About the Bill

SB3 | Sen. Dan Sullivan and Rep. Mary Bentley 
This bill would prohibit state agencies from providing programs targeted toward historically excluded groups, including on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin but specifically excludes veteran status in matters of state employment, public education, or state procurement. This could result in the elimination of scholarships to Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native Americans who commit to teaching in the Delta; as well as university retention programs for Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American students, faculty, and staff. It would also prevent programs designed to recruit more diverse staff in state government. This bill also creates a civil action and a criminal penalty for an individual if they are found guilty of “knowingly” violating the restriction against discriminating or providing preferential treatment to an individual or a group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in matters of state employment, public education, or state procurement. They may be found guilty of a class A misdemeanor ($2,500 fine and up to one year in jail) and civilly may be required to pay reasonable court costs and attorney’s fees.

AACF Testimony on February 5, 2025, House Committee on State Agencies & Governmental Affairs

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Maricella Garcia, and I am with Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. AACF has worked for more than 47 years to advocate for research-driven, proven policies that have improved the lives of children and families in Arkansas.

I’m not here to talk about the morality issues of SB3. Those issues are clear. As an attorney, I do want to talk about how this bill is poorly written and does not do what the sponsors think it does. It is not drafted to comply with the Supreme Court decision which dealt only with affirmative action in higher education admissions only and this bill goes well beyond that. It is also not created to comply with executive orders which are irrelevant here.

It takes many pieces of unrelated law and mashes them together under the mask of “Equality,” with little concern for the ultimate harm it would cause children, families, and the state. It targets education, hiring, housing, alcohol licenses, and more without any evidence that issues exist in these programs. Instead, this bill will increase discrimination by eliminating access to necessary programs and protections. For that reason, we ask you to vote no on SB3.

This bill puts the state and other entities in a precarious position. Section 21 is very broad in that it applies to state employment, public education, and state procurement. And, it defines “state” to include “a city, a county, an institution of higher education, a public school district, a public special school district, or a political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of the state.” This means all these entities are subject to SB3 because they all hire employees and procure services.

This will create a civil cause of action against those entities with a very low burden, meaning most cases that would previously have been thrown out in a pretrial phase would now likely pass into the litigation phase because a person has a right to sue for injunctive relief, court costs, and attorney’s fees if they “believe” their rights have been impacted.

Even if they are unable to recover attorney fees or court costs, the cost of responding to individual lawsuits is going to put cities, counties, and state agencies in a serious bind because this bill does not account for the cost of defending against suits. You can expect the costs of these suits to be anywhere from several thousand dollars to tens of thousands of dollars. All of these agencies are not only going to be put in jeopardy of constant litigation, but this is also going to cost an exorbitant amount of money. Just 30 or so of these lawsuits puts us into the hundred thousand dollar range assuming they are simple and easily disposed of. If they are not, the costs will easily reach much higher.

This bill is convoluted and fails to meet its goal of even looking towards achieving equal treatment. It is overly broad and likely to harm not only children and families but government workers, the administration of government, and the localities, counties, and the state itself. For these reasons, we would urge a no vote on Senate Bill 3.

AACF Testimony on January 28, 2025, Senate State Agencies & Governmental Affairs Committee

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Maricella Garcia, and I am with Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. AACF has worked for more than 47 years to advocate for research-driven, proven policies that have improved the lives of children and families in Arkansas.

Unfortunately, this bill does not fall into that category. Instead, it takes many pieces of unrelated law and mashes them together under the mask of “Equality,” with little concern for the ultimate harm it would cause children, families, and the state. It targets education, hiring, housing, alcohol licenses, and more without any evidence that issues exist in these programs. For that reason, we ask you to vote no on SB3.

Arkansas already struggles to recruit and retain teachers, in particular teachers of color, in areas like the Delta. Unfortunately, this bill would eliminate targeted scholarships meant to draw Black, Indigenous, and Other People of Color into teaching careers in hard-to-recruit areas like the Delta. These programs were created purposely because the research shows that they make big and positive differences in children’s educational outcomes.

Specifically, research has consistently shown that there is a positive correlation between the success of students of color when they are taught by teachers of color. A Johns Hopkins University study showed that “having one Black teacher in elementary school not only makes [Black] children more likely to graduate high school—it also makes them significantly more likely to enroll in college.” The research also shows that the more teachers of Color that Black children have while they’re young increases retention and the likelihood of those students attending college.

Further, this bill puts the state in a very precarious position. Section 21 is very broad in that it applies to state employment, public education, and state procurement. This means that it applies to any state agency because they all hire employees and procure services. It creates a civil cause of action with a very low burden, meaning most cases that would previously have been thrown out in a pretrial phase would now likely pass into the litigation phase because a person has a right to sue for court costs and attorney’s fees if he or she “believes” his or her rights have been impacted. This is going to put the state in jeopardy of constant litigation and cost an exorbitant amount of money.

Moreover, this same section creates criminal penalties for state workers who violate the law, which would mean a judge or jury must be involved. Most decisions that will come into question will fall on state employees in lower-graded positions who cannot afford the cost of hiring a private attorney to fight a lawsuit for doing their job. We’ve had retention and recruitment problems in state agencies that have led to backlogs in Medicaid, SNAP, and other programs. This bill is not likely to improve our ability to recruit qualified workers for the state.

This bill is convoluted and fails to meet its goal of even looking towards achieving equal treatment. It is overly broad and likely to harm not only children and families but government workers, the administration of government, and the state itself. For these reasons, we would urge a no vote on Senate Bill 3.