Arkansas SJR 9 draws bipartisan opposition over proposal to give legislature rulemaking power

Senate Joint Resolution 9, a proposal to give the Arkansas General Assembly rulemaking authority that could supersede some court rules, drew widespread opposition at a Senate State Agencies & Governmental Affairs Committee hearing.

Sen. Blake Ballenger, the sponsor, said the change would let the Legislature act as a policymaking body in areas that sometimes are treated as court "rulemaking," citing examples such as mental‑health facility procedures and courtroom accommodations. "This is important legislation so that we can do our job in representing our constituents," Ballenger said during his presentation.

Opponents said the amendment would undermine the separation of powers and make court procedure vulnerable to lobbying. Paul Keith, president of the Arkansas Bar Association, told the committee the bar opposes SJR 9 because the Supreme Court and its rules committees are better positioned to draft and evaluate rules of practice and procedure. "We have relied on it for many, many years," Keith said, arguing the judicial rule process provides expertise and public input that a legislative process lacks.

Lawyers who sit on court rule committees also warned of legal confusion if authority is split. Brian Brooks, who serves on a Supreme Court rules committee, said case law before Amendment 80 produced inconsistent outcomes and predicted the same if rulemaking authority is divided again. He said the federal rules system is not analogous to SJR 9 and that the resolution would likely increase litigation and uncertainty.

Advocates for plaintiffs warned special interests would seek favorable rules. "If you take away the right of a poor little person out here at a nursing home to get justice," said Jerry Cox, executive director of Family Council, "you've missed the whole point." Law professor Josh Silverstein said SJR 9 would re‑politicize the justice system after Amendment 80 insulated courts from such pressure.

No vote was taken on SJR 9 during the hearing. Committee members asked sponsors questions about scope, thresholds and safeguards; sponsors said joint rules could set thresholds for calling sessions and define the process that would follow if the constitutional change is adopted.

With testimony spanning former and current rules‑committee members, bar leadership and public‑interest advocates, the hearing made clear the proposal faces organized, cross‑partisan resistance. The matter was left in committee for further consideration and public input.

The committee is expected to hear additional related items on Thursday; no final action on SJR 9 was recorded at this hearing.