Alabama Senate Bill SB6

Alabama 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/26/25
• Introduced: 1/13/26
• Refer: 6/26/25
• Refer: 1/13/26

Caption

Alabama Memorial Preservation Act of 2017, memorial marker required, penalties revised

Summary

SB6 amends the Alabama Memorial Preservation Act of 2017, which restricts the relocation, removal, alteration, renaming, or other disturbance of certain architecturally significant buildings, memorial buildings, memorial schools, memorial streets, and monuments on public property. The bill adds a requirement that if a memorial building is razed, the controlling governmental entity must keep the original name on any replacement building or resulting park/green space, or, if there is no replacement, erect a marker memorializing the person or event for which the building was originally named. The bill also changes the waiver process for proposed changes to protected memorial properties. It requires more detailed waiver applications, including documentation of the origin and intent of the memorial and input from heritage, historical, genealogical, preservation, and public stakeholders. If the Committee on Alabama Monument Protection does not act on a completed waiver application within 90 days, the waiver is deemed denied. The bill further allows temporary relocation or protection for emergency repairs, with a return requirement as soon as reasonably possible and generally within one year unless a waiver is sought for longer work.

Impact

SB6 would amend Sections 41-9-233 and 41-9-235 of the Code of Alabama 1975 and would strengthen enforcement of the Alabama Memorial Preservation Act by revising penalties and authorizing the Attorney General to bring civil actions to enjoin violations. It lowers the daily fine for noncompliance from $25,000 to $5,000, directs collected fines to the Alabama State Historic Preservation Fund, and preserves judicial review under the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act. The bill would affect state and local governmental entities that control public property containing protected memorials and would impose additional procedural and preservation obligations before any alteration or replacement occurs.

Sentiment

The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge broad sentiment. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to reflect a preservation-oriented approach and is likely intended to strengthen compliance and clarify procedures under the existing memorial protection law. Its pending status in the House committee suggests it had not yet advanced to a recorded vote at the time of the provided information.

Contention

The main points of contention likely concern how strictly the state should limit local governments’ ability to rename or alter memorial properties, and whether the bill’s enforcement tools are too rigid or burdensome. The 90-day deemed-denied rule may be viewed as preventing delay, but it also reduces committee discretion if no action is taken in time. Another likely issue is the revised penalty structure and the Attorney General’s new authority to seek injunctions, which could be seen as stronger enforcement by supporters and as increased state intervention by opponents. The requirement to preserve original names or install memorial markers after demolition may also be controversial for entities seeking to repurpose or rebrand public facilities.