Drama in Senate, Quiet in House on Rules for Arkansas 2023 Legislative Session
On Thursday, January 12, the Arkansas House of Representatives and Arkansas Senate passed their rules for the 94th General Assembly. This sets the parameters on how bills can be heard, passed, amended, and killed, and how the chambers will be run. The rules also address ethics and transparency issues for legislators. Like Washington DC, one of the Chambers of the Legislative branch started its new session with a bit of drama. But so far in Arkansas, it is the Senate rather than the House that appears to have at least one Senator who wants something more from his fellow Senators than business as usual.
Rules for the Arkansas Senate:
The Arkansas Senate heard several proposed amendments before voting on their rules for the session. First, they heard and passed a proposed amendment from Sen. Clarke Tucker (D) and Sen. Kim Hammer (R) regarding ethics violations and the ethics committee. It was adopted on a voice vote with no debate and few questions.
The newly returned, Senator Bryan King proposed amendments which were similar to those he said he had discussed with members in November 2022 at their preliminary meeting regarding rules. Copies of the rule changes were also provided to all senators ahead of this meeting. Prior to King’s amendments being presented or debated, Majority Leader Senator Blake Johnson took to the podium to asked Senator King not to present those amendments but requested they be sent to the Republican caucus instead– while also asking that the caucus not vote for the rule changes. Some have argued that this was an attempt by leadership to prohibit hearing and debating publicly these rule changes.
After some back-and-forth, Sen. Johnson withdrew his motion, and Sen. King proceeded to present his proposed changes.
King’s Proposed Rule Changes:
- Five recorded votes required to pass legislation in committees. Rule 7.05
What it Does: This would be a significant change in the way things are done in Senate committees, but it would not change the number of votes required to pass legislation in committee. There are eight members on each committee. It takes a majority vote (five votes) to pass a bill out of committee.
This rule change proposed by Senator King would eliminate the uncertainty caused by committees voting on legislation by voice vote. Under a voice vote the chair asks committee members who are for the bill to say “aye” and then those against to say “nay.” The chair then decides whether it sounded like there were more committee members “for” or “against” the bill. The chair’s determination stands unless a committee member challenges the vote by requesting a roll call vote.
The chair can be wrong in declaring which side had the most votes. Even if the chair correctly heard more committee members say “aye,” that does not mean the bill received the needed majority vote. (For example, if some committee members were absent or did not vote on the bill there could be more “aye” votes than “nay” votes but still less than the required majority vote.) And, speaking of absences, with a voice vote, a bill could pass despite there not having been a quorum to conduct business. In summary, the voice vote allows results contrary to the rule requiring a majority vote. Requiring five recorded votes would be consistent with the rule requiring a majority vote.
Not only would the rule add certainty to the process, but it would also be a big win for the public because the public would know how their Senators voted. There are times when a committee member wants a bill to pass or fail in committee but doesn’t want to go on record where his or her constituents can find out how he or she voted.
Process: This rule change created the most obvious drama. The “establishment senators” took their turns bashing King’s proposed rule change. President Pro Temp Senator Bart Hester and Sen. Jonathan Dismang spoke against the rule change. The newly elected Sen. Jim Petty stated he was unable to use his computer to check his email to read the rule change and ultimately asked King to pull it down. Sen. King reminded Sen. Petty of Petty’s experience as a city council member and how rules work and reminded him that he had presented this to him and the others back in November. Sen. Missy Irvin then made an attempt to read into the rule something the rule did say (while unsuccessfully recruiting support from the parliamentarian), arguing that the rule change included attendance requirements which would shut down all meetings. Sen. Irvin’s point was ignored by the Senate parliamentarian although she requested that he agree with her multiple times.
Result: This rule change was pulled by Senator King after realizing it was not going to pass.
- Limit legislators to one bill per Senator per day on the calendar. Rule 8.02
What it Does: This would limit the total possible number of bills per day to 35 total, with one per Senator. The goal is to ensure the process is slowed down and transparent. It would avoid rubber stamping and batching of many bills together under one vote at the end of session that are never read, debated, or truly considered on their individual merits. The rule change would allow each legislator to run at least 90 bills based on the number of days typically in a session. (This would arguably be a cap of approximately 3,150 bills allowed to be filed by the Senator during the Regular Session. It is also assumed that bills could/would be traded to allow a Senator to have others file his or her bills.) This could prohibit “omnibus” type votes and voting on bills before knowing what is in them.
Process: Sen. Bart Hester 100% agreed with the problems identified by Senator King. However, he said he thought that some Senators might batch and run their bills as a strategy at the end of session to ensure passing. After other Senators expressed that they agreed with King on the problem, they presented reasons to oppose the rule change. Sen. Scott Flippo (a long-time proponent of fewer bills per session)moved for immediate consideration of the rule change, to which King agreed, and asked for a “Due Pass” Motion. Sen. Dismang, spoke against the rule change. Sen. Blake Johnson then joined Dismang, arguing against the rule change—but going a step further in his excitement (perhaps caught up in this climate of mis-information or simply responding due to lack of memory)—claimed that King’s rule changes had never been previously presented to his fellow senators.
Result: The rule change failed on a voice vote, with only Senator King heard voting in favor.
- Back taxes owed by legislators shall be deducted against legislators’ per diem payments.
What it Does: Currently per diem payments are made directly to Senators for travel, food, lodging and other expenses to reimburse them for their costs to attend session and attend committee meetings in Little Rock. If this new rule were to pass, and a Senator owes the State past due taxes, then any per diem payment owed to the Senator would be first applied directly to the State to offset the Senator’s past state tax debts, rather than being paid directly to the Senator.
Process: Senators questioned whether that was legal. King said he discussed the legality with the Department of Finance and Administration, and they said they could garnish pretty much anything and didn’t seem to have an issue with it. Sen. Dismang and Sen. Petty both spoke against it. Others agreed it is a problem but did not support the rule change. Sen. Hickey said he agreed with what King was trying to do but asked him to pull down the rule change.
Result: The motion “Due Pass” from Sen. King failed on a voice vote.
After the proposed changes by King were voted down, a Motion to Adopt the Senate Rules, including the change from Senators Tucker/Hammer, was made. The rules were adopted on a voice vote.
Rules for the Arkansas House of Representatives:
The Arkansas House passed their rules quickly, with no debate or questions. The now third term Speaker Matthew Shepherd presented them and highlighted the changes. The main change was that bills would revert to pre-covid procedures for getting assigned to a committee agenda. During the 93rd General Assembly (2021) bills would only appear on the agenda after consultation with the chair and the bill sponsor. Now, bills will once again be automatically added to the agenda, and whether the bill will run on an assigned day included on the agenda will be up to the bill sponsor and/or chair of a committee.
Speaker Shepherd also highlighted a new rule/change that will require any legislation that may affect insurance plans and higher education scholarships to obtain a third-party consultant to issue a fiscal impact statement to supplement the bill filing. According to Rep. Lee Johnson, almost half of all bills currently referred to the Public Health committee will require those fiscal impact statements.
The rules remove the 4:30 PM deadline for filing amendments to a members’ own bills in an effort to increase efficiency regarding amending and running amended bills in committee. Other grammar, updating district numbers, and non-substantive changes were mentioned.
Ultimately the House rules passed on a recorded vote of 87 Yeas, 1 Nay,5 Non-Voting, and 7 Present.
The Arkansas Legislature will be in recess until Tuesday, January 17, 2023.
