An Act For The State Board Of Election Commissioners Appropriation For The 2025-2026 Fiscal Year.
Summary
HB1099 is the annual appropriation act for the Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners for fiscal year 2025-2026. It sets the agency’s authorized staffing levels, including nine regular positions and up to twenty temporary or part-time “extra help” employees, and provides funding for salaries, benefits, operating expenses, travel, and professional fees. The bill also appropriates separate sums for election expenses and for nonpartisan general election costs.
In addition to the core operating appropriation, the bill includes special language governing how unspent election-expense funds may be carried forward into the next fiscal year and how funds may be transferred from the Nonpartisan Filing Fee Fund if the agency lacks sufficient money to perform its duties. The act is effective July 1, 2025, and contains standard fiscal-control, compliance, legislative-intent, and emergency-clause provisions typical of Arkansas appropriation bills.
Impact
HB1099 does not change election policy or substantive election law; instead, it authorizes state spending for the State Board of Election Commissioners and sets the conditions under which those funds may be used. It appropriates $1,103,617 for operations, $6,340,000 for election expenses, and $1,600,000 for nonpartisan general election expenses, all from specified state funds. The bill also temporarily modifies budget administration by allowing carry-forward of unexpended election funds and transfers from the Nonpartisan Filing Fee Fund to the Miscellaneous Agencies Fund when needed.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been noncontroversial and broadly supported. It passed the House 97-0 and the Senate 29-0 on third reading, indicating unanimous approval in both chambers. No committee transcripts were provided, and there is no indication of organized opposition or significant debate in the available record.
Contention
No notable points of contention are reflected in the available materials. Because this is a routine appropriation measure, any discussion would likely have focused on funding levels, staffing authority, and the carry-forward/transfer provisions rather than on policy disagreements. The unanimous votes suggest that if concerns existed, they were not strong enough to produce recorded opposition.