said the measure would save $160 million in annual healthcare costs in Arkansas, though she did not elaborate on her figures. The savings would mostly benefit private insurers, as federal law already bans Medicaid and Medicare from paying for outside screening procedures where the referrer has a financial interest.

“This is to close loopholes in the federal law,” Rep. Smith said. She added that over 20 states have similar statutes on the books.

Rep. Billy Gaskill objected to the bill on its face. “You want to tell a doctor when he can do this procedure,” he said. “This is the type of meddling we don’t need to get into.”

Another committee member objected that the bill does not provide an exception for rural doctors. Rep. Smith said that issue should have been addressed in her amendment but was not.

Though the bill as currently written would prevent murky kickback schemes, it may still allow doctors to profit from MRI referrals in an overt way.

(Read on for further analysis.)

Tobacco tax to become law.

Weeks of debate finally ended this morning as the Senate voted 28-7 in favor of Gov. Beebe’s proposed tobacco tax hike. 27 votes were required for passage.

This morning’s vote was an anti-climatic finale. Senate galleries were packed, but the debate had none of the suspense of last week’s boisterous House vote. Those opposed to the tax seemed resigned to their defeat. While four senators made brief remarks supporting the tax, only Sen. Johnny Key spoke against it. He said he did not believe that this is the time to raise taxes.

The only surprise was a yes vote from Sen. Terry Smith, who made a motion in committee yesterday that would have jeopardized the bill by amending it and sending it back to the House. Rep. Robbie Wills said after the vote that he had constantly impressed upon Sen. Smith, a fellow Democrat, that his support was needed, though Rep. Wills was unsure whether Sen. Smith changed his mind due to the pressure.

The tax will go into effect on 1 March. Legislation is still to be passed to create a trauma system, which the tax will fund.

Date for annual sessions set, but more work to be done.

The Joint Budget Committee decided this morning to begin even-year fiscal sessions on the second Monday of February — 8 February in 2010, the first year the new sessions will take place. Pre-session budget hearings will begin in the first week of January. (Rep. Steve Harrelson provides a memo outlining the plan on his blog.)

Voters amended the state constitution to require annual meetings of the legislature last fall.

The dates for the new session are now sealed barring further action of the Budget Committee and do not need approval by the Senate or House, said Rep. Bruce Maloch, Budget Committee co-chair.

Under the fresh rules, the legislature will automatically review budgets of six state agencies: Education, Higher Ed, Health, Human Services, Correction and Community Correction. These agencies account for about 90 percent of the budget.

Other agencies will have to make a specific request in order to have their budgets reexamined. Otherwise they will receive the appropriations agreed to in odd years. An agency can be included in the budget process if it gets permission from the Legislative Council before its November meeting;  requests made later than November will require the approval of the Legislative Council, the Governor, and the Budget Committee itself.

There was some concern from committee members today that this structure will establish an unfair standard. “Are we circumventing having to look at each agency?” Sen. Percy Malone asked. “There is going to be someone out there who has a difficult time getting heard.”

In the end, though, the committee found it more expedient to require a hearing for only the largest state agencies.

Rep. Maloch said there is still work to be done in order to clarify the process on regular bills. The recent constitutional amendment prevents the legislature from hearing non-fiscal matters during fiscal sessions unless there is 2/3 approval in both bodies. Rep. Maloch said the House and Senate will have to form joint rules on how to handle regular bill proposals during even-year sessions. Staff is going through the code to clean up language that refers to biennial meetings.

(Read on for Rep. Maloch’s thoughts.)

Environmental poobah speaks, few listen.

Here’s an indication of how seriously Arkansas lawmakers take energy reform: This afternoon Jerome Ringo, president of the Apollo Alliance, a clean-energy advocacy group, came to the Capitol. Ringo regularly exchanges ideas with national environmental policymakers; tomorrow he has an audience with Barack Obama to discuss alternative fuels and energy efficiency. Today, however, he spoke in front of a largely indifferent Joint Energy Committee that was missing over half its 25 members.

Those absent skipped Ringo’s presentation on how the federal economic stimulus is expected to modernize the country’s energy infrastructure. The stimulus will bring spending on retrofitted buildings, research and development of alternative fuels, commuter rail and green jobs training, he said. He believes the U.S. can create 5 million green jobs within 10 years. He even added an interesting piece of insider news: the government is considering storing nuclear waste in abandoned salt domes.

But more important than all this information, absentees squandered an opportunity to pick an expert’s brain on how to bring Arkansas energy into the 21st century.

Ringo was surprisingly upbeat about the state’s progress. He said Arkansas has done a better job on alternative energy than some states whose law mandates the use of renewable energy. (Arkansas has no such requirement.) He was particularly impressed by ADEQ’s new LEED-certified headquarters. He also said Arkansas might find an economic opportunity in producing parts for Texas wind farms.

Legislators questioned Ringo about timber and lignite as fuel sources, retrofitting homes, and how Arkansas might secure a chunk of the federal stimulus. They also discussed potential legislation to help poor homeowners improve energy efficiency in their houses.

By and large, however, today was a missed opportunity to explore how the state might advance progressive energy policy. It’s enough to wonder whether the sparsely attended Energy Committee, which has been meeting at a rate of once every two weeks, has any real purpose.

House Health Committee abdicates reason.

It never ceases to amaze me how certain topics turn otherwise reasonable people into witless lackeys. Such was on display this morning when Rep. Dawn Creekmore ran a bill banning a certain abortion procedure that is rarely performed in the state of Arkansas. The bill went through, but only after a half hour of nonsensical yammering on both sides.

In actual fact, it would be surprising if committee members even knew what they voted to pass. That’s because Rep. Creekmore presented an amendment to the committee at the beginning of her presentation that essentially rewrote the entire bill. (Here’s the original for comparison.) Committee members had no time to digest the new aspects of the measure, which add some form of civil liability for somebody (see below) and clarify that the procedure in question is not illegal if the woman’s health is in danger. All they had time to process of the bill, besides what came out in the very murky discussion, was its title, “An Act to Prohibit Partial-Birth Abortions.”

Rep. Creekmore also conspicuously misrepresented the bill during her presentation: she explicitly told committee members that it outlaws abortions that are performed after the first trimester. Yet the bill contains no such provision. Instead it proscribes a specific abortion method. (The name of the method itself is subject to a partisan language war: either ‘partial birth’ or ‘D & X’ abortion, depending on where you stand.)

The amended bill itself has some very sloppy wording, which suggests that it was hastily assembled for today’s sideshow. To wit, a new passage on civil liability. The updated bill says:

The father, if married to the mother at the time she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the mother has not attained the age of eighteen years at the time of the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may obtain appropriate relief in a civil action, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff’s criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.

This clause makes somone liable to someone else when a prohibited abortion occurs; but it’s impossible to tell who’s liable to whom. The doctor and the woman don’t appear to be involved. Is this saying grandparents of the aborted child can sue the father if he forced his wife to get an abortion? Or is the plaintiff the father? If so, what would his criminal conduct be? I could go on. Here’s hoping somebody sees fit to clean this up before it gets much farther.

(Read on for more lunacy.)

Halter comments on draft legislation, polls Arkansans on lottery.

Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter told reporters this morning that he is happy with some of the progress that has been made on implementing a state lottery and scholarship program, but that work is needed on other aspects of draft legislation in circulation.

Halter made his comments during a press conference to present new public opinion polling on lottery-funded scholarships.

The press conference follows the general release yesterday of a memo summarizing the forthcoming lottery bill. Among the initial lottery proposals, which are subject to change, is a provision for a new state grant called the Opportunity Scholarship. The scholarship would be available to any high-school student who maintains a 2.5 GPA or scores a 19 on the ACT. It would provide a minimum of $1,500 per year at a four-year college and $750 annually at a two-year school.

Rep. Steve Harrelson has provided a breakdown of other provisions in the memo.

“Many parts of the proposal I’m gratified by,” Halter said. He added that he was happy that the summary of the legislation shared provisions, such as a self-supporting lottery commission, that he recommended in a statement of general principles for lottery implementation several months ago.

Halter was more specific, however, when describing what he saw as shortcomings in the lottery-legislation summary. He encouraged the legislature to create scholarships of $5,000 annually at four-year schools and $2,500 annually at two year schools. He also expressed dismay that proposed ethics rules are not stricter. He said he would like to see a total ban on lobbying by lottery vendors, and he recommended that state lottery commissioners be barred from lobbying on lottery issues for two years after they leave the commission.

Halter also stressed that there is plenty of time to secure changes to the current proposal. “The folks who put the summary out stated very clearly that it’s a draft for comment,” he said.

(Read on for more Halter commentary and results from his poll.)

Senate committee wants more drivers insured.

Though the most prominent topic in the Senate Transportation Committee this session has been the restriction of drivers’ cell-phone use — today there was a compromise on a bill affecting young motorists, in fact — the committee may soon produce legislation to encourage more car owners to purchase liability insurance. Though no action was taken in this morning’s meeting, discussion signaled that committee members will explore how to increase the rate of insured drivers in the state.

The working document is SB125, sponsored by Sen. Kim Hendren. The bill would establish an insurance database at the Department of Finance and Administration (DFA). Officials would check the database  on a monthly basis; any car owner discovered to be uninsured for a period at least three months would be subject to a $50 fine and a loss of car registration.

However, legislation the committee eventually recommends will likely have substantial differences from Hendren’s bill. Several members of the committee said they want to put more teeth into the measure.

“Maybe their drivers license should be suspended” if they don’t have insurance, said Sen. Bobby Glover, a committee member.

Current law requires drivers to be insured in order to register a vehicle, but proof of insurance is rarely checked until registration is renewed. Chuck Lange, executive director of the Arkansas Sheriff’s Association, said law enforcement generally does not run random tag checks for proof of insurance.

Mike Munns, Assistant Commissioner of Revenue at DFA, said the rate of uninsured drivers in Arkansas has steadily declined since the late 1980s, when a quarter of motorists were uninsured. The uninsured rate is currently between 12 and 15 percent. A recent study by the Insurance Research Council found 15 percent, but Munns said DFA’s data found 12-13.

(Read on for other stats on uninsured drivers.)

Week in review.

The House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill raising the state tax on tobacco after weeks of heated debate. House Republicans objected to the measure and hosted Dick Armey to speak against it on Tuesday. House Minority Leader Rep. Bryan King suggested that the state should close one of its two law schools to raise money instead of raising taxes. Argument continued up to the very vote, as opponents shouted at Rep. Greg Reep while he presented the bill on the House floor. Rep. Mark Martin later apologized to the whole body for being among the hecklers.

Rep. Martin failed to persuade the Senate Health Committee that it should allow the sale of small quantities of unpasteurized cow’s milk. His proposed bill failed on an extremely close voice vote. No member of the committee asked for a roll call vote. The House Judiciary Committee heard over an hour of debate on whether holders of a concealed-carry permit should be allowed to bring guns into churches. It eventually said yes. The same committee debated whether the criminal records of public officials should be made generally available, but it did not take action. The House passed a bill allowing independent candidates for office an extra 30 days to collect enough signatures to be allowed on the ballot. The Senate approved a one-cent cut of the state grocery tax.

The Senate passed Sen. Kim Hendren’s resolution commemorating Ronald Reagan. Sen. Hendren said he would support a similar measure honoring Jimmy Carter. The House State Agencies committee approved a resolution congratulating Barack Obama after rejecting a similar one that called the United States a nation founded by slave owners. The new resolution refers instead to “a country whose history includes the shame of slavery.” Cliff Lee received a ceremonial award and declared Derek Jeter a difficult batsman to retire. Rep. Buddy Lovell told the House of Representatives that a bill he sponsored doesn’t really do anything. The bill, HB1345, passed.

Tobacco-tax supporters win round one.

In its most anticipated meeting of the session to date, the House of Representatives this afternoon narrowly approved HB1204 increasing the statewide tax on tobacco. The measure attracted 75 yes votes — the exact number needed to raise the tax.

House Speaker Robbie Wills, one of the bill’s most vocal supporters, had repeated over the course of this week that there would be enough votes for passage. But this afternoon it emerged that the House leadership only became certain of success last night, when Rep. Garry Smith decided to switch his vote in favor of the bill.

After the vote, Rep. Smith said that he made up his mind yesterday evening while driving to Fayetteville for an Arkansas Razorbacks basketball game. By 7 p.m., he had come to his decision.

“It was not just District 7 I voted for,” said Smith in reference to his Camden-area district. “It was 2.9 million people in the state of Arkansas.”

Leadership of opposition to the bill professed surprise at Smith’s vote. “I thought all along he was a hard no,” said Rep. Bryan King, who held a press conference against the measure on Tuesday.

For those not privy to the inside baseball beforehand, the vote had more than a whiff of drama. Two packed galleries watched the proceeding, which was gaveled to order at one point when opponents tried to shout down a speaker at the podium.

Rep. Greg Reep, lead sponsor of the bill in the house, gave a speech on the floor emphasizing the health benefits the tax increase would provide, including a trauma system, services for the elderly, community health centers and an expansion of ARKids coverage to 8,000 new children.

Rep. Reep drew laughs from some members when he said he was a fiscal conservative. When he argued that the state had balanced the budget, a representative opposing the tax increase yelled, “It’s the law!” in reference to the balanced-budget mandate in the Arkansas Constitution. Rep. Wills called for quite and chastised the shouter.

(Read on for more on the vote.)

Senate Health Committee: No milk of human kindness for Rep. Martin.

Moderating its largest pitched battle of the session so far, the Senate Health Committee today declined to allow the sale of small quantities of non-pasteurized milk. Rep. Mark Martin’s bill to allow the sales was opposed by the state Department of Health and a representative from the Dairy Farmers of America. A farmer, a nutritionist and a consumer spoke in favor. Debate lasted over an hour.

Department of Health rules ban the sale of non-pasteurized cow milk. Non-pasteurized goat milk is allowed by statute. Martin’s bill would have authorized the sale of non-pasteurized cow milk in quantities of less than 100 gallons a month.

Though part of the committee’s questioning revolved around health risks non-pasteurized milk poses, it became apparent as discussion progressed that the real struggle was over regulation.

Rep. Martin told the committee that he wants to legalize non-pasteurized milk so its sale could be regulated. He argued that regulation would improve public health.

But Deputy State Health Officer Joe Bates said the Health Department, which would be responsible for supervising non-pasteurized milk sales, could not shoulder the burden of regulation. “We could monitor production, but not sales,” he said. He added that he felt the bill would decrease food safety in Arkansas.

A second representative from the Department of Health echoed Bates’s worries about oversight. “We would not be able to regulate small producers,” he told the committee.

Speakers in favor of the bill argued that the pasteurization process robs milk of essential health benefits. They said they should be able to make decisions about dairy consumption themselves, as do citizens of the 27 states that allow sales of non-pasteurized cow milk.

Though the tone of debate was often impassioned, it remained uncertain whether the bill’s defeat will have any practical impact on the state’s small milk producers.

(Read on for further analysis and for Rep. Martin’s commentary.)

Tobacco tax bill sails through committee.

Advocates for an increased tobacco tax came one step closer to their goal today as the House Rules Committee unanimously passed HB1204. The bill could come before the full House for a vote as early as tomorrow.

The only person to speak against the measure was a cigarette wholesaler, who complained that the tax increase will place an unfair burden on his business. He said he would have to take out a large loan to pay for cigarette stamps, which distributors must purchase before they sell their stock.

But legislators disputed claims of undue hardship. They pointed to recent additions to the bill that would increase a state discount to distributors, and they argued that credit could be extended for the purchase of stamps.

“The bill has a 270% increase in allowance for wholesalers,” House Speaker Robbie Wills told the committee in his argument for the bill.

Rep. Wills also repeated earlier assertions that he has the votes needed to pass the measure through the house.

The current version of the bill has several changes from the original filing. Besides the wholesaler allowance, the new version alters the way chewing tobacco is taxed. The original allowed for a tax based either on manufacturer’s price or on weight, whichever was higher. The current version includes a tax on price only. At 68%, that rate is slightly higher than the 64% originally proposed. Also, the current bill no longer distinguishes between ‘moist snuff’ and other non-cigarette tobacco products.

Bumpy road for FOI bill.

The big news in the House Judiciary Committee today was its approval of a bill that would allow concealed weapons in churches. But the committee also considered, and declined to make a recommendation on, a matter with the potential to have just as much impact across the state: expansion of FOI laws to allow any Arkansan free access to the criminal records of elected officials, state agency heads and political candidates. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Dan Greenberg, would only apply to convictions and pleas of guilty or nolo contendere.

The measure met with stiff resistance in committee. Speakers against included Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and representatives from the state police and the Arkansas Crime Information Center (ACIC), which retains criminal information and distributes it to entitled parties.

“I am quite certain that no attorney general in Arkansas has ever spoken against any bill that has to do with guarding the FOI,” McDaniel said before registering his objections. He said that there could be thousands of requests under the new law. He also argued that political disclosure forms provide an adequate mechanism for vetting politicians’ criminal records. Lying on such a form is a Class D felony. “I would not oppose legislation that sent forms to ACIC for a single check,” McDaniel said.

“I believe that this bill is precisely the opposite of SB112,” McDaniel added in reference to a bill that would allow investigators from the attorney general’s office access to ACIC. SB112 passed the House Judiciary Committee today and awaits final approval in the House. The Senate has already approved it.

Representatives from the state police and ACIC were concerned about the volume of requests that might be made under the law. They argued that they do not have enough funding to fill requests from the general public.

Speaking on behalf of the Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Jeff Rosenzweig said the bill appeared to apply retroactively to anyone who had ever run for political office.

The only person to speak for the bill was Rick Peltz, a professor at University of Arkansas Bowen School of Law.

(Read on for Rep. Greenberg’s reaction.)

Armey derides tobacco tax; King derides AR law schools; Beebe derides partisan tactics.

Fighting over Gov. Beebe’s proposed tobacco tax increase reached a new peak today as Former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey spoke against the hike at the Capitol rotunda. Supported by a contingent of Arkansas legislators — including Arkansas House Minority Leader Bryan King, who recommended that the state shut down one of its law schools to save money — Armey assailed what he saw as unnecessary spending in the Governor’s tax-funded healthcare package.

In front of a largely unsympathetic crowd — one of many pro-tax signs said Dick, Stop Blowing Smoke — Armey repeated arguments against the tax that have been in wide circulation. He said that people would buy their cigarettes in other states, that the tax was regressive and unfair to smokers, and that the state should fund a trauma system through some other means. He offered support for HB1238, which proposes to fund the system through fines on drunk driving, domestic violence and other criminal offenses.

“Are we here in Arkansas a state that dislikes smokers more than it dislikes wife beaters?” Armey asked.

But Armey also went beyond commonplace arguments against the tax to pin supporters of the increase as big-government profligates. “If you want to fund a trauma system, you ought to scrub your budget and make room,” he said.

Armey went on to accuse Beebe and other tax supporters of larding their proposal with unnecessary measures and cutting backroom deals in order to attract votes. (Tobacco tax money not spent on a trauma system will be used on other healthcare provisions.) He declined to say which parts of the proposal he meant.

Asked after the rally about Armey’s claims, Rep. King also spoke in nonspecific terms. “It started with a trauma center, and now it’s a trauma system,” King said. “Rural health is a great cause, but people need to know that they won’t get the money that gets promised to them [from a tobacco tax increase].”

(Read on for more, including details on a debate between Armey and AR Surgeon General Joe Thompson, Rep. King’s proposal to close an Arkansas law school, and Gov. Beebe’s reaction to the rally.)

Cliff Lee/Wal-Mart day at the ledge.

The Senate today recognized Benton native and 2008 Cy Young Award winner Cliff Lee with a lengthy and presumably not-plagiarized resolution outlining his accomplishments. After an abysmal 2007, Lee turned in a 22 win, three loss season last year as he became the ace of a Cleveland Indians squad that traded C.C. Sabathia to the Brewers mid-season. He posted a career-high 170 strikeouts, and his 5.0 K/BB ratio helped long-sighted fantasy owners throughout the nation.

Lee made himself available for comment after a ceremony with Gov. Beebe. He declined to say which hitter he feared most, listing Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Kevin Youkillis, Dustin Pedroia, David Ortiz and Vladimir Guerrero as tough outs.

And, no, he had no opinion on the cigarette tax hike.

Lee’s appearance set off chaos on the Senate floor, as legislators rushed to get their baseballs signed before completion of business.

A heated discussion on HB1098, which moves back the age cutoff for some kindergarten students, occupied the first hour of today’s Senate session. Though the bill passed with seven opposing votes — it now goes to the Governor’s desk — the length of the debate apparently caused the Lee ceremony to be moved up before the consideration of other bills.

The Senate’s praise for Lee was only slightly more pronounced than its praise for Wal-Mart this afternoon. Today was Wal-Mart day, and representatives of the company sitting in the gallery received commendations and an ovation from Senators on the floor. The Senators got cloth bags with that spiffy new logo on them.

No hands-free necessary, for now.

A bill that would require all drivers to use a hands-free device while talking on a cell phone failed to get out of the Senate Transportation Committee today. The bill, which Sen. Kim Hendren sponsored, was the most restrictive of four cell-phone matters the committee considered.

Three bills made it to the Senate floor:  One outlaws texting while driving, and two similar measures place restrictions on cell-phone use by teen motorists. The Senate now must decide between a bill that bans cell phone use behind the wheel until the age of 18 and another, already passed in the House, that contains that provision as well as a requirement that drivers use only hands-free from 18-20.

The only no vote on the teen-talking bills came from Sen. Larry Teague.

Committee members appeared cool to Sen. Hendren’s hands-free proposal, which would have applied to all drivers. The bill failed to receive a motion, which means that it will remain on the committee schedule.  Sen. Hendren said he might reintroduce the measure later this session if other cell-phone restrictions become law.

If Arkansas were to pass a hands-free requirement, it would be only the sixth state to do so. According to the Governor’s Highway Safety Association, a non-profit group that tracks traffic-safety issues, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Washington have a hands-free law.  Teen bans are more widespread: 17 states have restrictions on cell-phone use by young drivers.