Arkansas Attorneys Debate on Legislative History

By Jess Pritchette, for Attorneys.org

A new legislation, House Bill 1611, allowing the broadcasting of house committee meetings over the Internet have caused some Arkansas attorneys to question whether such broadcasts constitute legislative history. It is estimated that the procedure may cost up to $50,000 dollars a year if implemented.

What legislative history means
Different attorneys have many ways of interpreting laws and Arkansas attorneys are no exception. Most of the time a law is interpreted literally using the very words recorded in the legislation. However, sometimes when a stated law is unclear or simply does not reflect current events, the arguments used by the lawmakers during their debates can be used to distill the spirit of the law.

This action comprises what is called legislative history. It describes how the particular law was shaped and what the circumstances were that caused the end result as it is. Other states have official procedures on what constitutes legislative history, but the state of Arkansas has no such provision.

What legislative history is not
Many times in the past, unofficial recordings of legislation proceedings were recorded and transcribed, and reported through the news or some other specialist report. Some Arkansas attorneys may see this as comprising legislative history but they would be mistaken.

It is unfair to consider such reports and transcriptions as legislative history because these unofficial reports are most likely full of bias. It would not be fair if only the arguments of the majority are recorded as part of history and the report of the minority largely ignored.

Possible problem of H1611
Now that Arkansas has a bill that allows the Internet broadcasting of house committee meetings, the state stands proud at its progress on using technology to increase government transparency, a notable goal of the Obama administration. However, in its current form, it is dangerous.

As mentioned, such Internet broadcasts may be misconstrued as comprising legislative history whereas in fact it is not. It would have been simpler if it were only a TV or radio station doing the broadcasting but since it is the house that made the initiative, complications may arise.

Another problem is that the wording of the bill makes the broadcasting optional. The house can choose whether to broadcast or not. The same fairness problems will arise, What if the minority was speaking and the house decides not to broadcast?

Once again, legislators would be causing no end of problems for our dear Arkansas attorneys. Search our free database of Arkansas attorneys.