Secretary of State
1. Abortion: Arkansas’ current law that prohibits abortion except to save the life of the mother in a medical emergency.
Cathy Hardin Harrison (Republican)
I am strongly pro-life and support Arkansas’s current law that prohibits abortion except to save the life of the mother.
Bryan Norris (Republican)
Support
Arkansas took a necessary step, but the law needs reinforcement. Since Dobbs, abortion pills have become the workaround mailed directly into our state, sidestepping the protections Arkansans voted to establish. Interstate commerce loopholes have become the hammer, and Arkansas families are the anvil. Out-of-state pharmaceutical interests and activist networks are exploiting federal shipping lanes to undermine our sovereignty. If we’re going to protect life, we cannot leave a gaping hole that lets coastal actors traffic chemical abortifacients through the postal service without oversight, without medical supervision, without regard for complications. Laws must have teeth. We didn’t ban abortion just to let Silicon Valley middlemen deliver it to the mailbox.
Arkansas took a necessary step, but the law needs reinforcement. Since Dobbs, abortion pills have become the workaround mailed directly into our state, sidestepping the protections Arkansans voted to establish. Interstate commerce loopholes have become the hammer, and Arkansas families are the anvil. Out-of-state pharmaceutical interests and activist networks are exploiting federal shipping lanes to undermine our sovereignty. If we’re going to protect life, we cannot leave a gaping hole that lets coastal actors traffic chemical abortifacients through the postal service without oversight, without medical supervision, without regard for complications. Laws must have teeth. We didn’t ban abortion just to let Silicon Valley middlemen deliver it to the mailbox.
2. Abortion: Establishing a permanent funding stream to provide state-funded grants to charities that provide women with alternatives to abortion.
Cathy Hardin Harrison (Republican)
While I am strongly pro-life, I would have to review the legislation. I am generally
opposed to the government getting into private matters.
Bryan Norris (Republican)
Support
You cannot tell a woman “no” without giving her a “yes.” If we’re serious about a culture of life, then we’re serious about supporting women and families before and after birth not just legislating against one choice and walking away. Pregnancy resource centers, adoption networks, maternal healthcare, and family support services deserve more than rhetoric. They deserve real investment. This isn’t government expansion it’s government functioning as it should: reinforcing the institutions that strengthen communities and protect the most vulnerable. Arkansas already has compassionate people doing this work. The state should amplify them, not abandon them.
You cannot tell a woman “no” without giving her a “yes.” If we’re serious about a culture of life, then we’re serious about supporting women and families before and after birth not just legislating against one choice and walking away. Pregnancy resource centers, adoption networks, maternal healthcare, and family support services deserve more than rhetoric. They deserve real investment. This isn’t government expansion it’s government functioning as it should: reinforcing the institutions that strengthen communities and protect the most vulnerable. Arkansas already has compassionate people doing this work. The state should amplify them, not abandon them.
3. Education: The Arkansas LEARNS Act Educational Freedom Accounts that lets families use public dollars to pay for an education at a private school or homeschool.
Cathy Hardin Harrison (Republican)
I support educational options for families so long as children get educated with the building blocks of reading, writing, mathematics and analytical skills. However, I want to make sure that public education is also available and strengthened in the process so that all educational options are available and offer excellent resources to all students and families.
Bryan Norris (Republican)
Support
My family homeschools, and we intentionally chose not to take this money. Freedom is expensive, and we pay our own way to retain it. There's an old truth here: what the government funds, it eventually controls. I support families having options, but with public dollars come public strings. The moment government money flows into private education, the regulatory creep begins.
A better approach: Make Arkansas the incubator for America's education future.
Instead of just redistributing dollars, let's create incentives for homeschool curriculum developers, educational technology startups, and private school service contractors to launch and grow right here in Arkansas. Tax credits for education entrepreneurs. Streamlined business formation for curriculum companies. Partnerships between homeschool co-ops and Arkansas-based content creators.
Arkansas should have a hand in shaping America's greatest resource: its children. Rather than importing educational solutions from out of state, let's export them. This protects family liberty, builds generational wealth, and positions Arkansas as a leader in the fastest-growing sector of American education. That's freedom and opportunity.
My family homeschools, and we intentionally chose not to take this money. Freedom is expensive, and we pay our own way to retain it. There's an old truth here: what the government funds, it eventually controls. I support families having options, but with public dollars come public strings. The moment government money flows into private education, the regulatory creep begins.
A better approach: Make Arkansas the incubator for America's education future.
Instead of just redistributing dollars, let's create incentives for homeschool curriculum developers, educational technology startups, and private school service contractors to launch and grow right here in Arkansas. Tax credits for education entrepreneurs. Streamlined business formation for curriculum companies. Partnerships between homeschool co-ops and Arkansas-based content creators.
Arkansas should have a hand in shaping America's greatest resource: its children. Rather than importing educational solutions from out of state, let's export them. This protects family liberty, builds generational wealth, and positions Arkansas as a leader in the fastest-growing sector of American education. That's freedom and opportunity.
4. Drugs: Legalizing recreational marijuana in Arkansas.
Cathy Hardin Harrison (Republican)
I am strongly opposed to legalizing recreational marijuana in Arkansas.
Bryan Norris (Republican)
Oppose
C.S. Lewis once observed that when you pursue pleasure as an end in itself, you inevitably destroy your capacity for pleasure and eventually yourself. Recreational marijuana fits this pattern precisely. It promises relaxation and delivers dullness. It promises freedom and delivers dependence. It promises creativity and numbs the very faculties that make creativity possible.
We’ve watched the “legalization experiment” unfold in other states: increased impaired driving fatalities, rising youth use, mental health complications particularly psychosis in young adults and the normalization of a lifestyle of escape rather than engagement. Arkansas has enough struggles without handing its people another chemical exit from facing reality. The government has no business promoting what dulls the soul. Hard pass.
C.S. Lewis once observed that when you pursue pleasure as an end in itself, you inevitably destroy your capacity for pleasure and eventually yourself. Recreational marijuana fits this pattern precisely. It promises relaxation and delivers dullness. It promises freedom and delivers dependence. It promises creativity and numbs the very faculties that make creativity possible.
We’ve watched the “legalization experiment” unfold in other states: increased impaired driving fatalities, rising youth use, mental health complications particularly psychosis in young adults and the normalization of a lifestyle of escape rather than engagement. Arkansas has enough struggles without handing its people another chemical exit from facing reality. The government has no business promoting what dulls the soul. Hard pass.
5. Tech: Requiring major social media websites to verify all users’ ages in order to protect children on their platforms.
Cathy Hardin Harrison (Republican)
I strongly support requiring major social media websites to verify all users’ ages in order to protect children on their platforms.
Bryan Norris (Republican)
Support
The numbers are stark and undeniable:
• 95% of teens 13–17 use social media; over 40% of children ages 8–12 are on platforms that require a minimum age of 13.
• Teens spending more than 3 hours daily on social media face double the risk of depression and anxiety symptoms.
• The U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory warning that social media poses “a profound risk of harm” to the mental health of children and adolescents.
• Problematic social media use among adolescents rose from 7% in 2018 to 11% in 2022, according to WHO.
• 48% of teens now say social media has a “mostly negative effect” on their peers up from 32% in 2022.
This isn’t about restricting speech. It’s about protecting children from platforms designed by engineers to be addictive and exploited by predators who know exactly where to find them. Age verification is not perfect, but no responsible society hands children unrestricted access to environments we know are harmful. If we require ID to buy tobacco and alcohol, we can require it to access platforms that are damaging young minds.
The numbers are stark and undeniable:
• 95% of teens 13–17 use social media; over 40% of children ages 8–12 are on platforms that require a minimum age of 13.
• Teens spending more than 3 hours daily on social media face double the risk of depression and anxiety symptoms.
• The U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory warning that social media poses “a profound risk of harm” to the mental health of children and adolescents.
• Problematic social media use among adolescents rose from 7% in 2018 to 11% in 2022, according to WHO.
• 48% of teens now say social media has a “mostly negative effect” on their peers up from 32% in 2022.
This isn’t about restricting speech. It’s about protecting children from platforms designed by engineers to be addictive and exploited by predators who know exactly where to find them. Age verification is not perfect, but no responsible society hands children unrestricted access to environments we know are harmful. If we require ID to buy tobacco and alcohol, we can require it to access platforms that are damaging young minds.
6. Gambling: Letting casinos in Arkansas conduct gambling online.
Cathy Hardin Harrison (Republican)
I am not in favor of letting casinos in Arkansas conduct gambling online due to the possibility of children being exploited.
Bryan Norris (Republican)
Oppose
Here are the numbers Arkansas should consider before inviting online gambling into every home:
• Online casino gamblers are 3–8x more likely to develop problem gambling than land-based gamblers.
• 86% of sports betting revenue comes from just 5% of players meaning the business model depends on addiction.
• Problematic gambling among online casino users runs at 15.8% for adults and a staggering 26.4% for adolescents the highest of any gambling activity.
• Gambling addiction hotline calls in states with legal online gambling have increased by 138% year-over-year.
• The annual economic cost of gambling addiction in the U.S. is estimated at $6–7 billion, covering healthcare, job loss, and criminal justice.
• 23 million Americans are in debt due to gambling; 90% of problem gamblers withdraw cash advances from credit cards to gamble.
• Gambling addicts are 15 times more likely to commit suicide.
Yes, we’re a free people. And free people should be free from predatory industries setting up shop in their living rooms and targeting their children. This isn’t about banning poker nights it’s about refusing to give casinos 24/7 access to every smartphone in the state. Some freedoms are worth preserving; others are traps dressed as liberty.
Here are the numbers Arkansas should consider before inviting online gambling into every home:
• Online casino gamblers are 3–8x more likely to develop problem gambling than land-based gamblers.
• 86% of sports betting revenue comes from just 5% of players meaning the business model depends on addiction.
• Problematic gambling among online casino users runs at 15.8% for adults and a staggering 26.4% for adolescents the highest of any gambling activity.
• Gambling addiction hotline calls in states with legal online gambling have increased by 138% year-over-year.
• The annual economic cost of gambling addiction in the U.S. is estimated at $6–7 billion, covering healthcare, job loss, and criminal justice.
• 23 million Americans are in debt due to gambling; 90% of problem gamblers withdraw cash advances from credit cards to gamble.
• Gambling addicts are 15 times more likely to commit suicide.
Yes, we’re a free people. And free people should be free from predatory industries setting up shop in their living rooms and targeting their children. This isn’t about banning poker nights it’s about refusing to give casinos 24/7 access to every smartphone in the state. Some freedoms are worth preserving; others are traps dressed as liberty.
7. Elections: Current ballot initiative efforts to change the Arkansas Constitution to make it easier for private individuals or entities to place measures on the ballot for a statewide vote.
Kim Hammer (Republican)
Oppose
The current laws that are being challenged in court provide effective and secure method for citizens to place measures on the ballot. "Easy" or "difficult" are not the issue. Fair, ethical, secure and accountable are the issues.
The current laws that are being challenged in court provide effective and secure method for citizens to place measures on the ballot. "Easy" or "difficult" are not the issue. Fair, ethical, secure and accountable are the issues.
Cathy Hardin Harrison (Republican)
Under the right circumstances, I am for ballot initiatives to change the Arkansas Constitution to make it easier for private individuals or entities to place measures on the ballot for a statewide vote. I believe that the people should have a voice and be able to decide issues.
Bryan Norris (Republican)
Support
The initiative and referendum process is enshrined in the Arkansas Constitution, Article 5, Section 1. It belongs to the people, not to politicians who find citizen-led measures inconvenient.
Just last month, U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of several 2025 laws (Acts 218, 240, 241, 274, 453, and 602) that critics said were designed to make it nearly impossible for citizens to place measures on the ballot. Judge Brooks wrote:
"In the General Assembly's book, high rates of signature invalidation under the existing, highly regulated petition validation system are only evidence that the system has failed, not that the system has worked. These high rates of invalidation are used to justify more regulation, which will inevitably result in even higher rates of invalidation, justifying even more regulation and steadily chipping away at the right to direct democracy enshrined in the Arkansas Constitution."
The court has spoken. The Constitution speaks. The people retain the right to petition their government, and no legislative sleight of hand should steal that from them. I support making the process accessible, transparent, and protected from insider manipulation.
The initiative and referendum process is enshrined in the Arkansas Constitution, Article 5, Section 1. It belongs to the people, not to politicians who find citizen-led measures inconvenient.
Just last month, U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of several 2025 laws (Acts 218, 240, 241, 274, 453, and 602) that critics said were designed to make it nearly impossible for citizens to place measures on the ballot. Judge Brooks wrote:
"In the General Assembly's book, high rates of signature invalidation under the existing, highly regulated petition validation system are only evidence that the system has failed, not that the system has worked. These high rates of invalidation are used to justify more regulation, which will inevitably result in even higher rates of invalidation, justifying even more regulation and steadily chipping away at the right to direct democracy enshrined in the Arkansas Constitution."
The court has spoken. The Constitution speaks. The people retain the right to petition their government, and no legislative sleight of hand should steal that from them. I support making the process accessible, transparent, and protected from insider manipulation.
8. Guns: Confiscation of firearms from citizens that the government deem a danger to themselves or others, otherwise known as red flag laws.
Cathy Hardin Harrison (Republican)
I am strongly pro second amendment. However, we must be cautious with the red flag laws. In some circumstances, I would support the confiscation of firearms from citizens that the government deems a danger to themselves or others if there is evidence of serious mental illness and the person is a danger to himself or others or if the person has a dangerous track record with gun offenses. But it must be on a case by case basis where all evidence is presented to a Circuit Court Judge.
I am opposed to government over reach. I am a proud military mom and understand this issue all too well. Not every person with mental health issues should have their guns confiscated. It should be decided on a case by case basis.
Bryan Norris (Republican)
Oppose
The Second Amendment is not ambiguous: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Red flag laws are infringement dressed up in safety language.
Under these laws, a citizen can have their firearms seized without being charged with a crime, without a trial, and without the opportunity to face their accuser based solely on someone’s complaint that they might be dangerous. This inverts the entire American legal tradition. We are innocent until proven guilty. We have the right to due process. We do not preemptively punish people for crimes they have not committed.
Red flag laws are unconstitutional on their face. They violate the Second Amendment. They violate the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable seizure). They violate the Fifth Amendment (deprivation of property without due process). And they violate the Sixth Amendment (right to confront accusers and to a fair trial). If someone is truly a danger, we have processes: arrest, indictment, adjudication. What we do not have and must never accept is preemptive confiscation based on prediction. “Shall not be infringed” means what it says.
The Second Amendment is not ambiguous: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Red flag laws are infringement dressed up in safety language.
Under these laws, a citizen can have their firearms seized without being charged with a crime, without a trial, and without the opportunity to face their accuser based solely on someone’s complaint that they might be dangerous. This inverts the entire American legal tradition. We are innocent until proven guilty. We have the right to due process. We do not preemptively punish people for crimes they have not committed.
Red flag laws are unconstitutional on their face. They violate the Second Amendment. They violate the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable seizure). They violate the Fifth Amendment (deprivation of property without due process). And they violate the Sixth Amendment (right to confront accusers and to a fair trial). If someone is truly a danger, we have processes: arrest, indictment, adjudication. What we do not have and must never accept is preemptive confiscation based on prediction. “Shall not be infringed” means what it says.
9. Marriage: The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage.
Bryan Norris (Republican)
Oppose
Marriage is, and has always been, the union of one man and one woman. This is not a political invention; it is a recognition of a pre-political institution rooted in nature, history, and the complementary design of the sexes. Every major civilization, every major religion, and every major legal tradition prior to 2015 understood this. The Supreme Court's Obergefell decision did not discover a new truth; it imposed a novel ideology by judicial fiat.
The Court overstepped its constitutional authority. There is no right to same-sex marriage in the text of the Constitution, its original meaning, or its history. Five unelected justices redefined an institution that predates government itself. As Justice Scalia noted in dissent, this was a "judicial Putsch," a seizure of authority belonging to the people and their legislatures.
Arkansas should continue to recognize the natural definition of marriage in its own laws and culture. The state has a compelling interest in promoting the family structure most conducive to the flourishing of children and the stability of communities: the union of mother and father. No court ruling changes what marriage is; it only changes what government currently calls it.
Marriage is, and has always been, the union of one man and one woman. This is not a political invention; it is a recognition of a pre-political institution rooted in nature, history, and the complementary design of the sexes. Every major civilization, every major religion, and every major legal tradition prior to 2015 understood this. The Supreme Court's Obergefell decision did not discover a new truth; it imposed a novel ideology by judicial fiat.
The Court overstepped its constitutional authority. There is no right to same-sex marriage in the text of the Constitution, its original meaning, or its history. Five unelected justices redefined an institution that predates government itself. As Justice Scalia noted in dissent, this was a "judicial Putsch," a seizure of authority belonging to the people and their legislatures.
Arkansas should continue to recognize the natural definition of marriage in its own laws and culture. The state has a compelling interest in promoting the family structure most conducive to the flourishing of children and the stability of communities: the union of mother and father. No court ruling changes what marriage is; it only changes what government currently calls it.