More secrecy surrounding Arkansas prisoner executions, big lottery winners and mothers' deaths during pregnancy and childbirth.
And a new, friendly legal path for those who file civil lawsuits claiming that false statements were made against them.
These are among more than 20 House and Senate bills introduced so far during this year's regular legislative session that critics say would shield important public information, harm free expression, or create unneeded exemptions to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act.
The last time Arkansas legislators met in full-bore lawmaking mode -- the 2017 regular session -- critics expressed alarm about at least 10 bills they said would damage public information laws.
"I had hoped there would be fewer bills" this session, said Ellen Kreth, who leads the Arkansas Freedom of Information Task Force.
Legislators in 2017 created the bipartisan task force of nine members to recommend support or opposition of bills that affect Arkansas' public-records and open-meetings law, A.C.A. 25-19-101. The group's advice goes to Gov. Asa Hutchinson and legislative leaders.
Kreth, publisher of the Madison County Record newspaper, said it's easy to get discouraged by the barrage of worrisome legislation. But she's encouraged that lawmakers appointed the task force and that most have been willing to discuss their 2019 bills, and even amend or table them.
The Arkansas Press Association is another group tracking public records and information legislation.
Ashley Wimberley, association executive director, said it's "alarming to see such a high number of bills that would shield parts of government from public view and chip away at the Freedom of Information Act."
A few of the bills protect information that's already confidential under state or federal law, so they are merely redundant and unnecessary, Wimberley said.
But other bills "could undermine public confidence in our government institutions," Wimberley said.
The press association, which represents 123 state newspapers as well as media organizations and businesses, lobbies against proposed legislation that might curtail the public's access to information or limit government transparency.
University of Arkansas at Little Rock law professor Robert Steinbuch said he thinks this 2019 onslaught of public information bills "isn't nearly as bad this session as last session." Steinbuch co-authored the state's textbook on the Freedom of Information Act and has helped write some bills related to the subject this session. He also serves on the Freedom of Information Task Force.
A few of the proposals are conceptually sound, he said. He points to House Bill 1417, which would permanently hide the names of confidential informants to law enforcement authorities.
Press groups disagreed, saying that information is already shielded and doesn't need another Freedom of Information Act exemption. He also supports a bill that shields the names of big lottery winners.
But Steinbuch criticizes other bills -- such as one that would hide information about lethal injections, Senate Bill 464 -- as "awful."
"It's a complete rejection of transparency ideals," he said.
Some of this session's most debated public information bills still seeking passage include:
• Senate Bill 230, which would make it easier to sue for invasion of privacy and related issues. Christoph Keller, a lawyer for the Arkansas Press Association, said his group thinks "230 is the most dangerous bill to free speech."
It would allow almost anybody to sue someone for making a false statement, without meeting the current standard of proving the author was "negligent or acting with actual malice," Keller said.
"The U.S. and Arkansas supreme courts have been very careful to limit" these lawsuits, Keller said. "This bill completely upends that. We think it's clearly unconstitutional and bad policy on top of that."
The bill's sponsor, Sen. Kim Hammer, R-Benton, couldn't be reached for comment late last week. But Steinbuch, who helped write the bill, said the current version "actually has the actual-malice standard written right into it. Moreover, if opponents' mistaken view that the bill is unconstitutional were true, then they don't have anything to worry about because the law won't be enforceable."
• Senate Bill 464, which would allow the state to keep secret its lethal-injection drug manufacturers and procedures. The bill also would make "recklessly" releasing that information a Class D felony.
The bill's sponsor, Sen. Bart Hester, R-Cave Springs, declined to meet with the Freedom of Information Task Force to discuss the bill. In an interview, he said its opponents are generally anti-death penalty and want drug manufacturers' names made public because the companies generally won't allow sales of their drugs for prisoner executions.
Hester said he thinks it's crucial for Arkansas to carry out the death penalty.
"We have dealt with people who have committed the gravest of crimes, have chosen this penalty through their crimes," Hester said. "The people of Arkansas support it, and we have an obligation to see to it."
The press association opposes the bill, and the task force has recommended against concealing more information about one of the state's "most solemn" acts.
• House Bill 1382, which would exempt "any identifying records or information" about a lottery winner of more than $500,000 -- if that winner requests anonymity. The exemption doesn't apply to any elected public official who wins big.
Critics of the bill have pointed to lottery fraud in other states that could be more easily concealed if the names of winners were kept secret.
Two of the bill's sponsors, Rep. Jim Sorvillo, R-Little Rock, and Sen. Larry Teague, D-Nashville, have worked with the task force to create amendments to address concerns, Kreth said.
Though the Arkansas Press Association opposes the bill, the task force recommended it in a split vote after amendments were added, records show.
• House Bills 1440 and 1441, which would shield from the public most records and other information connected with a new Maternal Mortality Review Committee to investigate Arkansas' high rate of maternal mortality and a Quality Review Committee to "improve maternal and prenatal outcomes."
The two bills that create the panels also exempt most of their records. The bills each list more than 25 legislative sponsors.
The state's press association, while not against creating the groups, opposes the bills' exceptions to the public-records law as overly broad, and the Freedom of Information Task Force doesn't recommend them.
Proposals that would curtail public information aren't just the purview of media groups, but should be of interest to all citizens, said Kreth, the task force's chairwoman.
"Part of the FOIA is about obtaining public records; another part is access to public meetings, to have input into government decisions," she said. "That's how democracy works. If you limit people's ability to obtain information, you limit their ability to speak out."
A Section on 03/25/2019