Committee pauses bill on restroom and shelter designations after fiscal-impact request

A House committee on Tuesday heard hours of testimony on Senate Bill 486, a proposal carried in the House by Representative Mary Bentley that would require certain multi‑occupancy restrooms, changing rooms and sleeping quarters to be designated by biological sex in higher education, correctional institutions and shelters.

The bill’s sponsor, State Representative Mary Bentley, said the measure extends protections the Legislature enacted last year for K‑12 schools. “We passed a bill to keep the boys’ and girls’ bathroom separate in schools to make sure their girls were safe and have private areas. This bill extends that to higher education, correctional institutions, and to make sure that our domestic violence shelters and our shelters across the state are protected,” Bentley told the committee. Bentley said state agencies raised no objection to the Senate amendments and that “there is no opposition from an agency across the state.”

An allied attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, Stephanie Nichols, testified in support and cited federal circuit decisions in other states. “These are common sense laws,” Nichols said, adding that several federal circuit courts recently upheld similar laws. Nichols told lawmakers that the measure would prevent situations in which “a man who identifies as transgender” could be present in certain women’s private areas and argued the bill would preserve “bodily privacy.”

Opponents — including Representative Vivian Clowney and other committee members who asked questions during debate — raised concerns about the bill’s impact on transgender Arkansans and about potential costs to state and local entities. Representative Collins pressed the sponsor on the fiscal consequences and asked specifically whether higher education institutions or shelters had identified retrofit or staffing costs. “Can you tell me about the cost as you’ve assessed them? I mean, what does the fiscal impact say on this bill?” Collins asked. Bentley said she had no fiscal-impact estimates available and that the senator who carried the Senate amendment was not present to answer that question.

Because several members said the bill could impose new or increased cost obligations — through retrofits, signage changes, staffing or potential liability exposure — Representative Collins formally requested a fiscal impact. After conferring with staff and the House parliamentarian, the committee chair read the House rule that requires a fiscal-impact statement when a bill "requires or imposes a new or increased cost obligation," and said staff would refer the bill for a fiscal impact. The chair then said the committee must cease further action on SB 486 until the fiscal-impact statement arrives.

No final vote was taken on SB 486 Tuesday; committee members were split on whether the bill as written addresses legitimate privacy and safety concerns or creates new legal and administrative burdens for public entities. The chair noted the committee will resume consideration after receipt of the fiscal‑impact report.

Ending: The committee paused formal action on SB 486 pending a written fiscal‑impact statement to be returned to the committee; the request was made on the record by Representative Collins and accepted by the chair. The pause means no committee vote or referral to the floor will occur until staff or the appropriate state agency completes the fiscal review and presents it to committee members.