Win some, lose some
This time, in the ‘win’ category
WHO SAYS the Ledge is all about bathrooms and pronouns? This session seems to be 50-50 with good ideas/bad ideas. And we remember some years when Arkansans would’ve been more than happy with that.
The Ledge can do good by the state even when it says no. Such as with that dog-breed bill the other day.
A bill still wafting its way through the General Assembly—House Bill 1519—would have kept cities and local jurisdictions from banning specific dog breeds. It’s a double negative, but goes like this: The state would have said no to towns that said no to pit bulls.
Pit bulls might not have been mentioned, but when it comes to banning dog breeds, everybody knows what we’re talking about.
In fact, in the wording of the bill, no specific animal was mentioned. But it says local authorities “shall not regulate an animal based on the specific breed or perceived breed of the animal.” That last part about “perceived breed” is a shout-out to all those who swear that pit bulls aren’t really a thing, no matter what your lyin’ eyes tell you.
The bill failed to advance. But it could come back later. Like a hungry pit bull.
Opponents of the bill (rightly) stood up in the Legislature this week and noted that dozens of local jurisdictions have such bans, those bans haven’t been knocked down by the courts, pit bulls— even well-trained ones—are in the papers all the time after attacking and harming people (sometimes very young people), the bill would keep local authorities from taking care of local business . . .
Supporters of the bill say towns should be in the business of banning bad dogs, not bad breeds. But there’s the rub. How often have you read about the family pit bull “that never hurt a fly … until it killed our 2-year-old daughter”? How many parents have stood above a grave asking themselves how they never saw this coming?
Supporters of the ban also said that it would discriminate against dogs. Yes, that’s exactly the point. And when the papers fill up with news about poodles attacking, maiming and killing toddlers, towns should look into banning them, too.
So far, poodles haven’t been the problem.
THE STATE House passed a much better bill Tuesday. It would require porn sites on the Internet to verify that users are at least 18 years old.
Senate Bill 66 by Sen. Tyler Dees passed overwhelmingly 77-4. And should have.
The paper said the bill “would require commercial entities to use a reasonable age verification method” before allowing users to access a website “where more than a third of the material is deemed harmful to minors.”
For its part, the state Senate approved a bill that would require local governments to hold elections on Election Day. The better to prevent some jurisdictions and districts from holding off-year, off-month, off-day elections in which the majority of voters aren’t paying attention. This bill has been needed since memory runneth not to the contrary. And it appears to be headed to the governor’s desk.
This bill about the timing of elections is . . . about time.