Despite Senate Passage, Fails to Clear House Hurdle; Legislative Difficulties Expected Amid Controversy Over Library Material Censorship

A bill at the center of controversy in the Arkansas legislature that sought to abolish the State Library and its board of directors failed in a House committee vote on Wednesday, making it unlikely to reach the governor's desk for signature within the legislative session scheduled to end on April 16.

Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan of Jonesboro has consistently advocated for dissolving the State Library Board, further solidifying his aim by introducing Senate Bill 536 (SB 536) last month. He appeared before the House Governmental Agencies and Administration Committee on Wednesday, arguing that the State Library and the government entities that local libraries receive funding from should have more "accountability."

Although SB 536 narrowly passed the Senate last week, the bill proposes transferring the authority, funds, contracts, and employees of the State Library and its board to the Arkansas Department of Education. Currently, while the State Library operates independently under the Department of Education, the board is responsible for distributing state funds to public libraries on a quarterly basis.

While Secretary of Education Jacob Oliva stated that the department was fully capable of assuming the State Library's responsibilities, committee members remained unconvinced. Republican Rep. Stan Berry of Dover said he had "little faith" that the Department of Education's oversight would resolve any issues Sullivan had raised regarding the State Library and its board.

Eight committee members, including Berry, voted against SB 536, while five members were either absent or did not vote. Only seven members, including Republican Rep. Wayne Long of Bradford, the House sponsor of the bill, voted in favor of its passage. Long accused the State Library Board of being "out of touch."

Long and Sullivan raised concerns about the board's rejection last month of two motions concerning child protection in libraries and severing ties with the American Library Association. At the same meeting, the board passed a separate motion aimed at protecting children in libraries while adhering to the First Amendment.

Conservatives across the state, including State Library Board member and former Republican Sen. Jason Rapert, have argued that libraries should restrict access to content deemed inappropriate for children. SB 536 outlines new criteria for libraries to receive state funding, including "prohibiting a person 16 years of age or younger from accessing age-inappropriate material."

SB 536 defines "age-inappropriate material" as "books, media, or other material accessible in a public library that contain an image or explicit and detailed description of sexual activity, sexual contact, and human genitalia."

Bobbi Gentry, a homeschooling parent from Lowell, expressed concern that if the Department of Education "directly controls public libraries, then homeschooling parents who utilize libraries as educational resources will be subject to what the Department of Education deems age-appropriate."

Additionally, Adam Webb, incoming president of the Arkansas Library Association, pointed out that the language in SB 536 is "flawed and fatal," similar to Sullivan's Act 372 from 2023, parts of which have been stayed in federal court and are being appealed by the state. The stayed portions of Act 372 would have granted local elected officials the final say on relocating challenged library materials deemed "obscene" by some and would have held librarians legally responsible for disseminating such materials.

Webb noted that despite repeated references to "sexually explicit" material by SB 536 proponents, the bill itself does not mention "obscenity" or "sexually explicit" material. He argued, "When judges clearly lay out 'the type of speech that can be regulated, the definition of sexually explicit,' we should utilize that. Don't unnecessarily reinvent the wheel. Yet here we are, two years later, with more vague language."

Strong Opposition to SB 536

Webb, who is also the director of the Garland County Library, was one of nine Arkansas residents who voiced their opposition to SB 536.

Judy Calhoun, recently retired director of the Southeast Arkansas Regional Library System, and John McGraw, director of the Faulkner-Van Buren Regional Library, pointed out that SB 536 imposes "unfunded mandates" on libraries to receive state funding, such as requiring them to operate interlibrary loan programs and adhere to minimum annual operating hours.

Sonny Rhodes, a journalist, professor, and historian, raised concerns about the change in oversight of specific historical records currently overseen by the State Library. He worried that "research activities could be hindered, making it difficult to conduct informed and accurate scholarly work if access to those databases is restricted or lost due to SB 536."

Four Arkansas residents, including representatives from the Family Council and the all-Republican Saline County Quorum Court, spoke in favor of the bill. They all cited difficulties in using local libraries with their families due to inappropriate and easily accessible content.

The committee engaged in a several-minute discussion about two sex education books that Republican Rep. Stephen Meeks of Greenbrier, a committee member, had challenged for removal from the Faulkner-Van Buren Regional Library in 2021.

However, the appropriateness standards in SB 536 include limited exceptions for sex education materials accessible to minors between the ages of 12 and 15. Children under 12 would not have access to such materials if their parent or guardian provides written prohibition.

Republican Rep. Howard Beaty Jr. of Crossett stated that he opposed SB 536 due to a provision that would impose specific higher education requirements on library directors. Republican Rep. Jeremy Wooldridge of Marmaduke expressed concern that this provision would mean every library director in his northeast Arkansas region would "have to be replaced."

Beaty, who also voted against the bill, said, "Both sides are going to lose." He strongly criticized, "Shame on us. I think this issue could have been resolved very easily. People decided to be hard-headed and not negotiate."

The House committee's rejection of SB 536 signals a potentially protracted battle over the future of Arkansas's State Library and the contentious issue of library material censorship. Despite its passage in the Senate, the bill's failure to clear the House hurdle raises significant questions about its future.