Arkansas House debates bill to remove race and gender membership requirements for state boards

LITTLE ROCK — House Bill 13 65, introduced by Representative Brown, drew extended debate Wednesday after the House read the bill aloud and members argued whether statutory race and gender provisions for boards and commissions should be removed.

Brown said the measure targets 22 code sections that she described as inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. "We have 22 sections in the Arkansas code that are unconstitutional because they directly conflict with the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of The United States," Representative Brown said during her explanation of the bill. She argued the statutes bar some Arkansans from volunteering to serve by imposing race- or gender-based requirements.

The bill’s sponsor pointed to a recent lawsuit that she said prompted earlier changes. "SB 264 ... was prompted because we had been sued by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of Stephen Hale, who had been denied the opportunity to serve on that board because he did not satisfy a ratio quota for that vacancy," Brown said, describing the social work board case and the attorney general’s decision not to defend the statute.

Opponents urged colleagues to preserve statutory "guardrails" intended to protect diversity on powerful appointed bodies. Representative Richardson said removing quotas risks making boards less representative. "Having some of these quotas creates some guardrails so that our own biases don't overtake our decisions," Richardson said. Representative Collins warned that many of the provisions have existed for years without successful legal challenge and said the bill "does a lot more than that"—it also removes geographic and socioeconomic considerations in some statutes.

Other proponents argued the change would prevent additional costly lawsuits. Representative Womack said the state was at risk of "being sued 22 more times" if the statutes remain unchanged and urged passage to avoid further litigation and expense. Representative Ray said the bill is narrowly tailored to remove provisions the state’s legal advisers have described as indefensible.

The transcript shows floor debate and closing remarks but does not include a recorded roll-call tally for passage of House Bill 13 65 in the provided excerpt; the vote count is not specified in the available transcript segment.

The discussion combined legal context (the 14th Amendment and a referenced lawsuit by the Pacific Legal Foundation), policy concerns about representation on advisory bodies, and differing views on whether statutory language or appointment practice is the better tool to secure diverse membership. The bill sponsor closed by arguing that the state should not use immutable characteristics such as race or gender to limit volunteer service.

The House proceeded to other business after debate. The transcript excerpt does not show a completed roll-call result for HB13 65.