Senate fails bill to allow undocumented immigrants in-state tuition.

Sen. Joyce Elliott’s bill to allow children of illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition failed the Senate by five votes this afternoon in the face of legal concerns and opposition from the governor. The bill would have allowed any child to go to college at in-state rates as long as the child attended an Arkansas high school for three years and graduated. The three-year period would apply whether the child were born in Denver, Mexico City or Vladivostok.

In addition to the nativist element represented by groups such as Secure Arkansas, opposition came from lawmakers who believe that Sen. Elliott’s bill violates a federal statute and would involve the state in costly litigation. (For more on this argument, see my earlier post.) In comments he gave on the floor against the bill, Sen. Jerry Taylor said Gov. Beebe told him the bill was illegal.

Sen. Hank Wilkins, speaking for the bill, argued that it is the Senate’s job to make laws, not to predict whether a court will strike them down in the future.

To date, a California state court is the highest to rule that a law similar to Sen. Elliott’s violates federal statute. In 2007 a federal appeals court rejected an argument against a similar Kansas law because the plaintiffs failed to show proper standing.

The majority of the speakers for the bill this afternoon made a moral appeal to their fellow lawmakers. Sen. Elliot argued, as she did in committee, that the state cannot afford to deny its people an education. Sen. Jimmy Jeffress quoted Leviticus 19: 33-34 in giving the most emotional testimony of the afternoon. The Bible reference appeared to be enough to convince Sen. Randy Laverty, who favorably compared the bill to Jimmy Carter’s decision to return the Panama Canal to the Panamanians. He said he would vote for Sen. Elliott’s bill even though he would “catch hell at home” for it. He confessed that his yes vote was easier than it might be otherwise because he is currently term-limited.

Though the speeches for the bill may have convinced one or two senators to change how they voted, the bill failed with very few comments from those who voted no. Sen. Taylor and Sen. Denny Altes made brief statements in opposition.

After the bill failed, Sen. Elliott managed to secure a motion to expunge the vote. That means she can bring the bill up again later in the session if she so chooses.

Week in review.

Lawmakers went haywire when the Department of Finance and Administration told them the newly raised cigarette tax will bring in $14 million less then expected. “I have a hard time swallowing this one,” said Sen. Terry Smith, who provided a key vote for the tax hike earlier in the session. Gov. Beebe said all the healthcare initiatives the tax is intended to pay for will still be funded, though at a lower rate than earlier assumed. Gov. Beebe asked the legislature to give him $100 million to plug budget gaps.

A Senate committee declined to recommend two ethics bills. Sen. Bill Pritchard complained that one of the bills would make him wait too long to become a lobbyist if he quit the Senate early because of financial hardship. A separate Senate committee refused to approve a bill that would set the death-penalty procedure and make it easier for the state to kill people. Some senators were concerned about the bill’s total ban on making information about executions public. Yet another Senate committee rejected a measure that would allow children of illegal immigrants to attend Arkansas colleges at an in-state rate. The committee passed the exact same bill two days later. It has yet to come to what is sure to be a controversial floor vote.

A House committee approved a ban on toy guns that look like real guns. The same committee rejected Rep. Mark Martin’s bill allowing people to carry real guns in plain sight amidst concern about the bill’s lack of training requirements and machine-gun restrictions. Rep. Martin failed to pass a bill through a different committee that would allow the parents of developmentally disabled children to home-school their kids with the aid of state money.

Rep. Beverly Pyle’s bill to allow people to carry firearms in church failed for a second time in a Senate committee. Rep. Pyle was more successful in passing through committee a bill to ban masseurs from touching a client’s breasts, anus and genitals. Rep. Pyle said she wanted to clarify that prostitution is not OK in Arkansas. Later in the week, Rep. Pyle said she stopped going to parks in Eureka Springs after the city created a registry for domestic partnerships. “When you go through the parks there are people acting like animals lying around,” she said.

Home-school plan for autistic children shot down.

The House Education Committee this afternoon narrowly declined to approve Rep. Mark Martin’s plan to allow parents of mentally disabled children to receive state funds for instruction outside the public-school system. The proposal was criticized by some as a masked voucher program that does not meet federal standards.

The bill would allow parents of affected children to educate their children at home if certain standards are met. A therapist or licensed teacher would have to provide most of the instruction, and the child would have to be deemed developmentally disabled by a doctor. Parents who are unhappy with their child’s education at public school would have to apply to the Department of Education to receive the funds.

The bill had the support of several parents of mentally disabled children, one of whom tearfully testified that she had been forced to move her child to multiple schools because of the public system’s inadequate attention.

But Kristen Gould, an attorney for the Arkansas School Boards Association, said the bill did not comply with federal law. She argued that the bill would create a system of entitlements parallel to the public schools and that the state money could be used by parents to send children to private schools.

The committee was not convinced by Rep. Martin’s ominous pre-vote threat that the state would face a “class-action lawsuit on a massive scale” if the bill failed. It voted against the measure 8-11.

Constitutional amendments galore.

The House State Agencies Committee voted this morning to approve three constitutional amendment proposals, all of which deal with state finance. The proposals now go to a joint committee that will choose from among nine different possibilities, six of which were submitted by a Senate committee last week. The joint committee can choose at most three amendments to present to voters  in 2010.

Unsurprising was this morning’s approval of two amendments: one that would make it easier for the state to issue bonds to fund economic development, and another that would remove constitutionally required interest-rate caps on government bonds. Approval of a third amendment that would remove both the interest-rate caps and restrictions on consumer lending was somewhat less expected. Advocates for the interest-rate-only amendment had argued that consumer provisions would limit the potential for passage. Supporters of the more comprehensive amendment responded that small businesses such as furniture dealers must be allowed to charge higher rates to consumers for financing if they’re to survive.

Several strong proposals fell by the wayside this morning. Rep. Richard Carroll failed to convince members to remove constitutional language barring atheists from serving as witnesses and public officials. The committee also defeated, by an 8-11 vote, Rep. Robbie Wills’s amendment to allow the state to invest in private technology enterprises.

A joint committee could consider the three amendments as early as next week. Also on the table will be Senate amendments to extend the terms of certain local officials; to establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish; to makes the office of sheriff non-partisan; to authorize energy efficiency bonds; to repeal recently approved fiscal sessions; and to subject the Game and Fish Commission to the appropriation process.

Amendment proposals can be approved by the proper committee until the joint amendment committee meets. Sen. Bill Pritchard is expected to resubmit for consideration a previously failed amendment to allow legislators to serve for 14 years in either the House or the Senate.

Death-penalty bill stalls.

Rep. Bobby Pierce’s bill to align state death-penalty protocols with federally sanctioned procedures failed to get out of the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning in the face of opposition to the bill’s Freedom of Information Act exemptions. Opponents complained that the legislation would allow the Department of Corrections to conceal information about the types of drugs used to execute prisoners.

The bill is a direct reaction to the Frank Williams case. Williams is a death-row inmate who has been fighting his execution in court. Though Gov. Beebe has signed a death warrant for Williams, the execution was stayed last September by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox. Judge Fox ruled that the Department of Corrections could not kill Williams unless it subjected recently adopted execution protocols to public input. (States moved to change their lethal-injection protocols last year after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the issue.)

Rep. Pierce’s bill would clear that hurdle by exempting the execution protocols from the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act. More controversial, however, were provisions of the bill that would put the new protocols in statute and forbid the public from learning about how inmates are put to death.

Jeff Rosenzweig of the Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers argued that the bill was overly permissive in the types of lethal injection it allows. Though the Supreme Court approved a specific drug cocktail for executions last year, the language of Rep. Pierce’s bill would permit an irresponsible Corrections director to go beyond that cocktail and use a substance such as rat poison, Rosenzweig said.

Rosenzweig also said the bill would prevent the press and the general public from getting information about executions. Department of Corrections Director Larry Norris did not deny the charge. He said certain information about executions, such as the number of guards on duty, needs to be secure. He added that the inmate and his lawyer are always told how the execution will proceed and what drugs will be used.

Though some members of the committee approved of the FOI exemptions — “Why in the world would you care what drugs they use?” asked Sen. Ruth Whitaker — enough were concerned to force Rep. Pierce to pull the bill down.

(Read on for reaction from supporters and prospects for the bill’s future.)

Open-carry bill flops.

Yet another weapons bill hit committee this afternoon as the House Judiciary Committee considered Rep. Mark Martin’s legislation to allow people to carry firearms in plain sight. The bill’s lack of provisions for training and its apparent permissiveness toward the open-carry of machine guns was too much for the committee. Though Rep. Martin did not agree with these criticisms, he pulled the bill down for amendment to ensure that it would not be legal for children to wield a gun.

Several legislators suggested they might vote for the bill if it required some sort of permit or training for open carry, but Rep. Martin firmly resisted making a change. He argued that such a requirement would place a financial burden on impoverished people. The poor who couldn’t pay would be unable to exercise what Rep. Martin considers a constitutional right to bear arms in the open. In response to the comment that anyone who owns a gun can also afford a training course, Rep. Martin responded that a gun might be inherited or earned from some sort of program.

“[A fee] would have a chilling effect on people who were discriminated against before,” Rep. Martin said in reference to the 19^th century slave laws he cited to justify the necessity of open-carry legislation.

“At what point do what stop expecting a training program to teach people and start trusting them to act responsibly?” Rep. Martin inquired.

There was some questioning about the relationship of the proposed law to current concealed-carry requirements. It was discussed whether the bill would grant greater lenience toward concealed-carriers who violate certain provisions of their permits. For example, there would no longer be ramifications for a concealed-carry holder who commits “inadvertent revealing of the weapon,” as Rep. Martin phrased it, since the open-carry law would override concealed-carry.

Rep. Steve Harrelson said the bill appears to allow people to carry machine guns in public. Rep. Martin responded that current law is ridiculous and needs to be corrected; as it is now, kids could be prosecuted for carrying baseball bats, he said, or hunters could be arrested for carrying a gun to a duck camp.

Among the flaws committee members pointed out, Rep. Martin would only concede that the bill does not explicitly prevent children from availing themselves of open-carry privileges. He will likely offer the measure again after amendment.

Ethics bills meet mixed results.

The Senate State Agencies Committee heard two ethics bills this morning, but it passed only the mildest of the pair. Though the committee approved a measure that would increase restrictions on current lobbyists, a bill to prevent public officials from becoming lobbyists immediately after leaving office failed to get enough support.

The successful bill has been criticized by some — see Max Brantley in the Arkansas Times — for allowing legislators to lard their own coffers under the guise of ethics reform. The bill would allow incumbents to double the amount of money they can retain in their carryover campaign funds. Currently an incumbent can keep the equivalent of his salary and expenses.

Sen. Kim Hendren objected to this part of the measure and voted against the bill as a result. “That twice just ruins a very good bill,” he said.

Sen. Hendren added that challengers will face an unfair disadvantage if incumbents can keep so much money. Sen. Ed Wilkinson responded that incumbents have advantages besides money that the bill would do nothing to change.

The bill carried the day after committee members opined that Arkansas is relatively miserly in the amount it allows officials to keep in campaign funds.

More controversial was Sen. Gilbert Baker’s bill to make state officials take a timeout before becoming lobbyists. The bill would require a one-year waiting period for constitutional officers, agency heads, legislators and certain staff members of these officials.

Sens. Bill Pritchard and Randy Laverty both said the bill would put an undue burden on lawmakers who need to lobby to make money. Sen. Pritchard complained that a lawmaker who quits his term before it’s over would have to wait even longer than the one-year interim, since the bill begins the cooling-off period the day a lawmaker’s term is due to end.

Sen. Baker responded that legislators know the length of a term going in and that the very purpose of the bill is to ensure that lawmakers don’t neglect their public service for private gain.

His argument was not enough to convince the committee, which defeated the bill 3-3. Sen. Hendren joined Sens. Laverty and Pritchard in voting no. Sens. Steve Bryles and Steve Faris were present but did not vote.

No in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants.

It is not all that surprising that the Senate Education Committee declined this afternoon to approve Sen. Joyce Elliott’s bill to allow undocumented immigrants — illegal immigrants’ kids who came to the U.S. through no choice of their own — access to in-state tuition rates. After all, the governor has stated his opposition to the measure, and the Department of Higher Education testified against the bill today. Yet it was still disheartening to watch as opponents killed the bill after two hours of testimony by citing a highly debated legal argument.

Said argument is that giving tuition to undocumented immigrants would violate federal law. The law in question states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.

Arkansas Director of Higher Education Jim Purcell said Sen. Elliott’s bill violated this law. “We are against the bill mostly because we believe the rule of law should be followed,” he said. He added that the state could lose $38 million in out-of-state tuition revenue if out-of-state students argued they should be afforded the same in-state rates as undocumented immigrants. (N.B.: This was a hypothetical situation; it seems like a dubious one at that.) 

Sen. Elliott argued that her bill met the federal law’s standard that American citizens be afforded the same higher-education benefits as undocumented immigrants. The bill stipulates that any student who goes to an Arkansas high school for over three years and also graduates from an Arkansas high school would be eligible for in-state tuition. The allowance would apply equally to all students whether they were born in another state or another country. 

According to Sen. Elliot, the bill mimics provisions in 11 other states, including virulently anti-immigrant Oklahoma. She argued that if the measure is illegal, as some claim, then it surely would have been struck down by now. Texas has had a similar law since 2001. A similar California law is currently being litigated in state courts. 

Sen. Elliot pointed out that the bill would require undocumented students to declare their intention to become a United States citizen. She also made a broader appeal to lawmakers’ sense of justice. “It will be impossible to meet our goals if we don’t educate an entire segment of the population,” she said. “This is our Daisy Bates moment.” 

University of Arkansas Chancellor David Gearhart, speaking in a personal capacity, made a similar argument. “I personally believe that passage of this legislation is very, very important to the future of this state,” he said. He spoke favorably of the 19 undocumented students at the university who show promise of a bright future. 

(Read on for opposition and the vote.)

Mayors’ pension bill raises questions.

A bill to change provisions of certain mayors’ pension plans passed through the Joint Retirement Committee today, but not before several questioners probed whether the measure will have an unwanted impact on officials’ retirement.

The bill, which is sponsored by Rep. Lindsley Smith, would apply to mayors, city clerks and clerk-treasurers in cities with over 2,500 people. Currently cities are required by state law to pay these employees half their final salaries for the duration of their lives once they reach sixty if they served in their public role for over ten years. Rep. Smith’s bill would allow cities to decide whether that is appropriate compensation.

Rep. Smith said current law provides municipalities with an unfunded mandate. She said cities rather than the state should decide how to fund pensions for long-term mayors and clerks.

State law leaves it up to cities to decide whether to participate in the state pension plan.

Several speakers were skeptical about Rep. Smith’s bill. Camden mayor Chris Claybaker said it might allow a city board in a spat with its mayor to revoke his retirement. “I think [the bill] is a way of putting a mayor’s or city clerk’s pension into a political situation,” Claybaker said.

Sen. Jim Jeffress questioned whether the measure is specific to Fayetteville, Rep. Smith’s home city. She replied that it isn’t, though she added that the question of whether a mayor should receive the state-mandated pension was an issue during Fayetteville’s last mayoral race.

Sen. Jeffress was an audible no vote, which suggests that the bill may garner debate if it reaches the Senate floor.

UPDATE 24 MARCH: It didn’t even get that far. The bill met defeat on the House floor today by a vote of 33-45.

Pretty good day for vice.

Lovers of fruity alcoholic beverages can breath a little easier today after the House Rules Committee refused to recommend a bill that would restrict the sale of so-called alcopops. The bill would have raised the tax on such drinks as Mike’s Hard Lemonade. It would have also prohibited gas stations and grocery stores from selling the drinks.

Bill supporters argued that the beverages should be restricted because they are often a teenager’s entryway into drinking. They also said the drinks are more akin to spirits than malt beverages. Though alcopops are brewed like beer, they said, the beer taste and fermented alcohol are removed and replaced with spirits-infused fruit flavors.

A senior at University of Arkansas urged passage of the bill so as to stem what she called “hundreds” of underage drinking arrests on campus. After the comely witness testified that she might like to one day run for the legislature herself — “Which one of us are you going to take out,” Rep. Rick Green unfortunately joked — she said alcopops were frequently consumed by underage girls who were fooled by the refreshing flavors. (The marketing image of these drinks is unquestionably feminine. See this excellent Slate piece on the recent demise of Zima, the original “malternative.”)

Committee members were apparently unsatisfied by Rep. Gene Shelby’s statement that his bill would raise $150,000 in annual revenue. They were more susceptible to the position of a gas station association, which argued that restricting the beverages would cut an important source of retailer revenue.

Other victories for vice in House Rules today included approval of a bill that will reduce the newly raised cigarette tax in the city of Marion and recommendation of a measure that will allow alcohol sales at horse tracks during all hours of business operation. Both bills are sponsored by Rep. Keith Ingram of West Memphis.

Those of fastidious morality make take some consolation in the committee’s approval of Rep. Barry Hyde’s bill to ban smoking on public college and university campuses.

Objections notwithstanding, committees move lottery bill.

Despite hearing concerns from key players about parts of the lottery bill — see it in its Senate version here — both the House Rules Committee and the Senate State Agencies Committee approved the long-in-the-works legislation today.

The primary objector, at least to some provisions, was Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, who ran the campaign to create the lottery last year. Among improvements he called for at the Senate State Agencies meeting were to:

-Ensure that every possible dollar goes to new scholarships. The bill as written now allows lottery money to be used for administrative and other costs.

-Set an appropriate salary level for the executive director of the lottery. Currently the director’s minimum salary would be $141,000. The government-appointed lottery commission could also approve a bonus of up to $354,000. A similar situation would apply for the lottery inspector general, who is scheduled to make the same as the executive director, and the lottery chief operating officer.

“I think the public is outraged by the prospect of someone earning $500,000 to run the lottery,” Lt. Gov. Halter said. He said Georgia pays its executive director $286,000, the second-highest figure in the nation.

-Tighten rules for a trust fund account that will hold lottery earnings and say explicitly how the interest will be spent. As it is now, the lottery commission will decide how to spend the interest.

-Improve ethics regulations. Expand a ban on future lobbying to legislators and not just members of the lottery commission. All legislators should be barred from receiving gifts from lottery vendors, not just those legislators who serve on the Lottery Commission Legislative Oversight Committee.

-Simplify the eligibility requirements for scholarships. The current legislation lists at least seven different ways a student can receive a scholarship.

-Rethink how some scholarship money is to be used. Under current plans, there will be an excess of money set aside for nontraditional students, Lt. Gov. Halter said. That money can be used to pay for higher scholarship awards for traditional students.

A statement Lt. Gov. Halter presented to the committee this afternoon can be read here. Read below for further objections.

Bad news for minimum-wage workers.

A bill approved by the House Public Health Committee today could mean an effective pay cut for workers paid the minimum wage. The bill, sponsored by Rep. John Burris, would change a rule that limits how much money an Arkansas employer can take out of a minimum-wage worker’s paycheck for goods and services the employer provides.

Currently an employer can withhold a maximum of 30% of pay for company food, clothing and lodging. The new rule would eliminate the 30% threshold and have the state Department of Labor establish a fair value for employer-provided goods.

The provisions apply only to minimum-wage workers. According to Rep. Burris, the bill would align Arkansas with federal minimum-wage standards.

States are free to establish labor laws above federal standards, but they cannot drop below those standards. The 30% withholding limit, which is stricter than federal standards, is not observed by every state.

Department of Labor attorney Daniel Faulkner opposed the bill on the grounds that it could mean a pay reduction for already-struggling workers. “We are against what is effectively a pay cut in a bad economy,” Faulkner said.

Rep. Burris said he brought the bill on behalf of a small-business owner who ran afoul of the 30% law. Though the owner was giving his minimum-wage employees 50% discounts on food, Burris said, he sold the employees so much that more than 30% of their paychecks had to be withheld. He was later compelled to repay the workers cash for money withheld over 30% of wages.

Asked whether the owner may have simply been ignorant of Arkansas Law, Rep. Burris said he was following federal standards. Rep. Burris also testified that employees can choose whether to purchase owner-supplied goods. He added that the bill does not change the state Department of Labor’s ability to pursue wrongdoing.

The bill cleared the committee easily, though there was some opposition. On a voice vote, Rep. Mike Burris and Rep. Willie Hardy were audible nos.

UPDATE 18 MARCH: The House failed the bill 42-39. Rep. John Burris tried to spin his handiwork as good for employees whose employers offer them discounts on their goods. Those who voted against must have realized that employers can pay cash and offer discounts at the same time.

Using tobacco cessation money for drug cessation.

Lawmakers emerged from the Senate Health Committee today without a deal to fund drug courts through state tobacco funds. Though the deal was expected to go through, the governor’s office asked for more time to review the terms.

The funding proposal, sponsored by Sen. Bill Pritchard, would divert 15 percent of tobacco settlement money currently used to help people stop smoking. The money would go into a new fund that would pay for treatment programs directed by drug courts.  Sen. Pritchard estimated that the total transfer would be $2.2 million.

Sen. Pritchard previously met with Gov. Beebe and got his support for the general idea. The percentage of smoking cessation funds to be used was left up in the air, however. At today’s meeting, Gov. Beebe’s chief of staff Morril Harriman asked that the governor’s office have until tomorrow to review whether 15 percent is a feasible figure.

Drug courts run diversionary programs that allow some drug offenders to receive treatment rather than jail time. Last year, about $1.5 million was cut from the courts’ treatment programs during the budget process. Sen. Pritchard’s bill would resupply that money.

The bill does not include any funding for drug-court personnel or expansion. Sen. Pritchard said an earlier plan to expand drug courts was scotched when it became clear that there was not enough room in the budget.

The bill lists 24 co-sponsors in the Senate and 72 in the House, more than enough for passage if the governor approves the deal.

Hannah Montana bill clears committee.

A bill to prevent inflation of ticket prices for high-profile concerts passed the House Technology Committee this afternoon. The measure is an attempt to protect such consumers as those who paid hundreds of dollars to see a 2007 Hannah Montana concert at Alltel Arena after outside vendors bought up many of the tickets. (It was not discussed whether consumers who pay hundreds of dollars for a Hannah Montana ticket really need protecting.)

The bill, which is sponsored by Sen. Larry Teague, would make it illegal for an outside vendor to advertise a ticket for sale over the Internet before the concert venue does so. According to Deputy Attorney General Jim DePriest, who spoke in favor of the bill, profiteers began selling the Montana tickets — tickets they didn’t actually have — over eBay before Alltel offered them for general sale. This allowed them to gauge whether there was a market for the tickets at prices over Alltel’s face value, which was about $60. When they discovered that there was, they purchased many of the tickets through a sophisticated electronic scheme as soon as Alltel made them available. Many would-be concertgoers were unable to get a ticket at face value and had to pay the profiteers’ exorbitant prices in order to satisfy their children.

The bill does not make it illegal for vendors to evade online security devices meant to prevent mass ticket purchases. Such purchases could still create shortages that would lead to high prices. However, DePriest said the bill’s approach would theoretically discourage ticket speculation, since vendors cannot be sure of a profit if they are unable to use Internet auctions to test the market for higher-priced tickets.

DePriest added in a later interview that it would be difficult to prosecute someone for driving up ticket prices. Whether the crime is advertising tickets for sale or buying them in excess from the official venue, the culprit is someone who is technologically savvy and well-equipped to hide behind the mask of cyberspace.

The bill applies to all live entertainment except sporting events. Sports are explicitly exempted.

No sympathy for the Green Party.

The Green Party and other third parties were dealt a blow today as two bills that would have made it easier for them to participate in elections failed to make it out of the House State Agencies Committee.

The better of the two bills would have reserved a spot on the ballot for a third party if it receives over three percent of the vote in races for president, governor, U.S. Senator, and certain state constitutional officers.  (For some reason the bill did not allow automatic access if a third party performs well in U.S. House races.) Currently a third party can only remain on the ballot if it gets three percent of the vote for president or governor. If it fails to do so, it must place its candidates on the ballot through a petition process.

ACLU staff attorney Holly Dickson argued that any party that gets over 200,000 votes in a U.S. Senate race, as Green Party nominee Rebekah Kennedy did against Mark Pryor in 2008, should be given an automatic ballot spot. The committee was unconvinced.

The vote was 8-10, with all but one of the ayes coming from Republicans. (Rep. Lindsley Smith, a Democrat, voted yes; Rep. Ed Garner was the only Republican to vote no.) Democrats likely made the political calculation that easier ballot access for Greens would drain votes from their party.

A second bill would have required debates funded with public money or conducted at public spaces to include third-party and independent candidates who are certified for the ballot. The bill proposal stems from the 2006 gubernatorial elections, when Green Party nominee Jim Lendall and independent candidate Rod Bryan found themselves excluded from a series of debates between Mike Beebe and Asa Hutchinson.

Rep. Steve Harrelson wondered whether the measure would cause debates to be moved to private locations. Rep. Ed Garner argued that it would prohibit private parties from holding debates at universities. Rep. Donna Hutchinson expressed concern that the bill would limit the state’s ability to contend for presidential debates.

The U.S. Supreme Court has previously found that the Constitution does not require that all candidates be included in a political debate, even if the debate is staged in a public space.

Both bills were sponsored by Rep. Richard Carroll, the only Green Party member in the legislature. Though Rep. Carroll said prior to the session that he is a Democrat in Green’s clothing, these proposals suggest he is fully behind the agenda of his current party.

No special plates for Cold Warriors.

Providing special-rate license plates to armed service members who served during the Cold War may put too much strain on state coffers, the Senate Transportation Committee decided today. The bill that would have made the change, sponsored by Sen. Johnny Key, got a motion but lacked a second.

Though committee members made a point to articulate their support for veterans, the possible $4.9 million cost of implementing the measure was deemed too much to pay.

The measure would apply to anyone who served in the U.S. armed forces from 1945 to 1991. According to Mike Munns, Assistant Commissioner of Revenue at DFA, 223,000 Arkansans could be eligible for the special plate and reduced rate that comes with it. Full participation would cost the state $4.9 million in highway department revenues.

The bill requires that veterans acquire a special certificate from the Department of Defense in order to be eligible. Sen. Key argued that, since not everyone will go to the trouble of getting the certificate, the actual cost of the special plates would be less than $4.9 million. But he acknowledged that the potential price tag is high before the voice vote.

Week in review.

Focus turned from the hard slog of lottery legislation to divisive cultural issues this week. The Senate State Agencies Committee declined to pass the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by one vote. Sen. Bobby Glover said he voted against the measure because testimony did not convince him that women are discriminated against in Arkansas. By a wide margin, the House of Representatives passed a bill that will remove information about concealed-carry permittees from public access. Debate was greater over a measure that will put certain restrictions on teen drivers. Rural legislators were against rules that will limit how many teens can be in a car at one time.

A House vote went narrowly in favor of a bill that would penalize adults who serve teens alcohol on their property. In the Senate, a vote to require that a majority of Oil and Gas commissioners be experienced in the oil and gas industry sparked a fight. The disputed bill ultimately passed.

The House State Agencies Committee told participants in amateur combative sport that they have to be regulated by the State Athletic Commission. The same committee said it was not a good idea to tell the federal government to cease and desist from giving Arkansas unfunded mandates. The House Judiciary Committee told Sen. Denny Altes he cannot ban trial lawyers and chiropractors from using accident reports for solicitation purposes.

Rep. Steve Cole said revealing that someone suffers from a communicable disease is the same thing as outing a person with a concealed-weapon permit. Arguing against a new form of non-profit business structure, Rep. Jim Nickels said Arkansas should not be on the cutting edge. Rep. Monty Davenport made a joke about women drivers on the House floor.

Toughman roughed up.

Though Rep. Steve Harrelson has been unable to deal a knockout blow to Original Toughman, the elimination-style boxing contests that pits amateurs against one another, he succeeded today in convincing the House State Agencies Committee to bring Toughman and other amateur fights under the regulation of the State Athletic Commission. Rep. Harrelson took on the cause last year when a fighter died after a match in his Texarkana district.

Though Original Toughman promoters had fighting words for Harrelson when he first proposed banning the event in Arkansas, they agreed to Athletic Commission oversight. Toughman has been bloodied by total statewide bans over the past few years; several states, including Texas, would rather bar the event than regulate it.

Should Rep. Harrelson’s bill become law it will also affect amateur mixed martial arts fights, which have a following in Hot Springs.

The measure requires tougher safety precautions. Promoters will have to carry at least $5,000 in injury insurance for their fighters and another $5,000 in the case of a contestant’s death. The bill also gives the Athletic Commission authority to license referees for amateur fights. Rep. Harrelson said better ring umpiring will catch signs that a contestant is in danger.

The legislation would also ensure that fighters are matched fairly. Toughman rules establish broad weight categorizations; the State Athletic Commission’s stipulates narrower weight classes.

Promoters will pay the Athletic Commission 5% of gate receipts to fund the increased oversight.  Rep. Harrelson said he originally proposed taxing pay-per-view money, but that idea met opposition.

No one dissented in today’s vote. The bill goes on to the full House.

Read the sponsor’s take on the bill at Under the Dome.

Concealed guns and the FOIA.

It has been well publicized that some members of the legislature want to exempt information about concealed-carry permittees from the Freedom of Information Act. Success came a step closer today when the House Judiciary Committee passed a bill amending the FOIA.

It has also been well publicized that this was a non-issue until a few weeks ago, when the Arkansas Times, which supports this blog, pointed out that the names and addresses of concealed-carry holders are publicly available and linked to them. But what the Times deemed a public service others deemed a menace. The posting mobilized concealed-carry holders and inspired a number of truly disturbing death threats to Max Brantley, editor of the Times.

The virulence of that response has made it difficult for me to consider the merits of hiding information about concealed-carry holders. Surely there must be some; according to this AP article, 21 states don’t allow access to concealed-carry information.

But few of the arguments I heard today in favor of the bill made much sense to me. They included:

1. The very nature of a concealed permit is that no one knows about it.

2. Now the “bad guys” know where the “good guys” are. From now on it will be very easy for the bad guys to break into the good guys’ cars and steal their weapons.

3. Undercover agents who carry concealed weapons will be exposed, since the right to carry a concealed weapon would be inconsistent with their undercover roles. (Crooks can’t carry.) Parole officers will also be vulnerable to malicious types among their clientele.

4. Do we out people who hide communicable diseases? Then why do we out people who hide weapons? It’s the exact same thing.

(Click on the link below to read more.)

Sympathy for trial lawyers and chiropractors.

Are unwanted solicitations annoying? Sure. But should they be criminal? No, said the House Judiciary Committee this morning, as it failed Sen. Denny Altes’s measure to prevent trial lawyers and chiropractors from using accident reports to solicit business. Actually, the bill would be better described as the bidding of Fort Smith trial lawyer Joey McCutchen, who argued for it futilely for about half an hour.

Originally this was a really bad bill, as it unconstitutionally restricted access to accident reports to all but a few people. The newest version erased that part and made it a crime to use information obtained from an accident report to scrounge up clients. But the committee was still unconvinced that the new version provided an equitable application of the law. Rep. Steve Harrelson summed up this argument in a question to McCutchen: “Have you considered expanding this to all public documents?”

Sen. Altes briefly argued that people who have undergone accidents should not be harassed with phone calls and junk mail. But sympathy for the client was not much of an issue for McCutchen, whose support might seem odd considering that he’s a member of a group the bill targeted. Though he professed that the bill was an attempt to clean up trial lawyers’ image, McCutchen’s tirade against lawyers who pay runners to track down potential clients suggested that he may be upset about being undersold.

The proceeding did have some entertaining fireworks. Using a dramatic term very, very loosely, McCutchen said, “We have had George W. Bush in the White House for the past eight years and he has demonized trial lawyers. That’s a tragedy.”

It also emerged that McCutchen was once arrested for picketing a George W. Bush speech. This is likely the only time you’ll see the deep-red Altes team up with such a flaming Dem.

Nullification act nullified.

Arkansas spared itself yet another national embarrassment this morning as the House State Agencies Committee rejected a resolution saying that Arkansas is a sovereign entity, dammit, and the federal government better lay the hell off. As usual in this committee, the vote was split mainly along partisan lines, with 8 for and 10 against.

Supporters of the resolution said it was in defense of the 10th Amendment, which reserves certain powers not given to the federal government to the states. Yet the resolution did not indicate any specific violations; it opined only that certain mandates and proposals from the current administration may be in breach of the Constitution.

Rep. Steve Harrelson spoke most effectively against the bill. “I really don’t want my name going on a resolution to Mike Ross telling the federal government to cease and desist. If I want to tell him that I’ll call him on the phone and tell him myself. Can we tone down the cavalier language?”

Rep. Harrelson went on to object that the resolution’s hostile tone indicates that the state would take action if the federal government ignores it. “What exactly are we giving notice for?” he asked.

Rep. Debra Hobbs defended the resolution by saying other states were considering similar measures, including Oklahoma. Oklahoma passed its resolution last month, according to the always helpful John Birch Society website.

Jeannie Burlsworth, leader of the anti-immigrant outfit Secure Arkansas, also testified in favor of the resolution. She said she represented the people of all 75 counties of Arkansas, a fact previously unbeknownst to me, her constituent.

With the defeat of the resolution dies one more measure with no practical impact other than to make a lot of people real mad.

For oil and gas industry, a stronger hand.

Although they are frequently drowned out by braying over guns in church or what have you, there have been quiet debates this session over several issues that could have an major practical impact. One such debate came to a head yesterday when the Senate voted to require that a majority of the Oil and Gas Commission be experienced in the business of oil and gas.

On its face, this is not an objectionable proposal. I’d really not paid it much mind until yesterday. You want people who know how the technology works on the commission, right? Besides, if earlier testimony on the House floor is to be trusted — not always a given, I’ve found — the Oil and Gas Commission has traditionally been controlled by a majority in the business. The current law says four members have to be experienced; the change just reflects that the commission has expanded from seven to nine in recent years.

Yet a review of the gas industry in Arkansas and look at the Oil and Gas Commission’s responsibilities brings second thoughts.

Let’s take the latter first. As stated by Arkansas Code 15-17-110, the Oil and Gas Commission is to require that wells be drilled, operated and plugged so as to “prevent the pollution of fresh water supplies and unnecessary damage to property, soil, animals, fish, or aquatic life by oil, gas, or salt water.” And witness the commission’s own mission statement:

The purpose of the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission is to serve the public regarding oil and gas matters, prevent waste, encourage conservation, and protect the correlative rights of ownership associated with the production of oil, natural gas and brine, while protecting the environment during the production process, through the regulation and enforcement of the laws of the State of Arkansas.

In short, the Oil and Gas Commission is charged with significant stewardship over the environment. But I think it’s safe to say that clean water is not the first thing on a gas driller’s mind when there’s a bonanza to be had.

Which brings us to the current state of the gas industry in Arkansas. The Fayetteville Shale has changed the game. A majority of energy people on the Oil and Gas Commission did not have the same impact a decade ago as does now, when drilling is exploding to unheard of proportions.

Sen. Joyce Elliott, who led a floor debate against the measure yesterday afternoon, brought up some of these concerns in a later interview.

(Click the link below for Sen. Elliott’s comments.)

Equal Rights Amendment quashed again.

There was no shortage of fearmongering, fudging and dubious logic in the Senate State Agencies Committee this morning as Sen. Sue Madison tried to pass a bill ratifying the federal Equal Rights Amendment. Though the bill had 18 Senate cosponsors — including Senate President Pro Tem Bob Johnson, who has previously expressed opposition to the ERA — it failed passage by a 4-4 vote. This was not an unexpected outcome, as the State Agencies Committee is composed of some of the Senate’s most conservative members. Yet the antiquity and dishonesty of some of the views expressed was a thing to behold.

The oldtime paternalistic camp found its voice in Sen. Bill Pritchard, who said women in his family urged him to vote against the bill. “I respect women,” he said. “But for me to be treating women equal to men, I wouldn’t be treating them as well as I do now.” His smile positively glowed as a later speaker opined about the importance of chivalry.

More malignant were a series of speakers who made legal claims that the ERA would cause women to be drafted into the army, force states to pay for abortions, and legalize gay marriage.

The claim about the army was easily shot down when someone pointed out that the United States no longer uses conscription. (Though some doubted that the country won’t bring it back. “Napoleon couldn’t predict Waterloo,” said Sen. Randy Laverty.)

ERA opponents vigorously pursued the arguments about abortion and gay marriage, however. Betsy Hagan, leader of the Arkansas Eagle Forum, called the ERA ‘a fraud’ and said it would put federal restrictions on all our laws. (Of course, reaction to the federal government is a wingnut cause that remains as strong as ever in Arkansas.)  She invoked the horror story of Title IX, which she said caused the elimination of 171 college wrestling programs. (This evoked a hearty laugh from Sen. Steve Bryles.)

But the most deranged performance belonged to Marianne Linane of the Diocese of Little Rock. She cited Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Sex Bias in the U.S. Code as proof that the ERA would lower the age of sexual consent to 12.* (The claim that Ginsburg supports pederasty has been carted out and refuted before, but Linane didn’t make the connection to the ERA clear. Apparently we were to conclude that since Ginsburg wrote Sex Bias and is also a noted ERA supporter, then the ERA will legalize a lower threshold for statutory rape.)

After the hearing, Bowen Law School Dean John DiPippa called Linane’s argument “intellectually dishonest.” He also said that fears about abortion and gay marriage were vastly overblown. One opponent testified that a Maryland court justified gay marriage using the ERA. Yet she neglected to mention, DiPippa pointed out after the hearing, that the ruling was later overturned by the state Supreme Court and that the law in question was a state version of the ERA stricter than the federal amendment.

(Read after the jump for more on the final vote.)

Legislators push for housing trust fund.

Calling attention to a bill filed two weeks ago, a team of lawmakers held a press conference this morning to introduce legislation that would create a trust fund to expand low-income housing. The fund, which would be run through the Arkansas Development Finance Authority, would be dispersed to local governments, housing authorities, nonprofits and for-profit housing developers whose projects assist homeowners making less than 80% of the statewide median household income.

The bill lists several types of projects that would be eligible for the fund’s assistance. They include construction, land acquisition, assistance with down payments and foreclosure counseling.

It is currently unclear where the money will come from to pay for the proposed program. But Rep. David Rainey, who is one of two House members to sponsor the bill, said the source of funding is less important right now than setting up the trust fund’s structure. Money could come from a number of places, including state appropriation, private donation and federal assistance.

“This is something that should benefit people across the state,” Rep. Rainey said. He said he was unaware of anyone opposed to the bill. “I think there will be a groundswell of support.”

According to Housing Arkansas, a group lobbying for the bill’s passage, housing trust funds exist in 38 other states.