WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1875

An Act amending the act of June 24, 1931 (P.L.1206, No.331), known as The First Class Township Code, in finance and taxation, further providing for tax levies.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Lisa Borowski and 16 co-sponsors

Arkansas HB 1875 tightens ignition interlock rules by raising BAC to 0.025%, expanding test data and photos, and allows a 60-day extension for violations near the end of the requir

Laid on the table
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1875

Summary — HB 1875 (as provided)

Note on documents: The metadata you provided lists HB 1875 as a suffrage restoration bill (title: restore suffrage to Frederick Kenyon Clark) with status “Died In Committee.” However, the attached bill text and fiscal document are for an Arkansas House Bill 1875 (H1, engrossed 4/2/25) that amends ignition‑interlock law. This summary focuses on the substantive text in the attached documents (ignition interlock amendments). Please verify which bill/version you want summarized if you intended the suffrage measure.

Main purpose

To strengthen and clarify requirements for ignition interlock devices used by persons required to have an interlock after a DWI-related arrest/conviction, and to authorize a 60‑day extension of the mandatory interlock period for certain violations occurring at the end of the required period.

Key provisions

  • Calibration threshold:
    • Requires ignition interlock devices to be set to prevent vehicle start at a blood‑alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.025% (25 thousandths) or greater. (The current rule allowed settings between 0.02% and 0.05%.)
  • Device capabilities (minimum requirements added):
    • Randomly retest the driver’s BAC while engine/motor is running (with prior notice to ensure safety).
    • Capture and store results of each BAC test.
    • Capture and store a digital image of the person at the time of each BAC test.
    • Continue to meet existing requirements (accuracy, anti‑bypass, not impede safe operation, minimize inconvenience to sober users, and be from a responsible manufacturer/provider that can report to the Office of Driver Services).
  • Extension of mandatory interlock period:
    • If, during the final 60 days of the original interlock period (or during any extension), the person:
    • Attempts to start the vehicle with BAC > 0.025% (exception: no extension if a subsequent test within 10 minutes shows <0.025% and the image shows same person took the second test);
    • Fails to take a required random retest (exception: no extension if device image shows person was not in vehicle at time of retest);
    • Takes a random retest and records BAC > 0.025% (same 10‑minute/subsequent‑test exception as above); or
    • Fails required servicing/monitoring,
    • Then the interlock period may be extended.
  • Compliance certification and administrative process:
    • At the end of the required period, the person must request a certificate of compliance from the interlock provider.
    • If no violations are found, provider issues certificate and person may request removal of the restriction from the driver’s license via the Office of Driver Services.
    • If provider records a violation, the person may accept a 60‑day extension or request reconsideration by the provider. If the provider confirms the violation, the interlock requirement is extended 60 days. If the person demands device removal despite a confirmed violation, the provider must notify the Office of Driver Services of the removal.
  • Effective date: July 1, 2026.

Who is affected

  • Individuals required to use ignition interlock devices (those restricted after DWI arrests/convictions).
  • Ignition interlock device manufacturers and service providers (new data capture, image storage, reporting and possible reconsideration processes).
  • Office of Driver Services, Office of Motor Vehicle, State Revenue Office and other DFA/OMV staff (updates to manuals, websites, training and procedures).
  • Potentially taxpayers and drivers: policy increases monitoring and may extend restriction periods for late‑period violations.

Fiscal / administrative impact

  • DFA Fiscal Impact Statement: estimates no fiscal impact to the state and no new resources required.
  • Administrative changes needed: OMV manual and website updates; staff training and taxpayer notifications.

Procedural / status note

  • The provided Arkansas text is labeled “As Engrossed H4/2/25” and sets an effective date of July 1, 2026. Your top metadata lists the bill title and status as “Died In Committee” and an unrelated suffrage title — these conflict with the attached Arkansas engrossed text. Verify the correct HB 1875 (jurisdiction and version) for final status and enactment information.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.