Arkansas Senate rejects prison appropriation bill for second time
The Arkansas Senate on Wednesday rejected for the second day in a row a $750 appropriation bill to support construction of a new 3,000-bed prison in Franklin County.
Opposition to Senate Bill 354 grew Wednesday with three more senators — Republicans Alan Clark, Steve Crowell and Dan Sullivan — joining ten colleagues who voted against the legislation Tuesday.
Proponents of expanding prison capacity, including the governor, argue the new prison is necessary to address overcrowding in county jails. Officials last month set the preliminary cost estimate of the project at $825 million.
Local officials and residents were caught off guard last October when Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced the state's $2.95 million purchase of 815 acres near Charleston for the project. Community members and elected officials have pushed back against the project for months.
Prison appropriation bill stalls in Arkansas Senate
Sen. Bryan King, a Green Forrest Republican who's been a vocal opponent from the start, on Wednesday referenced costly prison projects in states like Utah, and said building a 3,000-bed penitentiary in the rural western Arkansas county would be fiscally irresponsible.
'These mega prisons are still mega-financial disasters,' he said. 'The only winners are going to be the prison building companies out of state that's going to take millions of our dollars.'
King also criticized the decision to not expand the state's Calico Rock prison. Former Gov. Asa Hutchinson proposed expanding the facility by roughly 500 beds using surplus funds, and state lawmakers approved $75 million in reserve funds for the project in December 2022.
That was put on hold when Sanders threw her support behind the Protect Arkansas Act, a 2023 law that, among other things, removes the possibility of parole for the state's most serious offenders. Inmates serving more of their sentences means more prison space will be needed, which Sen. Justin Boyd, R-Fort Smith, said needs to be addressed.
'In this chamber we voted to create new penalties for Arkansans…so we all want to say we're tough on crime, but yet then we don't want to provide the space,' Boyd said.
The Legislature set aside $330 million in 2023 to support the governor's prison expansion efforts, but disputes between the executive branch and the Board of Corrections, and among state lawmakers, have delayed the project.
While the process may not have been perfect, state lawmakers need to find a way to fund this effort to protect constituents, Corning Republican Sen. Blake Johnson said.
'I appreciate everybody's differences, but please let's try to work together for the safety of Arkansas citizens,' he said.
Johnson was one of 18 senators who voted in favor of the measure Wednesday, one fewer than Tuesday. Sen. Missy Irvin, R-Mountain View, voted for the measure Tuesday, but did not vote Wednesday. Sen. Ken Hammer, R-Benton, who did not vote Tuesday, cast an affirmative vote Wednesday. Sullivan supported the measure Tuesday, but voted against it Wednesday.
SB 354 has twice failed in the Senate because appropriation bills require 27 votes to advance out of the upper chamber. There is no restriction on how many times lawmakers can vote on an appropriation bill, but they only have until the end of the session to advance legislation to the governor for final approval. The General Assembly is expected to finish considering bills by April 16.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Paul believes Senate vote for NPR, PBS cuts will be ‘very close'
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday that President Trump's request to cut billions in funding to public broadcasters NPR and PBS would face a 'very close' vote in the Senate. 'I suspect it's going to be very close. I don't know if it will be modified in advance, but I can't really honestly look Americans in the face and say that I'm going to be doing something about the deficit if I can't cut $9 billion,' Paul told CBS's Margaret Brennan on 'Face the Nation.' Republicans including Sens. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) have expressed reservations about making deep cuts to NPR and PBS. Some in the GOP are also wary of pulling funding for PEPFAR, the global HIV/AIDS program started under President George W. Bush. Senators will work out the details of the recissions package this week, facing a Friday deadline to approve the cuts. 'Even though there are people who make arguments for it, and I can make an argument for a different way to cut it, we're going to be presented with a $9 billion cut and a $2.2 trillion deficit,' Paul said. 'So we have to cut spending. Absolutely have to cut spending.' On Thursday, President Trump threatened to withhold his backing for any Republican who goes against a recissions package, which includes sweeping cuts to foreign aid and public media. 'It is very important that all Republicans adhere to my Recissions Bill and, in particular, DEFUND THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING (PBS and NPR), which is worse than CNN & MSDNC put together,' a Truth Social post from the president said. 'Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or Endorsement,' he added. Rounds and other senators have raised fears about the impact of public broadcasting cuts on rural areas that rely on local, government-funded stations for information. Rounds told reporters he planned to negotiate with the White House Office of Management and Budget to tweak the cuts. 'It's not our goal to come back in and totally eliminate a number of the rescissions, but specifically to take care of those that were in some of these rural areas,' Rounds said, according to Deseret News. 'This is their way of getting emergency messages out to people. That's the way in which they communicate in a very rural area.'
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
Biden Says He Made the Clemency Decisions That Were Recorded With Autopen
Former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is escalating his battle against Republican claims that he might not have been in control of high-profile clemency decisions issued under his name at the end of his term and, more generally, that his cognitive state impaired his functioning in office. In an interview with The New York Times, Mr. Biden said that he had orally granted all the pardons and commutations issued at the end of his term, calling President Trump and other Republicans 'liars' for claiming his aides had used an autopen to do so without his authorization. 'I made every decision,' Mr. Biden said in a phone interview on Thursday, asserting that he had his staff use an autopen replicating his signature on the clemency warrants because 'we're talking about a whole lot of people.' The interview was Mr. Biden's first about the parallel investigations begun by the Trump White House, the Justice Department and Congress into a series of clemency decisions made by Mr. Biden in his final weeks in office and his mental acuity during his term. Republicans in Congress have demanded sworn interviews with former Biden aides, prompting them to hire their own lawyers. Some lawyers are said to have warned their clients not to talk publicly and about the dangers of testifying because the Justice Department under Mr. Trump might be eager to bring perjury charges over any inconsistency, no matter how minor. Mr. Biden's former White House doctor, who has said his medical evaluations showed he was fit to serve, invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions from lawmakers last week. His lawyers cited the pending Justice Department inquiry and the risk of being ensnared in ambiguous circumstances. But Mr. Biden, as a former president, has greater constitutional defenses against being subpoenaed by Congress. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Indianapolis Star
2 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
Musk can spend a fortune on the 'America Party,' but it likely won't succeed
Set aside for a moment the raging egos and MAGA personalities at the heart of the renewed argument about whether America needs a new political party to compete with the Republican and Democratic parties. One thing we can say for sure: There's an appetite for just that among Americans. A Gallup poll released Oct. 1, just 35 days before the 2024 presidential election, in a time of extremely heightened political tension and public awareness, found that 58% of American adults said a third party was needed. Americans had Donald Trump or Kamala Harris to choose from at that moment, and a majority wanted more options. That polling number has fluctuated over the years, but Gallup has found majority support for the issue in polls going back two decades. But that's theory. What about practice? What if the third-party movement at the center of attention now was being spearheaded by one of the most politically toxic people in America? Is Elon Musk, currently viewed unfavorably by 55% of Americans, the best face for the "America Party" he announced on July 5? Musk, the world's wealthiest person, spent about $290 million to help Trump win a second term as president. Now they're spitting social media venom at each other after Musk was ousted from Trump's administration and then became infuriated by the deficit-busting spending in the president's new budget bill. Musk casts his new political party as an attack on the "uniparty," a common shorthand to suggest that the Republican and Democratic parties are more alike than different, especially when it comes to spending our taxes. Opinion: Trump's tax bill will crush the rural voters who chose him There's a glaring flaw in that claim ‒ Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act was crafted exclusively by his administration and Republican leaders in Congress. Democrats were locked out of the process and did not vote for the bill, which passed with thin Republican majorities. But Musk, like Trump, is not the kind of politician who will let reality govern his rhetoric. So, in his framing, they're all bad guys in Washington, DC, and he's going to be the new sheriff who cleans up the town. That's one way this might go. Another could be that political consultants squeeze Musk's fortune for as much juice as the America Party can produce, while not having much of an impact. Or, with Musk's businesses taking serious economic hits from his political combat, he might just talk a big game and then walk away. Trump, in a long social media post on Sunday, July 6, said Musk was "off the rails" while noting that third parties "have never succeeded in the United States." Then why did Trump need a 336-word post at all? He showed us his fear by adding that third parties are effective at causing "Total DISRUPTION & CHAOS" in American politics. Here's what disruption and chaos probably looks like to Trump ‒ Musk's America Party impacts the thin congressional margins, tipping the House and Senate to Democrats, giving them the power of oversight or even impeachment (for a third time) to hold Trump to account. Ryan Clancy, chief strategist for No Labels, told me that the "initial reaction from the Republicans suggests that they think (Musk) is more of a threat to them." And he would know. No Labels, you might remember, was a significant concern for the Democratic Party and its allies in 2024 as the group tried, and eventually failed, to put on the presidential ballot a bipartisan centrist ticket. Will Musk's America Party be the threat to Republicans that No Labels was to Democrats? Clancy said it's too early to say, and that will depend on what kind of candidates Musk recruits. Musk has suggested that he might "laser-focus on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts" in the 2026 midterm elections because the House and Senate have "razor-thin legislative margins," and that it might "be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws." Opinion: Data centers are inevitable, but why should Indiana pay for their energy demand? Clancy told me No Labels has not spoken to Musk or anyone close to him about the America Party. But the strategist hopes the new political party would inject a little competition into elections, which could pull some Republicans and Democrats back to the center of the political spectrum. "I would encourage people to give it a chance, give it some runway, let it breathe a little," Clancy said. "Let's see what kind of candidates come around it." Rahna Epting, executive director of MoveOn, a progressive policy group, spent part of 2024 criticizing No Labels as a potential "spoiler" that could have helped Trump win a second term. She told me that "another party, paid for by billionaires like Elon Musk, is not the answer for this country's challenges." Where Clancy sees potential, Epting sees only vanity and self-interest as motivation for Musk. She noted that Republicans, from Trump on down the ballot, ran last year on making life more affordable for Americans. And she thinks Americans are still looking for solutions like that in the midterms. The MoveOn leader is just as opposed to the Big Beautiful Bill as Musk is. And she's just as opposed to his America Party as she was with No Labels. "No Labels was a tactic without a plausible strategy to win, and I think Elon Musk's effort is a tactic without a plausible way to win," Epting said. "And both were in it for themselves and not for the people of this country." Clancy estimates that a competitive Senate campaign next will cost "easily nine figures," while a House seat "can easily be low eight figures." And then there is the complicated and costly infrastructure of getting on ballots, state by state. Put another way: Musk might be about to spend some serious money again. But I'm not sure if he can repeat his 2024 success. And it's worth pointing out that Musk himself no longer sees 2024 as a success.
