The Arkansas Code Revision Commission reviewed a staff report identifying errors, conflicts and drafting issues in the 2025 session acts and approved a series of corrections while setting several items aside for further review with bill sponsors and state agencies.

The bureau presented the exhibit titled “2025 acts, errors and issues,” dividing problems into categories: manifest reference errors, grammatical errors, connector/logic errors, amendment-versus-repeal conflicts, and irreconcilable amendment conflicts. Kevin, the commission’s code adviser, told members the report lists staff suggestions and that the commission is free to adopt a different approach.

The commission approved staff recommendations in batches. Members voted to adopt recommended corrections for items A1–A6 (manifest reference errors) and B1–B2 (grammatical fixes). The commission also adopted many of the C‑category connectors/logic changes, with several items pulled for further review. In the D and E categories, which addressed amendment versus repeal conflicts and amendment conflicts, the commission generally followed staff practice of treating a repealer as controlling where applicable, and it adopted staff recommendations on most D and E items; a small number of items were held for additional follow-up.

Examples and follow-up actions: staff identified a manifest error in act 214 where a latitude was mismatched (the words read “34 degrees 40 minutes” while the numeric minutes were “46”); Jennifer Davis in GIS confirmed the minutes should be 46 and staff will correct the exhibit accordingly. Representative Brown raised a conflict between two acts that reference “Purple Star Schools”; staff and sponsors agreed to set that matter aside and have staff coordinate with the Department of Education and the sponsors before the commission revisits it. Another item involving whether a deductible should be set by the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission or by the Division of Environmental Quality was also pulled for sponsor input.

On several items where one act amended a provision and another act repealed it within the same session, staff recommended treating the repealer as controlling under prior commission practice and constitutional considerations; the commission adopted that approach for D‑category items D1–D8 while holding D9 for further review with sponsors and affected agencies.

Votes and procedure: motions to adopt batches of items were made and seconded; votes were taken by voice and the motions passed. For items the commission pulled, staff was directed to contact bill sponsors and affected agencies and return with recommended language or further facts before publication.

Why it matters: the commission’s codification decisions determine the official, published text of Arkansas law. Staff and commissioners emphasized that non‑substantive corrections (typos, numbering errors, mismatched cross‑references) are within the commission’s authority, but potential substantive changes, policy conflicts, or changes that might expand agency authority require sponsor or agency input and may be deferred for additional consideration.

Next steps: staff will incorporate the approved corrections into the supplements and follow up on the pulled items with sponsors and agencies; those items will return to a future meeting before final publication.