[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6313653,"mediaKeyId","2387265-45cf1a8f809c6a055253a4fc065d7c4c","parentId",2387265,"title","Committee clears several technical and noncontroversial bills; votes at a glance","audioSeconds",465,"startMs",7289000,"endMs",7754000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2387265-45cf1a8f809c6a055253a4fc065d7c4c&start=7289&end=7754","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2387265-45cf1a8f809c6a055253a4fc065d7c4c/thumbnail_7289000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6313653/Arkansas/Committee-clears-several-technical-and-noncontroversial-bills-votes-at-a-glance","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6313653-49c894df0e67090e6eb654eaf22005e9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771216616&Signature=k5PH3xJ6aaFxTFxnolxS8V5IIaR0pla5552iciBW-pw0raZEgkRKwJs6fp56yJRz6eFWt1tnOqaFm1TiVYdRBZVBEvTFnnHekJVse3VCLDv~feT3X2ko~5A6eGsmtOitMo5tVQBN5tjvwQz6t7DTXENBoTm4n9NEIz0lGrS~3dVRfg46YmMyoBGLQRWDB-m9-28rjBGdX15ROchIlQnADeXOYdveNSVktvz1Pl-9~~~MhTSf-gytjm8MTwQnNIWbF~IG~~nJAJIHtz9NPqFDBT31wG6pK9bYDKDLNZwJocRqdvaPLBCRMI~dtGg63vhIvEhc-m1jTjSm~bqj~-s0wQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Arkansas Legislature","date","2025-02-25T00:00:00Z","article","The committee handled a set of technical or noncontroversial items and approved them by voice vote.

Dirt‑bike liability and access: Representative Justin Gonzales presented a technical correction bill to add dirt bikes to existing code provisions that protect private property owners who host off‑road events and to define “dirt bike” in state law. Jacob Hyatt (rider/economy witness) described community economic benefits when sanctioned races occur in small towns and said the change clarifies liability for landowners. The committee adopted the bill and passed it by voice vote.

Title 19 recodification (House Bill 1508): Representative Shepherd and code‑revision staff described HB 1508 as a technical recodification and reorganization of Title 19 of the Arkansas Code. The measure reorganizes treasury fund chapters, adds subtitles to improve readability, and transfers material to more appropriate titles. Sponsors said no substantive legal change was intended; the committee voted to pass.

Minor‑settlement investment options (529 plans): Representative Ashley Hudson presented HB 1527 to add Arkansas 529 (Arkansas Brighter Future/college savings) plans as an approved investment option for court‑approved minor settlements. Hudson said the change gives courts an additional, interest‑bearing option for minors’ funds when approving settlements. The committee adopted and passed the measure by voice vote.

All three items passed on voice votes during the same session; the committee recorded no substantive public controversy or opposition on the floor for these measures during the hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Judiciary Committee Feb 25, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The House Judiciary Committee voted to pass a package of technical and narrowly focused bills, including amendments to liability for dirt‑bike use on private property, a title‑19 recodification, and an approval to allow certain minor settlements to be placed in 529 plans.","taxTitle","JUDICIARY COMMITTEE- HOUSE, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Arkansas","taxId",21189,"location","Arkansas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6313657,"Proposal to adjust joint‑custody law draws heavy debate; sponsor to revise HB 1434",3665,3665000,7330000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2387265-45cf1a8f809c6a055253a4fc065d7c4c&start=3665&end=7330","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2387265-45cf1a8f809c6a055253a4fc065d7c4c/thumbnail_3665000.jpg","/articles/6313657/Arkansas/Proposal-to-adjust-jointcustody-law-draws-heavy-debate-sponsor-to-revise-HB-1434","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6313657-767918bcad320b115e787a7fc551d30b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771216616&Signature=S6ukVO7jbfGXvoTNlkaKgEk491-rNDvl0Xk2xlb-0Py-4A~--A0wTYkgK~7QZ9TOX5d8gzyIVISBywXZTcAAmZnnrVrCHZOn0pIhLFT-upTfPNLV8whhjmYMoDrdUtYLKtqoBGmLkgNH6rDskfdl8FP~LWAPARptA4D~T4s~iSZUfgKIqPp3cavFQ-vvB1Dk5NKrmCQZz5NBdPmuQbaCxKqZ3rBG~-pUUc6boRuDMTjXctGTbOhkNDbSVHQFWss8U~wmak0Dodpror0DbCGQ0s9io7457P707BPC4BeyWNuDRZKYt~qO5-Kt2Ir0tzYxnu~3WBCZTA~0GmNnf0i5Jg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Ashley Hudson (District 75) presented HB 1434 as an update to the state’s joint‑custody statute intended to protect children from adverse childhood experiences linked to domestic abuse. Hudson said the bill links the custody standard to the definition of “domestic abuse” under the state’s Domestic Abuse Act (1991) and adds procedural guidance about how courts should determine whether a parent’s conduct endangers a child’s emotional or physical well‑being.

Hudson and supporters said the changes were developed with input from judges, judicial counsel and domestic‑violence advocates to fill statutory gaps the courts identified after the joint‑custody presumption took effect. The sponsor emphasized the bill’s focus on the child’s welfare: the measure would require courts to examine whether abusive conduct endangered the child’s emotional or physical well‑being, allow courts to order safety conditions, and permit but not require rehabilitative programming for a parent.

Judges and family‑law attorneys debated whether the draft language changes the burden of proof or the meaning of long‑standing terms such as “pattern of abuse.” Circuit Judge Amy Moore, who hears family law and probate cases, said courts have grappled with how to apply the existing statutory presumption and described appellate decisions addressing “pattern” language. Several defense attorneys and parental‑equality advocates warned the bill could weaken the joint‑custody presumption enacted four years ago, that deleting the word “pattern” might let single incidents—however serious—automatically defeat the joint‑custody default, and that the bill’s rebuttal standard (a parent must show by preponderance that custody will not endanger the child) could change how judges evaluate cases.

Stakeholders who work with survivors urged stronger protections for children. Beth Sanders, executive director of the Arkansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and Brandy Daley of the coalition’s network argued the state’s children face elevated rates of exposure to adverse childhood events and that statutory clarity would better protect child safety.

Several committee members pressed for precise drafting and asked whether the bill would apply to ex parte protection orders, whether criminal convictions should be treated differently from civil findings, and how the bill would interact with current custody statutes and the best‑interest standard. Critics including Brian Vandiver and family‑law practitioners recommended alternate drafting approaches (for example, defining domestic abuse and pattern within the existing custody section rather than broad changes) and noted the bill creates new phrases such as “care” that are not explicitly defined.

After extended debate and substantial public testimony for and against the measure, Representative Hudson asked to pull HB 1434 to work on amendments with Judge Moore and other stakeholders; the committee granted that request and the sponsor indicated she will continue discussions before reintroducing the bill.","HB 1434 would redefine terms and add procedures for addressing domestic abuse within joint‑custody proceedings; the bill prompted extensive testimony from judges, family‑law practitioners, advocates and opponents and was pulled for further work.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6313660,"Representative Moore pulls HB 1433 after extensive debate over serving criminal warrants with orders of protection",6143,1071000,7214000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2387265-45cf1a8f809c6a055253a4fc065d7c4c&start=1071&end=7214","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2387265-45cf1a8f809c6a055253a4fc065d7c4c/thumbnail_1071000.jpg","/articles/6313660/Arkansas/Representative-Moore-pulls-HB-1433-after-extensive-debate-over-serving-criminal-warrants-with-orders-of-protection","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6313660-f9561c67889566e6898ad0b72b2f3b15/orig.mp4?Expires=1771216616&Signature=e~WXhg1iMkwN2qhurHlnUBCdIoDxTKCTPMmFpQYtKCaXIyropNdUG7h00U3X2ipuK6kXpK~zntdUlZ7TiI8QVx4CzCGC2w3oBRU~rzrD2aLBf3TKoTNT0D8RltK5qkq4yvsyrsDHjifrDjDepzv~eSn~Fc6LlNniGPzkTqd1145wmKW17d12jMgio-pilb-JZ6YkbSBHaXg229G2vH1wpYRXqYdI2xU5sgA6~m9pdo6bPjShQzzV0LGdxlHapGD3jqvpqZmKOvbbZ7Emu3Owvi5LSh5X6q~ct9Z--ki4-yRmxecqqvoi0EAiuA8z5BNfixvlsVin3iykM9ofr7y1IA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Kendra Moore (District 23) presented HB 1433, which would add a statutory requirement that law enforcement serve any active criminal warrants when serving temporary orders of protection or when respondents appear for protection hearings. Moore said the bill’s intent is to improve victim safety, reduce wasted law‑enforcement effort, and avoid situations in which a respondent leaves a protection hearing with an unserved criminal warrant.

Proponents told the committee the change is intended to keep victims and the community safer and to reduce redundant service attempts. The sponsor said the bill had been vetted by the Administrative Office of the Courts, judicial counsel, and the Arkansas Police Chiefs Association and described specific safety and resource rationales for having warrants served at the same time as protection notices.

Opponents and committee members pressed on operational questions and potential unintended consequences. Brian Vandiver of Arkansas Advocates for Parental Equality warned the committee the change could “weaponize orders of protection” in family law and create disparate impacts on male respondents; Vandiver argued the bill’s title was misleading because the statute would apply to “any criminal warrant” whether or not it related to the petitioner’s allegations. Representative Gasaway and others asked whether the statute would require arrest on minor misdemeanor warrants and what remedies would exist if law enforcement could not immediately serve a warrant due to staffing or jurisdictional constraints.

Representatives and witnesses acknowledged differences in how civil‑service units and criminal‑warrant units in some sheriff’s offices operate. Barbara Mariani, legal counsel for the Arkansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence (speaking with Representative Moore), said courts sometimes request sheriffs to serve protection orders, and in practice those civil units may not always check criminal databases or serve warrants. Mariani said the bill attempts to address situations where civil servers and criminal units are not communicating, describing it as an efficiency and safety measure.

Committee members repeatedly asked what penalties, if any, the bill would impose on law enforcement for failing to serve warrants. Witnesses said the bill imposes no new penalties on officers; courts retain contempt powers or other remedies. Law enforcement representatives said officers have discretion to cite rather than arrest in many misdemeanor situations and that operational constraints (staffing, geography) sometimes make immediate service impractical.

Several committee members raised a separate but related concern: orders of protection are frequently filed in the course of family‑law and custody disputes. Representative Gazzaway and others described how ex parte protection petitions can be used strategically in custody litigation and argued that mandating warrant service at that moment could disproportionately affect respondents who later show those petitions were dropped or dismissed. Committee members asked whether the bill should instead be applied more broadly to all service of process or amended to address those custody concerns.

After lengthy discussion, the sponsor asked to pull HB 1433 down to allow further work with stakeholders and law enforcement; the committee granted that request. The chair instructed committee members to share suggested edits with Representative Moore so the bill could be revised and returned for further consideration.","HB 1433 would have required law enforcement to serve active criminal warrants when serving a temporary order of protection; the sponsor withdrew the bill after prolonged questioning and public testimony raised concerns about discretion, court process, and potential misuse in custody disputes.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6313662,"Committee approves SB 234 to add circuit judgeship in fast‑growing district",191,871000,1062000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2387265-45cf1a8f809c6a055253a4fc065d7c4c&start=871&end=1062","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2387265-45cf1a8f809c6a055253a4fc065d7c4c/thumbnail_871000.jpg","/articles/6313662/Arkansas/Committee-approves-SB-234-to-add-circuit-judgeship-in-fastgrowing-district","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6313662-5fa78200c24b6f55b2a6c891d1179351/orig.mp4?Expires=1771216616&Signature=hcmle8cXkjjRwg713j983LB4mrgTiMhRtYjgThLDXmk3KVrz5UmX6v~1ID0VLqBBGgVYeFkzH6L5CzWr~eEi5KEzDmcAalb9cPHl4-wze3n9y3u8ZTFyeVGvZkfcqmb84LLIdBT2AVjPRhVv9ceNzj58o250ilJlN1~2L2duQD9bLquvo8rORA9IAumUzhFBcQekE2n8jnbMW6~YF~SrZNyzhsCAu7mRGHZ~nKBW1eLm1wnL23ESlkp~YBw-6WXMET4T2w~84QSoMVToAY~0Bb8MC0O6FQXmdyM9VtvRL~JKj28mBMvImyJAkn9dcQSSmrfSScVJNdpIlrq0vqZe6g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator Tyler Deese (Senate District 35) presented SB 234 and said the Judicial Resource Assessment Committee recommended an additional circuit‑court judgeship because caseloads in the relevant judicial district have risen with local population growth. Deese said the review showed an average caseload of about 1,857 matters in the affected district and recommended creating an additional judgeship to address the workload.

Circuit Judge Troy Braswell, who testified with the senator, described the Judicial Council’s careful review of caseload data and local sign‑offs. Braswell told the committee the district has had the highest caseload in three of the last five years and that local stakeholders — local legislators, quorum court, county judge, prosecutors and public defenders — supported the request. Braswell also noted that a courthouse construction project in Benton County will accommodate an additional judgeship.

Committee members asked no substantive follow‑up questions on the bill after the witnesses spoke. The committee voted by voice to pass SB 234. The chair announced the ayes had it and congratulated the sponsor.

The bill as presented concerns an expansion of judicial capacity in one circuit because of documented caseload pressures; sponsors and the judicial witness described a multi‑year review process by the Judicial Resource Assessment Committee and judicial counsel before advancing the request to the legislature.","The committee voted to pass SB 234 after testimony from Senator Tyler Deese and Judge Troy Braswell that judicial caseloads justify an additional circuit judgeship in the affected district.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6313664,"House committee approves HB 1452 to clarify medical marijuana packaging and notices",775,97000,872000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2387265-45cf1a8f809c6a055253a4fc065d7c4c&start=97&end=872","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2387265-45cf1a8f809c6a055253a4fc065d7c4c/thumbnail_97000.jpg","/articles/6313664/Arkansas/House-committee-approves-HB-1452-to-clarify-medical-marijuana-packaging-and-notices","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6313664-86f86d333582d9a09aeb5c727e3a5832/orig.mp4?Expires=1771216616&Signature=k~fLe5XoXPJVAve-6J3goKcScxuRUzi0YSl7SRtc9JO6GHMgCsKLzZxqFf5LetODCcR6OQ-AWFbGtMAy3wGDEkAY4J5cm2km9qJ20l2VWmtdexP61YVFi1cNjYKR2rcsjkc-Y--ZTnU34g~ZP3OQ32MViCb837os2ERpz-XkHPY0bAFho7UqpVnL22SC4mgZl0zX8stHhlu7wYU2RqoXJ1NNi2a3XJPu4XTxaUvBxKiRRKYL4xm-OILdP5Uzrma350haPxY96qOSsS59q7seXMGG0nLbLLcayJdMQqp13Hxu9XMMUpf7yBBWp5vFlnMybz9vz-K~FWTC0M0pLjq5tg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Robin Lundstrom (District 18) described HB 1452 to the House Judiciary Committee as a bill that clarifies language left out of the original medical marijuana statute and “puts it clearly in the law.” Lundstrom introduced and explained an amendment the committee adopted before approving the bill.

The bill and amendment aim to define terms and identify the packaging or containment that distinguishes legally obtained medical marijuana from illicit or out‑of‑state product, sponsors said. Lundstrom told the committee the bill resulted from conversations with both local law enforcement and members of the medical‑marijuana community: “This amendment basically is, results of both law enforcement and the medical marijuana community, clarifying the definitions,” she said. The sponsor said the bill does not change amounts or constitutional rights already granted for legal medical marijuana, but instead “codifies and defines” ambiguous language so police and courts have clearer guidance.

Critics during the public testimony urged care in drafting to avoid making access harder for medical patients. Sarah Moore, executive director of the Arkansas Justice Reform Coalition, said she and advocacy partners worry that extra packaging or containment rules could create new barriers for patients in rural areas who already face transportation and access challenges: “There are already, so many barriers to accessing medical marijuana for individuals … who have concerns around access to transportation, and getting to their medicine,” Moore told the committee. Moore also said she was glad some language had been changed in the amendment (the transcript shows the amendment replaced an “unopened container” requirement with an “uncontained” formulation) but asked for continued attention to access implications.

Law enforcement officials who spoke to the committee said the bill clarifies enforcement. Chief Sipes explained the bill’s intended operational effect for officers who stop motorists: the bill treats product inside the passenger compartment as “readily accessible,” not material stored in a trunk. “That would mean inside the vehicle, not in the trunk,” Sipes said when asked how the bill would define “readily accessible.”

Committee members asked whether the bill merely restates existing criminal prohibitions or actually creates new crimes. The sponsor and supporters repeatedly said the bill is intended to clarify and codify existing rules rather than to change penalties or amounts: “Right now, we're not changing any of those laws. We are codifying and defining,” Lundstrom said. The sponsor and law enforcement witnesses also emphasized officer discretion (for example, the ability to cite rather than arrest on some misdemeanor warrants) remained available under current practice.

After questions and public comment, the committee adopted the amendment Lundstrom presented and voted to pass HB 1452 as amended. The chair announced, “The ayes have it. Congratulations you have passed your bill.”

The committee record shows no change in possession amounts or constitutional rights; the bill’s public statements and the amendment focus on definitions and clarifying what counts as properly contained medical marijuana for enforcement and court purposes.","The House Judiciary Committee passed HB 1452 after an amendment that, sponsors said, clarifies definitions and packaging requirements for medical marijuana to help law enforcement and courts apply existing law.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee clears several technical and noncontroversial bills; votes at a glance

Proposal to adjust joint‑custody law draws heavy debate; sponsor to revise HB 1434

Representative Moore pulls HB 1433 after extensive debate over serving criminal warrants with orders of protection

Committee approves SB 234 to add circuit judgeship in fast‑growing district

House committee approves HB 1452 to clarify medical marijuana packaging and notices