[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6095500,"mediaKeyId","2837576-fb208355b4790332d7a1562d7091ebb0","parentId",2837576,"title","Committee hears HB1615, a state religious-freedom measure; proponents and members raise access and recusal questions","audioSeconds",777,"startMs",4520000,"endMs",5297000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2837576-fb208355b4790332d7a1562d7091ebb0&start=4520&end=5297","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2837576-fb208355b4790332d7a1562d7091ebb0/thumbnail_4520000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6095500/Arkansas/Committee-hears-HB1615-a-state-religious-freedom-measure-proponents-and-members-raise-access-and-recusal-questions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6095500-a4055e2751e2e1fca3d4bc7679ed60c2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771130241&Signature=LZSSKMkGw7Etc6SJd1L6xF1CTWhVgokDVU57Ght6~63un~uNRUm329zyNSnRQiRfNat9xFlEY6fmk7Joab-GfeeSht~UwUMD3qOhHb1VJy1NdRv4rgfFqvbmEERPgN9PZFc8KSpMvxEeu9ttd18gV4CzmRKN-s3544rqR2CJbm0s7N~SiOjrEwsKsUM~yFQDdZ0J1rfB~6R9Im3EgtvHBoljyxR0zKvfe2Lj5X856r820~O0HejENiQimZu8CSvHyJ8dUNql0rAc5a-5zoH-WDSJA~H0FEFHnArGfJbgiJhK3~PQ8TwX-33Z1D1iOncVUK4-IyVBBiaLiPK1f-VEpw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Arkansas Legislature","date","2025-04-01T00:00:00Z","article","Representative Lundstrom presented HB1615, a bill intended to protect individuals and religious organizations from certain forms of government discrimination related to religious beliefs.

The sponsor brought witnesses including two attorneys who described the bill as filling perceived gaps in state protection for religious freedom beyond the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. One witness said the bill prevents government from forcing people to speak or act contrary to their beliefs and argued Arkansas should protect religious liberty as a foundational right.

First Liberty Institute counsel told the committee that state protections could be improved and cited a recent state ranking that suggested Arkansas could strengthen some religious-liberty statutes. The witness said the bill would prevent government officials from compelling speech that violates their convictions about marriage and other beliefs; the witness also emphasized the bill’s nonpartisan and broad application across religious traditions.

Representative Clowney asked detailed questions about a recusal process for public employees who issue marriage licenses or have the authority to solemnize marriages. Committee members asked who decides whether recusal is granted, whether a replacement official must be available, and how the bill protects access to constitutional rights such as marriage. Sponsors said the bill allows a request for recusal but does not guarantee recusal; sponsors noted the Arkansas attorney general’s office reviewed backstop language ensuring access to constitutional rights and said governmental entities should work internally to ensure citizens’ access to licenses and services.

The bill’s sponsors and witnesses emphasized that the measure would not authorize discrimination by private actors; instead, they said the bill would limit government-imposed consequences on religious exercise.

Procedural status
The committee recessed before completing HB1615; the chair said the panel would reconvene 15 minutes after adjournment to continue the bill. No final vote was recorded in the transcript portion provided.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","JUDICIARY COMMITTEE- HOUSE 4/1/2025 10:00 AM","oneSentenceSummary","The House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on HB1615, a state religious-freedom bill, with proponents arguing it fills gaps in state law and members pressing for clarity on how recusal and access to marriage licenses would work.","taxTitle","JUDICIARY COMMITTEE- HOUSE, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Arkansas","taxId",21189,"location","Arkansas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6095510,"Committee approves bill raising mandatory minimums for offenders in positions of trust over children",510,335000,845000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2837576-fb208355b4790332d7a1562d7091ebb0&start=335&end=845","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2837576-fb208355b4790332d7a1562d7091ebb0/thumbnail_335000.jpg","/articles/6095510/Arkansas/Committee-approves-bill-raising-mandatory-minimums-for-offenders-in-positions-of-trust-over-children","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6095510-c824ab08e344e1745ec0d83a6ce63bf2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771130241&Signature=AyiLfh6WZPAl0N7I86YddyOcOblCdHVWKAeR~iXb-OkSXNutkVbCsUOrFNsCfeKD1JgBziQ04VKtxF57Cpbd~UDrrAInwPO4RAEHVi3lwiPnhd~mambfeoOBGszDpxqQ7qS2f40K4FwdkPo6AdwhXVeqpv2fDXmtFW1uVuwqO0rkeYRb5tSMR3OykHrf2dllPWtse7GBEUWQz4N-KENaAU~QV~vxbfTPGtCuTFQDIb9kjFtXQ12rz17rKtUJDeNu7LZZW4C6NetM3QfmSWI7M1zYlaaJEnpWH8gcmz8~owTMz5QxHWUZ-UQycATwWM0OBrDr38zYo-SZz7N~VAYk5A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Dan Vaught described HB1865 as an effort to increase penalties for people who abuse positions of trust over children, saying the law aims to strengthen sentences for the most severe offenses.

The attorney general’s office told the committee it supports the bill, describing the term “position of trust or authority” as a phrase already used across the criminal code and supported by case law. Representative Vaught recounted local cases he said motivated the bill, including sexual assault and fatal child abuse, and said the measure was designed to make penalties “so stiff that somebody thinks before they take another child in their hand and beat them to death.”

Representative Jasmine Collins (Representative Collins in transcript) questioned whether the bill’s mandatory minimums would remove needed judicial discretion. Collins noted that a Class Y felony currently carries a sentencing range of roughly 10 to 40 years and a Class A felony 6 to 30 years; HB1865 would set mandatory minimums of 30 years for a Class Y and 17 years for a Class A in qualifying cases, she said. Collins warned that earlier mandatory-minimum laws had increased prison populations and removed discretion that courts historically exercise to consider mitigating circumstances.

Representative Vaught replied the mandatory minimums were intentional and intended to match the seriousness of the conduct; he said he did not want serious offenders to “get by with 10 years” for heinous acts. The AG’s office representative emphasized that protections for children and enhanced penalties for abuse by persons in authority are longstanding prosecutorial priorities.

After closing remarks from the sponsor, the committee adopted a motion to pass the bill by voice vote; the transcript records the chair announcing, “Aye’s have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill.”

What the bill does (as described in committee)
- Elevates and prescribes mandatory minimum prison terms in certain cases where an offender holds a “position of trust or authority” over a child. The sponsor and AG’s representative said the statutory phrase has established use in criminal law; committee discussion referenced existing ranges for Class Y and Class A felonies before the bill’s proposed mandatory minimums.

Lawmakers’ concerns
- Several members raised concerns about removing judicial discretion and the potential for increased prison populations. Representative Collins warned of the difficulty mandatory minimums created in the 1990s and that sentencing discretion is sometimes necessary to account for countervailing circumstances.

Next steps
HB1865 passed the House Judiciary Committee by voice vote and will proceed to the House floor for further consideration.","The House Judiciary Committee voted to pass HB1865, a bill increasing mandatory minimum sentences for people who abuse positions of trust or authority over children, after a debate over removing judicial discretion.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6095505,"Lawmakers debate using prior uncharged conduct to enhance domestic battery penalties; sponsor pulls bill for more work",1089,2605000,3694000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2837576-fb208355b4790332d7a1562d7091ebb0&start=2605&end=3694","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2837576-fb208355b4790332d7a1562d7091ebb0/thumbnail_2605000.jpg","/articles/6095505/Arkansas/Lawmakers-debate-using-prior-uncharged-conduct-to-enhance-domestic-battery-penalties-sponsor-pulls-bill-for-more-work","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6095505-a5f30b819275e15e9ac9505b1ef4e680/orig.mp4?Expires=1771130241&Signature=Ba1FnPAPtSKfobODgjUl-7l8CTwRtnP5tOx6ZNfJg8V6emnsRa-JqSWVTgnkI34IO-lODT-COIzU0w6psH2~AbvmPb916k2GoR~itJIld6wYOFlRzYEgl3iU4wqqXE0QldXhBS1F7RcsPD4IwZUEVUrRZiulVgk8s7qNH9lY7B85US3EH7eqquyXEV4N8rig--RSoFFUeWtfhJpKGlpplfPc-73d6yuwwHSzU1EwH~SORfnlDRYuDbidNJnmzVKTGJVWH1dsSRglrVwm-eHDECmxMN7hIYr9CUKSnmirJ9jPf09z~CUS0sfkuafJGiPABhKa5hBUiQbH1n50ZIBz9w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Kinden Underwood proposed changing how repeat domestic abuse is treated for sentencing by allowing prior conduct (not necessarily prior convictions) to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and used to enhance a current domestic-battery charge.

Prosecutors and a witness described cases in which victims delayed reporting repeated violence and investigators later found photographic, video and recorded evidence showing multiple prior incidents. Prosecutor Joshua Robinson told the committee that victims often delay reporting and that evidence of prior uncharged violence can show the seriousness and pattern of an offender’s conduct.

Several committee members pushed back. Representative Clowney raised concerns about statutes of limitations and the risk of trying old conduct that is harder to prove. Representative Gasaway, Representative Gazzaway and others warned that permitting proof of prior uncharged acts “in the case in chief” risks creating a trial-within-a-trial: jurors would have to decide both the current charge and older alleged incidents, which could be highly prejudicial. Representative Clowney also asked about the possibility that acquitted conduct could be used to enhance sentences, noting potential double-jeopardy or fairness concerns.

After extensive questions and concerns about evidentiary prejudice, statute-of-limitations logic and trial procedure, Representative Underwood told the committee he would pull the bill to consult with colleagues, prosecutors and the prosecutor general’s office. The chair allowed the sponsor to withdraw the bill so the author could refine the language.

Outcome
Representative Underwood withdrew HB1765 from consideration in this session to seek further language revisions and stakeholder consultation; the bill was not voted on in committee.

What remained unresolved
- How to limit the time window (look-back period) for uncharged conduct used to enhance sentencing.
- Whether proof of prior uncharged acts should be admitted in the case-in-chief or deferred to sentencing to reduce prejudice.
- How to protect against using acquitted conduct to enhance penalties.","A proposed change to allow proof of prior uncharged domestic violence to enhance a current domestic-battery charge drew sustained committee questions about evidence, prejudice and legal limits, and the sponsor withdrew the bill for revision.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6095513,"Judiciary Committee advances a slate of bills in voice votes; several measures pass unanimously",3550,232000,3782000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2837576-fb208355b4790332d7a1562d7091ebb0&start=232&end=3782","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2837576-fb208355b4790332d7a1562d7091ebb0/thumbnail_232000.jpg","/articles/6095513/Arkansas/Judiciary-Committee-advances-a-slate-of-bills-in-voice-votes-several-measures-pass-unanimously","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6095513-8eba397fcbb411a5370a2428ac6e50c9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771130241&Signature=gkS2DGxH2Wk~rD98pxNs03-A6Jy4AuZW97QyZ6H7dFdJ5BYhXkucK0JiTcL7H6tzs0QMN5Jy1wMBLJL9xRcugacvT84~eSy-OqpNHvY-9TtFD6Ifo1AmczteNXD~QMKjyth-MtWF5uLqY51MwsfflPxIfXtVENN9WxDJ5orrsEy56gK4TkIuXj4KJkz0YEFE9QjvQoLgpgiZfrxIKvX0bxavRpDk6OaVhNQzQKryg0e6p9~319gnROnK34nEJPIurzFTW8Wc55m0mxerdQVIDxjYzF9UiabmaNuqPoovE6xIwNqdCLmQoCLr8c-PdpCnkKd9UsnArVx7u9Smf4LuZg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday advanced a group of bills by voice vote, concurring in a Senate amendment and approving a string of House measures covering subjects from drone privacy and juvenile jurisdiction to animal cruelty and ignition interlock rules.

The committee recorded no roll-call tallies in the meeting transcript; votes were taken by voice and announced as “the ayes have it” or “concurred.” Committee leaders said members who serve on House Rules and other committees needed to depart for another floor meeting, so several items were moved through on unanimous voice votes.

Votes at a glance
- HB1474 (concurrence in Senate amendment): Committee concurred in two Senate amendments to House Bill 1474; sponsors were adjusted to add Representative Lundstrom and Senator Leding, and language reinstating private clubs was restored. Outcome: concurrence approved by voice vote.
- HB1148 (drones / personal property): Presented by Representative Dan Vaught. Committee voted to pass the bill by voice vote; chair announced “you have passed house bill 11 48.” Outcome: passed.
- HB1865 (penalties for abuse by persons in positions of trust): Presented by Representative Dan Vaught with support from the attorney general’s office. Committee approved the bill by voice vote. Outcome: passed. (See separate article for fuller debate.)
- HB1815 (jurisdiction over juveniles on federal installations): Presented by Representative Perry; attorney general review noted. Outcome: passed by voice vote.
- HB1824 (animal cruelty; temporary seizure authority): Presented by Representative Matt Duffield; bill would allow law enforcement to temporarily secure dogs or cats in emergency circumstances while preserving owners’ due-process rights. Outcome: passed by voice vote.
- HB1752 (clarifying certain retirement accounts exempt from creditor execution): Presented by Representative John Maddox; committee voted to pass. Outcome: passed by voice vote.
- HB1875 (compliance-based ignition interlock for DWI): Presented by Representative Dwight Tosh and supported by task force witnesses. Sponsor later offered an amendment adding an effective date of July 1, 2026; the amendment and the bill as amended passed by voice vote.
- HB1780 (sheriff authority to release seized property): Presented by Representative Jimmy Gassaway with an amendment; committee passed the bill as amended by voice vote.
- HB1763 and HB1764 (Underwood bills on using communication devices to facilitate crimes and cross-jurisdictional order-of-protection violations): HB1763 and HB1764 both passed by voice vote after adoption of committee amendments.
- HB1829 (court administrative / specialty-court technical cleanup): Presented by Representative Dolby with testimony from a judge and court staff; committee passed the bill by voice vote.

Many of the approvals were accompanied by brief presentations and unanimous “ayes” from the committee. The transcript does not record roll-call vote counts or named movers for most motions; actions were announced verbally and characterized in committee as approved. Several bills included technical or clarifying amendments that were adopted before final passage.

What’s next
Most bills approved by the committee will move to the House floor for consideration. Committee members said items left unaddressed would be heard in a follow-up session 15 minutes after adjournment to allow members to attend other committee meetings.","The House Judiciary Committee held a busy session, concurring in a Senate amendment and approving a series of House bills by voice vote. Several bills passed with little debate; a few with amendments and one with an effective-date amendment.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears HB1615, a state religious-freedom measure; proponents and members raise access and recusal questions

Committee approves bill raising mandatory minimums for offenders in positions of trust over children

Lawmakers debate using prior uncharged conduct to enhance domestic battery penalties; sponsor pulls bill for more work

Judiciary Committee advances a slate of bills in voice votes; several measures pass unanimously