A House bill set for consideration today by Senate committee and meant to strengthen protections for religious objectors faces skepticism from Gov. Asa Hutchinson.
The day before House Bill 1228, known as the Conscience Protection Act, was to be presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee after its passage in the House of Representatives last week, Hutchinson said he had some concerns about the legislation's workability.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Bob Ballinger, R-Hindsville, would grant Arkansans a defense against laws, ordinances, or policies enacted by state or local government that would "substantially burden" their rights to the exercise of religion.
Government would have to demonstrate a "compelling" interest to do so, as well as ensure that any restriction is as unrestrictive as possible, in order to trump a citizen's objection.
Hutchinson, a former U.S. attorney, said the proposed law's language posed some legal concerns.
"It raises a lot of questions as to how it would be applied, how it'd actually work. As a lawyer with a little bit of experience in the legal arena ... there are a lot of questions that need to be answered in regard to this. I can see a great deal of litigation coming out of this."
Some critics of the bill argue that there is no attack on religious freedoms of the state, while others feel that it will enable people to discriminate against gays, who are not a constitutionally protected class of citizens, in the name of religious conscience.
Hutchinson's concerns, however, were more in line with attorneys from the Arkansas Association of Counties as well as the state's Municipal League, who testified against the bill earlier this month.
They argued the law was too broad and opened too many doors for citizens to try and skirt basic laws in the name of their religious beliefs.
Asked what specific problems or questions the bill led him to, Hutchinson said the language presented too many questions in order for him to speak to specifics.
"As a lawyer, if I can't get a good grasp of it one time through, it makes me wonder how it'll be interpreted by the courts. The unintended consequences of legislation is what you have to look at very carefully," Hutchinson said. "This type of legislation can have dramatic impacts that are sometimes unintended."
On Tuesday -- the day after Senate Bill 202 was passed into law despite far-ranging opposition that by prohibiting cities and counties from enacting their own anti-discrimination laws, they were empowering discrimination against gays -- Ballinger, who helped pass SB202 through the House, said his bill's intent is only to protect the religious sensibilities from government action that isn't measured and holds a compelling state interest.
"In general, you can't expect the governor to be on top of every piece of legislation and to know everything that's filed down here," Ballinger said. "I feel confident once we get to sit down and talk, he'll be supportive of it."
Ballinger said he didn't anticipate the same level of opposition that was levied against SB202 because the bill protects citizens from government actions, or actors, that unnecessarily violate their beliefs.
A member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Joyce Elliott, D-Little Rock, said she has heard almost nothing but opposition to the bill.
"I have real reticence about ... [Ballinger's bill and] the image we're creating in Arkansas and the intended and unintended consequences of bills and what they mean, in terms of fairness for everybody," Elliott said. "I do think [HB1228] enables discrimination."
Metro on 02/25/2015