An Arkansas House committee approved a bill Tuesday that supporters said would protect religious freedom, a day after the Senate rejected a bill with a similar stated goal.
House Bill 1615 will be heard by the full House Wednesday after passing the Judiciary Committee on a split voice vote following nearly an hour of public opposition. The bill would “prohibit the government from discriminating against certain individuals and organizations because of their beliefs regarding marriage or what it means to be female or male.”
This would protect Arkansas government employees from adverse employment action if they refuse to do something within the context of their jobs that conflicts with their “sincerely held religious beliefs,” such as providing a marriage license to a same-sex couple, according to the bill.
House Bill 1669, which had similar language regarding the “sincerely held religious beliefs” of parents seeking to foster or adopt children in Arkansas, failed in the Senate Monday after passing a House committee, the full House and the Senate Judiciary Committee in March. The bill’s Republican sponsors, Rep. Mary Bentley of Perryville and Sen. Alan Clark of Lonsdale, said HB 1669 would ensure Arkansas does not join the ranks of states in which parents who do not accept or affirm LGBTQ+ children’s identities are not allowed to foster or adopt.
Sen. Jonathan Dismang, R-Searcy, said the bill would set a “dangerous precedent” by shielding foster or adoptive parents from adverse government action if their faith-based actions harm children. He reminded the chamber that not all “sincerely held religious beliefs” are Christian.
Sen. Jonathan Dismang (left), R-Searcy, and Sen. Jimmy Hickey (right), R-Texarkana, voted against House Bill 1669 on the Arkansas Senate floor on Monday, March 31, 2025. (Tess Vrbin/Arkansas Advocate)
Fifteen Republican senators voted for the bill, which needed 18 votes to pass. Dismang and three other Republicans joined the chamber’s six Democrats in voting against the bill. Five more Republicans did not vote and four voted present. The Senate later expunged the vote, and the bill is on the upper chamber’s Wednesday agenda.
The original version of Act 733 of 2023 included language about foster care, adoption agencies and the issuing of marriage licenses similar to both HB 1669 and HB 1615. That legislation was amended to remove such specific language. Critics said it would not only empower anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination but also would contradict a similarly worded ballot measure that voters rejected in 2022.
Rep. Robin Lundstrum, R-Elm Springs, is the primary sponsor of Act 733 and HB 1615. Attorneys from the conservative First Liberty Institute and the Family Council’s Arkansas Justice Institute supported Lundstrum in presenting the bill to the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.
Tuesday’s debate
Attorney J.P. Tribell was the only opponent of Bentley’s bill in the March 12 House committee hearing, but one of eight opponents of HB 1615 Tuesday.
Attorney J.P. Tribell (left) speaks against House Bill 1669, sponsored by Rep. Mary Bentley (right), R-Perryville, before the House Committee Aging, Children and Youth and Legislative Affairs on Wednesday, March 12, 2025. (Tess Vrbin/Arkansas Advocate)
“[There are] some rural counties where possibly everybody in the courthouse might be opposed to gay marriage, and if somebody wants to get a marriage license and they can find nobody, at what point do we determine that there’s an undue burden on the person seeking a marriage license?” Tribell said. “Do they have to drive two to three hours to get to Little Rock to do that?”
Civics educator Gail Choate said HB 1615 espouses the “opposite logic” of Act 116 of 2025, which all but one of HB 1615’s 13 sponsors supported. Act 116 prohibits public entities from engaging in identity-based “discriminination” or “preferential treatment” in contracting and hiring practices.
“This bill does not evaluate individuals based on their actions, their qualifications or their ability to contribute to society,” Choate said. “It singles them out solely based upon their identity.”
Other opponents of the bill spoke on behalf of themselves or their loved ones in the LGBTQ+ community. Kaymo O’Connell, a transgender high school senior from Little Rock, expressed concern about experiencing employment discrimination upon entering the workforce in the near future.
HB 1615 allows government employees who issue marriage licenses to recuse themselves from doing so. Marie Mainard O’Connell, Kaymo’s mother, said HB 1615 lacks a public notification process for such recusals.
Kaymo O’Connell of Little Rock testifies against House Bill 1615 before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, April 1, 2025. (Tess Vrbin/Arkansas Advocate)
“That’s where the harm occurs,” she said. “[People] are harmed when they expect to be cared for, and then they are told, ‘I don’t believe that about you, I don’t have to care for you that way.’ That creates a moment of trauma.”
Social workers Kirsten Sowell and Courtney Frierson said HB 1615 would create a conflict between their ethical codes, which include acceptance of LGBTQ+ people, and the fact that the state issues their professional licenses.
“If my licensing board receives a complaint based on someone’s religious disagreement with my inclusive care, who are they supposed to protect: me or the complainant?” Frierson said. “That’s a legal gray zone, and it’s not theoretical, it’s coming.”
No members of the public or of the House Judiciary Committee spoke in favor of HB 1615. Opposition on the committee primarily came from its Democrats, including Rep. Nicole Clowney of Fayetteville, who called it “blatant viewpoint discrimination.”
“We heard a lot of abstract ideas about religious freedom [today],” she said. “We did not hear from one person who is for this bill who is currently being persecuted.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
SUBSCRIBE
Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com.
The Arkansas Senate narrowly endorsed the elimination of the Arkansas State Library on Wednesday, but the bill did not receive enough support to go into effect July 1 if it becomes law.
Senate Bill 536 would transfer the authorities, funds, contracts and employees of the agency and its board to the Arkansas Department of Education. The State Library is already under the department’s umbrella but operates independently, and its board disburses state funds to public libraries on a quarterly basis.
Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Jonesboro, is the bill’s sponsor and has repeatedly promised to dissolve the State Library Board. Sullivan broadened his intention to dissolve the entire State Library last month after he said the board did not satisfy the conditions he gave them for its survival.
Most laws go into effect 90 days after the end of a legislative session, around Aug. 1, but SB 536 had an emergency clause that would have allowed it to go into effect July 1. This provision was one of many aspects of the bill that library directors opposed Tuesday before it passed the Senate Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs.
Misty Hawkins, regional director of the Arkansas River Valley Regional Library System, said it would be impossible to rework the interlocal agreements in the four counties she serves within three months to account for the language of SB 536. Several library systems in Arkansas encompass multiple counties.
Emergency clauses need the support of two-thirds of lawmakers, which is 24 votes in the Senate. SB 536 instead received 18 votes, the minimum for a simple majority.
Republican Sens. Breanne Davis of Russellville and Bryan King of Green Forest joined five of the six Senate Democrats in voting against the bill. Sen. Stephanie Flowers, D-Pine Bluff, and Sen. Kim Hammer, R-Benton, were absent. Three Republicans voted present and five did not vote.
The Senate subsequently approved a clincher motion from Sullivan with a voice vote. A clincher prevents a bill from receiving another vote in the applicable chamber, so the House will consider SB 536 without its emergency clause.
Hawkins and three other library directors said Tuesday that SB 536 might cost them the state funding they need to operate their libraries. The bill’s criteria for receiving state funds include “prohibit[ing] access to age-inappropriate materials to a person who is sixteen (16) years old or younger.”
One-room libraries do not have segregated spaces to ensure that children under 16 cannot access specific material, and SB 536 says the Department of Education “may” disburse funds to libraries that meet the proposed criteria but does not mandate it, the library directors said. Sen. Clarke Tucker, D-Little Rock, repeated these concerns on the Senate floor Wednesday.
SB 536 defines “age-inappropriate material” as “books, media, or any other material accessible at a public library containing images or explicit and detailed descriptions” of sexual acts, sexual contact and human genitalia.
The State Library Board approved a motion at a special meeting March 13 to create “non-binding policies to protect children” while honoring First Amendment freedoms and libraries’ material selection policies. Sullivan had asked the board to pass a motion to protect children in libraries and to detach from the American Library Association; the board rejected two separate motions to these ends.
Sen. Terry Rice, R-Waldron, said he also asked State Library Board members to ensure that libraries keep inappropriate content away from children.
“It’s time for drastic things to happen if this incompetent bunch is going to continue to put our children at risk,” Rice said. “There’s going to be fallout, but we’ll fix the fallout.”
Tucker said the Legislature has the authority to reconstitute the State Library Board instead of dissolving it and its parent agency if lawmakers are dissatisfied with its actions or inactions.
Library directors and State Library Board members have repeatedly said, including at Tuesday’s committee meeting, that libraries already organize books on shelves in an age-appropriate manner in accordance with existing standards.
The location and availability of books based on “appropriateness” for minors was the thrust of Act 372 of 2023, also sponsored by Sullivan. The law would have given local elected officials the final say over whether to relocate challenged library materials some consider “obscene” and made librarians legally liable for disseminating such materials.
Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com.
SUMMARY: The Arkansas Senate has advanced the “Defense Against Criminal Illegals Act,” sponsored by Senate Pro Tem Bart Hester. This bill aims to increase penalties for undocumented individuals convicted of violent crimes like murder and rape, emphasizing the state’s stance against violent gangs crossing borders. Critics, including attorney Jeff Rosenzweig and the ACLU, argue the bill poses legal challenges and could result in unfair treatment of legally residing individuals with revoked visas. Hester believes the law is necessary for tougher immigration enforcement and targets only violent offenders. The bill has passed the Senate and is set to move to the House.
Arkansas Senate advances immigration penalty bill Subscribe to 40/29 on YouTube now for more: http://bit.ly/PTElbK Get more …
www.thecentersquare.com – By Steve Wilson | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-02 06:19:00
(The Center Square) – After a federal court struck down Arkansas’ age verification law for social media platforms on Monday, Louisiana’s statute is likely in jeopardy after the same internet free speech group filed a similar complaint.
NetChoice, an association founded in 2001 with members that include YouTube, Google, Reddit and others, filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on March 18. The parties are supposed to have a status conference on Wednesday.
A similar law was partially blocked by a federal court in California in January.
Like Louisiana’s law, the Natural State’s legislation required age verification and parental permission to have a social media account, but it was more sweeping as it was applied to all users under age 18.
“Act 689, if implemented, would violate the First Amendment rights of Arkansans because it is a facially content based restriction on speech that is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest,” Brooks said in his decision. “It would also violate the due process rights of Plaintiffs’ members because it is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
In his decision, Brooks admits that while Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest and Snapchat require users to be at least age 13, “account holders are asked only to self-report their ages.”
He also said that the Arkansas law “is not narrowly tailored to address the harms that the state has a compelling interest in preventing.”
“The court confirms what we have been arguing from the start: laws restricting access to protected speech violate the First Amendment,” said Chris Marchese, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, in a news release. “And while we are grateful that this law has been permanently struck down and free speech online preserved, we remain open to working with Arkansas policymakers to advance legislation that protects minors without violating the Constitution.”
Like in Arkansas, NetChoice is seeking the overturn of Louisiana’s Senate Bill 162 passed in 2023 and in effect since July 1.
According to the legislation, age verification is required for social media sites and bans those younger than 16 from having an account without parental permission.
It also requires social media platforms to make “commercially reasonable efforts” to verify the age of users, which the complaint says is an abrogation of the First Amendment.
