Constitutional Amendments Take Two -- UPDATE: Meeting now

While the previous two proposed constitutional amendments approved by the Joint Committees on State Agencies make their way through each chamber of the legislature, the committee will reconvene this morning to take up other proposals and may approve a third and final amendment for referral to the voters in 2010. The leaders:

SJR6 (Broadway): This proposed amendment would make savings from performance-based efficiency projects revenue under the revenue bond statutes. It has been amended to roll in language from Rep. Maloch's HJR1003 regarding the maximum interest rates for government bonds issued in Arkansas.

Why it stands a chance: This proposal has broad support from several different sectors (Higher Ed, Chambers of Commerce, the green community, etc.), and has the financing and organization needed for the campaign. Right now, it probably has a better shot than the other leading candidates simply because the committee will continue debate of this proposal first.

HJR1004 (Cheatham): This proposal repeals various provisions of the constitution regarding usurious loans and interest rates and prohibits any loan made within the state from being charged an interest rate in excess of 17%. Probably more than any other, this would be of benefit locally to my district. I bought in to the belief long ago that one reason economic development on the Texas-side of Texarkana is booming as opposed to the Arkansas-side is due in part to the usury limit provision in the Arkansas Constitution.

Pros/Cons: This proposal has support from various retailers, car dealers, etc. They've gotten organized over the weekend and have even had an old classmate of mine call who now owns a tote-your-own-note car lot in Springdale. I've received calls from furniture dealer Ivan Smith himself and e-mails from Ford Trotter all in the last 48 hours. I do think that while this may be the most beneficial to my district for purposes of evening the playing field on both sides of the state line as far as attracting economic development, it will be the toughest to pass. An organized consumer-oriented campaign could absolutely crush this proposal at the ballot box.

HJR1003 (Maloch): This proposal is similar to Rep. Cheatham's HJR1004 but it only proposes to remove the interest rate limits on bonds issued by governmental units (and loans made to governmental units). Proponents would rather enact this proposal on its own rather than accompany language incorporated in SJR6 and HJR1004. It is being backed by Stephens, the Arkansas Student Loan Authority, et al. If SJR6 doesn't get a motion at the end of that bill's presentation, it'll be interesting to see which of the two House Joint Resolutions will get the motion to present first. Whether it's HJR1003 or HJR1004 will make a difference, since protocol in this committee normally requires House and Senate resolutions to be alternated in debate. Outside of these three proposed amendments to the state constitution, the others that were referred to the joint committee have not gotten much traction. I'll post updates from the meeting here.



Update (11:15 a.m.): We're now back in the committee and have heard an explanation of SJR6. Rather than taking a vote now, Rep. Maloch is explaining HJR1003 on its own now. Rep. Cheatham will explain HJR1004 next. Many would like to roll all three of these into one proposed constitutional amendment, but there are issues with such a proposal being "germane." The amendment could be attacked collaterally on the basis that any amendment is outside the scope of its title, rendering it invalid.

Update II (11:40 a.m.): Rep. Eddie Cheatham makes the point that he thinks it's great to try and attract economic development to the state through these other proposed amendments, but that we need to take care of those who are already here. He states that his proposal corrects a drafting error in Amendment 60 that was approved by voters in 1982 as it regard to usurious rates. There are more supporters of this proposal in the room than any other.

Update III (11:50 a.m.): Sen. Gil Baker made a motion to put all three sponsors in one room to discuss whether all three proposals can be included in one amendment. They've now gone to discuss that, and Sen. Glover has been recognized to present SJR1, which would make the terms of all county officials four years. I've received several e-mails in support from my local county officials this morning from Miller County. We're hearing that Arkansas is one of only two states that has two year terms for its county electeds.

Update IV (12:05 p.m.): After hearing debate on SJR1, we're adjourning without taking any action on any of the above proposals. We're going to meet again to take motions on any of these proposals at 8:00 a.m. tomorrow (Tuesday). We've heard nothing from the group that went to work on marrying SJR6, HJR1003, and HJR1004 all into the same proposal.