LITTLE ROCK, AR – Governor Asa Hutchinson asked for lawmakers to recall the controversial Religious Restoration Act, also known as HB1228, after saying it did not reflect Federal religious restoration laws passed nearly 20 years ago.
“The governor today confirmed what most of us already knew and that is that House Bill 1228 was a bad bill for Arkansas,” said State Representative Warwick Sabin, D- Little Rock.
Lawmakers like Sabin rejoiced Wednesday following Governor Hutchinson’s statements and stand on HB1228.
“The bill that is on my desk at the present time does not precisely mirror the federal law,” Hutchinson said during a morning press conference. “It doesn’t mirror it in a couple of ways, particularly allowing the First Amendment to be asserted in private litigation of parties.”
The governor’s finding, a point raised in a Fox16 News investigation on Tuesday, which highlighted concerns lawmakers had despite repeated statements from the bill’s lead sponsor, Republican Representative Bob Ballinger, that his bill did in fact measure up to federal law.
“This language is consistent with the federal RFRA,” Ballinger told committee members on Monday.
Following that committee meeting, which passed the bill despite objections from some members, Ballinger told reporters, “It’s the same basic law that Bill Clinton signed into action,” referring to the Federal RFRA.
On Tuesday, Ballinger reiterated that same statement several times to members of the full House of Representatives.
“The bill mirrors the federal RFRA as closely as the law could allow it to amend and be effective,” he said on the floor of the House.
“We actually felt like we were mirroring the federal law,” said President Pro Tem Jonathan Dismang, R-Beebe. “We were actually given assurances we were mirroring that federal legislation.”
Democratic representatives said they had raised concerns on multiple occasions. In committee on Monday, St. Rep. Camille Bennett, D-Lonoke, pointed to concerns regarding wording included in HB1228.
“I’m seeing language here that is not included in the federal law or state laws,” Bennett had said, before being assured by Ballinger that the bill mirrored federal RFRA standards.
“If our intent is to pass a federal RFRA law, we are not doing that,” Bennett said on the House floor, asking for representatives to refer the bill back to committee, noting the differences in the bill’s language from federal law.
“Nothing of what she said about the senate amendments is reality,” Ballinger said in response on the floor. “The bill mirrors the federal RFRA as closely as the law could allow it to amend and be effective.”
“I do feel vindicated that at least after saying it over and over again it is finally come to the main front,” Bennett said, when asked how she felt about the governor’s comments. “One of the things we looked at – this process is not a perfect process. I’m just relieved that the governor has asked to recall this bill so we can be sure we’re protecting religious freedom but without a host of unintended consequences.”
When asked if she thought the repeated statements that the bill reflected federal RFRA was misleading, Bennett said she believed much of the language got added in Senate amendments at the end, and could have been misunderstood, though she tried to point out those concerns.
“I argued that point in committee the very first time we heard it. I argued it in the committe in second time,” she said. “Saying over and over again that this is the Federal RFRA does not make it so
Representative Eddie Armstrong, D-North Little Rock, said members of his caucus and his colleagues raised concerns with the bill in the first committee meeting and well after as well, to no avail.
“Here are the facts, we’ve had this bill before us since Valentine’s Day. This bill came before House Judiciary, and I voted against this bill,” he said. “When multiple legal teams sat down and determined this did not match federal RFRA we went to Ballinger and Governor to ask for compromise. That did not happen; that fell on deaf ears.”
Armstrong also tried to dissuade the bill from moving forward from the house floor, saying the wording of the bill would allow it to be used as a weapon against a wide range of individuals. But his comments were interrupted by multiple calls for points of order from Republican representatives.
“We tried to make a point about that – I was muffled in House Chamber,” he said.
When reporters asked the governor and the leaders of the two chambers during his press conference how the bill had made it so far through the process and despite all the claims made on behalf of the bill, did they really did not know the laws were not the same, the governor said he couldn’t respond on behalf of each legislator but had asked for changes to me made.
“There’s been insufficient details, perhaps, to some of the legislative process and comes to a focal point,” Governor Hutchinson said.
But Hutchinson made it a point to note in his Monday statement that the wording was clear that he intended to sign a bill that closely resembled the federal law and those RFRAs passed in 20 other states. And he felt that this bill did not do that.
Bill Ballinger told Fox 16’s Drew Petrimoulx that he still feels HB1228 is substantially the same as federal RFRA and prefers the original version of his bill.
To follow this story and all of Marci Manley’s coverage, click here for Facebook or here for Twitter.