Arkansas Senate committee advances SB 43 after heated testimony on drag performances and minors

The Senate City, County & Local Affairs Committee on Tuesday heard more than a dozen witnesses on Senate Bill 43, a proposal that would classify certain performances as "adult-oriented" for the purpose of restricting where they may occur and adding civil and criminal penalties for violations.

Senator Stubblefield, sponsor of the bill, opened the hearing by saying the measure was intended to "protect our children" and described criteria in the bill that he said would have to be met before enforcement could occur. He emphasized a legal term discussed in the text and testimony he introduced, saying the bill targets what he called an "excessive interest" in certain matters and arguing that parents and grandparents deserve safeguards for children.

Opponents framed the bill as a threat to constitutional rights and to transgender and LGBTQ Arkansans. Holly Dixon, executive director of the ACLU of Arkansas, told the committee the bill would "relegat[e] drag performances to adult-oriented businesses" and sweep ordinary expressive activity—including story hours, school plays and religious events—into a regulatory regime that carries civil and criminal penalties. Dixon said the insertion of the single word "prurient" (a term taken from one element of the Supreme Court's obscenity test) into the bill's language risks creating a "word salad" that courts and prosecutors would have to untangle and that the measure would have a chilling effect on speech.

Several witnesses echoed that concern. Rochelle Britton, a transgender attorney and former board member of the Arkansas Transgender Equality Coalition, said the bill "lifts one word out of the Miller test" and warned police and prosecutors, not courts, often make initial decisions about what conduct triggers enforcement. Local performers and organizers said drag is artistic expression and community service. Athena Sinclair, a Little Rock drag artist, said she has organized charitable events and that most performances do not include sexualized conduct. Michael Dutzer, CEO of Mad Angel Entertainment, urged lawmakers to consider economic impacts, estimating his event draws roughly 2,000 visitors and that producing a show in the state can require about $70,000 in local spending.

Witness Jason Bailey, who testified against the measure, said he believed SB 43 violated the First Amendment and would harm LGBTQ and transgender residents. Multiple committee members questioned witnesses and the sponsor about the definition and application of the word "prurient," whether the bill is meant as a zoning/placement measure or as an expression restriction, and whether lawful theatrical productions could be swept in under the bill's language.

Senator Jerry Cox of Family Council gave brief testimony in support of the bill, saying the legislature has authority to regulate adult-oriented businesses and to protect minors.

After testimony and questioning, Senator Stubblefield closed by urging the committee to support the measure as a protection for children and cited national examples he said demonstrated economic consequences for states that "went woke." The committee then moved the bill forward by a "paper do pass" motion; the record shows the motion was seconded and announced as carried by voice vote. No roll-call vote tally was recorded in the hearing transcript.

What's next: SB 43 will proceed in the legislative process to the next committee or chamber stages specified by Senate rules. The committee did not record a formal roll-call vote or specify any follow-up reports or implementation dates during the hearing.

Sources and attribution: Quotations and testimony in this article are drawn from public committee testimony and exchanges in the City, County & Local Affairs Committee hearing on SB 43. When precise vote tallies or certain procedural details were not recorded in the transcript, this article notes that fact rather than inferring numbers or outcomes.